[Ndca-l] Results of the Ethics Statement voting

Stefan Bauschard stefan.bauschard
Wed Nov 4 16:39:06 EST 2009


It's hard to figure out what the process should be...

-By design, the organization solicits the memberships form individuals who
are not in any way impacted by its voting decisions....

-60%, 51% -- depends on what it's for, I guess.  51% may be sufficient for
most things, but for an ethics statement? I don't know. If only 51% vote for
it, it just risks creating a schism in the organization. "Major" changes--
not just those involving ethics -- should perhaps require more than 50.01%
to pass...2/3 is not uncommon in other organizations for major changes..



On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Michael Antonucci <antonucci23 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree.  We just don't know.
>
> I think that proves that the current voting procedure is extremely
> problematic.  The NDCA shouldn't have to have a Rock the Vote campaign every
> time it wants a barometer of community opinion.
>
> While I suspect it would have passed, we can't say for sure.  My problems
> with the voting are genuinely procedural, although I wouldn't have thought
> much about the procedure absent the frustrating substantive outcome.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Stefan Bauschard <
> stefan.bauschard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that in this instance it was explicitly explained that not
>> voting is voting no...so many people who did not vote could potentially
>> expressing a no vote.
>>
>> 28 yes people supported it
>> 4 no people (probablystrongly) oppsed it
>> (xy) people did not vote
>> (x) opposed
>> (y) didn't care
>>
>> Since we have no idea how many peopel are in each category of xy, it's
>> impossible to speculate whether or not it would have passed if the voting
>> procedures would have been different.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Speer, Mike <SpeerMik at berkeleyprep.org>wrote:
>>
>>> While reasonable people can certainly disagree, the Ethics Statement
>>> seemed like a pretty gentle nudge in the direction of some community
>>> norms on these important matters.
>>>
>>> If the NDCA members are concerned about the potential chaos of
>>> unfettered democracy, maybe a rule requiring 60 percent approval of
>>> respondents would an appropriate compromise.
>>>
>>> I am not completely convinced that the majority of the 90 members who
>>> did not vote intended their "non-vote" to be counted as a "no."
>>>
>>> Mike Speer
>>> Debate Coach
>>> Director of Technology
>>> Berkeley Preparatory School
>>> Tampa, FL 33634
>>> (813) 777-4298
>>>
>>> Berkeley puts people in the world who make a positive difference.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ndca-l-bounces at lists.debatecoaches.org
>>> [mailto:ndca-l-bounces at lists.debatecoaches.org] On Behalf Of Michael
>>> Antonucci
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:53 PM
>>> To: Tara Tate
>>> Cc: <ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Ndca-l] Results of the Ethics Statement voting
>>>
>>> I feel the 60% threshold should be directly repealed.
>>>
>>> If America maintained this voting threshold, we would have lapsed into
>>> anarchy long ago.
>>>
>>> many members of the Ndca are not very participatory.  this is fine.
>>> It just shouldn't be a block on ever doing anything.
>>>
>>> Of course, I am not sure how you can repeal the rule absent 60%
>>> approval?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2009, at 2:32 PM, "Tara  Tate" <ttate at glenbrook.k12.il.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The NDCA Ethics Statement failed to receive 60% approval of the
>>> > membership body.  At the time elections were closed, the NDCA had
>>> > 122 members.  74 "yes" votes were needed to pass.
>>> >
>>> > 32 members did vote in the process.  Of those that did choose to
>>> > vote, 28 voted yes and 4 voted no.
>>> >
>>> > We will be starting a discussion the NDCA listserv about possible
>>> > amendments to the document (if the body feels like a statement is
>>> > necessary) and a discussion about the 60% threshold.  The discussion
>>> > will just be some informal dialogue about how the membership wishes
>>> > to proceed on this issue (or to proceed at all).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Tara L. Tate
>>> > Director of Debate, Glenbrook South (IL)
>>> > Executive Board Member, National Debate Coaches Association
>>> > Co-director, The 2009 Glenbrooks
>>> > 4000 West Lake Avenue
>>> > Glenview, IL 60026
>>> > (847) 486-4746
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ndca-l mailing list
>>> Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org
>>> http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ndca-l mailing list
>>> Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org
>>> http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stefan Bauschard
>>
>> President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
>> Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
>> Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
>> Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011
>>
>>
>> (c) 781-775-0433
>> (fx) 617-588-0283
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Antonucci
> Debate Coach
> Georgetown University
> Mobile: 617-838-3345
> Office: 202-687-4079
>



-- 
Stefan Bauschard

President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011


(c) 781-775-0433
(fx) 617-588-0283
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.debatecoaches.org/pipermail/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org/attachments/20091104/4be3ef91/attachment.htm>



More information about the Ndca-l mailing list