[eDebate] ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING NOVICE AND JV ELIGIBILITY

Joe Patrice joepatrice
Tue Feb 5 16:37:53 CST 2008


Recently the membership passed an amendment altering Article VII Section
3(A) of the CEDA Bylaws.  This amendment did not carry an effective date in
its text and this has created some confusion as to the date it became
effective.  I will admit that I was fuzzy on this one too.  After much
discussion and consulting an old textbook, I can announce that an amendment
without an effective date takes effect the moment it is passed.  (While this
post relates primarily to the novice eligibility rule change, let me also
add that because all amendments without effective dates take effect
immediately, teams that qualify as JV under the new, more liberal JV
standards set by that amendment are eligible for JV regardless of when they
lost their eligibility under the prior, stricter rule).

Faced with some community confusion, I presented to the EC the option to
exercise our power under the Bylaws to grant waivers from the strictures of
the eligibility requirements of Article VII Section 3(A), to grant a waiver
to allow students who began the year eligible under the original rule to
complete this season and accrue points.  This does not "invalidate" or
"waive" the amendment itself -- rather this would recognize that the
amendment took effect and provide a limited waiver for the affected students
for the next two months to finish the year.

Many reasons were raised for adopting this waiver.  An incomplete summary of
some reasons mentioned in the discussion follows:

1) Confusion: In addition to my personal confusion, I have been approached
by other coaches, including one with decades of service to the activity, who
asked me why I thought the amendment took effect immediately rather than the
beginning of next season.  When people following the activity for some time
were confused, I determined that the reasonable solution would be to explore
a waiver.
2) The posted Constitution: While the amendment passed, anyone looking to
our website to determine our rules will note that it is not included in the
presently posted Constitution, which is the public notice of our rules.
3) Optimal compromise: It seemed to many to be the best compromise between
faithfully following our rules and adhering to the general principle 'do no
harm' when it comes to governing. The amendment did pass and will be in
effect to the letter beginning next season, but for now there will be waiver
to allow those excluded by the new rule to finish the season.
4) EC responsibility: There were either unspoken assumptions or a lack of
communication with regards to the effective start date.  As the EC it was
our duty to accept the responsibility for the mistakes we made, specifically
not having an effective date that was explicit and publicly noticed.  We
apologize for this misunderstanding.  To prevent future such episodes, I am
going to propose an amendment requiring all of our amendments to include
"effective dates" (like real legislation).

As always, individual tournaments can set stricter requirements for novice
eligibility than allowed by the constitution.  If a tournament expressly
wishes to exclude those teams that met the old rule but not the new rule,
please inform me and more importantly make this move explicit to all
attending.

10 FOR:
Baker
Buescher
Davis
Dillard
Kephart
Patrice
Peterson
Rubino
Silber
Stables

3 OPPOSED:
Elliott
Green
Jarman

1 ABSTAIN:
McDonald

Not Voting (Majority was reached before collecting these votes):
Brossman
Gerber
Partlow-Lefevre
Steinberg
North Central Rep (presently vacant)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080205/806fd53b/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list