CANADIAN UNIVERSITY SOCIETY FOR INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE
General Meeting: January 31, 2004
Queen’s University
Minutes taken by Wayne Chu
1. Call to Order
Meeting called to order by Konrad Koncewicz, Chair, at 12:50pm
2. Roll Call and Voting Rights
Present
Konrad Koncewicz, President
Wayne Chu, Executive Director
Acadia University (via Fully Directed Proxy)
University of Alberta (proxied to TJ Adhietty)
University of Calgary (via Fully Directed Proxy)
Carleton University
Concordia University (via Fully Directed Proxy)
Dalhousie University (via Fully Directed Proxy)
University of Guelph
Hart House, University of Toronto
University of King’s College (via Fully Directed Proxy)
King’s College, University of Western Ontario
Wilfred Laurier University (proxied to University of Waterloo)
McGill University
McMaster University (proxied to University of Western Ontario)
University of Ottawa
Queen’s University
University of Regina (via Fully Directed Proxy)
St. Francis Xavier University (via Fully Directed Proxy)
Trinity College, University of Toronto
University of British Columbia
University College of Cape Breton
University of New Brunswick (via Fully Directed Proxy)
University of WaterlooUniversity of Western Ontario
York University
3. Additions to and Approval of the Agenda
Motion to move discussion of agenda item 6.A.2 to after 6.A.3, moved by MCGILL.
Discussion
UBC: Needs to go to public speaking round and wants to discuss first.
MCGILL withdraws motion.
Motion to accept agenda moved by WESTERN, seconded by HART HOUSE.
Motion carries.
4. Approval of Previous Minutes
Motion to approve agenda moved by CARLETON, seconded by MCGILL.
Motion carries.
5. By-Law Amendment Motions
A. Allowing Hybrids at the French National Championship
Discussion
OTTAWA
French Nationals is starting to flourish and we want to coninute that trend. In many cases there is only one debater from a school who wants to go.
Motion to vote on the amendment moved by WATERLOO, seconded by HART HOUSE.
Motion carries unanimously.
B. Amendment to the Nationals Representation Rule
Discussion
MCGILL
We see the intent of the current bylaw is to set maximum number of teams a school can send to Nationals. We belive a fairer system is to be able to raise the cap for individual schools. We realize that there are other interpretations of the bylaw, but we just want clarification
QUEEN’S
We have always looked at the current bylasw like a minimum. What we’re doing now is lowering the minium that a a school can send. We should just clarify that the cap is either a minimum or a hard maximum cap.
PRESIDENT
As a matter of note, point 8 in the bylaw is a hard cap. i.e. Hart House+Trinity+etc. cannot send more than nine teams in total under the University of Toronto.
MCGILL
Can we take a straw poll to see if everyone agrees that it is a minimum?
PRESIDENT
Perhaps we should add section (9) clarifying that the current provisions are a guaranteed minimum, with a cap at discretion of host
WATERLOO
In the past, the mechanism in place seems to be that every school is capped at a maximum number until everyone has a chance to register. Once that happens, schools can send more.
PRESIDENT
That was the way things were done before, but this was not explicitly explained in the constitution.
CARLETON
If we keep section 4.7 and add a new section 4, which disccuses the student population of a school. How would that apply to multiple clubs in same school?
PRESIDENT
A person cannot be counted twice.
HART HOUSE
We would like to stress the importance of removing the term “academic institution” and replacing with the term “CUSID member”. If Nats were held at Hart House, for example, the status quo would cause major problems.
ALBERTA
Historically this provision was there because clubs would just pop up out of nowhere one year where a flood of people from schools who were members would go to Nats. The status quo makes that problem go away so that schools don’t flood the registration.
HART HOUSE
The status quo causes major conflicts between multiple clubs inside of a single school.
PRESIDENT
We can keep the amendment or as is or keep the old bylaw and just amend it with clarification that it is a guaranteed miniumum.
CARLETON
Wouldn’t it just would make it easier if we were to just increase the team count?
PRESIDENT
We can run a straw poll to see if that would be acceptable
CARLETON motions amend section 3 to change “four teams” to “six teams”. MCGILL considers amendment friendly.
Motion to vote, moved by MCGILL, seconded by TRINITY.
Motion carries with 15 in favour, 3 against, 4 abstentions.
C. Motion to Re-number
Motion to vote, moved by HART HOUSE, seconded by ALBERTA.
Motion carries unanimously.
Public speaking rounds are already starting and participants must go to their rooms.
Non directed proxy by UBC goes to ALBERTA
Non directed proxy by TRINITY goes HART HOUSE
Non directed proxy by KING’S COLLEGE (UWO) to WESTERN
6. New Business
A. Amendments to McGill University’s bid for the 2004 National Championship
A.1 Discussion
MCGILL
We would like to change the team cap to 6 teams, allowing for alterations of travel arrangements by schools who have already made plans.
CARLETON
Nats is a month away, how many western schools have made arrangements?
ALBERTA
We have already done so. We are sending 7 teams.
Non directed proxy by GUELPH goes to WATERLOO.
MCGILL
Problem is that we didn’t know if the previous team cap amendment would pass. We need to go back and check room availability. The problem is if we have to go check the room situation and also promise to respect the new bylaw.
UWO
You stated that you will make exemptions anyways. Why have a team cap?
PRESIDENT
We can change the minimum to 7 teams so no exemptions have to be made.
MCGILL
We had always thought cap would work in a two fold basis – if we can send more above the cap, then we can lift the cap in the second stage of registrations.
PRESIDENT
It seems the delegates don’t want exemptions.
MCGILL amends proposal to change team cap to seven teams with a a waiting list to see if more can be accomodated at a later date.
QUEEN’S
The only schools this change will affect really are Queen’s and Hart House, but we don’t think we’ll send more that seven teams anyways.
HART HOUSE
Seven seems reasonable since it’s a guaranteed minimum.
Motion to vote moved by MCGILL, seconded by OTTAWA.
Motion carries unanimously.
A.2. Discussion
MCGILL
First we want to address the contention that it this is against CP debate style and we shouldn’t allow this at Nats. A number of tournaments in Central and West have been straight, including Western Leger, Carleton Leger, and NorAms. Straight resolutions is not against CP style.
Second, our motivations. McGill wants to ensure that it is a fair and equitable Nationals. Right now, rather than run innovative cases, teams tend to run strategic cases – we can’t change opposition burdens with squirreable resolutions. Increasingly, in open rounds, strategic cases are being run. When it comes to nats, the best team possible must win, not win just because of case strategy. At invitationals, squirrel resolutions are find, but for nats, this is a tradeoff between fairness and innovative cases.
Lastly, since this is not againt CP style, this is something that the host school should have discretion over. McGill, when bidding, did not consider the bid in depth as it was made in haste. This is an important consideration. Minor changes to style at title tournaments have been made in the past – we have a precedent.
YORK
What is wrong with the current knowledge standard that a university student should be able to understand?
ALBERTA
Straight resolutions have been done well, but have also been done poorly. Calgary has used straight resolutions as well, sometimes poorly. In the west, straight resolutions were used for world’s preperatory tournaments. In the national context, this is not in the Canadian context. As well, non-arts students are disadvantaged. We favour innovation.
WATERLOO
To respond, it doesn’t hold that straight resolutions need to be IR cases. This is simple to fix – in the context of Ranjan’s report, it would be a good thing for Canada to have more straight resolution tournaments. It will also help resolve the gov/opp symmetry. This does equalize both sides.
MCGILL
The first thing is that the present standard of acceptible knowledge is hard to judge whether a case is slimy, or gov heavy. The Present situation also doesn’t deal with strategic cases. The current standard of knowledge is fair, but if you pick a case to exploit opp’s weaknesses, the debate becomes about which side exploted the other better.
To address Alberta, this world’s resolutions were well done and covered a wide breadth of topics. McGill would make sure that resolutions were done well – not just about IR.
CARLETON
What’s the difference between a straight resolution that you don’t know about or a strategic case you don’t know about?
ALBERTA
We know our weaknesses and we should improve on them. But in regards to having springkling of straight science resolutions, it is still a springkling. Resolutions will always be predominantly IR.
WATERLOO
It seems to be that it then makes more sense to have straight resolutions so everyone will always face resolutions they are weak against.
YORK
We think it is problematic to talk about strategic cases. How is a sports case necessarily strategic? Wht if they like sports cases? This is the problem of bringing in different interests.
OTTAWA yeilds floor to ERIK EASTAUGH
The issue is one of subject matter and biases. At the end of the day the vast majority of debaters are from law, politics backgrounds. Changing systems will not change the types of cases being run. At the end of day most people are fair.
To isolate teams that are the top, straight resolutions are the balance. On a balance of probabilities most people won’t be hurt by this.
MCGILL
Opposition has the advantage in the present system because you can always bring up obscure topics. If teams will not understand some topics regardless, it is fairer for the explotation to be random, rather than strategic.
YORK
The impetus for change seems to be from world’s. What are world’s resolutions like?
MCGILL yields floor to JONATHAN STERN
Ie. Surrogate motherhood for profits; Environmental groups should become terrorists, etc.
If straight resolutions are done properly, the case is that a committee of university students have all agreed that it is an appropriate case, rather than putting the onus on judges to determine whether a case is fair or not. If you ensure a number of backgrounds in the club have an input into the resolutions, than a variety of resolutions will come out, rather than encouraging specializations in canned cases. McGgill hs the resources to do this.
Motion to vote moved by ALBERTA, seconded by WATERLOO.
Motion fails with 10 in favour, 13 against.
A.3. Discussion
Motion to amend to have concensus/conferral judging in all rounds, moved by REGINA. Motion is considered friendly.
MCGILL
We haven’t decided whether we want concensus or conferral for all or none of the rounds.
OTTAWA
Why haven’t you decided?
MCGILL
We wanted to go through the CUSID assembly to see what people thought and to contribute to in debate going on in-house.
Motion to vote, moved by OTTAWA, seconded by CARLETON.
Motion carries with 15 in favour, 4 against, 3 abstentions.
- Motion for nationals bid to be amended to be allow squirrelable resolutions by McGill.
Move to vote motioned by WATERLOO, seconded by OTTAWA.
Motion carries unanimously.
7. Adjournment
Motion to adjourn meeting moved by WATERLOO, seconded by ALBERTA.
Motion carries unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 1:30pm.