Worlds Council Meeting, Manila1999

Precouncil Meeting:

Worlds Council Meeting, January 1, 1999




Attendance: Australia Canada England/Wales Ireland New Zealand Scotland US Bangladesh Greece Malaysia the Philippines South Africa Bulgaria Croatia India Israel Japan Netherlands Slovenia Turkey Thailand Jamaica



Absent: Singapore



Agenda:

1. Israeli concerns

2. Reports from org com

3. reports from worlds council

4. Bids from Sydney and others

5. Requests from Athens re: budget, etc.

6. Request from Omar re: rules

7. Irish request to extend bidding time to 3 years



I. Concerns of Israeli representative:

A. ESL : criteria for participation are vague , unfair and are neglected.

She suggests the use of the following criteria, of which a minimum of two should be met to

qualify for ESL:

• Formal language of the nation

• Language used as instruction in the university

• Language used at home

B. ESL finals only (no semifinals)

C. The reading of printed material gives advantage to closing teams



On the ESL criteria:

Greek rep: What of Deree and other schools that speak English in an ESL country? 95% of the students are native Greeks but are taught in English.

Indian rep: India has 70 languages while language spoken at home is too hard to determine.

Israeli rep: proposal is that these 3 criteria are recognized and left to a trust system

SA rep: As long as home language is English, team shouldn’t be ESL.

Chair: We may be over-specifying this. The criteria are reasonable - they are guidelines.

England+ Wales rep: The sport is dependent on honor. These are broad brushstrokes.



Motion tabled until later.



On the expansion of ESL beyond final round only:

Org Comm: ESL limited to finals only because teams may break in both competitions. Hence, they debate too many rounds in one day.

Aus: If you change the schedule, it is workable.

England + Wales: It's up to the Organizing Committee.

Greek: Last year’s ESL semifinals was to boost ESL, so as not to be seen as a sidekick of the tournament.

Israel: Motion is that the ESL competition be expanded to include semifinals.

Canada: It could result to a hectic schedule with Masters.

India: A ratio system should be established.

Netherlands: That would be difficult because they would have to revise the schedule.

Australia: It isn't the schedule really, but the Manila organizers' point on exhaustion.

Org Comm: Unless you disqualify break tams from ESL finalists, which would be unfair to a nation like Pakistan this year.

Chair: It would be unwise to use the guideline in the constitution. I suggest that the Committee works with the next university and formulate guidelines which are not part of the rules or constitution but is a separate document.

Australia: Worlds 2000 will have semifinals.



Motion tabled until next year



Discussion on the prohibition of printed material:

Australia: First of all, the efficacy of a prohibition is problematic. Also, the advantage to closing teams is overestimated. They can’t read entire articles so there's no real benefit.

England+ Wales: This is hard to define- like what about transferred material?

Indian: Closing teams must wait for opening teams' definition anyway.

Philippines: Also, there's the issue on prepared cases.

England+ Wales: This isn't workable, difficult to enforce.

Formal Motion: That the use of printed materials during debates be prohibited.



All except Ireland and Israel vote against. Motion fails.





II. Report from org com c/o Ray Aguas, Chair of the Manila Worlds Organizing Committee

Ray: Main problem before tournament was registration: i.e. completing information and fees. Problem for the tournament proper was finding appropriate venues. Ex. stand up comedy night which began after the allotted time for the venue (we’ll be holding another night) and the NYE ball where corkage was too high that we could not serve drinks.



Bangladesh Rep.: First, having verbal adjudication was really good but releasing the rankings dampens… an over-all feeling of stratification. Second, the inconsistency of adjudicators – perferences vary, some contrast what was said at briefings. (tabled for later)

Greek rep: Why were there no buses before sydney night?



Irish rep: In response to the issues that have been raised, registration has plagued every tournament, beer is not something highly considered by everyone, the organizers have to balance the corkage with the rest of the tournament… everyone has gotten the value for their money with the availability of buses, quality of accommodations, manpower involved have all been beyond expectations anyway.



England+ Wales: A complaint on tab was that there are those who win and get high speaker marks while those who win with lower speaker marks can actually move up quicker. I would like to recommend that we reconcile post and prebreak and have a folding of the bracket. (tabled for later)



Netherlands: Placing 3 persons to a room is not a problem at all with the delegates – it’s a nice hotel.



Phil rep: What’s with the increase in reg fees? At South Africa, the pre-bid was set at $200

Ray: We cleared this in Athens that our fee was not to exceed $295. In addition, the committee offered Socialized Housing at the rate of $200.



Indian rep: There’s hardly any vegetarian food.

Thailand: Why were the seminars held a day before the rounds?

Canadian rep: Some teams were split up because of triple sharing system.

Ray: Honestly, that was done by the hotel management, not us.

Irish rep: No big deal, Cork and Princeton put 4 in rooms of the same size – take the tournament as a whole.

Aus rep: We noticed that there was no Women’s officer in the organization, for future hosts, this should be kept at high profile.

Israeli rep: If there’s no Kosher food, tell us and we’ll bring our own.

Netherlands: Could we have the seminars at separate times sos that the debaters could also hear the adjudicators briefing?

Phil rep: Info dissemination about the proof of enrollment requirement was lacking.

Ray Aguas: The motion was passed in Athens within earshot of all country reps.

Indian rep: Could the grandfather clause be changed to apply to break teams only?



Irish Rep proposes that the report from org com be accepted (for purposes of closing that point on agenda)

Omar seconds the motion.

Motion passes unanimously.



Ray: Lastly, on the financials, our status really depends on how much souvenirs are bought by the delegates and the room problem as well, even last minute sponsors and maybe Pres. Estrada as well.



Hand Vote: All in favor.



Subject now returns to adjudication.

Bangladesh rep’s points: (raised earlier)

1) proposes that oral adj. be given without disclosing rankings

2) some adj’s may be inconsistent.



Omar: Feedback is useless without rankings. Oral adjudication will give away rankings anyway. Re: inconsistency, the adjudicators’ handbook has been provided…

Indian rep: Adjudicators don’t know the rules.

Peejay: John Long and Ben Richards deal with this. On every complaint, they have sourced the problem and spoken to all concerned parties. We cannot control everything but we have tried to deal with complaints fairly.

England+ Wales: No adjudication system is ever perfect. I am disheartened with the loss point: if the loss is well reasoned – it isn’t just about winning but the learning curve as well.

Jamaican rep: if an inconsistent adjudication is discovered, can rankings be changed?

Peejay: No. A decision cannot be overturned. But we do check the issue and have contacted the adjudicator in question. This affects the succeeding rounds they get as well as their chances of breaking.

Greece: For Sydney, instead of having John, Ben and Ray, you could have a box for adjudicators.

Canada rep: What about changed decisions?

Peejay: We would then be opening the floodgates…

US rep: If an adjudicator has clearly violated the rules, the system ought to allow changes.

Ray d’Cruz: A complaints system would ruin timetable and tab.

Peejay: It is also difficult when a panel is involved. It is not a policy to overturn a decision.

India rep: About the cap of adjudicators for a team, we’ve had poor oral adjudicators.

Phil rep: what has org com done to assure good local adjudication?

Peejay: The deputy chiefs have come to Manila every year. We held a national tournament late this year through the help of Omar and Ray D’Cruz and also looked at those who were coming.



Irish rep: 2 proposals: 1) that oral adjudication be continued - motion passes unanimously

2) that the oral adjudication complaints procedure be implemented without a change in the rankings.



Turkey rep: What about the last 3 rounds?

Irish rep: Amendment to the motion: That the oral adjudication system be continued on the basis that oral adjudication will be given for the first 6 rounds and written critical analysis be given for the remaining three.

India rep: When will we get the sheets?

Peejay: I’ll place them on the website. We’re still sorting them.

Ireland: This is a constitutional issue.

Peejay: for insertion into the constitution, motion requires 2/3 majority.



Omar: split up the motion

Irish rep: new wording: First, that oral adjudication be delivered for the first six rounds (mandatory) by the Chair.

Second: That in rounds 7, 8 and 9, adjudicators fill out written crit analysis sheets to be returned no earlier than the announcement of the break.

First Motion: That verbal adj. For the 1’st 6 rounds be mandatory.

All votes in favor.

Motion passes.



Second Motion:

All votes ion favor.

Motion passes.



Irish rep: Thirdly proposes that a complaints procedure for verbal adjudication proceed on the basis that decisions will not be altered.

Netherlands: But what about racism, etc.

Peejay: Still should not be able to overturn a decision.

Andy Hume agrees.

Aussie rep: I oppose the ability…

Peejay: We’ve sourced the complaints, spoken with the adjudicators and made sure that the temas never got that person again. Decisions are final upon submission of the speed ballot.



Canada, US & South Africa vote against the motion.

Bangladesh, Netherlands and Jamaica abstain.

All else vote in favor.

(Only two 4-votes nations and one 3-votes nation vote against – total of 11 votes. Four 4-votes nations, three 3-votes nations, four 2-votes nations and 2 one-vote nations vote for the motion – total of 37 votes.)

Motion passes.



Croatia: Separate the ESL rankings.



England +Wales: issues earlier raised: 1) on the way tab folds, that those with less speaker points have greater chances of moving up and 2) the formosity after the break, does pre-break change or is it the same system.

Peejay: We are not running the pre and post break system in the same manner. We will use the Swiss draw power matching system.

RdC: What we have is a true power power pairing system.

England + Wales rep: Proposal: to reconcile the philosophy of the tab via the folding of the pre-break tab via a random fashion within the bracket as decided.

Andy Hume: Another option is to randomize it within each point bracket.

Peejay: The council can come up with objectives then the Worlds Committee can work with Sydney.

England and Wales rep: Note 1) to not penalize those teams upon the basis of speaker points within a bracket and 2) Committee and Org Comm should look at bracketing and randomizing those who get elevated/raised up from a bracket.



Netherlands: What about the different positions of the teams?

Australian rep: We will trust randomization and then check.

South Africa: Give points to shadow teams.

Omar: Allow them to participate but should remain non-break teams.

Malaysian Rep: Teams ought to lose to shadow teams if they so deserve. Shadow teams do change.

Andy Hume: We should trust Sydney on this, view it from them.



Report from Sydney Uni.

Nick Purtell: Accommodations will be at our colleges and it will start on Dec. 31 til Jan 7, 2000.

Bangladesh and Israel not present , bid passes unanimously.



Worlds 2001: Bid from Glasgow.

Glasgow rep: We’ve been working on discounts on airfare, have fixed the venues, will have a lower fee for adjudicators and we won’t have a team cap.

Provisional endorsement of Glasgow’s bid to be confirmed in Sydney. - Passes unanimously.



Proposals and Election of Worlds Committee

Omar: First, we would like to adopt the rules as a attachment to the constitution, to be applied in each and every competition.

Second, we wanted to examine the constitution but was unable to get the minutes from Athens earlier. I suggest that in 1999, it is completed after Manila gets them.

Thirdly, we would like to have an affirmative action requirement which prescribes that a fixed number of participants are females (debaters and adjudicators). Where teams are of 4, one of them should be female.

India rep: At our university, the one who gets the money, gets to go.

Omar: The pre-council meeting should decide on this.

England + Wales Rep: I am against a hard and fast rule – in the British circuit, females are rare.

Ireland: 1) If there is 1 woman in 4, 1 man in 4 also. 2) Increase the representation of women in WUDC.

Croatia: We send the best people through a selection process.

Peejay: We can’t have a hard and fast rule, at least have recognition.

List of recognized institutions to Andy Hume, available from Limerick. (Australia, NZealand, S. Africa, NPDA, CUSID, Scotts, Irish, etc.) – a fairly workable list with which to proceed.

England and Wales rep: Although the list may already include bogus teams, there are regional reps not just the uni’s who can help outin this matter.

On the proof of enrolment.

Omar : Flexibility was exercised in this tournament, although there should be less next year. It should be taken more seriously at Sydney – that each debater should be a full time student.

Ireland rep: In Dublin, a barrister’s course in considered a pert-time course but they are bona fide students.



Fourth: On the Worlds webpage.

Omar: I’ve spoken with De La Salle University and Erasmus about this. It should be www.debating.net and the council should provide for its maintenance.

Pete: Two Canadians are offering to do it for free.

Nick Purtell: Ours should up and running soon.

Omar: We should accept the offer then.



Fifth: On the rules for Public Speaking

Sir Omar: What we’ve seen is a trend towards stand-up comedy speeches. It should be composed of oratory and rhetorical skills a) one on a serious topic b) and a prepared speech, motion to be given by the host university.

Netherlands rep: Sydney should inform its participants as well as the adjudicators.

England and Wales rep: LAMDA has a public speaking criteria.

Ireland: As it is, public speaking is a disaster now. Should it continue, there is a great need for rules of adjudicating it.

Omar: There should be a balance. It is in this competition that manner is emphasized rather than matter.



On financial matters.

Ireland rep: Princeton bought products of about $2000. They were supposed to be sold and the proceeds were to go to Cork.

RdC: At South Africa, we were offered $200 for being deputy chiefs by the organizers themselves. Princeton was told that they could not compete but there was still no payment.

John Williams, Princeton rep: This is a random $2000 debt of which we have no part in, this should not impede our participation.

Ireland: Both Cork and South Africa feel for the situation but an effort has to be made.

Andy Hume: This is a question of whether we feel that a university can be relieved for that – make a resolution for financial recompensation.

RdC: Forward the money to Sydney. Princeton hasn’t settled this and Council hasn’t decided that enough is enough.

Princeton rep: We apologize for this. How much is owed and to whom?

RdC: $1920.

England and Wales rep: First, we cannot allow institutions to shirk responsibilities and second, not have a random dissipation of funds like a criminal offense. We could have a censure lifted upon payment.

Omar: Princeton was allowed to register at Athens because they promised to pay.

South Africa rep: We have written to the senior administration of Princeton.

Princeton: We promise to pay, but aren’t sure if we can pay it by next year.

Ireland rep: You can pay $500 per year. I request that you pat Stellenbosch first. Upon failure on an installment, Princeton cannot compete.

Safrica Rep: The exchange was 7 rad to a pound during that time.

Peejay: So that’s about $500 per year for the next four years.

Omar: By this time next year, and then to Glasgow.

England and Wales: This should be written and ratified.

Princeton: If we fail, Princeton cannot compete and maybe more drastic measure should be taken. I am sorry and will do more in my power to pay.

Omar: Council would like to see this happen.

Peejay words the final motion Princeton University acknowledging to pay the debt that it owed Worlds Committee for the past three years, undertakes to pay 920 USD to Stellenbosch to be paid before they may register for Sydney Worlds as well as 1000 USD before registration for Glasgow.



Motion is unanimously passed.



Omar: What about the money that Macquarie should pay to Stellenbosch?

SAfrica ep: I don’t know.

Ntherlands: Conrad told me that it wasn’t paid yet.

(Tabled until Conrad of Stellenbosch is contacted.)



On Athens:

Greece rep (on the minutes of the last Worlds Council meeting): We have the receipt of the courier, sent on the 7th and 18th of September.

Ana Alano, Manila Org Comm Secretariat Director: We have been trying to contact you endlessly since early last year to no avail and haven’t heard of this action.

Ireleand rep: Could the committee members act as secretary?

Peejay: For future reference, records should be given to the Worlds Committee.

Deree / Greece rep passes around financial report: The university undertook to pay the deficit.

The report has been accepted and Deree college is thanked.



Members of the Womens’ Forum arrive and are recognized.

Meg O’ Sullivan: Worlds Council expresses its concern at the low level of female participation at Worlds and endorses all steps taken by participating debating institutions to redress this imbalance by promoting increased female participation in international debating.

Peejay: This is not a formal motion but a statement of policy to adopt in guidelines.

Malaysia: There are other oppressed groups – national minorities, races, etc.

Everyone votes in favor of the statement.



Omar’s proposal: That the rules of the Worlds Parliament Style of Debating are attached to as a schedule to the WUDC constitution, not as a part of it, but used together for a tournament.

So the Org Comm has no power to change it.



Conrad of Stellenbosch is recognized.

Conrad: I can’t officially say but from the bank and Carl Nolte, we have not received payment from Macquarie. Hart University also has an outstanding debt.

Steve Kaless of Macquarie: We paid and have assumed that that this was cleaned up already.

England and Wales: Lay down a conditional clause for Hart and Macquarie: If South Africa proves by next meeting that money is owed by them then we should have a motion for censure. (Agenda for next year.)

Conrad: We will deal with them bilaterally.



ELECTION results for Members of next year’s Worlds Committee:

Chair: Omar Salahuddin

Secretary: Andy Hume

Registrar: John Williams

Regional representatives:

the Americas – Michael Jansic from McGill

UK and Ireland – Rob Garson

Asia – Wilbert Yuque from DLSU

Continental Europe and the Middle East – Edwin Meulensteen from the Netherlands

Africa – Estelle Dehon of Witwatersrand University

Australia, New Zealand and Oceania – Meg O’ Sullivan