Forum

You need to log in to create posts and topics.

Nats APDA Meeting Minutes

The following document contains the minutes for the Nats APDA Meeting:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H6vVGzitAzArwYgFNc7fb-a1Zh-KqGwIyytMjP8Cdqo/edit?usp=sharing

Pasted in forum for institutional memory.

Quote from Tanay Patri on May 1, 2019, 4:17 pm

APDA MEETING

 

Sandy Greenberg's proposal to reform eligibility- passes

In 5.09B, add “Competing at British Parliamentary debate tournaments, regardless of whether such tournaments are APDA-sanctioned, or the North American Debate Championship shall not count towards the use of a semester of eligibility.” following the sentence “One may use a semester of eligibility by competing at two or more sanctioned tournaments as defined in Section 5.08 of these Bylaws during any given half of an academic year or one may use two semesters of eligibility by competing at the National Championship.”  

 

Alison Chan's proposal on reg breaks - passes

(Best Practice)

Tournaments who plan on offering registration breaks must publish a deadline for their official answer on registration break negotiations. The deadline must be a minimum of 3 days before the start date of the tournament to allow for last minute car rental cancellations and an appropriate amount of time to inform other team members. If a tournament misses its own deadline, it must accept the registration break requested by a team, so long as that registration break is reasonable and requested at the deadline.

 

Caleb Foote's proposal on qual transfers (passes)

Change the last paragraph of 5.09C to read:

"Each member with four or fewer qualified individuals competing at the Championship or transferring their qualification may sponsor at most three unqualified individuals to compete at the Championship. Each member with five or more such individuals may sponsor at most two unqualified individuals to compete at the Championship. Unqualified individuals who are replacing a qualified individual will not count against this limit."

 

Alex Chang's proposal to reform reaffiliation - was tabled until Binghamton

2.

 

Change current reaffiliation language to:

 

The board is authorized to grant exemptions to enable debaters to debate for schools at which they are not primarily enrolled. Exemptions must be granted via the debater wishing to reaffiliate submitting such a request to the APDA board. The board may vote on the request with a simple majority/unanimous/N-1 vote, with the President serving as the tiebreaker (In the case it is simple majority). It is the expectation that the board will investigate and ask all relevant parties for their viewpoints prior to the vote, and announce the results on the forums shortly after the vote.

If the body wishes to review this decision, at the immediate next APDA meeting, the body may submit an agenda item to conduct an instant run-off vote to elect three (Or any other number) current EOFs/Dinos/Members of the body/trustees to review the decision. The body will be informed of the school the debater is wishing to reaffiliate to, the school they are unaffiliating from, and the debater’s identity. All other information should not be made available to the public. Members are encouraged not to seek further information from the relevant parties, and relevant parties are encouraged not to provide said information. The panel may consider such actions in their review. The chosen panel will be expected to review all relevant information submitted by both schools, the debater and the board, and are expected to reach a majority decision by the next APDA meeting at the latest. Due to the long periods of time between most APDA meetings, the board’s decision will stand until that time in which the panel choose to overturn or affirm the decision.

The bar for re-affiliation is defined to be when reconciliation between the debater and their original club is no longer possible and/or the environment for both parties has reached a level that would be defined by the average observer as toxic or harmful. The purpose of re-affiliation should be for social or financial purposes. COTY points should not be a primary reason for granting re-affiliation.

  1. Vote on what the board vote bar ought to be
  2. Vote on the number of people on the review panel
  3. Vote on who serves on the panel
  1. Fordham would be on November 22nd, and CUNY and Hopkins will now be on November 15th. - passes

Drew Harrington's proposal on dues - was tabled until Binghamton

Increasing dues. What I am proposing is that:

"Appendix A: Votes of the Body Referred to In These Bylaws

Dues: $100 per school per year"

Becomes this:

"Appendix A: Votes of the Body Referred to In These Bylaws

Dues: $200 per school per year"

Andrew Hamilton's proposal to reform reg - was tabled

In 5.09c, insert after "(b)" the following text: "does not charge any member institution more than $125, times the number of teams competing on behalf of the member in total registration fees, exclusive of penalty fees for late registration or late changes to registration, (c)", and replace the existing "(c)" with "(d)".

 

Hopkins/Fordham/CUNY schedule change - Passed

Nationals Schedule Vote - was Tabled until the online APDA meeting

 

Ben Feshbach's proposal to abolish NOTY - there was not enough time to discuss