From gregachten at berkeley.edu Mon Dec 1 16:13:40 2008 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:13:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CEDA-L] Cal Debate Tournament Information Message-ID: <1521.128.32.51.229.1228169620.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> Greetings, Our tournament is rapidly approaching and there are a couple of things I wanted to share with people. First, please make your hotel reservations as soon as possible. Our block does not expire until January 5, but it is relatively close to filling up. The hotel is the Oakland City Center Marriott. Keep in mind this is a different tournament hotel than years past, but it is the hotel we will use for the NDT and CEDA in 2010 so this will give you a chance to scope out the venue and more importantly give them a chance to figure out if they need to upgrade their wireless network for our group. I have managed to secure a tournament rate of $117 per night for up to 4 people per room.You can make reservations now by calling1-888-236-2427 and asking for the Cal National Debate Tournament rate. Wireless internet is free for all attendees, but there is charge of $26 per night for parking. Second, if you want to purchase a parking permit for use on campus on Saturday and Sunday, please let me know now, so that I can place the order with our parking office. The permits are $20 per car for the weekend. If you have any questions please let me know. Best, Greg From stables at usc.edu Tue Dec 2 19:46:49 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:46:49 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] FW: Day Care For CEDA Nationals? Message-ID: <00f601c954e9$01e83c80$05b8b580$@edu> From: Sarah Partlow [mailto:sarahtp73 at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 5:47 PM To: Gordon Stables Cc: edebate Subject: Day Care For CEDA Nationals? Gordon - could you post this to CEDA-L? Hello everyone! As we are making arrangments for CEDA nationals, we would like to know if you are planning to bring your child and if you are interested in childcare. Please let me know as soon as possible so that we can make appropriate arrangements. Please include your name age, and any special needs. Thanks, Sarah PartlowLefevre Idaho State Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081202/cd97f1d2/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Dec 4 21:38:31 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:38:31 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Miami Message-ID: <6EDC385DFC3841C7AA64DB328B785C3C@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Miami Sanders Invitational Debate Tournament. Starts:1/9/2009 Ends:1/11/2009 Hosted by: Miami Contact: Marcy Halpin Address: 157d Bachelor Hall, Oxford OH 45056 Phone: 513-529-3050 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Junior Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From hansonjb at whitman.edu Fri Dec 5 21:51:38 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:51:38 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] help me contact these schools . . . Message-ID: <2F6EF8A9761F461D9C507DABCA7CFB7D@whitman.edu> if you are the director or know the director's email address--please email me. I need to know the director's first and last name and email address. this is for the ndt rankings. LIST 1 East Los Angeles College Folsom Lake College Fordham University Houston (Univeristy of) Louisiana-Lafayette Modesto Junior College Rutgers South Florida St. Pete Southern Methodist Univ. UCLA Wilkes University Wisconsin Oshkosh LIST 2 appalachian state augustana college (illinois) case western reserve denver university florida state university u massachusetts georgia state (joe bellon email not working) northwestern u. iowa (david's email not working) jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sat Dec 6 23:16:25 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:16:25 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] south florida state, fordham university Message-ID: <7B739FEDF3C64A689FCA8C4DC2A75CB3@whitman.edu> hi all thanks to everyone for their help. I now need just two schools--south florida state and fordham university. if you know the director/contact person and email address for these schools--please email me. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From davismk13 at gmail.com Tue Dec 9 11:20:08 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:20:08 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Commonwealth Swing - Please enter Message-ID: <9a7f6f740812090920t1f17c3a6v9bbda1e06edad1ae@mail.gmail.com> Several teams that entered already have asked if we expect more entries. So we are asking that those teams that plan on attending enter a "tentative" list of team you will be bringing by Friday. Even if you only have estimates it would certainly help with the planning. Thanks! -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From shahall at comcast.net Wed Dec 10 05:34:45 2008 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:34:45 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Harvard High School Tournament Message-ID: <006301c95abb$4d0f43c0$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> The entry system for the 35th Annual Harvard National High School Speech and Debate Tournament is now enabled. You can log into the tournament site, www.harvard-debate.org, to create your account and enter your students. We look forward to seeing you in February! Sherry Hall and Dallas Perkins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081210/bb7d7f33/attachment.htm From louden at wfu.edu Wed Dec 10 14:05:18 2008 From: louden at wfu.edu (louden) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:05:18 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Calll for Developmental Debate Conference - June 2008 - WFU Message-ID: <494020FE.9000803@wfu.edu> *A Debate Summit and Development Conference* * * /Sponsored by/ / / American Forensics Association (AFA) National Debate Tournament (NDT) Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) American Debate Association (ADA) /at/ Wake Forest University . Winston-Salem, NC *June 5-7, 2009*, following the CEDA Summer Meetings (June 2-5) at WFU The initiative for a national development conference for policy debate emerged from the National Debate Tournament (NDT) Board of Trustees through conversations with the NDT Committee and the leadership of the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA). This conference will mark the third national development conference for intercollegiate debate in the last half century. Previously, college debate educators have convened in Sedalia, CO at the Sedalia Retreat House in 1974 and in Evanston, IL at Northwestern University in 1984. The conference is a forum for active coaches and directors to examine commonality on a host of issues related to intercollegiate policy debate and the coaching profession. One of the primary goals of the conference is to draft and publish a "State of the Debate Vocation" which addresses the following themes: ? Professional Development, Research, and Advancement ? Innovation, Practice, and the State of the Art ? Community and Organization Building ? The Rationale and Agenda for Policy Debate in the 21^st Century A productive conference will require the energetic participation of all members of the debate community---present and past---who find virtue in the power of a debate education. If you are interested in chairing or serving as a member of the working groups which emerge from these themes send an email of self nomination to debatesummit at gmail.com by January 15^th , 2008. /Conference Director/ Allan D. Louden, Wake Forest University /Steering Committee/ Timothy O'Donnell, University of Mary Washington (co-chair) Gordon Stables, University of Southern California (co-chair) Gordon Mitchell, University of Pittsburgh Sue Peterson, California State University, Chico Jeffrey Jarman, Wichita State University /Distinguished Advisory Committee/ Robin Rowland, University of Kansas Thomas Hollihan, University of Southern California David Zarefsky, Northwestern University -- Allan Louden, Dir. of Graduate Studies, Communication Wake Forest University Box 7347, Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109 (336) 758-5408 (Office) (336) 406-8451 (Cell) http://www.wfu.edu/communication/ www.wfu.edu/~louden www.debatescoop.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081210/5d2867a1/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Dec 11 14:11:03 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:11:03 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Johnson County Message-ID: <817673AB23634647810894A84EF67BF6@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:National Junior Division Debate Tournament (NJDDT) Starts:3/14/2009 Ends:3/16/2009 Hosted by: Johnson County Contact: Terri Easley Address: 12345 College Blvd., Box 36, Overland Park KS 66210 Phone: 214-783-7953 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: JV with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Novice with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Dec 11 14:59:43 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:59:43 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Wyoming Message-ID: Name:District 9 Qualifier at Denver University Starts:2/23/2009 Ends:2/24/2009 Hosted by: Wyoming Contact: Matt Stannard Address: Dept. 3904, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071-3904 Phone: 307-399-2315 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Qualifier with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Dec 11 22:46:50 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:46:50 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Leaked:Scott E's Draft 2nd VP Statement(s) Message-ID: <1229057210.4941ecbaee3e5@webmail.grandecom.net> FROM: Karl Rove, Fox News, Karl Rove & Associates, Political Consulting, P.C. TO: Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. Director of Debate, UL-Lafayette RE: Regarding revisions to your 2nd Vice President CEDA Statement Dear Scott: Thank you for your ?contribution? to our ?Palin in ?12? fund. In gratitude, I have taken the time to make a few edits to your draft 2nd V.P. of CEDA nomination statement. Enclosed are our recommended statement (Att.1) and your original statement draft (Att.2) for comparison. We suggest you delete your original draft and purge your hard drive, as well as all e-mails regarding this. We kept the introduction. It was good. But we made a few changes. Using the current Obama ?delusional thinking wins, we can govern realistically after the election? model, we believe the following V.P. statement will appeal to the demographics of current CEDA members and should secure your election to the position. Just remember who your real friends are when you achieve the awesome power of the CEDA Presidency. Regards, Karl. Attachment1. Revised 2nd V.P. Statement of Scott M. Elliott Dear Directors of CEDA Programs: I remember 9-11. It is with heartfelt gratitude and an effusion of love and caring that I humbly accept this nomination for the 2nd Vice President of CEDA. I want to express my love for Jason Russell, Andy Ellis, Mike Davis, and Vic Keenan as we journey together to determine the future of this organization. All of my colleagues are qualified to be the Vice President, and eventual President of CEDA. I call them colleagues rather than opponents because; like the Great Spirit, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, and L. Ron Hubbard; I only see companions with differing opinions on this long vision quest of life. We have no enemies, just people who have not traveled down our path. One part of my life has been CEDA and debate in general. I began debating in CEDA in 1984. Did pretty well for a regional school with no real coach. I went on to coach at Florida State University. I am old enough to realize that, yes, Jeff Jarman really did defeat my team in the CEDA final round on a righteous decision; because I too now realize that CEDA is good in all respects. After obtaining my Ph.D. in Communication Theory and Research, I became the Director of Debate at Southeastern Louisiana University for six years. After earning tenure, I left academia to take a law fellowship at the University of Texas School of Law. I worked as an attorney for five years before returning to Louisiana in an effort to rebuild policy debate on both the collegiate and high school level. I have been involved in CEDA debate at one level or another for over twenty years. I believe that my background and qualifications at least match the qualifications of my fellow Vice Presidential Spirit Travelers. One of the areas in which I have been active has been a secret until now?I have been serving as a professional ?contrarian? for CEDA. Much like Snape?s relationship with Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series; Tuna Schnieder and I agreed more than a decade ago that CEDA needed a secret protector. That person would often have to bear the brunt of criticisms in order to serve his higher purpose, to provoke controversy. I have not taken the job lightly, though it has often caused me great pain and anguish. Many a tear has been shed in my service to CEDA as a Socratic gadfly. But, for the sake of the Community, I try to hide the pain. Once the controversy within CEDA was sparked, I would fade into the background while those within CEDA would explain to the members the righteousness of CEDA?s decisions. I think I succeeded by serving as a point of departure; by creating a demonic image of the Other; and solidifying support for CEDA during times of trouble. It is only through ostracization that a tribe can become one again. Now that the powers in charge (All Hail the NDT!) have decided to allow me to advance within CEDA, let me offer my real views of this Association of great people. I agree with Jason, Andy and Mike on all of their positions. I will agree with Vic, even if she does not put out a statement. In fact, her non-statement is perhaps the best statement of all?namely, that there are no real problems within CEDA. Nothing needs to be said. However, out of a deep sense of obligation towards my brothers, sisters, and transgenders in the debate community, I feel I should write some type of statement of how I feel because feelings count! And, while everything is perfect within CEDA, I want to be the 2nd V.P. nominee for change. My platform is ?hopeful and stable change.? My vision is for change that brings hope to all within the policy debate community. Hopefully, the change will change how people outside our family, our ?House of Reason,? see us. They will see us as we currently see ourselves--perfection misunderstood--but hopeful to change the misperceptions of others. That, my colleagues, is my hopeful vision for true change a change that reifies all that is good within us as well as our organization. I feel CEDA is awesome! I have hope that as we continue forward into the 21st Century, we can continue the expansion of policy debate. I hope that we can continue to serve as models of eloquence, intense policy and critical research, and professionalism throughout the academic world. It is obvious that American Exceptionalism, the notion that America has a special moral power and subsequent duty, is a farce. But I also know that there really is one true form of exceptionalism American policy debate. What we do is intellectually and morally superior to all other forms of debate. We just need to explain it to the unwashed masses a little better. I accept the challenge with the moral certainty of a President ready to win the War on Terrorism. Remember 9-11. We can win this PR War without violence. We can have Peace through Public Relations. PR solves all problems. Capitalism is bad. I have hope that one day CEDA Nationals can one day meet the standards of the NDT so that we can have the NDT first-seeds bless us with their presence at Nationals. I am audaciously hopeful that we can heal the wounds brought upon us by a cruel and unfair media. I think, if we all hope together, we can publicly relate to everyone, including school administrators. If we can do better public relations, we can heal all wounds. If we just market ourselves at little better, we will see CEDA continue to grow at the staggering levels it has achieved sense our glorious merger with the NDT. With love and hope for positive, yet stable, change, I humbly ask for your vote. Scott M. Elliott Attachment Two: Scott?s Original, unedited 2nd Vice Presidential Statement [Not for publication] Dear Directors of CEDA Programs: It is with great reluctance that I accept the nomination for Second Vice President of the Cross Examination Debate Association. At first I thought the nomination was a joke. But then I saw the slate of other nominees: Jason Russell, Andy Ellis, Mike Davis, and Vic Keenan. I realized that CEDA is obviously in a state of leadership crisis (or will be when one of these actually become President) and sometimes the membership has to choose the least bad option. Folks, I am that option. Sometimes in an election, we want to vote ?none of the above.? Well, I am none of the above. Unlike Jason Russell?s McCainesque attempt (i.e. too politically correct to create a winnable strategy), let me be the first to do some real negative campaigning. (This critique stuff is fun!) First, let?s look at qualifications ..Hey wait a fricking minute! CEDA has NO real qualifications to become 2nd Vice President. No, really. You could nominate your dog. Often, it could only do less damage. In lieu of an actual guideline or (heaven forbid!) a minimum standard, may I suggest the following minimum standard: that the 2nd Vice President must be a Director of Debate at an accredited college or university. CEDA is an Association of Directors of Debate and Debate Institutions. It is not merely a place for people who used to debate, or have nothing better to do. While this insurmountable and clearly racist entrance barrier does allow Jim Brey to create the University of Phoenix debate program in order to restart his CEDA political career, it also serves to bar some of my opponents from consideration. Andy Ellis is not a Director of Debate at any university or college. Jason Russell is merely a graduate student. On top of that, he is a graduate student at Oklahoma. If he were at Texas, I would not raise the issue. However, I?d hate to have to teleconference the CEDA business meetings from the Tulsa homeless shelter in two years. On the other hand, I?in true Louisiana fashion?meet the minimum standard. Contrary to popular belief, Louisiana really is a state and the University of Louisiana is a nationally accredited university. I really am allowed by government authorities to teach (infect/manipulate) the youth of Louisiana and allowed to direct a competitive CEDA debate program. It is both scary and hopeful at the same time. I am sure Jason sees this as a sign of hope that apparently anyone can get a job in debate. Just disregard the little things like a Ph.D. and J.D. in hand, and we are on equal footing. We are in a Pathological Period for Two Reasons: (1) Our membership is still horribly low; and (2) CEDA Public image is in tatters. Jason and Andy come to the warm and fuzzy conclusion(s) that ?CEDA has done an exceptional job since the merger? (Andy); ?I agree with Russell, I don't think debate is in trouble. I actually love what we do and am not afraid to take on anyone who disparages us. (Andy);? and ?CEDA is not on the ropes? (Jason). With all due respect to them and to the people that have tried for over a decade to pull us out of this debacle, I must for the first time openly and publicly call bullhockey. Jason?s and Andy?s delusional thinking on this issue is similar to Oklahoma?s belief that it really is better than Texas, and more deserving of a BCS National Championship match-up with Florida. It is the same type of delusional thinking that makes Oklahoma think it can actually beat University of Florida in the title game (nice pandering for votes, eh?!). It is this type of delusional thinking that allows James Madison and Emory University students to believe they are part of the Ivy League. It is this type of delusional thinking that makes Towson think it won a ?real? national debate championship (going for the NDT cross-over vote on this one!). All joking aside (except that Texas really does deserve to be in the BCS title game), CEDA has not done an exceptional job since the merger. Debaters do not understand this. You whippersnappers out there simply do not understand all the turmoil that CEDA has undergone since members of the NDT invoked a rather simple Jedi mind-trick on the weak minded CEDA hierarchy in the early 1990s. It is almost laughable now that we see it from hindsight and that nobody saw it coming?oh, wait, I saw it coming and was bitching about it all the way down to the CEDA vote on the merger. I will not rehash the history of CEDA?the glory days of Jack Howe, when Josh Hoe was a ?powerhouse? debater, when Greg Achten was a Speedo model, etc.?but I will relate to you a discussion I had with one of my sophomore debaters this semester. She asked me why do we have to travel a minimum TEN HOURS to get to a single CEDA tournament. That?s right, it takes us ten hours to make it to our closest tournament?in Dallas, Texas. When I told her the reality of CEDA, she was pissed-off. Here is the reality in 1990-1993, there were at least ten CEDA programs in Louisiana. Some years there were 12 programs within our state because Tulane and Xavier would field a team or two. When I was coaching at Southeastern Louisiana University, we could travel to six to eight tournaments per year within our own state. Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, La. won the CEDA National Sweepstakes Championship. My little program was ranked in the top twenty for a while. By the year 2006, there were ZERO CEDA or NDT programs in the State of Louisiana. Let me repeat that for the dense?that is a 100% decrease in CEDA membership. This is just one example of the larger problem and why I continue to complain about CEDA. It is not an overstatement to say that post-merger, CEDA lost 2/3 of its membership. The only organizations that have a business model similar to CEDA are GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Of course, Jason, Andy, the current CEDA hierarchy, and the NDT Illuminati will tell all of you that membership in CEDA is growing. They are correct. It is growing. Darren Elliott, Gordon Stables, Jeff Jarman, Sue Peterson, M.L. Sandoz, Dave Steinberg, (even Jason, Andy, Mike Davis and Vic Keenan) and the other members of this Association have worked their butts off (Darren still has some more junk in his trunk to work off) to stop the diminishment of our numbers post-merger. But, guess what? Ford Motor Company presented graphs to Congress this week showing there is an upsurge in Ford SUV sales. You and I will each be paying about $5,000 each of real money in order to support this form of accounting. If you lose 2/3 of your customer base over a 15-year period, any stabilization or new customer appears to be a huge upswing in sales. In other words, just because CEDA has gathered in 10 or 20 new programs over the past five years does not wipe out the loss of a hundred to two hundred programs that decided CEDA?s business model was no longer appropriate for their students and their programs. CEDA, and policy debate in general, has a horrible public relations problem. Personally, I blame it on the horrible debate topics that Mancuso forces on us every year at the CEDA topic meeting. I want to physically attend a CEDA Topic meeting to see how the NDT Sith Lords use their powers of mind control to craft exceedingly bad topics but I digress (Exhibit 1., ?eliminate at least nearly all subsidies ?). Others, however, may choose to blame factors such as directors of programs mooning the public; virtual and/or real violence in rounds; lack of decorum/civility in general; post-modernism; speed (both the drug and the delivery style); and no prayer in schools. Well, let me lay out the facts as I see them. It is flat out embarrassing to watch many debate rounds nowadays. Those of you that are Directors of Debate (not students, not graduate students, or former debaters but Directors of Debate, those who have to defend their budgets, their programs, and their careers) know exactly what I am talking about. I think we are extremely lucky that the worst thing that has made it into the popular press about our activity was a mooning incident. Regardless of what Jason thinks, many of the things that we allow to occur in debate rounds are simply indefensible. Should I detail the ones that I know of personally, or should I just be able to obtain a gentleperson?s agreement that this is true? Because, if not, I would love to see how these vague appeals for better public relations handle the reality/nightmare of a pointed series of questions from journalists, or worse, attorneys. Just ask the current CEDA administration how they felt dealing with one incident. [Deleted details and examples.] Many of my colleagues just do not seem to get it. We all agree that 99% of the behavior that we have within CEDA is defensible. I can and do defend speedy speaking. I can and do defend alternative interpretations of the resolution and alternative means of argumentation. However, there is no reason why the Association should have to defend behaviors that place students, programs and the Association at existential risk. Among other Debate Organizations?Nationally and Internationally--policy debate is viewed as an anachronism and childish at best, and a dangerous cancer to intellectual inquiry at worst. Look, when a Parli debate coach kicks our collective ass in a national Op-Ed, and we have no real response, we are defenseless. When Tuna Schnieder has to be our only defense of policy debate on the international level, I think we can all agree that policy debate?s public relations are in the toilet. Wrapping ourselves in our intellectual elitism, post-modern smugness, and insularity is not enough. I agree with Jason, Mike, and Andy that we need to do better public relations. But their vague appeals are reminiscent of Obama?s appeals for ?hope.? I think we all now see what happens when ?hope? meets reality. How?s that post-election ?Liberal Agenda? working out for all of you? Appeals to ?we need to do some public relations? are going to blow up in our collective faces when we realize, as any person who has actually studies public relations and crisis management already knows, that some things cannot be solved through a slick ad campaign. Some problems require pro-active changes. I am for change. We need change. I am for hope. In fact I am audaciously hopeful. Rather than some vague appeals, let me give you some concrete proposals that I will, as 2nd Vice President, strive to put onto the CEDA business agenda. I am not saying I will get them passed, I am saying I will put them out there for discussion and vote by the membership. If accepted, I will work as hard as I can to implement them. Some of these are ?pie in the sky? ideas. Some are going to tick a lot of you off because they are so good you wish you would have thought of them, or you hate the messenger (Sniff!): 1. We need a CEDA alumni newsletter. This would involve gathering news stories and updates regarding former members of CEDA, publishing it, and distributing it both to the media, member institutions and media outlets. This is a huge undertaking. But, guess what Jason, Andy, Mike, and the rest of the CEDA/NDT Hierarchy? This is what you REALLY do if you want to really do Public Relations. You see there is a real difference between policy debaters and kritik debaters. K debaters want to wave the magic wand of ?uh, we need to do better PR.? A policy debater says, ?we need to do better PR?Plan: Start Publishing a CEDA Alumni Newsletter.? Now, I know this idea is going to be stolen by everyone because it is just that damn brilliant so, go ahead. But, just remember---who?s your daddy? 2. We need a REAL CEDA Public Relations/Media Packet produced by a real Public Relations Firm. I am not talking about some Communication Professor who took a photoshop seminar and a PR class five years ago. We have plenty of alumni who actually do Public Relations. They share our vision of debate. Why not put them to work. Is my memory wrong, or is Linda Collier?s husband (sorry if I offend anybody) some head of a big Public Relation?s firm? Jesus, does it take a rocket scientist to come up with this stuff? Hoping for good PR does not work paying professionals to develop good PR does. 3. We need a REAL CEDA Institutional Recruiting Packet and a real outreach program. Just like our response to 9-11, we need ?boots on the ground.? Why? To steal institutions away from other forensics associations and to bring in new programs. See above. 4. We need a Real Minority Recruiting Program. I am sick and tired of programs using racism in debate as a means to win rounds, but having little to no real effect on minority participation rates. Your ?in round? advocacy does nothing and is a waste of time. If you would stop pontificating for a moment and actually had a policy-making thought, realistic solutions may be possible: a. More official involvement between CEDA and UDL. Why doesn?t CEDA sponsor, or somehow officially identify with a UDL Nationals? b. Discounts for entry fees for minority students? Why not? c. Buddy programs?if you are an established program and you convince a HBCU to attend a CEDA Tournament, you get a reduction in your fees or in your CEDA Membership. d. A minority recruiting program award by CEDA 1. One for recruiting the most underrepresented students to their first CEDA tournament; 2. One for recruiting the most new debate programs; 3. CEDA member program doing work with UDLs. 5. Pass and Enforce a Professional Responsibility Amendment. I have discussed this in the past already. I actually cordially worked with other members of this organization on this issue (No, really! I work well with others. It kinda freaked them out.). My reasons are on the record. But every other person running should stake out a clear position. Jason has. I appreciate that. Jason is wrong. 6. A study, a real and painful study, of the programs/schools that left CEDA to answer all the conjecture of why CEDA?s business model failed in the late 1990?s. 7. A serious re-recruitment effort to bring those programs that left CEDA, back to the organization. 8. Have only one CEDA Sanctioned ?National Championship? for JV and Novice Debate. National Championship proliferation risks Middle-East instability. 9. Pay me and Dallas Perkins to sit at a hotel pool bar for a weekend to come up with decent, debatable, policy resolutions that don?t suck. We don?t even have to be at the same hotel. I will transcribe the proposed resolutions from our cocktail napkins and forward them to Jarman. Can it be any worse than the topic committee cluster____ we get every year? We have hope, change and bourbon on our side? What does the current topic selection process have to offer---inclusion? 10. An annual Festivus Presidential Address to be teleconferenced and stored on Youtube. The address will allow the President of CEDA to state all of the failures and disappointments he has seen throughout the year, including the failure to act, or general incompetence, of his/her fellow CEDA Officers and coaches in the Organization. Humiliation is often overlooked as a great motivator. 11. Abolish the Association. Sometimes an organization needs to call it quits when it has either failed in its mission, or has lost its way. A case can be made that only through a revolution can we create evidenced-based debate that serves a larger intercollegiate community. Before you say this is impossible, folks, remember CEDA started from just three or four schools calling bullshit to the NDT. It grew to have hundreds of participating programs. It was the NDT that was dying from lack of membership pre-merger, not the other way around. Realistically, I think there is enough value in CEDA to rebuild. But, I think the discussion should be had and I think members of the policy debate community need to rededicate themselves to CEDA. If the members choose to do so, I will sadly, but dutifully, work to wind down the organization. 12. Secession from the NDT. Yeah, I said it. Get over it. How to do it? Simplistic and painful?like a battlefield arm amputation or Gordon Stables? presentations at CEDA Business Meetings: The Association votes for a return to semester long topics and/or non-policy topics. Why? Well, (a) these topics we have been getting just suck. The current topic has been virtually exhausted since the third tournament. I bet that if we voted right now to debate a different topic that Ag subsidies, 80% of the debaters, directors and coaches would vote for change. (b) I am not a participant in the death march to the NDT, but I am damn sure a victim of it. Regional debate is virtually extinct after the January swings. All anyone wants to do anymore is to prep for the NDT district tournament. For what purpose I do not know? Here?s a hint folks if you did not get a first round bid, or cannot secure a second round bid to the NDT, you are deluding yourself. You ain?t gonna win but you will get a little ashtray for your $5,000.00 per two person team in expenses (entry fees, travel costs, judges, etc do the math). Yet, program after program has decided that the NDT District means everything to the detriment of regional debate. I say, at what cost? It is impossible to field any novices in the Spring Semester anymore. There are not enough regional tournaments, and the topic is too advanced by Spring to allow for their entry. (c) Last time a split from NDT occurred, there was an incredible increase in evidence based debate participation. Based on the number of former CEDA coaches in Parly, and the evolution of Parly, I see a severence of the relationship as a potential boon for CEDA and a chance to bring former programs back into the fold. Well, that?s my perspective of the morass we are in. Those are my proposals for hopeful, and real change. If you don?t like it or me, don?t vote for me. Its not like being President of CEDA gets you any government contract kickbacks in Illinois. I do care about policy debate, I do love the activity and people that know me realize that I am a hard worker dedicated to solving problems. Sincerely, Scott Elliott. From vikeenan at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 18:45:35 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:45:35 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] The 2AR: Vik Keenan's 2nd VP Candidate Statement Message-ID: Candidate Statement ? 2VP (Edebate/CEDA-L version) [Note: The only candidate who demonstrates knowledge of debate 101 ? it's advantageous to have the last word.] Clearly, we need more puppies in CEDA. If elected, Northeast region, I promise you puppies at Regionals/Districts this year. I promise all other Directors a general commitment to serve our community and try to improve our organization. If all you want is the attack-ads, skip to the bottom. The 2ndVP position is an opportunity to commit to steering the direction of CEDA over the next 5 years on the Executive Committee (2VP, 1VP, Pres, and two years as past President). Despite debate being an amazing experience and a unique educational opportunity with immeasurable benefits to its participants, our numbers are shrinking, our PR is limited, and our responsiveness is sometimes slow to the needs of our members. We need to change this. Our "institution" is what can improve. I am running for 2ndVP because I think I can contribute to improving how our organization serves the member institutions that we are here to support. There are a number of us doing exciting things with our programs related to social justice, public debate, education, etc, but we don't coordinate that knowledge. This means that much of that work is done alone, making it harder, and that much of that knowledge is lost. Finding ways to communicate, institutionalize, and expand what we are doing that works WITHOUT asking for excessive extra burdens on an already heavy workload would be one of my priorities as 2ndVP. I think there is a great deal of overlap in the field of nominees in what we are running for: program development, diversity in debate, a great national tournament, improving membership, expanding student and employment opportunities, and our general love of the activity. As it has been noted, it then becomes more important in this case to start discussing HOW we would approach the goals we want to achieve when so many of our objectives are in common. First, there are the simple implementations ? we lose good initiatives and good ideas all the time to simple forgetfulness or other prioritization. This is why we need to follow-through on the recently discussed ideas of creating an actual national position of Secretary and an official PR position with real support. I envision the Secretary position as giving us a more formal way to ensure that the ideas we discuss become the ideas we implement. It would create a regular mechanism of accountability as ideas are not simply brought-up and forgotten, but instead timelines and commitments are recorded in a way for public accountability. I envision the "Press" position as not simply being reactive, but being proactive in communicating our accomplishments and making us at the forefront of forensic leadership, and I recognize that this might require more "professional" assistance than we currently have. We don't need to apologize for who we are, but we do need to be able to articulate why what we are doing is good ? this is part of the fight. At most, these positions would require amending our governing documents, a process with which I have specific experience, and a record of follow-through, even when it is not necessarily my initiative. I would also seek to "update" past initiatives that I am aware of, such as simple alum networking using the database project from 2005, that have somehow been lost along the way. Second, program development and retention is already a priority for me. I have spent my entire career in debate in the process of creating new programs, first as a debater in a student created program, next as a volunteer in the first year of the NYUDL (and for 7 more years giving me ACTUAL experience on both working with diversity initiatives and why the UDLs should not be a tool of college debate), also as a coach at new high school in NYC, and currently as the Director at CUNY. I continue to coach in the N Y Coalition because of our specific commitment to new programs and new debaters, and have been excited by the debuts of Monmouth and Rutgers in the Northeast this semester. I applaud Mike's efforts on the Program Development Committee. I think he has identified several key steps on a national level that make the process of program development easier. However; I think that a great deal of the work actually occurs on the local level, and I think we need to re-envision the role of our local debate communities to assist in fostering new debate programs. I think on a national level CEDA needs to serve as a coordinator of these efforts. As we continue the current "redistricting" conversation, I think it is important to ask how our local representatives can bring back assistance to the programs that they are probably the most familiar with. I also think we need to begin targeting new program initiatives to create more local debate opportunities for programs like Scott's, who are geographically isolated. Our current program development relies on students or faculty creating a new program at their own instigation. Tied to the evolution of our PR efforts, we should ask how we can target specific institutions to support debate to both increase new programs and create more local debate opportunities for existing ones. I also think we need to focus more than we have on the flip side of the issue - program retention. We need to reexamine if the growing fiscal stability of CEDA as an organization would allow us to provide other kinds of support to programs in jeopardy. We need to identify the conditions at institutions that allow a program to survive past transitions in leadership. We need to coordinate our press efforts to incentivize supporting programs within academic institutions. We need to explore how we can overcome the trend of stagnant budgets in a world of increasing costs either by identifying ways to reduce costs, assisting in efforts to increase budgets, actively seeking out alternative models to stretch resources, or all of the above. I recognize that the issue of program development and retention does not have one single solution, and we need to be better at sharing the solutions we've come up with independently to assist each other. The issue of professional "standards" is also one facing our community. The current amendment for CEDA will be decided before any of us as candidates officially becomes 2VP. This could mean that we have no such governing document; it could mean we are charged with interpreting it as it stands [i.e.: In 2011 appointing members of the PRB]. If it does not pass, the result cannot be a choice to then ignore the conversation. First, our affiliate status with the AFA will tie us into their choices over the next year. We can take this opportunity to examine our relationship with the AFA, we can choose to be LEADERS in this effort, but we cannot pretend it will go away. It became very clear at NCA this year that this is a conversation occurring not about just us, but about all related forensics organizations. Secondly, we cannot hope to become an organization that better supports our coaches and colleagues as "professionals" without deciding what that means for us. And it has been clearly articulated that one of the factors at many institutions for program development or retention is providing the "professional" justification for those positions. This is also why I think a conversation about curriculum is good, but should not necessarily be a requirement. I do not think the role of our national body is to decide what debate is or should be ? that is not our mission as an association, nor our history (unlike the ADA, which takes further steps to identify the parameters of argument for its sanctioned tournaments). However; for individuals trying to begin or justify programs, having a place to start a "curriculum" conversation is useful. For coaches attempting demonstrate what debate can offer, and what specifically our kind of debate can offer, curriculum is the language of the department. I understand the pitfalls of curriculum guidelines that over-restrict approaches and content ? it was my greatest frustration as a high school teacher for eight years. But is just as frustrating to have nothing to start from, or no common language to convey why what you do is pedagogically beneficial. My hope is that in creating documents that are resources for coaches and instructors we do not limit what it means to "teach" debate, but instead finally articulate to amazing diversity of ideas we are able to explore through our activity. One of the "lost" initiatives of the past was documents to assist new coaches ? I envision "curriculum" being one such resource. Part of this support also means creating professional opportunities for our community ? building and keeping coaching positions; aligning expectations of instructor workloads; networking, researching, and publication opportunities for graduate students. While we have made some progress in the last few years about "announcing" opportunities, we still may not have made the transition to have all of these opportunities available to be viewed in the same place. More importantly, it has been noted that there is a decrease in submissions to our key academic journals, and there was discussion at NCA this year about "debate" and other graduate work as being seen in opposition to each other. How can we make opportunities for research more viable for this key demographic of our community, and how can we make debate a professional stepping stone rather than simply a way to waive tuition? This is why we need some form of curriculum documentation, more proactive press, and clearly articulated concepts of professionalism. If we as an organization do not sponsor and encourage the research which justifies what we do, how can we get more resources to expand what we do to more students, or at a minimum preserve it at institutions feeling the tightening of their budgets? These professional efforts do not mean that debate is not for the debaters ? it is simply a recognition that for the debaters to have debate they need support. I would also seek as 2VP to increase the student leadership role in CEDA, both by clarifying the Student Representative positions, and by exploring other ways to encourage student input in both our legislative and topic processes. For the past year the role of student representation has been one of my priorities, and as a Regional Rep I have held myself accountable for ensuring that our Student Rep position has taken advantage of that opportunity when possible [Business Meeting votes or proxy, Regional networking (electronic), Regional networking (competitive prep), etc]. If we want debate to be for the debaters, then its leadership should be too. Most people who know me know that I am primarily drawn to debate because it is an educational activity. But I was also initially drawn to its unique sense of community. You cannot have a debate without another side ? we need each other. Therefore, we need to support each other. I do not think the proposal to "sever" from the NDT necessarily serves this purpose in a time when cross-examination program numbers are shrinking across the country. [I'm not even going into the logistics ? but let's just assume the "membership" vote wouldn't pass it either]. I think instead we need to examine the conversation that Gordon Stables has dubbed "Merger 2.0" ? looking at how ALL of the national associations affect each other (because the ADA schedule has an impact on this as well). This is not about NDT versus CEDA versus ADA ? this is about active participation in leadership to help debate thrive. It is the basis of the conference this summer at Wake. We need to reengage the NDT on conversations about national scheduling and district qualification that affect program development and viable travel schedules. If the NDT passes the proposal for a new "tournament hosting committee", we need to be involved in the conversation, not ignoring it. Many of us are members of both, if not all three, institutions, and it is ridiculous that the only official cross-organization conversation that exists in the status quo is the Topic Meeting. I think I have demonstrated over the last 5 years not only a willingness to engage in that kind of cross-conversation (at ADA tournaments, at NDT committee meetings, and CEDA meetings, and at the topic meeting), but a dedication to being an active participant in trying to make change when our institutions have policies that are odds with each other. I would continue that kind of participation if elected to the 2nd VP position. Like many others, I have been in CEDA for as long as I have been in debate. I began debating the year before the "merger", and I graduated the year after. I started debating in college, which is why the development of novice debaters has always been an issue of great personal importance. This probably means I have the least "debate" experience of all of the candidates (it also means I get to call them all old, because Russell wanted humor AND mudslinging), but I think that my breadth of experiences in debate is a more important criteria. I have helped start a student based team on a campus; I have helped establish an administration started team across a University of multiple campuses. I have worked with universities with students with every academic advantage but no resources for debate, and I have worked to get fairly substantial resources available to students whose other academic resources are their only obstacle to success. I am currently the Regional Representative for the largest region (in terms of membership) in CEDA, and I have experience not only in coordinating different needs from different programs, but also in trying to bring together disparate points of view into civil discussion. My "coaching" job involves three different university systems, and my "day job" is in University administration, giving me familiarity with the very group we are often trying to persuade to increase resources. I have been able to observe what being not only 2ndVP, but 1stVP, and President means fairly closely over the last few years, and to learn from that process the benefits and limitations of those positions. At CEDA Nationals M L Sandoz asked if we were interested in building bridges, and I think my past participation in this community demonstrates not only that I am, but that I think it is necessary for us to survive. In the end, I think what distinguishes CEDA as an organization is not simply that it promotes debate, but that it recognizes there are multiple ways to give students the debate experience, and I am committed to listening to needs across debate demographics to best support our activity. I was asked at NCA why those of us who are not necessarily "academics" would want this position. It's a great deal of work, a large commitment, and it does not have the same "resume" benefits as it would to people who work for institutions of higher ed. The answer is simple: we love this activity. We think we can do better as an institution. We think we can help. My commitment to CEDA extends beyond this election, which I think is true of all of the candidates. I think the questions before those of you voting are straightforward: what do you what from this organization over the next 5 years, whose proposals will make the organization actively better, and who will be able to follow through on implementing their initiatives? My current position in my University would give me the flexibility to focus on such proposals and to see them through if you agree with my vision not only of what our organization is capable of, but of what debate is capable of. [Yes, I know this was long (more a block than a rebuttal) and there's a more condensed version for the newsletter, but I've thought a lot about what I would like for this organization, and you deserve to know the direction I plan to pursue if elected whether you vote for me or not. At least I'm aware of my faults.] *** Oh, and a few words about my opponents: I will admit the following things: Scott Elliott writes better topic papers than me, Mike Davis is a better bowler than me, Andy Ellis is a better revolutionary than me, and Jason Russell is probably funnier than me. That said, I'm not sure those are things that would make them a better 2VP than me. However; I will also add that Andy actually IS Sarah Palin, despite his Facebook assurances, and Mike Davis at least has the low-rent version of Jason Russell's barber. And true to the Louisiana educational system he represents, Scott can't spell (seriously, dude, my name has 3 letters and you got 1/3 of them wrong). Finally, I am not some kind of terrorist. I am simply a benevolent logistics dictator in a federation of institutions who, by clearly creating a model for the Balkans, turns the impact. Plus, you should reject Russell on his discourse, because it leads to a self-fulfilling-prophecy. [Disclaimer: Any accidental or intentional injury to soon-to-be-Dr. Russell is NOT the fault of said self-fulfilling-prophecy.] A ballot for me is a ballot to reject terror talk, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, and bowling as criteria for leadership skills. A ballot for me is a ballot for more puppies in debate ? and who doesn't like a puppy? Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081212/7ab2a09d/attachment.htm From louden at wfu.edu Sat Dec 13 13:21:16 2008 From: louden at wfu.edu (louden) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:21:16 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Debate Job Announcement - Furman Univ. Message-ID: <49440B2C.4010105@wfu.edu> Position Announcement -- Furman University *Forensics Director* Furman University, a top-ranked, four-year liberal arts institution located at the foot of the southern Appalachian Mountains in sunny South Carolina, seeks a tenure-track Assistant Professor who will also serve as Director of Forensics beginning fall 2008. Teaching responsibilities include the basic course (Public Speaking and/or Digital Communication) and other lower- and upper-division courses in area of expertise. Directing responsibilities include resurrecting and rebuilding the university's forensics program. We are interested in a regionally competitive debate program that also sponsors and fosters debate activities on campus and in the community. We are also open to and interested in an individual events program. In keeping with Furman's commitment to liberal education and engaged learning, we seek a Forensics Director whose vision is of debate as an intellectual activity, one in which inquiry and advocacy as methods of discovering truth is primary and winning tournaments is secondary. Ph.D. required, ABD considered. Salary is highly competitive; 2-3 teaching load (on semester system) with small classes. To apply, please send cover letter indicating interest in the position and vision of forensics in a liberal arts environment, CV, samples of scholarly work, evidence of teaching effectiveness, and three letters of recommendation to: Forensics Search, C/O Sean Patrick O'Rourke, Chair, Department of Communication Studies, 135 Furman Hall, Furman University, 3300 Poinsett Highway, Greenville, SC 29613. Review of applications will begin on 15 January 2009 and will continue until position is filled. Furman University is an affirmative action, equal-opportunity employer. We strongly encourage applications from women and minorities. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081213/161a2b2b/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Dec 14 20:46:35 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:46:35 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] First Ever 2nd Vice Presidential Debates Message-ID: <494570AB020000930002191C@mymail.kckcc.edu> Friends, It is with great excitement I announce that for the first time in the collective memory of CEDA, that the candidates vying for the 2nd VP spot have agreed to "debate". Currently 4 of the 5 campaigns have agreed and while still waiting to hear from the 5th candidate, plans are underway for this new CEDA endeavor. I have offered to and am coordinating the effort with the candidates while also agreeing to moderate the debate(s). I am consulting with the candidates and we are working on format(s) and possibilities. As more details become available, I will make them known. In the meantime, you may want to wait to vote until after the candidates have had their say. While all have posted statements, the debates hope to focus on specific content, timelines, initiatives, etc. The ballot will be made available shortly, but over the course of the next month, while the ballot is available, these debates will take place. At one time or another I have had the opportunity to work with all of the candidates. I consider them all colleagues and friends. While they may not agree with each other on certain issues or approaches, and while the individual candidates and I may have disagreed from time to time, I can assure you that all of them have a commitment to debate, to CEDA, and moving us forward. I look forward to this opportunity for all of us! Look for more updates soon! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Dec 15 15:06:47 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:06:47 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by CSU Sacramento Message-ID: <630132C733FD42CAB2A70BC545049B48@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Western Novice & JV Nationals Starts:3/6/2009 Ends:3/8/2009 Hosted by: CSU Sacramento Contact: Kristen Hamilton Address: 6000 J Street, Sacramento Phone: 916.278.5489 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue Dec 16 00:43:20 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:43:20 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] ndt rankings, draft 2.0 Message-ID: <2C17DD2C64B64DAB9D9E11A67E0251A1@whitman.edu> I've revised the rankings: -liberty points adjusted -cc teams rankings corrected (they were really messed up in 1.0) -top ten lists have points now -ucla's csun points now counted THURSDAY, DEC. 18, 9PM PCT IS THE DEADLINE FOR ANY CORRECTIONS jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Dec 17 00:04:16 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:04:16 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] ndt rankings draft 3.0 Message-ID: <4F93544C9CDC4CB8A00B6C85252BD62D@whitman.edu> fixed for --columbia and new school now are shown as 2 different schools --unlv points adjusted from wake forest --kentucky rr included --johnson county cc points adjusted AGAIN THURSDAY 9PM PACIFIC COAST TIME IS THE LAST CHANCE TO NOTE INACCURACIES. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From dave at miami.edu Thu Dec 18 13:17:54 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:17:54 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] College Bowl Pickem Message-ID: Play College Football Bowl Pickem. To join the group, go to: http://msn.foxsports.com/fantasy/collegefootball/bowlpickem/group/non-member-home?groupId=990023&pointSpreadsCode=2 GROUP INFORMATION Group Name: Debaters Football Picks Group ID: 990023 David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081218/ac120d0a/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Dec 18 19:32:47 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:32:47 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] darren goins or current coach at towson . . . Message-ID: <1823A3E22B424E79A21D989DA715E05E@hansonjbPC> the email address I have for you is not working. please email me. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081218/2da2c69b/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Dec 18 22:59:14 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:59:14 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] ndt rankings, fall semester 2008 Message-ID: congrats to everyone that has competed in policy debate this fall. complete report is at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ Top 10 Overall Rankings 1.. Liberty University 460 2.. Kansas (Univ. of) 454 3.. Binghamton 408 4.. Kansas State 373 5.. California 358 6.. Oklahoma 357 7.. Northwestern 356 8.. Emory 346 9.. U.S. Military Acad. 332 10.. Baylor 319 Top 10 Varsity Rankings 1. Kansas (Univ. of) 412 2. California 358 3. Northwestern 356 4. Emory 340 5. Oklahoma 332 6. Baylor 319 7. Towson 306 8. Gonzaga 282 9. Kansas State 281 10. Missouri State 276 Top CC Rankings 1.. Kansas City KS CC 164 2.. Johnson County 163 3.. East LA College 64 4.. Southwestern (CA) 64 5.. Folsom Lake College 55 6.. LA City College 26 7.. Modesto Jr College 25 8.. Bakersfield College 23 jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081218/beb9a56a/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Dec 20 20:51:39 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:51:39 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Requesting Questions for 2nd VP online forum Message-ID: <494D5ADB02000093000222AD@mymail.kckcc.edu> Debate Community: The 5 candidates for CEDA 2nd VP (while obviously adept at youtube video production) have also agreed to an online format where they will field questions in a forum that allows each candidate the opportunity to react to various questions without knowing the answer of their opponents. Once all answers are gathered (or just past the deadline for responses), I will upload the answers to a forum with each candidate attached to their answers. This will give you a chance to see where the candidates stand. In the meantime, what can you do to get involved? Send me questions that you would like to see each candidate answer. I need all questions by Sat. Dec. 27th. I will ask all candidates to have their answers to me by Dec. 2nd. The goal is to post their answers by Dec. 3rd. When sending your question, try to make it universal for each candidate. Indicate if you want your name and institution attached or not. I will pick which questions to ask should we exceed what seems like a reasonable amount. I understand there are multiple forums and opportunities for candidates to engage you. This is merely one forum all have agreed to. I am also working on another format option and will inform you if that comes to fruition. In the meantime, please send me your questions. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Dec 20 21:48:36 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:48:36 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Facebook Group--CEDA 2nd VP Debates Message-ID: <494D683402000093000222B1@mymail.kckcc.edu> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40120691327 Join the group and stay involved. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Sun Dec 21 08:06:41 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:06:41 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] My question In-Reply-To: <494D5ADB02000093000222AD@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <494D5ADB02000093000222AD@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? I am happy to clarify this question if necessary. mjs > Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:51:39 -0600> From: delliott at kckcc.edu> To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com> Subject: [CEDA-L] Requesting Questions for 2nd VP online forum> > Debate Community:> > The 5 candidates for CEDA 2nd VP (while obviously adept at youtube video production) have also agreed to an online format where they will field questions in a forum that allows each candidate the opportunity to react to various questions without knowing the answer of their opponents. Once all answers are gathered (or just past the deadline for responses), I will upload the answers to a forum with each candidate attached to their answers. This will give you a chance to see where the candidates stand.> > In the meantime, what can you do to get involved?> > Send me questions that you would like to see each candidate answer. > I need all questions by Sat. Dec. 27th. > I will ask all candidates to have their answers to me by Dec. 2nd.> The goal is to post their answers by Dec. 3rd.> When sending your question, try to make it universal for each candidate.> Indicate if you want your name and institution attached or not.> I will pick which questions to ask should we exceed what seems like a reasonable amount.> > I understand there are multiple forums and opportunities for candidates to engage you. This is merely one forum all have agreed to.> > I am also working on another format option and will inform you if that comes to fruition.> > In the meantime, please send me your questions.> > thanks,> chief> > Darren Elliott> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC> CEDA President> > _______________________________________________> CEDA-L mailing list> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081221/6b7cdb8d/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Mon Dec 22 00:30:25 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:30:25 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Last call for USC tournament information Message-ID: <00bf01c963fe$c62709e0$52751da0$@edu> Greetings all. In the next few days we will be closing the online entry option for the USC tournament. Please double-check your entries and make sure you have provided us with: - The correct number of rounds for your judges - Correct number of folks in your party - How many people will need ground transportation I will be confirming many of these items, especially the ground transportation, this week by email. If you have already emailed me about it, please expect to see a confirmation by mid-week. Enjoy the holidays. We are excited about what looks to be the largest USC 'Alan Nichols' tournament ever! Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081221/d300a5ef/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Dec 24 12:52:28 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:52:28 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Northwestern Message-ID: <2ED3F1D7BD34414986702D1FABF265F8@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Owen L. Coon at Northwestern University Starts:2/7/2009 Ends:2/9/2009 Hosted by: Northwestern Contact: Luke P. Hill Address: 1815 Chicago Ave, Evanston IL, 60201 Phone: 847-467-0345 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From davismk13 at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 13:49:54 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:49:54 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] ADA Rankings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740812291149i182620c0x868980aa039b6e2f@mail.gmail.com> Below are the current ADA rankings. Please let me know if you have any questions. Reminder - In order to be considered for an ADA sweepstakes award your membership dues must be paid by the start of ADA Nationals. Fall Semester ADA Rankings (includes all ADA sanctioned tournaments as of 12/1/2008): Overall Rankings: *School Name* *Novice Points* *JV Points* *Varsity Points* *Totals* *Rank* *Liberty* 189 139 117 445 1 *Binghamton* 99 95 51 245 2 *Mary Washington* 80 80 55 215 3 *Emory* 23 55 109 187 4 *George Mason* 83 58 41 182 5 *James Madison* 91 9 54.5 154.5 6 *Army (West Point)* 40 64 4 108 7 *John Carroll* 72 7 24 103 8 *Wake Forest* 2 0 101 103 8 *Clarion* 64 33 3 100 10 *ULL* 60 40 0 100 10 Novice Rankings Liberty 189 1 Binghamton 99 2 James Madison 91 3 George Mason 83 4 Mary Washington 80 5 John Carroll 72 6 Clarion 64 7 ULL 60 8 Appalachian State 57 9 Navy 51 10 JV Rankings Liberty 139 1 Binghamton 95 2 Mary Washington 80 3 Army (West Point) 64 4 George Mason 58 5 Emory 55 6 Pittsburgh 47 7 Appalachian State 40 8 ULL 40 8 Samford 38 10 Varsity Rankings Liberty 117 1 Emory 109 2 Wake Forest 101 3 Georgia 88 4 Towson 86 5 Northwestern 76 6 Michigan State 74 7 Kentucky 63 8 West Georgia 57 9 Mary Washington 55 10 -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081229/f067f441/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Dec 30 15:35:09 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:35:09 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Election Questions, ans:Andy Message-ID: <495A3FAD0200009300022623@mymail.kckcc.edu> To Andy and others, As agreed upon, the election questions will be sent to the candidates. Then once the answers are received, the questions and answers will be posted to the public. My hope was to have the questions to the candidates Sunday. On Saturday our school email went down, and a number of the questions were housed there. Trying to get that up and running over the break was fun! It is back up and I am sending the candidates the questions today. Happy New Year everyone! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Dec 30 15:58:03 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:58:03 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! Message-ID: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Associated Press reporting: Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. Stop. Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach of entire Army! Stop. Here is a better one--just Stop! Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. Wonder if he asked the right people? I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed in your 2nd email? 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own bills). My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good faith. If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of the other demands that come with the job. Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From dave at miami.edu Tue Dec 30 16:33:41 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:33:41 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, Lecturer in Communication Studies University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 FLW 3015 305-284-5553 204-385-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/ ________________________________________ From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Darren Elliott [delliott at kckcc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:58 PM To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! Associated Press reporting: Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. Stop. Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach of entire Army! Stop. Here is a better one--just Stop! Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. Wonder if he asked the right people? I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed in your 2nd email? 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own bills). My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good faith. If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of the other demands that come with the job. Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 18:28:35 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:28:35 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812301628t21716f45ke8afde2fadba259d@mail.gmail.com> This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some time to be creative. There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than i think is necessary. Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public tax reporting form. There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by general accounting procedures. It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i should be able to know without asking the people for whom the disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust obligation. Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling its business. Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance practices). If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out www.cedadebate.org/about where you will find minutes from our buisness meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free to contact kelly mcdonald." On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott wrote: > Associated Press reporting: > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > Stop. > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach > of entire Army! Stop. > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed > in your 2nd email? > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own > bills). > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > faith. > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > the other demands that come with the job. > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA President > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > From swhalen at sfsu.edu Tue Dec 30 18:53:05 2008 From: swhalen at sfsu.edu (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:53:05 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0812301628t21716f45ke8afde2fadba259d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been requested. I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let me know. Shawn "Andy Ellis" Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com 12/30/2008 04:28 PM To "Darren Elliott" cc edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some time to be creative. There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than i think is necessary. Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public tax reporting form. There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by general accounting procedures. It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i should be able to know without asking the people for whom the disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust obligation. Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling its business. Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance practices). If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out www.cedadebate.org/about where you will find minutes from our buisness meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free to contact kelly mcdonald." On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott wrote: > Associated Press reporting: > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > Stop. > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach > of entire Army! Stop. > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed > in your 2nd email? > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own > bills). > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > faith. > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > the other demands that come with the job. > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA President > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081230/f4d01979/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 19:00:01 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:00:01 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0812301628t21716f45ke8afde2fadba259d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812301700m1a54f46r1b024c8b69db872e@mail.gmail.com> I don't want you to pay them back, i want the organization to not make you have a credit card with enough of a limit to get three days in tahoe. I want to plan the resource so its worthwhile and accumulates and goes back to our tax exempt purpose. If we want to reward our leadership for a job well done we should as individual members take up a contribution and get them something they like. We do this now, well mostly the executive committee does this, but we shouldnt use organizational resources outside of the compensation agreement for it. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: > > Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been > requested. > > I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the > 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards > points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. > > If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let > me know. > > Shawn > > > > *"Andy Ellis" * > Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com > > 12/30/2008 04:28 PM > To > "Darren Elliott" > cc > edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some > time to be creative. > > There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than > i think is necessary. > > Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price > adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under > general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from > this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self > when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It > is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for > such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the > executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have > started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public > tax reporting form. > > There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non > accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific > enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. > > There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time > and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer > arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of > the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by > general accounting procedures. > > It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an > individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... > > So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything > illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. > > However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non > profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take > donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to > write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. > > I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of > the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the > whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, > i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the > organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the > point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you > mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the > outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. > Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get > anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the > people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents > boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i > should be able to know without asking the people for whom the > disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust > obligation. > > Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their > personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to > maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed > to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up > their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be > commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be > capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should > not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what > amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling > its business. > > Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was > referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i > should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a > legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable > reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but > the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance > practices). > > If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public > disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards > points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, > as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public > conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also > provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent > form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial > disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see > our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like > any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit > payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing > fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out > www.cedadebate.org/about where you will find minutes from our buisness > meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of > interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free > to contact kelly mcdonald." > > On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott wrote: > > Associated Press reporting: > > > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > > Stop. > > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate > Coach > > of entire Army! Stop. > > > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l > are > > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in > the > > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, > McDonald) > > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, > Schriver, > > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the > person > > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent > on > > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you > listed > > in your 2nd email? > > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points > (something I > > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their > own > > bills). > > > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these > "questions" > > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give > their > > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > > faith. > > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well > how > > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area > but > > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. > The > > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA > execs > > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > > the other demands that come with the job. > > > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive > dialogue > > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; > ) > > > > chief > > > > Darren Elliott > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > CEDA President > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081230/2d2131eb/attachment.htm From swhalen at sfsu.edu Tue Dec 30 19:22:14 2008 From: swhalen at sfsu.edu (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:22:14 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0812301700m1a54f46r1b024c8b69db872e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: When I negotiated the contract for the hotel, CEDA had no role in the negotiation. I never used a credit card or earned reward points for organizational purchases. The CEDA treasurer pays all the costs of catering etc. I got points for signing a contract to use the Hyatt as the tournament hotel. The organization might want to consider generating policy to govern the contractual relationship it makes with the hotel, but when I was asked to put a bid together no such policy existed and CEDA had no role beyond approving our bid. Indeed, I incurred all of the contractual risk (a couple hundred thousand if the event had been cancelled as I recall). To that end, I never thought of those points as "CEDA's resources." (Again, if the organization feels differently you can send me a bill). I'll add that my negotiation with the hotel included a number of comp rooms that were provided to CEDA as well as a rate of $79 per night (compared to a rack rate of well over $250), free wireless access (waiving a $15/day fee), and 1/2 price parking. I never negotiated for the points, they were a standard inducement offered at the time. Shawn "Andy Ellis" Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com 12/30/2008 05:00 PM To "Shawn T Whalen" cc edebate at ndtceda.com, ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! I don't want you to pay them back, i want the organization to not make you have a credit card with enough of a limit to get three days in tahoe. I want to plan the resource so its worthwhile and accumulates and goes back to our tax exempt purpose. If we want to reward our leadership for a job well done we should as individual members take up a contribution and get them something they like. We do this now, well mostly the executive committee does this, but we shouldnt use organizational resources outside of the compensation agreement for it. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been requested. I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let me know. Shawn "Andy Ellis" Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com 12/30/2008 04:28 PM To "Darren Elliott" cc edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some time to be creative. There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than i think is necessary. Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public tax reporting form. There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by general accounting procedures. It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i should be able to know without asking the people for whom the disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust obligation. Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling its business. Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance practices). If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out www.cedadebate.org/about where you will find minutes from our buisness meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free to contact kelly mcdonald." On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott wrote: > Associated Press reporting: > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > Stop. > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach > of entire Army! Stop. > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed > in your 2nd email? > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own > bills). > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > faith. > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > the other demands that come with the job. > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA President > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081230/a4c93b25/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 19:31:55 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:31:55 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0812301700m1a54f46r1b024c8b69db872e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812301731m14d1054bpddce7210771dd91d@mail.gmail.com> Yes...The organization should not make you take on the contractual responsibility, thats the easier solution no doubt, but an awful one given what else the organization requires of you. If that is an expected libaility of an exec it should be in the job description, if it is just de facto that way because in 40 years we can't get together our own business accounts, that should be changed. Either way, i think we are largely on the same side here, corporate citizenship should offer benefits to the people in those positions, not 3 nights at the hyatt, but liability from contractual risk is a good starter. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: > > When I negotiated the contract for the hotel, CEDA had no role in the > negotiation. I never used a credit card or earned reward points for > organizational purchases. The CEDA treasurer pays all the costs of catering > etc. > > I got points for signing a contract to use the Hyatt as the tournament > hotel. The organization might want to consider generating policy to govern > the contractual relationship it makes with the hotel, but when I was asked > to put a bid together no such policy existed and CEDA had no role beyond > approving our bid. Indeed, I incurred all of the contractual risk (a couple > hundred thousand if the event had been cancelled as I recall). To that end, > I never thought of those points as "CEDA's resources." (Again, if the > organization feels differently you can send me a bill). > > I'll add that my negotiation with the hotel included a number of comp rooms > that were provided to CEDA as well as a rate of $79 per night (compared to a > rack rate of well over $250), free wireless access (waiving a $15/day fee), > and 1/2 price parking. I never negotiated for the points, they were a > standard inducement offered at the time. > > Shawn > > > > > *"Andy Ellis" * > Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com > > 12/30/2008 05:00 PM > To > "Shawn T Whalen" > cc > edebate at ndtceda.com, ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com > Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > I don't want you to pay them back, i want the organization to not make you > have a credit card with enough of a limit to get three days in tahoe. I want > to plan the resource so its worthwhile and accumulates and goes back to our > tax exempt purpose. If we want to reward our leadership for a job well done > we should as individual members take up a contribution and get them > something they like. We do this now, well mostly the executive committee > does this, but we shouldnt use organizational resources outside of the > compensation agreement for it. > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Shawn T Whalen <*swhalen at sfsu.edu*> > wrote: > > Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been > requested. > > I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the > 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards > points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. > > If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let > me know. > > Shawn > > > *"Andy Ellis" <**andy.edebate at gmail.com* *>* > Sent by: *ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com* > > 12/30/2008 04:28 PM > > To > "Darren Elliott" <*delliott at kckcc.edu* > cc > *edebate at ndtceda.com* , *CEDA-L at ndtceda.com* > Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > > > This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some > time to be creative. > > There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than > i think is necessary. > > Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price > adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under > general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from > this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self > when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It > is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for > such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the > executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have > started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public > tax reporting form. > > There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non > accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific > enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. > > There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time > and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer > arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of > the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by > general accounting procedures. > > It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an > individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... > > So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything > illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. > > However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non > profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take > donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to > write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. > > I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of > the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the > whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, > i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the > organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the > point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you > mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the > outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. > Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get > anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the > people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents > boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i > should be able to know without asking the people for whom the > disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust > obligation. > > Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their > personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to > maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed > to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up > their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be > commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be > capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should > not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what > amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling > its business. > > Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was > referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i > should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a > legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable > reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but > the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance > practices). > > If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public > disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards > points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, > as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public > conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also > provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent > form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial > disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see > our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like > any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit > payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing > fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out* > **www.cedadebate.org/about* where you > will find minutes from our buisness > meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of > interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free > to contact kelly mcdonald." > > On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott <*delliott at kckcc.edu* > > wrote: > > Associated Press reporting: > > > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > > Stop. > > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate > Coach > > of entire Army! Stop. > > > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l > are > > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in > the > > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, > McDonald) > > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, > Schriver, > > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the > person > > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent > on > > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you > listed > > in your 2nd email? > > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points > (something I > > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their > own > > bills). > > > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these > "questions" > > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give > their > > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > > faith. > > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well > how > > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area > but > > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. > The > > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA > execs > > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > > the other demands that come with the job. > > > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive > dialogue > > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; > ) > > > > chief > > > > Darren Elliott > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > CEDA President > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > *CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* > > *http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* * > **http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l* > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081230/d3784d22/attachment.htm From swhalen at sfsu.edu Tue Dec 30 20:17:13 2008 From: swhalen at sfsu.edu (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:17:13 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0812301731m14d1054bpddce7210771dd91d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just wanted to provide full disclosure. I think that the organization could potentially benefit from formalizing a strategic approach to corporate incentives. However, I think that benefit would be marginal. Others are surely more astute at these negotiations, but its hard to imagine a system that would meaningfully alter the circumstances of the average member institution. Shawn "Andy Ellis" Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com 12/30/2008 05:31 PM To "Shawn T Whalen" cc edebate at ndtceda.com, ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! Yes...The organization should not make you take on the contractual responsibility, thats the easier solution no doubt, but an awful one given what else the organization requires of you. If that is an expected libaility of an exec it should be in the job description, if it is just de facto that way because in 40 years we can't get together our own business accounts, that should be changed. Either way, i think we are largely on the same side here, corporate citizenship should offer benefits to the people in those positions, not 3 nights at the hyatt, but liability from contractual risk is a good starter. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: When I negotiated the contract for the hotel, CEDA had no role in the negotiation. I never used a credit card or earned reward points for organizational purchases. The CEDA treasurer pays all the costs of catering etc. I got points for signing a contract to use the Hyatt as the tournament hotel. The organization might want to consider generating policy to govern the contractual relationship it makes with the hotel, but when I was asked to put a bid together no such policy existed and CEDA had no role beyond approving our bid. Indeed, I incurred all of the contractual risk (a couple hundred thousand if the event had been cancelled as I recall). To that end, I never thought of those points as "CEDA's resources." (Again, if the organization feels differently you can send me a bill). I'll add that my negotiation with the hotel included a number of comp rooms that were provided to CEDA as well as a rate of $79 per night (compared to a rack rate of well over $250), free wireless access (waiving a $15/day fee), and 1/2 price parking. I never negotiated for the points, they were a standard inducement offered at the time. Shawn "Andy Ellis" Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com 12/30/2008 05:00 PM To "Shawn T Whalen" cc edebate at ndtceda.com, ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! I don't want you to pay them back, i want the organization to not make you have a credit card with enough of a limit to get three days in tahoe. I want to plan the resource so its worthwhile and accumulates and goes back to our tax exempt purpose. If we want to reward our leadership for a job well done we should as individual members take up a contribution and get them something they like. We do this now, well mostly the executive committee does this, but we shouldnt use organizational resources outside of the compensation agreement for it. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been requested. I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let me know. Shawn "Andy Ellis" Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com 12/30/2008 04:28 PM To "Darren Elliott" cc edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some time to be creative. There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than i think is necessary. Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public tax reporting form. There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by general accounting procedures. It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i should be able to know without asking the people for whom the disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust obligation. Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling its business. Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance practices). If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out www.cedadebate.org/about where you will find minutes from our buisness meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free to contact kelly mcdonald." On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott wrote: > Associated Press reporting: > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > Stop. > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach > of entire Army! Stop. > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed > in your 2nd email? > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own > bills). > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > faith. > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > the other demands that come with the job. > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA President > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081230/635adeba/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 21:07:52 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:07:52 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0812301731m14d1054bpddce7210771dd91d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812301907g15432916m3921a2afff9d7ec6@mail.gmail.com> i appreciate the disclosure, its not the golden ticket, its not gonna pay for free ceda, but there is potential that we should investigate and utilize to the full extent that it can. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: > > Just wanted to provide full disclosure. I think that the organization > could potentially benefit from formalizing a strategic approach to corporate > incentives. However, I think that benefit would be marginal. Others are > surely more astute at these negotiations, but its hard to imagine a system > that would meaningfully alter the circumstances of the average member > institution. > > Shawn > > > > *"Andy Ellis" * > Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com > > 12/30/2008 05:31 PM > To > "Shawn T Whalen" cc > edebate at ndtceda.com, ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com > Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > Yes...The organization should not make you take on the contractual > responsibility, thats the easier solution no doubt, but an awful one given > what else the organization requires of you. If that is an expected libaility > of an exec it should be in the job description, if it is just de facto that > way because in 40 years we can't get together our own business accounts, > that should be changed. Either way, i think we are largely on the same side > here, corporate citizenship should offer benefits to the people in those > positions, not 3 nights at the hyatt, but liability from contractual risk is > a good starter. > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Shawn T Whalen <*swhalen at sfsu.edu*> > wrote: > > When I negotiated the contract for the hotel, CEDA had no role in the > negotiation. I never used a credit card or earned reward points for > organizational purchases. The CEDA treasurer pays all the costs of catering > etc. > > I got points for signing a contract to use the Hyatt as the tournament > hotel. The organization might want to consider generating policy to govern > the contractual relationship it makes with the hotel, but when I was asked > to put a bid together no such policy existed and CEDA had no role beyond > approving our bid. Indeed, I incurred all of the contractual risk (a couple > hundred thousand if the event had been cancelled as I recall). To that end, > I never thought of those points as "CEDA's resources." (Again, if the > organization feels differently you can send me a bill). > > I'll add that my negotiation with the hotel included a number of comp rooms > that were provided to CEDA as well as a rate of $79 per night (compared to a > rack rate of well over $250), free wireless access (waiving a $15/day fee), > and 1/2 price parking. I never negotiated for the points, they were a > standard inducement offered at the time. > > Shawn > > > > *"Andy Ellis" <**andy.edebate at gmail.com* *>* > Sent by: *ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com* > > 12/30/2008 05:00 PM > > To > "Shawn T Whalen" <*swhalen at sfsu.edu* > cc > *edebate at ndtceda.com* , *ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com*, > *CEDA-L at ndtceda.com* Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > > > I don't want you to pay them back, i want the organization to not make you > have a credit card with enough of a limit to get three days in tahoe. I want > to plan the resource so its worthwhile and accumulates and goes back to our > tax exempt purpose. If we want to reward our leadership for a job well done > we should as individual members take up a contribution and get them > something they like. We do this now, well mostly the executive committee > does this, but we shouldnt use organizational resources outside of the > compensation agreement for it. > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Shawn T Whalen <*swhalen at sfsu.edu*> > wrote: > > Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been > requested. > > I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the > 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards > points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. > > If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let > me know. > > Shawn > > *"Andy Ellis" <**andy.edebate at gmail.com* *>* > Sent by: *ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com* > > 12/30/2008 04:28 PM > > To > "Darren Elliott" <*delliott at kckcc.edu* > cc > *edebate at ndtceda.com* , *CEDA-L at ndtceda.com* > Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > > > > > This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some > time to be creative. > > There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than > i think is necessary. > > Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price > adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under > general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from > this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self > when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It > is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for > such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the > executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have > started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public > tax reporting form. > > There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non > accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific > enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. > > There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time > and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer > arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of > the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by > general accounting procedures. > > It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an > individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... > > So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything > illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. > > However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non > profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take > donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to > write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. > > I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of > the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the > whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, > i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the > organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the > point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you > mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the > outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. > Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get > anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the > people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents > boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i > should be able to know without asking the people for whom the > disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust > obligation. > > Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their > personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to > maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed > to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up > their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be > commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be > capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should > not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what > amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling > its business. > > Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was > referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i > should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a > legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable > reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but > the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance > practices). > > If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public > disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards > points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, > as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public > conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also > provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent > form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial > disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see > our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like > any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit > payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing > fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out* > **www.cedadebate.org/about* where you > will find minutes from our buisness > meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of > interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free > to contact kelly mcdonald." > > On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott <*delliott at kckcc.edu* > > wrote: > > Associated Press reporting: > > > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > > Stop. > > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate > Coach > > of entire Army! Stop. > > > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l > are > > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in > the > > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, > McDonald) > > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, > Schriver, > > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the > person > > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent > on > > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you > listed > > in your 2nd email? > > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points > (something I > > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their > own > > bills). > > > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these > "questions" > > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give > their > > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > > faith. > > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well > how > > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area > but > > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. > The > > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA > execs > > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > > the other demands that come with the job. > > > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive > dialogue > > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; > ) > > > > chief > > > > Darren Elliott > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > CEDA President > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > *CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* > > *http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* * > **http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l* > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list* > **CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* * > **http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l* > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081230/68a21575/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Wed Dec 31 00:59:51 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:59:51 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Prefs are active Message-ID: <39c1ac890812302259r41f626f4q57d904a65052dd54@mail.gmail.com> Prefs are open at debateresults.com Contact Adam Symonds at asymonds at asu.edu if you have any technical questions. Thanks. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081230/7621b830/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Wed Dec 31 18:11:55 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:11:55 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Alan Nichols Updates Message-ID: Hope everyone is enjoying their New Year's Eve. From the standpoint of those involved with this tournament for many years, I really hope everyone is enjoying their free time tonight. It is hard to believe that we would normally be in late elims at this point! We have a very large turnout this year (92 open teams and 22 JV teams) and we are hard to accommodate you at the Nichols. I will refrain from making a lot of update emails, so please make sure you review this note. 1) Preferences - They are active now and will be open until 9:00 pm January 2nd (the close of registration). We and Fullerton are using Jon's new CAT system so hopefully it will be easier to coordinate your preference work for both tournaments. 2) Ground transportation - I have the follow schools and number of participants using our shuttles. If you were planning on using our shuttle and don't see yourself, please let me know ASAP. We cannot make any guarantees about adding seats on the shuttles at registration. Concordia - 5, Emory - 15, Georgia - 5, Gonzaga - 14, Mary Washington - 2, North Texas - 3 3) The full invitation (available on our website - linked below) and debateresults contains lots of useful information such as parking, the schedule, etc. Printing a copy will make your travel easier. The only change is that we will be having a brief awards ceremony at its usual time (immediately after round 7) and not on January 5th. 4) Registration is at the Sheraton (room will be available at the desk) starting at 7 pm January 2nd. If you have any trouble with your travel or won't be making it to registration, please email me or call me at 702-354-2973. Have a great and safe debate-free evening all and see all 350 of you shortly!! Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com