[Ndca-l] Results of the Ethics Statement voting

First Pacific Financial firstpacific
Wed Nov 4 16:45:17 EST 2009


I think just getting it out there has some value. And if your looking for ideas: You could have two (or more) different levels of membership. $25 is regular membership and shows support and can vote on non decisive issues like what topic would you like. And $50 where you get to/and should vote on issues that shape the direction that the body is going in. Or no difference in fee but just opt in or out of: I will vote on all issues that come up. Or maybe instead of having the entire membership vote on the issue there could have been another box that said something like I do not want my vote to be counted as a no or a yes please remove me from the calculation. And another thought maybe membership could be broken down into categories one of which would be policy debate and only that category would vote on a policy debate issue. Just thoughts. Best Regards, Robb Gray - Fullerton Union
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stefan Bauschard 
  To: Michael Antonucci 
  Cc: ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Ndca-l] Results of the Ethics Statement voting


  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






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Ndca-l mailing list
  Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org
  http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.debatecoaches.org/pipermail/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org/attachments/20091104/9813581e/attachment-0005.htm>



More information about the Ndca-l mailing list