[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

ans Tuna

yeah, got so used to calling you Tuna that i did the "y" thing.

i made no "accusations" and the "tentative language" is because this is 
a tentative thing.  i said i was "troubled".  not "rabid" or "angry" or 
anything but "troubled."

furthermore, i hoped to convey ALSO my opinion that i have much respect 
for you, the time, energy, effort, and intellect you devote to CEDA.  
also, i requested to be considered as a lecturer at the NDI because i 
think that it IS important, valuable, and GOOD for CEDA and for debate: 
i have NEVER said otherwise, privately or publicly.  my position has 
been and is PUBLICLY that if we go to an August 1st release that it or 
other summer workshops will become INDISPENSABLE to debaters'competitive 
success:  that would be a bad thing, however.  now, not a bit of this 
paragraph changes either my "concern" or my previous post.

1) proxies

i did not say that you were "trying to round-up" proxies.  the verb was 
"seeks" proxies.  that seemed to me fair given that there were 2 public 
posts about proxies, one initiated by Tom Jewell and one initiated by 
you regarding proxies.  that seemed to me problematic that there was 
public notice regarding the "collection" of proxies.  even if that is 
not understood as "advertising" you can understand that it can be 
reasonably perceived as such.  if that is an unfair characterization, 
i'm not sure why...

i take it that your response regarding proxies agrees that CEDA officers 
ought not to "seek" proxies on behalf of proposals that they introduce 
and advocate.  i take it we agree that such is problematic because it 
circumvents public discussion and undermines community decision-making.
if so, then i'm happy to learn that no proxy "collection" in this matter 
is occurring.

2) conflict of interest

i accused you of no "conspiracy," i did not say that you were making 
money off the NDI, and i did not question your "integrity."

the NDI is awesome.  some of our blocks are augmented by a few NDI 
cards, especially on fringe issues - that is how we use that ev.  
several of our students went last summer and several will go this 
summer:  they enjoyed it thoroughly.  i have expressed an interest in 
guest lecturing there because i think it's a GOOD thing.

none of this addresses or answers either a conflict of interest or a 
perceived conflict of interest.  what is best for the NDI may not be 
what is best for CEDA.  in the case of your proposed amendments, i think 
it is clearly the case that the two interests are at odds.

it is CLEAR that you care deeply about the NDI, give much of yourself 
to the NDI, and it is very IMPORTANT to you that the NDI do well.  i'm 
convinced that this isn't a cash thing.  your love of the NDI poses 
potential conflicts of interest with your responsibilities to CEDA.  i 
continue to be troubled by the 2nd vice president of CEDA proposing and 
advocating a constitutional amendment which has at least one clear 
provision which is written to benefit summer workshops which begin in 
early August.  and there isn't an answer to this in your response.

once again, the post is public because this matter is public, not 
private:  i would like to keep it that way.  it involves basic issues of 
the role of CEDA officers.  my profound apologies that it involves you 
personally:  i don't think there's an appropriate alternative forum.

once again:  i have much respect for what you do for CEDA, for the 
Vermont squad, and for us all.  that doesn't mean that i am less 
"troubled" by the issues i raise:  should it mean that?

respectfully,
michael korcok
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page