In just a few days, as the World Cup comes to an end, Amsterdam Euros will start. It promises to be a fantastic competition, even though it will be interesting to see what happens if the Netherlands actually become World Champions...
This email is to inform you about the Pre-Council and Council meetings during EUDC. It contains the agenda(s), and a brief discussion of the more important points.
This is obviously of special relevance to all delegates, specifically the Country representatives. The most up-to-date list can be found in the Facebook group "EUDC Council" (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119973020669). We would be grateful if you could inform us about changes, and if we could ask the new representatives to join that group soon.
The Pre-Council meeting will take place on Monday, July 12th, 18.00h - 19.30h at the "Rode Hoed", the venue where at 20.00h the Public Debate with Mr Moreno-Ocampo will start. Transportation from the the hotels for delegates will be provided between 17.00h and 17.30h. Delegates will also be served dinner at the Pre-Council location, which to my knowledge is a first.
The Council meeting will take place on Thursday, July 15th, 20.00h - 23.00h at the university. Should there be a need, the session would be continued from 9.00h - 11.00h on Friday.
The Agendas are set as follows. Please notify us asap if we missed anything. However, other issues have not been shared with us at the present moment. Please note that in the interest of concise session, only discussion will be allowed on issues that are handed in IN WRITING before the session. Should that not be the case, the issues will have to be deferred to the following Council session.
- Minutes from Tallinn, Newcastle, Antalya
- ESL status
- Country Eligibility: Qatar
- Eligibility of teams - check
- ESL-team status - check
- Discussion of proposals for constitutional change. Provisional issues: Secretary, Eligibility, ESL, Region reform, various adaptations
- Bid presentations
- Newcastle Report
- Amsterdam preliminary report
- Reports (committees, president, registrar)
- Decision on EUDC host for 2011
- Decisions on constitutional changes as discussed in pre-Council. Provisional issues: Secretary, Eligibility, ESL, Region reform, various adaptations
Please find attached to this email the minutes from Tallinn, Newcastle and Antalya. These will need to be passed in pre-Council, so please read them beforehand.
Also attached you find the proposals for eligibility reform (prepared by Branka Marusic and Jonathan Leader Maynard), and the proposal for the introduction of the post of Secretary (prepared by Branka Marusic).
All the best, and see you in Amsterdam!
1) Roll call
- countries present: Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Ukraine, England, Scotland, France, Slovenia, Netherlands, Croatia, Serbia, Ireland, Russia
* Austria, Ukraine, France and Switzerland were not present at EUDC Council in Newcastle
2) ESL/EFL criteria proposal
- ESL/EFL criteria reform – proposed and voted upon January 1st
- double break for the ESL/EFL teams
- England: speaker tabs – your partners status doesn't matter in EUDC
- evaluation of language status – different cases=different evaluation; studying in an English speaking country/non-English speaking country (5 years on Harvard=main break)
Countries responses and questions to the ESL/EFL Criteria
- Turkey: English in schools taught by Turkish teachers when is English considered as a method of instruction?
- Russia: classes in English – number of classes, duration?
- Slovenia: abuse of the ESL/EFL status
- England: institutions competing being recognized in Euros new institutions should be present and approved to register in the Council
Criteria? Which institutions seem to fit in? Adoption of a new system at Euros
Registrar: What about the Worlds? We decided in Istanbul 2007 that we are going to follow the rules of the Worlds in this matter?
England: I fear that the Worlds will never adopt it. The Worlds can adopt our rules, which has been case for the ESL/EFL. Don’t see a problem. Leaving the Worlds Council to solve it will not yield results we currently need.
- Israel: insufficient clarity of the system
- England: criteria defined by the Constitution
Institutions that meet the criteria before Euros can be accepted
Forming a committee – deciding upon the criteria for new institutions (lack of clarity)
if you want to be a part of the committee please contact me (Jonathan Leader Maynard)
- For at the moment – redistribution of the countries in the regions?
- Branka: importance of taking care of underdeveloped regions
Importance of regions developing among themselves
The idea of the European Continental League
- Russia: importance of promoting debate in the region
Officers – duties?
- England: expansion of the model applied during championships – president, vice-president,
- Jens: Russia will you accept the role in this change?
- Russia: Yes (Eugene Akulich)
5) election of new WUDC executive
- Scotland: election of the Chair, Registrar, Secretary...
Who chairs which Council and how do they operate?
- England: voting upon officers – inform people before the elections
- Ireland: question of cutting teams – institution cap going down? Should it remain as now?
6) registration system
- new registration system proposed by Amsterdam
- loads of teams interested in participating in Euros (registrations exceeds team cap - 200)
- waiting lists – non practical (cheaper flights)
Solution – early payments – registration opens March 1st and is open for 48 hours
Payment deadline – 2 weeks
1. Criteria 1 - institutions present at past Euros – number of guaranteed places
2. Criteria 2 – every country gets a team
3. Criteria 3 – principle of lottery
- small institutions get greater chances to send at least one team
- Branka: the idea of registration different than the one presented in the bid – requires
Is it possible to be done?
Is it allowed?
Is it in the discretion of the Council deciding upon?
- Ireland: the idea should have been earlier presented before the Council
- Slovenia: is it a system of fairness? is the principle of lottery based on equal chances when is
Applied among the institutions which at first place got fewer teams?
- England: is the principle of first come-first served fair?
The system requires organization among the institutions – distinction among the
- Germany: clarifying the principle of lottery
- Austria: lottery as a possibility of picking teams from not recognized institutions
- Ireland: solution in cutting the time between the registration and the payment – enforcing
- Turkey: necessary to discuss the registration system at EUDC Council
Principle of lottery – fairness?
- Scotland: new registration system necessary but this one doesn't solve problems
- England: necessary to ensure places for recognized institutions
Measures considering payments, deadlines
- Croatia: timing of the proposal – registration starts in few weeks
Big event for small institutions – not deciding upon it the last moment
- Ukraine: take into consideration to reduce the number of guaranteed places from 3 to 2
- Amsterdam (decision)– doing early payments, old registration system, solving the problem of waiting list until the end of March
- Jens: thanks to Amsterdam for the effort put into designing a new registration system
- Anne: enough funding for Euros
Question of duration – 5 or 6 days?
- Ireland: inviting in Amsterdam countries biding in 2012.
- Can Okar: problem of keeping a team for 2 years
- England: giving two year bids doesn't mean better bids
- Turkey: two year bids – problem with finding and keeping funding, teams...
Minutes – European Universities Debating Council
Newcastle 2009 9:00 am on the 5th of August 2009
(Adjourned at 12:25)
Council president: Špela Kunej (University of Ljubljana)
Council registrar: Špela Kranjc (University of Ljubljana)
Council vice-presidents: ??
Country representatives: ??
Topic 1: Presentation of the Amsterdam Bid for EUDC 2010
Presented by Anne Walkering (proposed Convener)
- Preparations for the bid started in January 2008
- The bid includes participation of debate institutions from all over Holland
- Org comm.’s previous experience includes: hosting Amsterdam Open, a yearly tournament
with around 80 teams, this means a lot of experienced volunteers
- why: to promote debating in Holland
- proposed dates: 11.-16th to July 2010 – org comm. Is aware that in some countries i.e. Wales
that is still a graduation period; however these dates are the easiest from the point of hotel
- Registration fee: 250 Euros, (org comm.: we can't promise a lower registration, but will try)
- Accommodation: two Best Western hotels, 20 minutes away from hotel, buses will be provided.
- Food proided by Vrije University, halal, vegetarian, kosher will be catered for as well as for
people with allergies.
CA team: Leela Koenig, Jonathan Leader Maynard, Ross Reid McGuire, Doug Cochran
Branka Marušić (Croatia): due to the exams still being held in Croatia and some other countries in my region I suggest that Euros be held a week later.
Gregg O'Neill (Ireland): Considering the Newcastle experience it might be a good idea to lower the number of teams, for example cap it at 170, so that big institutions don't fill up the tab in the end.
Anne Walkering: We will try to make it a week later, we can cancel rooms, and we are erring on the side of caution, so we should be able to save the money on our existing budget allocations. 38.500 we already have plus a guarantee. There is 5000 euros set aside to fly in the judges, and waving registration fees.
Hanna (Newcastle EUDC Org. comm.): we managed to find only 1500 pounds in sponsorship; it was very hard for us.
Topic 2: The number of open feedback rounds
Raised by Gregg O'Neill (Ireland)
The decision on the number of open rounds that were held at the Newcastle Euros, which was reached by a popular vote, was problematic. Especially that only the last pre-elimination round was closed, that in turn had a negative effect on the competition. The negative result was especially problematic in rooms where ‘’alive’’ ESL teams were debating against ‘’dead’’ EFL teams.
Jonathan Leader Maynard (England): The decision should be a policy, so as not to unfairly bind future organizers of the EUDC.
We have a year to make it a constitutional thing.
Council recommendation: The EUDC Council encourages future CA teams to have at least two rounds of closed adjudication.
England, Ireland second: 16 in favor.
Topic 3. Eligibility of institutions to participate at the EUDC
This could be best done by a separate commission of the Council. Jonathan Leader Maynard: I would be happy to do it; anyone interested can volunteer to be on the commission with me.
The motion: Commission for the review of the eligibility criteria should be set up and we appoint Jonathan Leader Maynard as its chair person.
Topic 4. Preliminary financial report of the 2009 EUDC
Presented by Oskar Avery
We predict that we will break even. We are covered by the University and the Union and it will come back. We will email further details to the delegates.
Tallinn EUDC 2009 Financial report
Presented by Uve Poom
The budget was 200.000 Euros; we ended up with the surplus of 1500 Euros. Breakdown of costs: 95.000 accommodation, 37.00 catering, entertainment and venues: 55.000, logistics 7500, marketing, judges and awards 24.000. Prints and goodies: 3500
Participation fees 94.000, City of Tallinn 10.800, gambling tax, foundation 32.000, EU Youth, 38.000, European commission: 9600, Nordic council of ministers, 1300, Nokia 10.000, under sponsors 10.000. We spent the surplus on our volunteers.
Branka Marušič (Croatia): surplus should be spent on debaters not on org comm. Uve: the surplus was our buffer money for inconceivable costs; it was hard to allocate it before the end of the tournament. Rinat Gershfeld (Israel): why was the money not spent on food, which was bad at Tallinn? We had to decide how to spend the money, we lacked some money and we decided to drop some of the meals.
Marketing: we did spend a fair amount of money, it had to be accessible to the public, socially beneficial- people need to know about the event.
England: move to close this debate, further issues can be addressed directly after council.
Topic 6. Report of the ESL Committee
Presented by Jens Fischer
- there should be more research. Difference exists between Worlds criteria and Euros. We tried to come up with the new rules, but we are bound by previous council decisions
- first problem: working experience should be worked into the collective experience
- second problem: how to qualify different education in the English language: between the education in an English speaking education, and education in the ESL country. ESL country education should be discounted 50%
- discretion on deciding the kind of relevance
- JLM: once you make the main break you should not be allocated ESL status in subsequent tournament.
- Previous Euros have allowed you to come back as an ESL team.
Anne, ESL committee will put the guidelines into good language.
Ireland: committee should have a little more of discretion. Jens: Discretion is a Pandora’s Box.
Sonya Milanova (CZ) proposing the motion that the EUDC endorses the recommendations of the Newcastle Euros 2009 ESL committee and urges WUDC to act upon these proposals.
Topic 7: EUDC bidding voting two years early...so that there is enough time for finances.
The council supports anyone that would like to start bidding two years before. Newcastle Org. comm. supports such a decision as it might make funding easier.
Topic 8. Fragmentation of the Central and Eastern Europe region
By Branka Marušić
- The region now has as many as 27 countries
- constitution needs to be revised to take some of the burden of the region’s VP
- Two propositions: Central Europe CET + Romania and Bulgaria – Poland or Eastern Europe EET – Romania and Bulgaria + Poland
(Jens Fischer) Germany, there is no need. Adrian Andrigga (NL) I agree there is no need.
Topic 9. Equity report
By Jens Fisher and Simone Van Elk
We are happy to report that there were no equity violations.
Raised by Anne Valkering
Registration fills up very quickly, ESL might be problematic. We have a proposal. Variety of institutions/variety of countries is up to the org com. We do have the one country place reserved policy.
England: Do not reduce the institutional team cap, very wide opposition on the WUDC.
Ireland: Euros are the most Worlds like, and we should keep it that way.
2010 Council elections and appointments:
Council president: Jens Fischer
Council registrar: Branka Marušić
Council Vice Presidents:
(Only two were announced by their region at Council, other regions will subsequently notify the registrar with the decisions)
Central and Eastern Europe (C&E): Milan Vignjevic
Northern and Western Europe (N&W): Adriaan Andringa
- Verification of the minutes
ESL Status a) Review of the ESL status b) ESL speakers in the main break teams
a) Review of the ESL status
b) ESL speakers tab
- Inclusion of ESL speakers which are in a main break team in the ESL speaker tab
- Unanimously voted on
Short presentation of BIDS
a) Wales – resolution narrowly passed, Wales became a member of the EUDC Council, situated in IONA region
b) EFL change into ENL
1. Istanbul report
2. Tallinn preliminary report
4. Responsibilities of the committee- is the President and or other members of the Committee entitled to give letters of support to prospective bidders and institutions
- Unanimously supported, President of the EUDC Council and other members of the Committee with the Presidents approval are entitled to give letters of support to prospective bidders and institutions for tournaments
6. Committee reports
7. Other business
Proposed amnedmants to the Constitution in regards of the Secretry and Registrar.
- Currently the article 8 states
(1) The Registrar to the Council shall be appointed by the Council, and such appointment shall give due consideration to the necessity of preserving continuity in the membership of the Council;
(2) The Registrar may appoint a proxy to act on his behalf;
(3) The Council shall appoint a Secretary of the Committee or a designate in his/her absence.
In Article 7 section 4 , the duties of a Secretry have been listed , yet no mention of Secretary (ie. Its standings) are mentioned afterwards.
(4) Every delegate shall provide the Secretary with notice of his appointment, a home telephone number and address, an e-mail address and an alternative contact number and address if home details do not relate to permanent residence. This information shall be provided within 24 hours of appointment of the delegate or, in the case of an appointment not taking place during a Round of the Championship, within two weeks of appointment. The Secretary shall furnish a list of all the information provided under this paragraph to all delegates within two weeks of the end of the Round for which he is responsible; A delegate may resign from office only by appointing his successor in writing; A delegate shall hold office until his successor takes office; Delegates shall take office immediately upon appointment; Each delegate member of Council shall be entitled to cast one vote on every substantive motion placed before the Council; Every substantive motion placed before the Council shall be decided by majority vote; The President shall not have a vote on any substantive motion placed before the Council, save on the event that the number of votes cast for and against the motion are equal, in which case he shall exercise a casting vote; The Vice Presidents, Registrar and Conveners shall not have a vote on any substantive motion placed before the council. This section shall not prevent any member of the Committee who is also a delegate from casting his vote as a delegate; Where there is placed before the Council a substantive motion which proposes amendment to this Constitution, such a motion shall not be carried unless it gains support of at least two-thirds of the delegates;
This is being modeled on the WUDC Constitution' s Article 5The council shall consist of the following members:
- The Chairperson of the Executive Organising Committee (who does not have a vote) or a designate in his/her absence.
- Delegates, who shall be appointed in accordance with Article 7
- The Chair of the Committee (under Article 28 who does not have a vote) or a designate in his/her absence;
- The Registrar of the Committee (who does not have a vote) or a designate in his/her absence;
- The Secretary of the Committee (who does not have a vote) or a designate in his/her absence
- The Chair of the Executive Organising Committee of the next host university (who does not have a vote) or a designate in his/her absence.
Also where apprpriate adding the Secretary in the Constitution. The Current articles: Article 5 , Article 7 paragraph 4 after word Convenors in a phraze „The Vice Presidents, Registrar and Conveners shall not have a vote on any substantive motion placed before the council“, Article 19 add f) The Secretary of the Committee.
Constitutional Changes Regarding Eligibility
“institution” means any university, college or other institution of further education awarding degrees or other qualifications as recognised by the laws of the country in which the aforesaid are situated;
“institution” means any academic body or other debating organisation authorised to send teams to participate at the Championships under Article 22 of this Constitution
“academic body” means any university, college or other institution of further education awarding degrees or other qualifications as recognised by the laws of the country in which the aforesaid are situated;
(1) During the academic year of the competition, competitors shall represent the institution at which they pursue at least half of their courses toward a particular degree or qualification and must be recognised as bona fide students of that institution by the body regulating the award of such degrees or qualitications in the country of the institution that they represent or, in the absence of such body, by the government thereof.
(2) Competitors shall be recognised by their institution’s debating society or equivalent, or in the absence of such a body by the institution’s administration.
(3) Documented evidence of the participants student status should be received by the host nation prior to commencement of the Championships. Registration shall be considered incomplete until such evidence is received.
(4) Competitors must be enrolled students and must be attending classes or pursuing research at doctoral or pre-doctoral level in the institution which they represent on the last day of term preceding the competition.
(5) In the event of any controversy regarding the interpretation of this Article, the organisers of the Championship shall give particular consideration to the recommendation of the president (or equivalent) of the competent national debating body (if applicable).
(1) Competitors must be enrolled students and must be attending classes or pursuing research at doctoral or pre-doctoral level in the academic body which they or their institution represents on the last day of term preceding the competition and must be recognised full members of their institution.
(2) All competitors should bring proof of their institutional membership to the Championships and must produce such proof of membership if requested by the Organisation Committee of the current Championships or by the Council.
(3) An institution may send competitors to the Championships under any of the following conditions:
i. It sent competitors, who appeared alongside its name in the final tabulated results, to any European Universities Debating Championships from 2006-2009 (see Schedule B).
ii. It is the sole organisation within an academic body through which debating is structured, and it’s membership are not eligible to compete for any other institution already recognised as eligible by the Constitution, and it is ratified by a meeting of Pre-Council at the current Championship (see Schedule B).
iii. It has been recognised as eligible by a majority vote of the Council under Article 22.3 at a meeting of the Council subsequent to Newcastle EUDC 2009 and at least two weeks prior to the current Championship (see Schedule B).
(4) Institutions that do not meet the eligibility conditions laid out by Article 22.3.1, 22.3.2 or 22.3.3 may be recognised as eligible by a majority vote of the Council on the basis that they are:
i. Organisations that are the sole providers of debating within an academic body, such as society, union and other debate organization
ii. Organisations within a single municipal area which are the sole providers of debating opportunities to members of academic bodies within that area.
(5) It is expected that all eligible institutions shall have fixed membership rules that define what students or academic bodies constitute that institution, and that these rules should be relatively unchanging over time. Institutions which Council deems are not sending competitors in good faith, shall be censured by a majority vote of Council, and may have their eligibility suspended for a finite period or permanently by a 2/3 majority vote of council. Such suspension should be recorded in Schedule B of the constitution, together with the date (if any) on which eligibility shall be restored. Permanent suspension of eligibility may be overturned by a 2/3 majority vote of council.
(6) In the event of any controversy regarding the interpretation of this Article, the organisers of the Championship shall give particular consideration to the recommendation of the president (or equivalent) of the competent national debating body (if applicable).
(7) An institution cannot be eligible if it is not based in a country deemed eligible under Article 24. This requirement overrides Articles 22.3 and 22.4.
“Composite teams may not be eligible for any ‘break’ at the Championships, unless by a specific ruling of the Council.”