[eDebate] A2 CHIEF RE: New Events

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Sat May 9 22:21:55 CDT 2009


Let's recap

you made an attrocious argument for why the ec should have powers that you
can't explain a useful application of.
In engaging that argument i made a passing reference to the idea of ceda
hiring an ed.
You responded to that argument with the inadequacy you normally bring to the
table (like i said you really should let gordon do the talking, he is
actually intelligent, an actual academic,not a dude for whom debate was the
only thing he was ever good at)

Now we are here...so a few things my argument is not here is my resume ceda
should hire me as ed, while i would love to do the job someday there are
millions of candidates more qualified to lead an orgaization with the size
and scope of ceda. And hey for you there at least a million people less
qualified than you...ok just kidding...not really, i thought you sucked as
leader. Good job to sarah and you and the ec on a great ceda nats, and thank
you. But for the bulk of your administration it seemed like ceda was at
least your third priority.Things bumped up against deadlines, got together
with last minute bursts of energy, and often seemed to be in situations
where vision and implementation were not synced. In your defense, this is a
problem with all ceda leadershp, as long as ceda comes third to its
leadership and its leadership is entirely made up of particpants the ability
to offer the kind of programing, research, support, and leadership that each
member of the ec envisions the misson of ceda enabling is not a high
priority AND decisions are made with allegiances to the second job(debate
coach). I will talk more about the second part of it in a second.

We could exchange insults all day. Really. and Im sure you agree...but i'll
stop..look let me put it this way...you the ec gets to pick the ed, make
sure it is somebody who understand the needs of academics, the nature of
debate, the role of the ec, and the ability to qucikly bring the kind of
funds that could make your third job her job and your third job a lot better
and a lot easier...It actually increses the power of the executive, but puts
those decisions in the hands of thinking about this day in and day out...i
don't mind if an executive has power as long as they are focuesd on those
decisions, but i don't by any means want somebody making final decisions who
has at least two professional priorities prior to ceda. I'm not knocking you
for being passionate about the parts of debate you are passionate about...ou
know you rock that stuff, and keep doing it, it doesnt mean you arent good
at it or appreciated for it, it means you should not also run a national
organization which includes 200 members schools and sanctions a season worth
of competition...see this is  where the rub is..CEDA is largely driven by
the intense personal commitment of those that care, the ec, and a chunk of
directors and a smaller chunk of students, the CEDA that exists and can
exist to those who care is different than the ceda that exists for those
that are largely agnostic on the question except when the question directy
effects them. Intense personal commitment often gets things done during the
presidents term, but then another president comes in with their agenda, and
so on and so on...this means that when tuna opens the door for the merger he
is not around to manage it after its implementd...while that may be an
interesting debate, for the point of argument the process would have been a
lot different if he had implemented it in his first year and managed his
vision of that partnership for the last dozen or so years...the events
question (where the debate started) is simlar if gordon would agree to be
the executive director of ceda...i wouldnt care if he added events in mid
feburary, but i don't think your argument in defense of it was very good and
you seemed to think it was...enough that it is a description of a reason you
might agree to make this decision to add other events at nationals. I don't
want to give that power to the executive generally, but an executive
yes...especially if my elected leadership served as board to the ed of
ceda...NFL Does it...it seems to work...or at least be worth investigating.

You get a link to a spending disad, hasn't been your argument yet. Whats the
rest of the offense?

Now the other question...Some sort of outsider on the leadership structure
would be good, some one who doesnt care about 5th years but understands why
you do, somebodys whose job it is to reach across competitive rivalries and
to guide the right way for the organization...i'm not suggesting some tyrant
chalie sheen would play or something, you all work out the compensation
package and terms, you all hire and fire the person, you all do committee
work under non rotating leadership..uses your time well in your third
priority...and lets you have say on the vision of the
organization...president of ceda could be president of the board...still
powerful because they set the vision and char ethe key committees, but
without the thankless third job(something most of your non debate advanced
degree having colleagues cannot understand)

Recapping again...you have no disad, just some d...An executive director can
be somebody who you like, who handles the day to to day things you handle
third first.

Ill address this baltimore thing.

Reasons why Baltimore College Debate did not work as i had envisioned it.
1)It never had the opportunity to come first, it was always at least second
to my middle school job or my towson job. had to take care of the things
where my job first and my volunteer work suffered. I beleive had it been
funded in 2007 it would have succeeded, however i trained my eyes on one
revenue stream, when it fell through there where no accesible methods of
funding it to the level that it would have required to spur ceda debate as
we recognize it here.
2) I tried to tailor the league to ceda's definition of what a tournament
is. I always focused on points eligible tournaments in order to attract
outsiders, while ignoring the 1 day tournament experience of many of the
local students, and debate leaders.
3) Without fundraising there was very little i could do to expand services
and help students justfy it to thier schools.
4) I had to many tournaments in one place to alter peoples schedules to the
extent that i would have needed to.

There are other reasons and thats actually a conversation i am interested in
having with some of you. I bet that at somepoint in the future lots of
debates will be going on in Baltimore amongst college students in
competitive forums, just not usually your competitive forum.

Some of the reasons this failed are the same reason many good ideas
fail...doing them is a lot more work, than thinking of them...i think this
applies to the amendment this conversation all started with, and the reason
it doesnt make sense to expand the ecs development responsibilities without
increasing their capacity first.

Finally...funding..yes its expensive to have an executive director...but if
that is really the only concern...then lets talk about how to do that, i
don't doubt the ec can come up with a good solution....in consultation with
the membership of course.

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu> wrote:

> Andy,
>
> I should probably stop engaging you on these issues.  If the best you got
> is that I was stuck in a blizzard for 2 days in Wyoming because I made a
> commitment to 6 kids to take them to a National Tournament and planned our
> budgeting in a way to make it happen, made sure they got there, got them
> opportunities that others didnt get, then you are really stretching for ways
> to indict my leadership and management.  Did you even pay attention to what
> a great tournament CEDA was?  Or were you in a fog all week?  I mean how
> much of the planning and budgeting did you do in your role at Towson?  How
> many of those Baltimore programs did you get to CEDA?  What revenue streams
> did you nurture and grow to make that happen?
>
> A lot of us with full time jobs, in some cases multiple ones, and families,
> and committee responsibilities at our institutions, and professional
> development responsibilities, and professional conference responsibilities,
> and coaching, and planning, and YES budgeting for our programs, could still
> run circles (while in a blizzard) around someone who would rather indict the
> very structure and those that serve it that gives them opportunities to
> exist in a bizarre little world we call debate and not require so much of
> them as a thank you.  With virtually none of the responsibilities above,
> your planning and management skills still dont deserve the ability to even
> smell the socks of Gordon Stables, Sue Peterson, or Mike Davis--the next 3
> people you get to criticize.  But yet we will continue to serve and give you
> that space to do it.
>
> And frankly until you master the language and quit babbling about things
> like the "risk of not flowing very reliability" (sic)  but being "exposed to
> liability" I cant even begin to address the words you have somehow strung
> together.  It makes my head hurt reading it.  Seriously.
>
> chief
>
> >>> Andy Ellis 05/09/09 3:50 AM >>>
> Here is my point...You want revenue streams? You have to be able to
> nurture, maintain, and grow them. There are other people with advanced
> degrees who do this as a living. Some of them are even in the academy. If
> you tend to them after everything else, not only do they risk not flowing
> very reliability but they expose you to liability.
>
> If this is a focus of the organization i applaud the move, however it is a
> more reliable strategy if the process is devised and maintained by somebody
> who does it as their job.
>
> This does not mean fill the ec with technocratic business person, but
> having one may not be a bad idea. Aside from being able to plan and make the
> kind of deals this amendment suggests, this person could do a lot of the
> work to let the ec focus on the things that caused them to run for
> office...If this is developing revenue streams im sure the ed would take the
> help, but if it is not its not something that you have to worry about.
>
> There is a vast difference between a full time fundraiser, a development
> director and an executive director...just as their is between a debaprtment
> chair a dean and a provost....i would advise against a full time fundraiser,
> but a person who makes ceda go, enables the ec to do what they are
> professionaly trained to do, and builds the kind of resources darren says
> are the real issues...is probably a lot better than someone who speant 2
> weeks of march in wyoming stuck due to their first and second job.
>
> Thats not a pot shot, a low blow, or some other euphamism, its a direct
> indictment of your leadership and management.
>
> Andy
> PS-Any word on what i should do with the CEDA nats video. I asked you more
> than a month ago where you would like me to send the DVD so you could do
> something with it (like i don't know make it available to the membership as
> promised)
>
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>        When, in my opinion, the majority of people who run programs believe
> CEDA officers should be tied to the academy, be able to work within the
> academy to promote debate amongst those who matter (read Administrators,
> Tenure Committees, etc), and that they should probably hold advanced degrees
> and exist as both coaches and faculty of some sort, my arguments are
> actually proof positive that the CEDA President should not exist as a full
> time fundraiser.  And I would imagine such political platforms with that
> being the main strategy will continue to be non-starters.  So not a try at a
> cheap shot, just a glowing reality.
>
> Good luck with that PhD.
>
> chief
>
> >>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 5:59 PM >>>
>
>        Sir,
>
> Thank you for feeding the argument for why the CEDA President should be
> someone who makes it their full time job because we college faculty don't
> have the time to do the nonprofit type fundraising.
>
> Oh wait -- that was part of Andy's platform when he was running... right?
>
> Nice try at a cheap shot.  FAIL.
>
> -JM
> is outta here and off to get a PhD.
>
>
>
>
>        _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090509/e71d8f47/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list