Tahoe Thoughts and Tahoe Tax

[Jim Hanson]

tuna and others

nfl did change their dates right after russ church had double-checked with
them to make sure there was no conflict.

jim :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Alfred Snider [mailto:drtuna at earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:43 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Tahoe Thoughts and Tahoe Tax


I have some concerns about whether the Tahoe Conference will reach out to
other debate communities. I fear that it will be the same people who were at
the summer conference which assessed the fee. However, I look forward to the
complete posting of panels and events and I hope I am wrong.

First, the high school community is completely left out. The slogan is a
quote from Karla Leeper (who I have a great deal of respect for) indicating
that the conference will chart the future course for debate. This cannot be
done unless high schools are included. The National Forensic League was
listed as a sponsor of Tahoe, yet in a conversation with Jim Copeland,
executive secretary of the NFL, he and the national council were NEVER asked
if they would like to sponsor the event. They are downright angry about
this. Nor, so they say, would they ever sponsor a conference which takes
place DURING THEIR NATIONAL TOURNAMENT. This is a huge scheduling error. I
mentioned this concern to my regional rep Mike Berry, who asked CEDA Pres
Glenda Treadaway about this. She said that originally they did not conflict
and then NFL moved its dates. I find this hard to believe given that NFL
Nationals has dates set well in advance and is ALWAYS in the second week of
June by rule. I will check the NFL constitution and see if it is set there.
This was a scheduling error and an offense to HS debate, but the excuse may
also be a shaky story. I now notice that NFL is no longer on the list of
sponsoring organizations. I am not sure NFISDA along is the answer to this,
as the NFL is the central organization for HS forensics.

Second, there seems to be little involvement from parliamentary debate
schools. I could be wrong but after asking several leading parliamentary
coaches they indicate almost no interest in the conference. I will be
curious to see how many parliamentary panels there will be and how many
parliamentary representatives will be in attendance. The final panel list
and participant list will tell, I am sure.

Third, there is little indication of participation by the international
debate community. None of my international contacts indicate interest. I am
waiting to hear from some others, so more on this later. I see IDEA & JDA as
sponsors, but based on my NFL experience that needs to be checked out as
well.

Fourth, it is simply too expensive. My budget is spent. The $40 fee at CEDA
nats will probably come out of my pocket anyway. The lodging is too
expensive. If we are charging this fee to each school you would think the
prices could come down a bit. More details about how students will get to
Tahoe using this money would be appreciated. How will they apply? Who will
pick them? How many will this help? I am not sure PKD is the answer. Details
are still lacking on the Tahoe "get resources" page.

The panels so far posted are interesting: Ede Warner on diversity, Jensen on
sexual harassment, Michael DeMent on PR, and various editors on how to
publish. But these are very familiar topics from very familiar people. It
could easily be NCA replay. I look forward to seeing the rest of the program
and I hope it will be excellent.

When I was CEDA President I supported an international conference sponsored
by CEDA to bring the whole debate community together. I still think this
needs to be done, but CEDA may not be the group to do it. It certainly
cannot even to begin to succeed unless it is widely supported and attended
by the high school, parliamentary, and international debate communities.

I am not just a nay-sayer here. We can do something.

John Meany spoke to me yesterday about trying to organize a video conference
during the Tahoe Conference as a way to bring high school and international
people together. I will be at NFL Nationals during that time and would be
willing to stage the Oklahoma City end of such an activity, and would be
willing to help coordinate international participation. Perhaps someone
might be willing to join in that effort by linking the Tahoe conference.
Then, we could try and bring some other elements into the mix which are now
missing. Even resource challenged programs could participate from their home
locations.

As currently constructed the Tahoe Conference may not be the answer. But, we
might be able to improve it using internet participation. I can offer
technical expertise and a server to provide the opportunity for people to
join a more diverse discussion.

I look forward to the posting of the list of panels and programs so a better
picture of the event emerges. Erwin Chemerinsky is an outstanding keynote
choice.

Best,

Tuna



---------------
Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna
Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
802-656-0097 office; 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-4275 fax
asnider at zoo.uvm.edu office; drtuna at earthlink.net home/mobile
http://debate.uvm.edu Debate Central website


> From: "Achten, Greg" <Greg.Achten at pepperdine.edu>
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:38:54 -0800
> To: "'Aaron Klemz'" <ehrlenmeyerflask at hotmail.com>, edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: RE: Per-school fees at CEDA Nationals
> Resent-From: eDebate at ndtceda.com
> Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:39:30 -0500
>
> Aaron and others,
>
> I was present at the CEDA Summer Meeting where the discussion of this one
> time fee to help generate revenue for the Tahoe Conference occurred. I
> understand your feelings about imposing these kinds of fees on programs
that
> are resource challenged (I also administrate such a program). However, I
do
> believe the goals of both the fee and the conference are worthwhile.
>
> First, the $40 fee is in fact relatively insignificant compared to the
other
> costs associated with the National Tournament (Airfare, Hotel, Meals,
etc.)
> This argument is effectively made by Jeff Jarman and others. However, the
> revenue generated will be used to fund important goals for the conference,
> in particular to subsidize the travel of undergraduate and graduate
students
> to the conference. I am sorry that your University doesn't offer
sufficient
> institutional support to allow you to attend, however one of the goals of
> raising money prior to the conference is to allow people like your
students
> to be able to attend the conference (which I feel is a laudable goal). It
is
> true that the fee is regressive in that it is paid per school rather than
> per team, however the $40 fee is sufficiently affordable that its
regressive
> nature is not too burdensome.
>
> Further, I support the efforts of our organization to host this conference
> because I think it has the opportunity to be a very valuable event. We
find
> ourselves in a unique moment where there are many debate communities
(CEDA,
> NDT, ADA, Parliamentary, etc) that have varying degrees of interaction.
The
> purpose of the conference is to bring all of these debate communities
> together to celebrate all of the forms that debate takes and to begin a
> dialog about bridging the various debate communities. The Tahoe Conference
> has been maligned on this listserve in the last few weeks and that
honestly
> saddens me a great deal. A lot of people have invested a great deal of
time
> and effort into making this conference happen. I for one am proud that our
> organization is among the first to reach out to other debate communities
and
> try to take the first steps towards creating one community out of many. I
am
> sorry that you feel the fee imposed to support this conference is
excessive.
> The intention was not to create burdens for programs, rather to lessen
them
> for students wishing to attend the conference.
>
> Greg Achten
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Klemz [mailto:ehrlenmeyerflask at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 2:56 PM
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: Per-school fees at CEDA Nationals
>
>
> I have a concern regarding the entry fees at CEDA Nationals.
>
> Why are there two "per school" fees in addition to CEDA membership? The
> result of the $ 40 "one time" Tahoe Conference fee and the "hosting fee"
is
> to inflate the cost of a school entering one team at CEDA Nationals to
over
> $150, while schools entering 4 teams will pay approximately 100 dollars
per
> team.
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1) Why choose to impose these fees by school rather than by team? Imposing
> fees by school acts as a regressive tax on smaller programs who have
smaller
>
> numbers of teams competing.
>
> 2) While I'm sure someone will angrily point out that I could have
attended
> X meeting somewhere, I had no idea that each school would be subsidizing
the
>
> Tahoe Conference to the tune of forty bucks. That's a big deal to me
because
>
> there's no way I can afford to attend this conference, nor can my
students.
> I couldn't justify the expense on personal level, nor institutionally. Yet
> the ISU program will subsidize some other better funded individuals to go
> cheaper, at the expense of something else for our modestly funded program.
> Seems pretty unfair. See also the above question regarding imposing this
fee
>
> on a per-school basis.
>
> Aaron Klemz
> ISU
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>