[eDebate] Worker rule .. and the issue of community input

Jon P. Lupo jlupo
Wed Apr 26 09:37:37 CDT 2006


I want to preface this by saying I have a lot of respect for Gordon, and
everyone on the NDT committee.  Their job is largely thankless, and as
evidenced by this discussion they tend to take more then their fair share of
crap from all of us.

That being said Gordon's plea for input and the way he describes the process,
as best I can tell is just flat out incorrect.  The original Mancuso proposal
was introduced sometime before the spring semester of this year, I am not sure
when, because quite frankly I was not really involved until January.  In
January I attended a D6 meeting at west Ga.  The Mancuso proposal was
discussed, as were some other options for creating parody at the NDT.  The
general sentiment of our district seemed to be, opposition to limiting student
access.  We prposed an alternative, which required all atendees to provide some
service to the tournament, whether it be judging, scouting or serving tacos. 
In my interaction with the community the rest of the smester (admittedly not
very scientific) I found a fair amount of support for this type of rule.  I
know Joel Rollins proposed something similar at a district meeting that had
support, and as i understand from conversations other people supported this
approach as well.  Regardless of the level of support there was extensive
discussion about a rule, both Mancuso's orgiginal rule and proposed
alternatives that mandated service rather then limiting access.  

I want to be very clear here, the only rule, either in theory or specificity,
that the committee did not receieve extensive input on was the actual rules
that passed.  So please when we discuss the worker rule change DO NOT use lack
of input as the excuse.  the committee had many options that were extensively
discussed, and chose to enact a change that they very little input on very
their constituents, we should not be surprised that the result is outrage.  As
Gordon correctly points out, he knows for a fact that 3 out of 4 people who
voted against the new rule favor some sort of change.  maybe this gorup of 3
took a more reasonable approach than the majority and decided not to support
change that was not discussed prior to the meeting, simply for the sake of
change.

Jon Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060426/799a4508/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list