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

Re: CEDA officers

On Mon, 26 Feb 1996, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote:
> the collection of proxies is problematic because it circumvents 
> discussion and deliberation and argument.  rather than engaging the 
> community as a whole in a discourse about proposed reform, this process 
> isolates and excludes public discourse in favor of a private discussion. 
> it is manifestly not an open discourse:  the door is closed and we know 
> nothing about what's going inside.
> perhaps the collection of proxies is a common occurrence and perhaps it 
> is viewed as a "normal" way for CEDA officers to function.  if so, then 
> i think it should stop.  perhaps it is a delusion, but i take pride in 
> the openness of CEDA:  that includes the institutional discussion.
> the CEDA business meeting is important:  it seems to me that folks 
> should make every effort to attend.  perhaps there ought to be more time 
> given to it.  that discussion will, no doubt, see many arguments and 
> perspectives that have not been previously made in this forum or at the 
> regional meetings.  a reasonable "vote" ought to be informed as much as 
> possible by that discussion rather than made for unknown reasons, 
> privately agreed upon.  certainly some will not be able to attend: 
> proxies are appropriate, i think, but it seems to me a responsibility of 
> those who give them to at least consider the arguments made before the 
> business meeting.

Mike's argument in the first half of his discussion of proxy voting seems 
an indict of the general concept of proxies, not anything specific to 
Tuna's taking of proxies in relation to his role as 2nd VP. It is easy to 
conceed the value of the largest, most open discussion possible on the 
issues to be voted upon, but as Mike recognizes in the second half that 
for those who can not attend a proxy is appropriate. The most consistent 
and meaningful argument made here is that people should try their hardest 
NOT to use proxies, but to attend the meeting and vote in person. Second, 
if you MUST use a proxy that is acceptable, but you have a responsibility 
to vote wisely and become informed of the arguments. Neither of these 
arguments seem controversial, nor to speak to any element of the 2nd VP 
offering to act as proxy. There seems no connection between Mike's 
argument and Tuna, nor his position as 2nd VP.

Mike continues:
> there is fairly clearly a conflict of interest here.  there is certainly 
> the risk of the perception of a conflict of interest.  the NDI would 
> benefit tremendously by an early topic release - the August 1st date is 
> clearly chosen to benefit summer workshops which begin about then.
> the second vice president is elected by us to serve the CEDA community 
> as a whole.  it seems to me that being an officer requires one to put 
> aside considerations of what is best for oneself, one's own students, 
> and one's program in favor of what is best for the community.  our trust 
> in officers is also important:  if we perceive the possibility that 
> officers are acting in their own interests rather than the interests of 
> the community, our faith in community-wide democratic openness is 
> undermined.
> perhaps it is merely a matter of "conflict-of-interest" statements like 
> every faculty member is required to submit.  i think it is more a matter 
> of officers being very careful about creating the appearance or 
> actuality of a conflict of interest.

There are a couple of facts that are being left out of this discussion: 
For starters, NDI is non-profit. It is not allowed to make money. As best 
I can tell, Tuna holds the institute as a service to the community and 
because in his heart he believes in it (I am not trying to speak for 
Tuna, but this has very much been my perception in my two years involved 
with the institute). (Note: I attended NDI as a student in '94, as staff in 
'95 and am planning to return in '96. I have reason to be biased, but I 
believe my comments here to be fair and honest.) Tuna is not "getting 
rich" off the institute, nor would I expect his salary to increase on a 
per-student basis. 
My understanding of the machinations of the accounting is that the 
salaries are fixed, not directly altered by enrollment, but rather that 
increasing enrollment increases the size of the faculty. Whatever he 
"gains" by a larger institute seems pretty miniscule compared to the royal 
pain in the ass it must be to coordinate such an affair.
Further, at around a hundred students in attendance last year (if memory 
serves), I highly doubt Tuna is worried about the institute needing 
students. What does he possibly gain from making NDI larger?
Those who REALLY have something to gain from a larger NDI are people like 
myself, attempting to establish themselves within the coaching community 
and build a resume that will make them competitive for coaching positions 
after their graduate work. People looking for a way to help out in the 
community the way I feel the community helped me to grow: as a student, a 
thinking being (I try), and a human being (struggling along). 
It is my humble (and poorly informed) opinion that Tuna is one of the 
beacons of goodwill and selflessness in CEDA. 

As for the contention that Aug1 release=larger institute:
Why? This is an unwarranted assertion. It seems to me that many larger 
schools may decide to send only 1 emmisary to institute (for the ev packet) 
and keep their squad at home to cut cards with the ev machine intact. I 
support the Aug 1 release nonetheless, and recognize that year-long & 
Aug 1 will increase motivation in some students to find a way to institute, 
but I think it is hard to call the net impact on institute enrollment given 
the diversity of vairables.

Some advantages to a higher enrollment at summer institutes:
1.Lower cost. Volume decreases cost-per-unit.
2.More scholarships. Since NDI gives financial aid & scholarships, the 
more enrollment they have, the more they can offer to deserving and less 
financially lucky debaters.
3.Better community. Attending an institute (any) brings students together 
as one big squad. Not just competitors, but people working together.
4.Better early topic analysis. The more students, the more ideas that are 
generated and bounceed around, the better the quality in the end (synergy).
5.More peer-mentoring. Large camps means more students of varying 
experience levels and backgrounds can help one another, rather than 
constantly looking "up" to coaches or judges.
6.More opportunies for recently graduated debaters to feel-out the role 
of coach and build experience to assist them in their future endeavors 
(whatever that is).
7.More recently graduated debaters get an opportunity to help "give back" 
to a community that has given us all so much.
7.More starving grad students (like myself) get a 2 week summer job that 
pays decently, so we can keep the rent paid on our little hovels. ;-)

C'mon, Mike! What gives here? I've never heard you make arguments that 
made so little sense (to me). Is there a subtext here I've missed? Fill 
us all in, we're awaitin'!
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page