[eDebate] Vote for the eligibility amendment
Wed May 3 11:54:08 CDT 2006
I am encouraging those of you who have not voted to vote in favor of the eligibility amendment as presented by Linda Collier of UMKC. If you have voted and voted against it, I encourage you to change your vote. : )
I was one of the most vocal opponents of this amendment the last time around. My primary objections were because as written before, 1 tournament in a year would have counted as a full year of eligibility. This seemed absurd to me given the various factors faced by many students (especially those with full time jobs, families, and definitely the typical CC student). And the 1 tournament stipulation was not in line with the AFA. Those arguments were clearly outlined the last time around. The new version of the amendment fixes those concerns for me. I think 3 tournaments in a year is a better compromise and certainly is consistent with the AFA.
The second area of concern that I know many of you expressed and caused you to vote against it was the retroactive nature of the rule. In other words those saving eligibility in the past under the rules and in good faith would have been punished and lost eligibility as it was previously worded. That language has now been removed and there is a clause for appeal. I think we are talking of maybe only a handful of students now who may be affected and I feel the reasonable nature of our Exec. Council would listen to and grant such an appeal. I can guarantee as a member of the EC I would argue for and vote for such an appeal. And within a couple years this issue will resolve itself as those folks will exhaust elig. or move on.
So, given the above and given the reasons articulated why 5 years makes more sense these days than 4, I would ask you to join me and vote in favor of the eligibility amendment. HOLLLAAA!
Director of Debate--KCKCC
CEDA 2nd VP Elect
More information about the Mailman