Per-school fees at CEDA Nationals

[Shawn Whalen]

Colleagues,

I believe that Greg's earlier post was misleading.  I have a distinct
memory of the Tahoe Conference fee being voted on at both the Executive
Council meeting and the regular business meeting at NCA this year.  It
was initially discussed at the summer business meeting, but sanctioned
by votes at NCA in Seattle.

I don't believe that minutes for the NCA business meeting have been
posted and I can't find them in a search of the archives.

I believe that the Tahoe Conference is important and well worth $40 per
program, but I have great sympathy for those who demand to be heard
before decisions to raise fees are made.  If Greg or someone with a copy
could post the minutes of the NCA meeting, I think we could put this
behind us.

Shawn

Joshua Hoe wrote:

>
>
> Greg et al,
>
>
>
> The problem is not with supporting the Tahoe conference it is with the
> lack of any institutional warning or democratic process.  How many
> members of the CEDA community were at the summer conference?  Why was
> it not posted for wider debate?  Why was it not reviewed at the NCA
> business meeting?
>
> I agree that professional development is important but making our
> support of it look like a hidden tax hardly makes people excited by
> that prospect.  Trust me, I as much as anyone, understand how this
> could have just been missed but I think when it comes to issues of
> money things should be as open and announced as possible.
>
> Dont worry we are paying the fee LOL
>
>
>
> Josh
>
> UNT
>  >From: "Achten, Greg"
> >To: "'Aaron Klemz'" , edebate at ndtceda.com
> >Subject: RE: Per-school fees at CEDA Nationals
> >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:38:54 -0800
> >
> >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
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010221/83674890/attachment.htm