Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

President, 2002-2003
Written Report
TJ (Tajesh) Adhihetty

Summary of Activities

1. Membership Lists and Updating Information – CUSID’s Online Filing Cabinet

This year we have attempted to collect the information which is required of full members (those in Schedule A) to become members in good standing. These requirements, as stipulated in section 17 of the Constitution, include the list of club executive members, their email addresses, and telephone numbers. This information is needed because:

1) it is a Constitutional condition of membership, but more importantly

2) the Executive need to be in contact with club executives,

3) emergencies (e.g. medical problems) do arise at tournaments and contact information must be readily available at any given location,

4) future club executives may need to get a hold of past executive members and such information is vital to that search.

There have been a number of cases where past club executives were needed for the resolution of a current issue. Sometimes clubs have remained dormant for years and are being resurrected, and in other cases old financial problems need to be rectified. All executive lists that have been provided to us are stored in the Executive forum of CUSIDnet. This forum is open only to Executive members so privacy concerns are mitigated, but access is now available wherever an internet connection exists.

The Executive forum serves as an excellent online filing cabinet for CUSID. Since we have Executive members spread throughout the country, such universal access is necessary. Furthermore, our organization depends on institutional memory. This new use of the Executive forum will be an excellent and necessary archive for future years.

2. To Be Bilingual or Not To Be

Based on the comments of individual debaters and input to the Mandate Committee, the question of whether CUSID should remain bilingual was raised in the first term. Arguments in favour of a unilingual organization included the poor job undertaken by CUSID thus far regarding French debating, the fact that resources could be better spent elsewhere and most international competitions are in English. It was also suggested that a separate national French debating organization would be more beneficial for the establishment and growth of that format.

At the November CUSID General Meeting, the membership voted in favour of the following resolution:

Be it resolved that the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate / Societe Universitaire Canadienne pour le Debat Intercolleigal remain a bilingual student organization.

The membership felt that if French debating was left on its own that it would not survive or at the very least would wither further away. As well, members cited the promotion of French public speaking at the Queen’s Chancellor’s Cup. It was argued that more could be done to promote French debating in CUSID.

3. Ombudsperson & Equity/Complaint Officers

Although the deadline for Ombudsperson applications was extended, no one applied for the position. I decided that the most prudent course of action would be to insure that all CUSID sanctioned tournaments had at least one Equity/Complaints Officer. Tournament directors were very cooperative in making sure the position was filed by qualified members of their club. Furthermore, invitational tournaments began establishing such positions. Credit must be given to Zara Lam, past Vice-President Central, for this initiative.

Future calls for applications should stress that the Ombudsperson must not only have experience dealing with official complaints management, but also have a vision for the position. It is a fledgling role in CUSID which needs greater promotion and clarification. The positions of the regional ombudspersons should be eliminated or such responsibilities could be incorporated into the duties of the regional Vice-Presidents. A number of senior debaters and Executive members have expressed their opinion that the regional ombudspersons are not necessary and were not utilized during their tenure in previous years. For investigative purposes, regional Vice-Presidents could assist the National Ombudsperson. If the regional Vice-President is under investigation, then the President of a CUSID member is the next alternative choice.

4. CUSID Surplus

The CUSID surplus has been an ongoing problem. This Executive entered our term without knowledge of the whereabouts of the bank account, the amount within the account, or the contact information for Sarah Mahoney, past CUSID Treasurer.

Sarah Mahoney has been tracked down with the assistance of Megan de Graaf of Dalhousie University. Sarah was the CUSID Treasurer in 1998/1999. Apparently the transfer of signing authority from her executive team to the next was not appropriately completed. As such, the account remained dormant in a Wolfville bank account. Sarah is currently residing in Toronto. She has been helpful in passing on old account information to Allan Ferriss, the current Treasurer. Unfortunately, the account itself is proving to be a problem. I have been informed that Mike Shore and Ranjan Agarwal (and Sarah) have signed the necessary documentation to close the account and issue a cheque in the name of CUSID. We were under the assumption that the “cheque was in the mail”, but it has not come through as of yet. As it stands, we are again working with Sarah to establish contact with the bank.

5. British Parliamentary vs. Canadian Parliamentary

A question was raised on CUSIDnet whether CUSID should switch to British Parliamentary-style (BP) debating, or at the very least whether first term tournaments should be BP to help prepare teams for the World Championships in December/January. After a lengthy CUSIDnet discussion, the Regional Vice-Presidents were instructed to consult with the schools within their respective region. The schools were asked to express their level of interest in switching over to BP for one trial year. Emphasis was given to schools hosting first term tournaments. The Executive appreciated that most schools did not want to commit future club executives to hosting a BP tournament, and therefore we only gauged a level of interest. This input was necessary if CUSID wanted to make a consolidated effort to adopt a new style. If a majority of schools desired the change, the Executive would have to consider such things as the scheduling of more training sessions (in BP) at first term tournaments and possible constitutional amendments.

The majority of comments provided to the Vice-Presidents were either in opposition to BP or were weak signs of support. A number of schools did not feel that BP would enhance debating in Canada. Smaller clubs (i.e. small number of debaters in the club) were worried that they would not have the adequate training to fully switch styles and that practice rounds would be difficult because of their small population. A couple of schools did express interest in switching over their first term tournament.

A consolidated switch to BP is not currently viable. Clubs interested in switching their tournament to BP have been encouraged to do so by individual debaters, but the CUSID membership has clearly indicated that they do not want to attempt a trial year at this time.

6. Mandate Committee

First, thank you to all the club executives that provided input to the Mandate Committee. Your comments provided great insight as to how people viewed CUSID and what it wanted to become. Second, thank you to the members of the Mandate Committee for their feedback. The members included the Executive as well as Megan de Graaf of Dalhousie University and Tamara Harder of the University of Saskatchewan.

The goal of the committee was to evaluate the purpose of CUSID. The organization has grown substantially from its constitutional roots of 1990. Issues such as equity and the creation of the ombudsperson have raised questions regarding the overall governance of CUSID. Should it become a governing body or should it remain a loose collection of clubs? Based on the input provided by CUSID members, the results of the committee are the proposed amendments to sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution. The consensus amongst CUSID members was that the association should not become an over-arching governing body. It should be one where clubs maintain their autonomy, but come together to agree upon policy that would strengthen the level of competitive post-secondary debating in Canada. Therefore, a federation model of organization and governance was the most viable.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

2. CUSID is a federation of Canadian post-secondary debating societies.

3. The purpose of CUSID is to:

a. promote a forum for post-secondary students to exchange ideas through debate and public speech,
b. establish standards in the areas of debate, public speech, individual and society conduct, tournament organization, judging, tournament eligibility, and other applicable topics,
c. provide collective resources to its members,
d. assist in the formation of post-secondary debating societies across Canada,
e. represent the interests of Canadian debaters internationally,
f. annually sanction: two National Championships, in both English and French, Regional Championships and Regional Novice Tournaments.

4. The purpose of CUSID is founded on the goodwill of each member and their shared commitment to fulfill this purpose.

7. Expansion

This year we were happy to welcome back the University of Manitoba as well as provide provisional membership status to Simon Fraser University and Tyndale College.

8. North American Championships (NorAms) Negotiations

The negotiations regarding the details of the tournament were difficult, especially regarding the fees. However a number of valuable lessons can be learned from this experience (see Recommendations).

Summary of Facts

The debate club at John Hopkins University (JHD) was made aware of the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on September 20^th, 2002 via email. The MoU stipulates that the two national Presidents must approve a number of items including the fee. Information regarding the tournament fee was specifically requested and a link to the MoU on the CUSID website was provided in the September 20^th email. It should be noted that a prior message was sent to JHD over the summer, but the MoU was not available in electronic format at that time. However, the question of the tournament fee was asked in that message. Unfortunately, email records only start as of September 20^th. After the message of September 20^th, eight other email messages were sent to various executive members at JHD and the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA). The fee ($250 USD per team) was communicated to us on December 5^th, 2002.

Summary of Events

The negotiations regarding the fee and the budget were not successful. Due to the commencement of the winter examination period, JHD was not able to negotiate as effectively as was needed in this situation. Although a number of fee models were discussed between Greg Jennings (APDA President) and myself via emails and telephone conversations, none of them were adopted by JHD. To their credit, JHD did provide discounts for teams that opted to be billeted. This option was not in their original announcement, but was negotiated on a school by school basis. Greg and I attempted to ensure that all schools received equal and fair treatment. JHD also implemented a fee for judges after I raised concerns that judges were being hosted at the hotel for free. Furthermore, a number of concerns which were raised regarding their budget and unusual expenditures were not addressed by JHD. They had promised us a response to our concerns by January 12^th, 2003. JHD was very accommodating in regards to tabulation regulations and debating guidelines. They were efficient in getting those sorted out.

From email and telephone conversations that I had regarding the outcome of the tournament, I would say that JHD ran a solid tournament. There were no outstanding problems with judging or tabulations. My thanks goes to Rory McKeown of Hart House (University of Toronto) who was the Deputy Chief Adjudicator for Canada. Furthermore, thank you to Greg Jennings and Kate Meyers (APDA Vice-President Operations) for their assistance, patience, fairness, and genuine commitment to their duties.

9. World Universities Debating Council (WUDC)

Selection of Worlds 2005 Host

The University of Zagreb in Croatia won the bid over Bristol University of England. Prior to the bid selection meeting, I spoke with both organizing committees via email and in person at the tournament. I voted for Bristol University because I had greater confidence in their judging pool, organizational abilities, and it would be less expensive to fly to Britain versus Croatia. Bristol also guaranteed that one Deputy Chief Adjudicator (DCA) would come from North America. Although having voted for Bristol, I am still confident in Croatia’s abilities to host Worlds. Their bid was impressive. During the question and answer period, Iva Kutle (ivakutle@yahoo.com), the bid organizer and expected Chief Adjudicator of Zagreb 2005, indicated that one of the DCAs would come from North America. Speaking to her after the meeting, she was receptive of having CUSID (along with the Americans) assist in the selection of that person.

Motion regarding 9^th Round Resolution

In round 9 the resolution was: This House believes that Sharon should stand beside Milosevic. The Israeli delegation took great offence to this and brought forth a motion at the WUDC meeting requesting the organizers apologize for the resolution. They were upset for a number of reasons; comparison of the Israeli Prime Minister to a known war criminal and the treatment of Israeli debaters and judges during the round. The Israeli delegate informed us that the comments of certain Israeli judges were dismissed in their panels because they were told they were biased. Israeli teams also had to “suffer” through rounds where the actions of Sharon were compared to the Nazi genocide. After much heated debate, the WUDC passed a motion which indicated that the wording of the resolution was ill-chosen. It should be noted that the Israelis would have accepted a 9^th round resolution which called for the indictment of Sharon before a war crimes tribunal.

Qualifications of Ravi Viswanathan, Chief Adjudicator for Singapore 2004

Questions were raised as to the qualifications of Ravi and whether he would be up to the challenge of being Chief Adjudicator (CA). The controversy arose after Amanda Kiemas, the original CA, had to resign due to employment commitments. Ravi and Namrata Verma, Convenor for Singagore 2004, adequately defended their choice to select a new CA from within their club as opposed to getting a well-known experienced debater.

Delays during the Tournament

Kevin Burden, Convenor of Stellenbosch 2004, provided a sincere and genuine apology for the extreme delays during the tournament. Round 6 on day two of the tournament had to be cancelled because of the delays. The alternative plan was to run rounds 6, 7, and 8 on day three, and then run round 9 on January 2^nd. In the end, day three comprised all four remaining rounds. Kevin also accepted responsibility for choosing the method of pairings that had caused a great deal of problems.

Recommendations

1. Director of Development and Resources
creation of a new elected executive position to:

1)promote CUSID and concentrate on expanding post-secondary debating in Canada; it would be the responsibility of that individual to contact non-CUSID member schools and encourage the development of debating societies

2)maintain a resource bank of debating and public speaking guides for new and current clubs; debating guides do exist, but they have to be collected, sorted, and constantly updated; resources may also include guides on club governance, finances, fundraising, etc.

2. CUSID’s Online Filing Cabinet
-maintain the records and archive confidential information in the Executive Forum or another specific Online Executive Filing Cabinet
-produce hardcopies of all documents listed in the Filing Cabinet; that set of documents should be passed on through successive Executive Directors

3. Memorandum of Understanding between CUSID & APDA
-amend to specify the negotiation process; deadlines should be established for the host school to provide information to the two national Presidents
-method of pairings, pairing constraints, ranking of judges should be agreed upon earlier
-computer tabs program should be agreed upon; better yet, CUSID and APDA should explore the possibility of jointly sponsoring a tabulations program
-judges’ briefing should be mandatory and be conducted by both the CA and the DCA

4. Equity/Complaints Officers
-job description should be clarified and articulated; implementing a by-law encompassing their duties would be beneficial
-requiring a male and female equity officer at every CUSID sanctioned tournament; recommending that such positions be established at invitational tournaments

5. World Universities Debating Council
-negotiating with the organizers of Zagreb for a North American DCA; lobbying for that person to be a Canadian
-preparing a CUSID school for a 2006 or 2007 bid for Worlds

6. Constitution
-needs to be further updated; previous approved amendments were not adopted into the current online version;
constant updating of the Constitution was required over the past year as previous Executive members recalled motions that were passed in previous years (proof of such passage is always required or a confirmation vote must taken at a General Meeting)

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

President, 2002-2003
Written Report
TJ (Tajesh) Adhihetty

Summary of Activities

1. Membership Lists and Updating Information – CUSID’s Online Filing Cabinet

This year we have attempted to collect the information which is required of full members (those in Schedule A) to become members in good standing. These requirements, as stipulated in section 17 of the Constitution, include the list of club executive members, their email addresses, and telephone numbers. This information is needed because:

1) it is a Constitutional condition of membership, but more importantly

2) the Executive need to be in contact with club executives,

3) emergencies (e.g. medical problems) do arise at tournaments and contact information must be readily available at any given location,

4) future club executives may need to get a hold of past executive members and such information is vital to that search.

There have been a number of cases where past club executives were needed for the resolution of a current issue. Sometimes clubs have remained dormant for years and are being resurrected, and in other cases old financial problems need to be rectified. All executive lists that have been provided to us are stored in the Executive forum of CUSIDnet. This forum is open only to Executive members so privacy concerns are mitigated, but access is now available wherever an internet connection exists.

The Executive forum serves as an excellent online filing cabinet for CUSID. Since we have Executive members spread throughout the country, such universal access is necessary. Furthermore, our organization depends on institutional memory. This new use of the Executive forum will be an excellent and necessary archive for future years.

2. To Be Bilingual or Not To Be

Based on the comments of individual debaters and input to the Mandate Committee, the question of whether CUSID should remain bilingual was raised in the first term. Arguments in favour of a unilingual organization included the poor job undertaken by CUSID thus far regarding French debating, the fact that resources could be better spent elsewhere and most international competitions are in English. It was also suggested that a separate national French debating organization would be more beneficial for the establishment and growth of that format.

At the November CUSID General Meeting, the membership voted in favour of the following resolution:

Be it resolved that the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate / Societe Universitaire Canadienne pour le Debat Intercolleigal remain a bilingual student organization.

The membership felt that if French debating was left on its own that it would not survive or at the very least would wither further away. As well, members cited the promotion of French public speaking at the Queen’s Chancellor’s Cup. It was argued that more could be done to promote French debating in CUSID.

3. Ombudsperson & Equity/Complaint Officers

Although the deadline for Ombudsperson applications was extended, no one applied for the position. I decided that the most prudent course of action would be to insure that all CUSID sanctioned tournaments had at least one Equity/Complaints Officer. Tournament directors were very cooperative in making sure the position was filed by qualified members of their club. Furthermore, invitational tournaments began establishing such positions. Credit must be given to Zara Lam, past Vice-President Central, for this initiative.

Future calls for applications should stress that the Ombudsperson must not only have experience dealing with official complaints management, but also have a vision for the position. It is a fledgling role in CUSID which needs greater promotion and clarification. The positions of the regional ombudspersons should be eliminated or such responsibilities could be incorporated into the duties of the regional Vice-Presidents. A number of senior debaters and Executive members have expressed their opinion that the regional ombudspersons are not necessary and were not utilized during their tenure in previous years. For investigative purposes, regional Vice-Presidents could assist the National Ombudsperson. If the regional Vice-President is under investigation, then the President of a CUSID member is the next alternative choice.

4. CUSID Surplus

The CUSID surplus has been an ongoing problem. This Executive entered our term without knowledge of the whereabouts of the bank account, the amount within the account, or the contact information for Sarah Mahoney, past CUSID Treasurer.

Sarah Mahoney has been tracked down with the assistance of Megan de Graaf of Dalhousie University. Sarah was the CUSID Treasurer in 1998/1999. Apparently the transfer of signing authority from her executive team to the next was not appropriately completed. As such, the account remained dormant in a Wolfville bank account. Sarah is currently residing in Toronto. She has been helpful in passing on old account information to Allan Ferriss, the current Treasurer. Unfortunately, the account itself is proving to be a problem. I have been informed that Mike Shore and Ranjan Agarwal (and Sarah) have signed the necessary documentation to close the account and issue a cheque in the name of CUSID. We were under the assumption that the “cheque was in the mail”, but it has not come through as of yet. As it stands, we are again working with Sarah to establish contact with the bank.

5. British Parliamentary vs. Canadian Parliamentary

A question was raised on CUSIDnet whether CUSID should switch to British Parliamentary-style (BP) debating, or at the very least whether first term tournaments should be BP to help prepare teams for the World Championships in December/January. After a lengthy CUSIDnet discussion, the Regional Vice-Presidents were instructed to consult with the schools within their respective region. The schools were asked to express their level of interest in switching over to BP for one trial year. Emphasis was given to schools hosting first term tournaments. The Executive appreciated that most schools did not want to commit future club executives to hosting a BP tournament, and therefore we only gauged a level of interest. This input was necessary if CUSID wanted to make a consolidated effort to adopt a new style. If a majority of schools desired the change, the Executive would have to consider such things as the scheduling of more training sessions (in BP) at first term tournaments and possible constitutional amendments.

The majority of comments provided to the Vice-Presidents were either in opposition to BP or were weak signs of support. A number of schools did not feel that BP would enhance debating in Canada. Smaller clubs (i.e. small number of debaters in the club) were worried that they would not have the adequate training to fully switch styles and that practice rounds would be difficult because of their small population. A couple of schools did express interest in switching over their first term tournament.

A consolidated switch to BP is not currently viable. Clubs interested in switching their tournament to BP have been encouraged to do so by individual debaters, but the CUSID membership has clearly indicated that they do not want to attempt a trial year at this time.

6. Mandate Committee

First, thank you to all the club executives that provided input to the Mandate Committee. Your comments provided great insight as to how people viewed CUSID and what it wanted to become. Second, thank you to the members of the Mandate Committee for their feedback. The members included the Executive as well as Megan de Graaf of Dalhousie University and Tamara Harder of the University of Saskatchewan.

The goal of the committee was to evaluate the purpose of CUSID. The organization has grown substantially from its constitutional roots of 1990. Issues such as equity and the creation of the ombudsperson have raised questions regarding the overall governance of CUSID. Should it become a governing body or should it remain a loose collection of clubs? Based on the input provided by CUSID members, the results of the committee are the proposed amendments to sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution. The consensus amongst CUSID members was that the association should not become an over-arching governing body. It should be one where clubs maintain their autonomy, but come together to agree upon policy that would strengthen the level of competitive post-secondary debating in Canada. Therefore, a federation model of organization and governance was the most viable.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

2. CUSID is a federation of Canadian post-secondary debating societies.

3. The purpose of CUSID is to:

a. promote a forum for post-secondary students to exchange ideas through debate and public speech,
b. establish standards in the areas of debate, public speech, individual and society conduct, tournament organization, judging, tournament eligibility, and other applicable topics,
c. provide collective resources to its members,
d. assist in the formation of post-secondary debating societies across Canada,
e. represent the interests of Canadian debaters internationally,
f. annually sanction: two National Championships, in both English and French, Regional Championships and Regional Novice Tournaments.

4. The purpose of CUSID is founded on the goodwill of each member and their shared commitment to fulfill this purpose.

7. Expansion

This year we were happy to welcome back the University of Manitoba as well as provide provisional membership status to Simon Fraser University and Tyndale College.

8. North American Championships (NorAms) Negotiations

The negotiations regarding the details of the tournament were difficult, especially regarding the fees. However a number of valuable lessons can be learned from this experience (see Recommendations).

Summary of Facts

The debate club at John Hopkins University (JHD) was made aware of the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on September 20^th, 2002 via email. The MoU stipulates that the two national Presidents must approve a number of items including the fee. Information regarding the tournament fee was specifically requested and a link to the MoU on the CUSID website was provided in the September 20^th email. It should be noted that a prior message was sent to JHD over the summer, but the MoU was not available in electronic format at that time. However, the question of the tournament fee was asked in that message. Unfortunately, email records only start as of September 20^th. After the message of September 20^th, eight other email messages were sent to various executive members at JHD and the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA). The fee ($250 USD per team) was communicated to us on December 5^th, 2002.

Summary of Events

The negotiations regarding the fee and the budget were not successful. Due to the commencement of the winter examination period, JHD was not able to negotiate as effectively as was needed in this situation. Although a number of fee models were discussed between Greg Jennings (APDA President) and myself via emails and telephone conversations, none of them were adopted by JHD. To their credit, JHD did provide discounts for teams that opted to be billeted. This option was not in their original announcement, but was negotiated on a school by school basis. Greg and I attempted to ensure that all schools received equal and fair treatment. JHD also implemented a fee for judges after I raised concerns that judges were being hosted at the hotel for free. Furthermore, a number of concerns which were raised regarding their budget and unusual expenditures were not addressed by JHD. They had promised us a response to our concerns by January 12^th, 2003. JHD was very accommodating in regards to tabulation regulations and debating guidelines. They were efficient in getting those sorted out.

From email and telephone conversations that I had regarding the outcome of the tournament, I would say that JHD ran a solid tournament. There were no outstanding problems with judging or tabulations. My thanks goes to Rory McKeown of Hart House (University of Toronto) who was the Deputy Chief Adjudicator for Canada. Furthermore, thank you to Greg Jennings and Kate Meyers (APDA Vice-President Operations) for their assistance, patience, fairness, and genuine commitment to their duties.

9. World Universities Debating Council (WUDC)

Selection of Worlds 2005 Host

The University of Zagreb in Croatia won the bid over Bristol University of England. Prior to the bid selection meeting, I spoke with both organizing committees via email and in person at the tournament. I voted for Bristol University because I had greater confidence in their judging pool, organizational abilities, and it would be less expensive to fly to Britain versus Croatia. Bristol also guaranteed that one Deputy Chief Adjudicator (DCA) would come from North America. Although having voted for Bristol, I am still confident in Croatia’s abilities to host Worlds. Their bid was impressive. During the question and answer period, Iva Kutle (ivakutle@yahoo.com), the bid organizer and expected Chief Adjudicator of Zagreb 2005, indicated that one of the DCAs would come from North America. Speaking to her after the meeting, she was receptive of having CUSID (along with the Americans) assist in the selection of that person.

Motion regarding 9^th Round Resolution

In round 9 the resolution was: This House believes that Sharon should stand beside Milosevic. The Israeli delegation took great offence to this and brought forth a motion at the WUDC meeting requesting the organizers apologize for the resolution. They were upset for a number of reasons; comparison of the Israeli Prime Minister to a known war criminal and the treatment of Israeli debaters and judges during the round. The Israeli delegate informed us that the comments of certain Israeli judges were dismissed in their panels because they were told they were biased. Israeli teams also had to “suffer” through rounds where the actions of Sharon were compared to the Nazi genocide. After much heated debate, the WUDC passed a motion which indicated that the wording of the resolution was ill-chosen. It should be noted that the Israelis would have accepted a 9^th round resolution which called for the indictment of Sharon before a war crimes tribunal.

Qualifications of Ravi Viswanathan, Chief Adjudicator for Singapore 2004

Questions were raised as to the qualifications of Ravi and whether he would be up to the challenge of being Chief Adjudicator (CA). The controversy arose after Amanda Kiemas, the original CA, had to resign due to employment commitments. Ravi and Namrata Verma, Convenor for Singagore 2004, adequately defended their choice to select a new CA from within their club as opposed to getting a well-known experienced debater.

Delays during the Tournament

Kevin Burden, Convenor of Stellenbosch 2004, provided a sincere and genuine apology for the extreme delays during the tournament. Round 6 on day two of the tournament had to be cancelled because of the delays. The alternative plan was to run rounds 6, 7, and 8 on day three, and then run round 9 on January 2^nd. In the end, day three comprised all four remaining rounds. Kevin also accepted responsibility for choosing the method of pairings that had caused a great deal of problems.

Recommendations

1. Director of Development and Resources
creation of a new elected executive position to:

1)promote CUSID and concentrate on expanding post-secondary debating in Canada; it would be the responsibility of that individual to contact non-CUSID member schools and encourage the development of debating societies

2)maintain a resource bank of debating and public speaking guides for new and current clubs; debating guides do exist, but they have to be collected, sorted, and constantly updated; resources may also include guides on club governance, finances, fundraising, etc.

2. CUSID’s Online Filing Cabinet
-maintain the records and archive confidential information in the Executive Forum or another specific Online Executive Filing Cabinet
-produce hardcopies of all documents listed in the Filing Cabinet; that set of documents should be passed on through successive Executive Directors

3. Memorandum of Understanding between CUSID & APDA
-amend to specify the negotiation process; deadlines should be established for the host school to provide information to the two national Presidents
-method of pairings, pairing constraints, ranking of judges should be agreed upon earlier
-computer tabs program should be agreed upon; better yet, CUSID and APDA should explore the possibility of jointly sponsoring a tabulations program
-judges’ briefing should be mandatory and be conducted by both the CA and the DCA

4. Equity/Complaints Officers
-job description should be clarified and articulated; implementing a by-law encompassing their duties would be beneficial
-requiring a male and female equity officer at every CUSID sanctioned tournament; recommending that such positions be established at invitational tournaments

5. World Universities Debating Council
-negotiating with the organizers of Zagreb for a North American DCA; lobbying for that person to be a Canadian
-preparing a CUSID school for a 2006 or 2007 bid for Worlds

6. Constitution
-needs to be further updated; previous approved amendments were not adopted into the current online version;
constant updating of the Constitution was required over the past year as previous Executive members recalled motions that were passed in previous years (proof of such passage is always required or a confirmation vote must taken at a General Meeting)

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

VP Central, 2002-2003
Written Report
Emma Lowman

Recap of Events

First Term

For those outside of the Central Region, the following tournaments occurred from September to December, 2002. Novice at Western went off in typical fine fashion. Hart House and Queens were also great successes. World Prep was again hosted by Ottawa, and again was the only British Parliamentary style tournament in Central Canada. This was followed up by the Central Championship at Carlton University. A special congratulations should be given to Rory McKeowen, who upon winning the Leger Cup, completed the hat trick of Regional, National and North American Championship titles.

Second Term

So far, the Central Tournaments this term have been fantastic. McGill Winter Carnival was, as expected, a fantastic time. The break rounds were all wildly entertaining, the parties were smashing, and the overall quality and organization top notch. McGill, as always, deserves great thanks and applause for their efforts. Western was an excellent event with a very high level of competition; despite what many think, a sixteen team tournament can be a fantastic time, as Western was. It was also a great chance to get to know fellow debaters. Some people seemed dismissive of the fact that there were few teams present; I personally felt, and others who were there agreed, that it was a good counterpoint to Winter Carnival, a nice low stress experience that still yielded great debate. York Pro-Am was again an interesting and educational tournament, and it seems that the novices really appreciated the experience (I certainly did). The Break rounds were excellent and proved very informative and entertaining for everyone watching (including proud parents of debaters). French Nationals took place at the beginning of this month, and by all accounts was an excellent and anglo-friendly affair. Thanks to RMC for all their work making the only French language tournament in Central Region a success.

Initiatives Undertaken:

Judging

I would like to thank all the club presidents and CUSID Central members for their comments to date on this issue. It is my hope that with continued dialogue on possible changes to judging can continue. If I have learned anything in the past four months, it is that there appears to be, in the Central region, a consensus that judging is a problem area and needs to be addressed.

Some problems, concerns and ideas that have been raised thus far include standardized scoring ranges, consensus judging, bias in judging (favouritism towards certain schools or people based on reputation, or bias against certain schools for various reasons) and establishing a deeper judging pool for all schools and tournaments. Right now, I still see judging as a problem area for CUSID and believe that it both can and should be improved. I would like to hear your thoughts on this and based on what I get back, we can decide how to proceed and tackle this issue.

As you are all surely aware, there have been discussions about consensus judging and standardized ballots on CUSIDnet. However, both of these discussions have been either largely in the context of CUSID West or sparked by judging experimentation in CUSID West. I hope to be able to work with the Vice Presidents from both East and West over the summer to discuss their experiences and attempt to find a solution that can work in Central and that might also be acceptable to those regions as well.

Format Modifications (PMRE & Split Rebuttal; BP Style)

The PMRE was brought in as an option at McGill along with the opposition split rebuttal (thanks to McGill for providing a statistical breakdown of how it affected the rounds). There was, as yet, no conclusive evidence that it wildly affected the government win-loss ratio. However, I would like to hear from each individual club what they thought of it. There has been an extensive discussion on the subject on CUSIDnet which I encourage you to read (some good points were made), but personal feelings and club positions on the matter are what I believe is most important. Did you like it? Would you introduce it as an option at CUSID sanctioned tournaments? How about a full-scale switch? Tell me what you think. Also on the issue of format, there was lots of discussion recently about British Parliamentary style. First, I’d like to thank everyone for their input, which was often detailed and insightful. The general results are that only one school would actually be in favour of switching an entire term to BP style. Of all schools holding tournaments first term next year or bidding for title tournaments, none are planning on switching to BP. One of the most interesting commentaries I heard in the course of this discussion was that regarding the low turnout at Ottawa’s Father Guindon Cup, the already established BP tournament in Central. It has been suggested that this is indicative of a certain lack of interest; if more schools supported the Father Guindon Cup, there might be more demand for other BP tournaments, but right now, there is only just enough interest to fill one BP tournament. Of course, schools holding invitational tournaments can always choose to hold another BP style tournament, and should a club not already hosting a tournament choose to do so, there would obviously be people more than happy to attend.

Overall Condition of Region:

Upcoming

Guelph Novice is March 28-30, and if last year was any indication, is one of the best bang-for-your-buck tournaments, a great way for novices to close out the year, and a great chance for experienced people to get together to conduct last minute business before the summer (if by business, you mean socializing and carousing). That will officially end this year of CUSID tournaments. Waterloo is re-establishing their summer tournament to kick of the 2003-2004 year, and 13 rounds in 24 hours sounds almost too good to be true (that’s the equivalent of two and a half tournaments, all in one day). If you survive, it’ll probably be the time of your life.

Trent

As posted on CUSIDnet, as of the beginning of March, I had not heard anything from Trent or Shingi since early in the year. Despite more than a few attempts to contact them, we had to assume that Trent Dionysis would not be held this year. To this date nothing has yet been heard and unless another member of CUSID knows otherwise, we can only assume that debating at Trent has collapsed for this year at least, though I will continue to try to establish contact with Trent.

Other Clubs

This year has seen some participation from members such as Waterloo, Laurier and McMaster which were in the past few years considered in danger of disappearing. I believe we must continue to engage and promote the participation of the members. Other member schools are all, to the best of my knowledge, healthy and functioning as normal.

I have been disappointed that, to some extent, there has been some reticence among some organizations to make contact with the Vice President when they have had problems or I have contacted them for input. In my election platform I promised communication, but I hope that this promise can actually be carried out, and that needs the participation of everyone involved.

Overall, the past year has been a good one for Central Region and, I believe, CUSID as a whole. We have many issues to address but I also believe we have the resources to properly address them. With candidates from the Central Region standing for election to CUSID executive positions, and very interesting and competitive bids being introduced for our regional championship and also for the North American Championships, next year is looking very promising indeed. Here is hoping that everyone has a great rest of the tournament.

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

VP Central, 2002-2003
Written Report
Emma Lowman

Recap of Events

First Term

For those outside of the Central Region, the following tournaments occurred from September to December, 2002. Novice at Western went off in typical fine fashion. Hart House and Queens were also great successes. World Prep was again hosted by Ottawa, and again was the only British Parliamentary style tournament in Central Canada. This was followed up by the Central Championship at Carlton University. A special congratulations should be given to Rory McKeowen, who upon winning the Leger Cup, completed the hat trick of Regional, National and North American Championship titles.

Second Term

So far, the Central Tournaments this term have been fantastic. McGill Winter Carnival was, as expected, a fantastic time. The break rounds were all wildly entertaining, the parties were smashing, and the overall quality and organization top notch. McGill, as always, deserves great thanks and applause for their efforts. Western was an excellent event with a very high level of competition; despite what many think, a sixteen team tournament can be a fantastic time, as Western was. It was also a great chance to get to know fellow debaters. Some people seemed dismissive of the fact that there were few teams present; I personally felt, and others who were there agreed, that it was a good counterpoint to Winter Carnival, a nice low stress experience that still yielded great debate. York Pro-Am was again an interesting and educational tournament, and it seems that the novices really appreciated the experience (I certainly did). The Break rounds were excellent and proved very informative and entertaining for everyone watching (including proud parents of debaters). French Nationals took place at the beginning of this month, and by all accounts was an excellent and anglo-friendly affair. Thanks to RMC for all their work making the only French language tournament in Central Region a success.

Initiatives Undertaken:

Judging

I would like to thank all the club presidents and CUSID Central members for their comments to date on this issue. It is my hope that with continued dialogue on possible changes to judging can continue. If I have learned anything in the past four months, it is that there appears to be, in the Central region, a consensus that judging is a problem area and needs to be addressed.

Some problems, concerns and ideas that have been raised thus far include standardized scoring ranges, consensus judging, bias in judging (favouritism towards certain schools or people based on reputation, or bias against certain schools for various reasons) and establishing a deeper judging pool for all schools and tournaments. Right now, I still see judging as a problem area for CUSID and believe that it both can and should be improved. I would like to hear your thoughts on this and based on what I get back, we can decide how to proceed and tackle this issue.

As you are all surely aware, there have been discussions about consensus judging and standardized ballots on CUSIDnet. However, both of these discussions have been either largely in the context of CUSID West or sparked by judging experimentation in CUSID West. I hope to be able to work with the Vice Presidents from both East and West over the summer to discuss their experiences and attempt to find a solution that can work in Central and that might also be acceptable to those regions as well.

Format Modifications (PMRE & Split Rebuttal; BP Style)

The PMRE was brought in as an option at McGill along with the opposition split rebuttal (thanks to McGill for providing a statistical breakdown of how it affected the rounds). There was, as yet, no conclusive evidence that it wildly affected the government win-loss ratio. However, I would like to hear from each individual club what they thought of it. There has been an extensive discussion on the subject on CUSIDnet which I encourage you to read (some good points were made), but personal feelings and club positions on the matter are what I believe is most important. Did you like it? Would you introduce it as an option at CUSID sanctioned tournaments? How about a full-scale switch? Tell me what you think. Also on the issue of format, there was lots of discussion recently about British Parliamentary style. First, I’d like to thank everyone for their input, which was often detailed and insightful. The general results are that only one school would actually be in favour of switching an entire term to BP style. Of all schools holding tournaments first term next year or bidding for title tournaments, none are planning on switching to BP. One of the most interesting commentaries I heard in the course of this discussion was that regarding the low turnout at Ottawa’s Father Guindon Cup, the already established BP tournament in Central. It has been suggested that this is indicative of a certain lack of interest; if more schools supported the Father Guindon Cup, there might be more demand for other BP tournaments, but right now, there is only just enough interest to fill one BP tournament. Of course, schools holding invitational tournaments can always choose to hold another BP style tournament, and should a club not already hosting a tournament choose to do so, there would obviously be people more than happy to attend.

Overall Condition of Region:

Upcoming

Guelph Novice is March 28-30, and if last year was any indication, is one of the best bang-for-your-buck tournaments, a great way for novices to close out the year, and a great chance for experienced people to get together to conduct last minute business before the summer (if by business, you mean socializing and carousing). That will officially end this year of CUSID tournaments. Waterloo is re-establishing their summer tournament to kick of the 2003-2004 year, and 13 rounds in 24 hours sounds almost too good to be true (that’s the equivalent of two and a half tournaments, all in one day). If you survive, it’ll probably be the time of your life.

Trent

As posted on CUSIDnet, as of the beginning of March, I had not heard anything from Trent or Shingi since early in the year. Despite more than a few attempts to contact them, we had to assume that Trent Dionysis would not be held this year. To this date nothing has yet been heard and unless another member of CUSID knows otherwise, we can only assume that debating at Trent has collapsed for this year at least, though I will continue to try to establish contact with Trent.

Other Clubs

This year has seen some participation from members such as Waterloo, Laurier and McMaster which were in the past few years considered in danger of disappearing. I believe we must continue to engage and promote the participation of the members. Other member schools are all, to the best of my knowledge, healthy and functioning as normal.

I have been disappointed that, to some extent, there has been some reticence among some organizations to make contact with the Vice President when they have had problems or I have contacted them for input. In my election platform I promised communication, but I hope that this promise can actually be carried out, and that needs the participation of everyone involved.

Overall, the past year has been a good one for Central Region and, I believe, CUSID as a whole. We have many issues to address but I also believe we have the resources to properly address them. With candidates from the Central Region standing for election to CUSID executive positions, and very interesting and competitive bids being introduced for our regional championship and also for the North American Championships, next year is looking very promising indeed. Here is hoping that everyone has a great rest of the tournament.

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate

General Meeting
Saturday March 15 and Sunday March 16, 2003
Dalhousie University

Executive Director, 2002-2003
Written Report
Carissa Whiteman

Summary of Activities

1. Maintenance of CUSID.ca and community.cusid.ca

Considerable updates were completed in regards to cusid.ca. All main-page links were brought up to date. The Results section was continually updated to include results from the first years of CUSID’s existence (late 70s and early 80s). I assume these updates will continue as alumni provide the information. Furthermore, all results from the last two tournament years were added and checked for accuracy. With a diligent effort in obtaining the results as tournaments occur the database will be much easier to care for and will be undoubtedly complete.

New sections were carried over from the older CUSID website (Anadas) to complete the transition period that began last year. No longer is there a link from the main index of cusid.ca indicating the site is not complete. The sections of Worldwide Debating and Past Executive were updated and completed. Administrativia has been fully updated to include all documents that were either on the older site or that were obtained during this period. What is not posted is not in my possession or in the possession of the past two executives.

With the combined initiative of this year’s President, a section for Member Clubs was established to make contact information and member status easy to access. Information regarding official titles, club websites, mailing addresses, and presidential contact were included here.

CUSIDnet (community.cusid.ca) was updated to include new software that was more secure and easier to use. There have been no subsequent problems in this area and database backups have been secured.

All other necessary updates were completed upon request or as needed on a more than consistent basis.

2. Webspace Domain and Server Information

After a difficult and lengthy server transfer, which occurred during the summer months CUSID’s webspace has been moved to a more secure and reliable server. During this transfer detailed records were kept so to ensure that should the problem reoccur what needs to be done and records of what have been done are available. These will be transferred to the incoming Executive Director.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed that while CUSID’s server space is generously donated through our contact and past alumni at kinamatix.com CUSID is responsible for maintaining the domain name. Yearly renewals currently amount to $30.00 US (approximately $45.00 Cdn). Cusid.ca has been renewed until April of 2004.

3. Minutes and Record Keeping

All CUSID meetings were attended and minutes were taken for all. These minutes have been posted to the Administrativia section of cusid.ca (www.cusid.ca/administrativia.php) and also in the appropriate section in community.cusid.ca.

All other records have been maintained through email or paper copy. In addition to electronic records and backups, these will also be passed to the following Executive Director.

4. Other Activities

Aside from web activities, effort has been made provide any assistance to the President. Involvement includes suggestions for the Mandate Committee, and working with APDA during the North American Tournament.

Relation with some alumni has also indirectly occurred. Many alumni have contacted the ‘web administration’ with tournament results from past years and for simple organizational updates. These were given with accuracy and professionalism.

Recommendations

1. Final Updates of Web Links

The only sections not completed during this year include the Alumni Database. The vision for this project includes a database where alumni can independently post their information and contacts. It would be monitored by the Executive Director and would most likely be combined with the information found at http://www.hardrive.com/judynjj/dinolink.htm.

Old articles from past POI’s are also available and are included in the www.cusid.ca electronic files. These could be somehow coded to be included on the POI link.

2. Continued Maintenance of all Contacts and Records

Substantial efforts have been made to make the transition between this year to the next smooth and uncomplicated. I would suggest that these efforts be continued. The Executive Director is responsible for large amounts of information and to ensure availability it must be arranged appropriately. Updates should be completely diligently. The key to a successful term as Executive Director is constant updates and organization.

Overall, my experience as Executive Director has been positive. I can be contacted most easily via email (carissawhiteman@hotmail.com or cnwhitem@uwo.ca) if future executive members require any assistance or information.