Amendments

Current text

Article XVI.

Section 1, Subpoint D

2. The judge was, within the last two years, the coach of
   the school whose teams/he is about to hear.
3. The judge was, within the last two years, an
   undergraduate forensics competitor at the school whose team s/he is about to
   hear.

New text

Article XVI.

Section 1, Subpoint D

2. The judge was, within the last four years, the coach of
   the school whose teams/he is about to hear.
3. The judge was, within the last four years, an
   undergraduate forensics competitor at the school whose team s/he is about to
   hear.

Rationale-

changes the standard from 2 years to 4 to align the rule
with those used by the NDT and ADA.  The goal is to reduce variation
between tournaments and confusion caused by conflicting standards

Proposed amendment:

10. Novice sweepstakes: CEDA will award novice sweepstakes
    trophies to the top three programs earning the most points in the novice
    division but not earning enough points to be included in the Top 10 Overall
    Sweepstakes Awards. Schools will receive points for all teams entered in the
    novice division. Otherwise, points for novice sweepstakes will be awarded
    following the guidelines for general sweepstakes. In the event that the junior
    varsity and novice divisions are collapsed, points will be awarded to teams
    that debate in novice breakout elimination rounds.

Rationale: The purpose of this award is to incentive novice
debate participation and recognize the work done by programs that invest in
novice debate.

Proposed Amendment:

V. TOURNAMENT SANCTIONING

Section 12: For a tournament to receive CEDA sanctioning and
qualify for CEDA points, the host school must be an institutional member of
CEDA.

Rationale: Amends the constitution to require tournament
hosts be CEDA members to receive CEDA sanctioning. This proposal should take
affect beginning the 2018 academic season.

Amends the election procedures to use ranked-choice voting
instead of plurality voting. The rationale is that plurality voting for
single-positions with more than two candidates or choices creates
vote-splitting and can result in the lesser-preferred candidate or choice being
selected. This is particularly true when voters have very little information
about how others intend to vote. Ranked-choice voting is resistant to tactical
voting and is a much more robust system for determining the will of the voting
population. We already use it for the topic vote. This language mirrors those
voting procedures.

Current Constitution:

Article V. Section 3. No later than 30 following the closure
of nominations (either 30 days following the business meeting or following a
Presidential extension outlined in Section 2), the Executive Secretary shall
submit to the membership by mail or email a ballot containing the names of all
nominees. Members will vote for national officers and the representative of
their particular region. Ballots may be returned to the Executive Secretary by
mail, email, or fax. Phone balloting will not be accepted. Balloting shall
cease at midnight 14 days after submission of the ballot. A plurality of
ballots returned will elect. In the event of a tie between the two leading
contenders for an office, their names shall be resubmitted to the membership.
The Executive Secretary shall, upon receipt of a personnel ballot, provide
acknowledgement of its receipt via email to the sender. The notification shall
not disclose the particular vote, but is merely intended to inform the sender
their ballot has been received and will be tabulated. The Executive Secretary
shall inform any member of problems with their ballot at this time (e.g.
improperly completed ballot). When announcing election results, the Executive
Secretary shall report the total number of ballots received.

Proposed Amendment:

Section 3. No later than 30 following the closure of
nominations (either 30 days following the business meeting or following a
Presidential extension outlined in Section 2), the Executive Secretary shall submit
to the membership by mail or email a ballot containing the names of all
nominees. Members will vote for national officers and the representative of
their particular region. Ballots may be returned to the Executive Secretary by
mail, email, or fax. Phone balloting will not be accepted. Balloting shall
cease at midnight 14 days after submission of the ballot. Elections will be
determined through a proportional voting system. Voters will be required to
rank as many choices as they wish, consecutively, with one being the first
rank. All first place votes will be counted. If one choice receives a majority,
it wins. If not, the choice with the LEAST first place votes will be thrown
out, and ballots that had the discarded choice as first will be counted using their
second place votes. This process will be repeated until one choice attains a
majority. If two or more of the choices to be eliminated have equal numbers of
first place votes, they will be eliminated together, with second place votes
for both added to the respective first place totals on the same round. If a
choice is eliminated and its second choice is already eliminated, that ballot’s
third choice will count as a first choice, and so forth. In the event of a tie,
the nominee with the highest number of initial first-place votes will win. If
still tied, the nominee with the highest number of second-place votes will win,
and so forth. The Executive Secretary shall, upon receipt of a personnel
ballot, provide acknowledgement of its receipt via email to the sender. The
notification shall not disclose the particular vote, but is merely intended to
inform the sender their ballot has been received and will be tabulated. The
Executive Secretary shall inform any member of problems with their ballot at
this time (e.g. improperly completed ballot). When announcing election results,
the Executive Secretary shall report the total number of ballots received.

Add new section to Article VIII. Amendments to the
constitution and bylaws.

Section 4. Amendments by the Executive Council.

A. An amendment to the constitution or bylaws may be
proposed by a two-thirds vote of the Executive Council.

B. The proposed amendment shall be distributed to the
membership for review.

C. After at least 30 days of review, the Executive Secretary
will distribute a ballot containing the proposed amendment.

D. The amendment will pass with a majority of those voting.

AMEND:

Article X, Section 2

Section 2: Students may participate in no more than five
National CEDA Tournaments.

Article X, Section 4. A. 3

3. That a student competing for a certain school has already
   participated in five National CEDA Tournaments.

Rationale: If we are going to allow students to debate for
five years we should allow them to debate in our national tournament five
times. Unlike the NDT allowing additional debaters into our national tournament
does not trade off with other students attending.

AMEND:
Article X, Section 2
Section 2: Students may participate in no more than five National CEDA Tournaments.

Article X, Section 4. A. 3
3. That a student competing for a certain school has already participated in five National CEDA Tournaments.

Rationale: If we are going to allow students to debate for five years we should allow them to debate in our national tournament five times. Unlike the NDT allowing additional debaters into our national tournament does not trade off with other students attending.

Current Wording:

IV. TOPIC SELECTION

Section 2: By May 1 the committee will report to the
Executive Secretary no fewer than three problem areas to be voted upon by the
general membership. In early July the committee will report to the Executive
Secretary no fewer than three resolutions corresponding to the winning topic
area.

Proposed Amendment

Change May 1 to May 8.

Rationale: gives a full week of work in May to finalize
topic papers. Currently, the May 1st deadline is in the middle of a majority of
final exam periods for Universities on a semester system. This results in a
lack of undergraduate input into the topic area paper creation process. The
past 3 years, in an attempt to finalize wording papers it has been nearly
impossible to find undergraduates with the time to finalize papers.

Obviously, the topic committee needs time to work on resolutions. But, the 4 possible plus weeks between May 8th and “early July”
seems to provide adequate time to work on preparing resolutions – particularly
if the extra week creates improved papers and greater involvement in the topic
process initially.

Desaray Odekirk Service Award–

During the CEDA National Tournament, the CEDA President,
Executive Council, along with consultation of the Tournament Host when
necessary, will determine recipient(s) worthy of the Desaray Odekirk Service
Award. The award, unlimited in number, shall be presented to any person(s)
making a significant contribution to the hosting, management, preparation of
that years CEDA National Tournament.

Consideration of recipient(s) should take into account work
in preparing for the tournament, work during the tournament, hospitality
provided, service to the operation of the tournament. Typically this person
will be someone integral to the tournament and its operation that is not
otherwise part of the CEDA governance structure that would ordinarily be
involved in running the National Tournament. These should serve as guiding
principles and are not exhaustive of attributes to consider.

JV Rules Change #1

Any debater with under 100 rounds of policy debate is
eligible for junior varsity. However, any debater with more than 100 rounds of
policy debate who has not won an elimination rounds at three tournament in junior
varsity, varsity or open at the college level will be allowed to stay in junior
varsity until they do so. The elimination round provision only applies to those
tournaments that clear to at least full quarters in the division and does not
count for partial elimination rounds. An exception will be made for Junior
Varsity National Tournaments. A waiver process for this section may be
established by the Executive Council for extraordinary situations.

Rationale: Brings the rule in line with the original intent
as specified on the CEDA Forums and at the NCA Business Meeting.

Existing Rule

A. A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24
rounds of team policy debate at the high school or college level, or CEDA
non-policy debate, or 50 rounds of Lincoln- Douglas Debate at the high school
or college level, or a combination of 50 rounds of team policy debate and
Lincoln-Douglas debate at the high school or college level. If a debater
competes in no more than 24 rounds of team policy debate during his/her first
year as a novice at the college level, they retain novice eligibility during
their second academic year in debate. However, if debaters have more than 24
rounds of team policy debate during their first year at the college level but
have not advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first
year of novice eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility
until advancing to elimination rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of
the second academic year. Any debater with under 100 rounds of policy debate is
eligible for junior varisty. However, any debater who has won an elimination
rounds at three tournament in junior varsity, varsity or open at the college
level will be required to move to open. The elimination round provision will
only apply to those tournaments that clear to at least octos in the division
and does not count for partial elimination rounds. An exception will be made
for Junior Varsity National Tournaments. A waiver process for this section may
be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary situations.

JV Rule Change #2

After the statement “An exception will be made for Junior
Varsity National Tournaments.” add the following: This exception only applies
to the year in which the student was forced to progress.

Existing Rule

A. A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24
rounds of team policy debate at the high school or college level, or CEDA
non-policy debate, or 50 rounds of Lincoln- Douglas Debate at the high school
or college level, or a combination of 50 rounds of team policy debate and
Lincoln-Douglas debate at the high school or college level. If a debater
competes in no more than 24 rounds of team policy debate during his/her first
year as a novice at the college level, they retain novice eligibility during
their second academic year in debate. However, if debaters have more than 24
rounds of team policy debate during their first year at the college level but
have not advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first
year of novice eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility
until advancing to elimination rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of
the second academic year. Any debater with under 100 rounds of policy debate is
eligible for junior varisty. However, any debater who has won an elimination
rounds at three tournament in junior varsity, varsity or open at the college
level will be required to move to open. The elimination round provision will
only apply to those tournaments that clear to at least octos in the division
and does not count for partial elimination rounds. An exception will be made
for Junior Varsity National Tournaments. A waiver process for this section may
be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary situations.

Novice Rule Change

A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24
rounds of team policy debate at the high school or college level, or CEDA
non-policy debate, or 50 rounds of debate (including Lincoln Douglas, public
forum, parliamentary, and policy debate). If a debater competes in no more than
24 rounds of team policy debate during his/her first year as a novice at the
college level, they retain novice eligibility during their second academic year
in debate. However, if debaters have more than 24 rounds of team policy debate
during their first year at the college level but have not advanced to
elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first year of novice
eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility until advancing
to elimination rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of the second
academic year.

Rationale: The novice division should be reserved for true
novices. Other forms of debate give advantages to students in terms of flowing,
refutation skills and confidence. Additionally, with the recent changes in the
JV rule the JV division can become a true transition division for students with
high school experience.

Existing Rule

A. A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24
rounds of team policy debate at the high school or college level, or CEDA
non-policy debate, or 50 rounds of Lincoln- Douglas Debate at the high school
or college level, or a combination of 50 rounds of team policy debate and
Lincoln-Douglas debate at the high school or college level. If a debater
competes in no more than 24 rounds of team policy debate during his/her first
year as a novice at the college level, they retain novice eligibility during
their second academic year in debate. However, if debaters have more than 24
rounds of team policy debate during their first year at the college level but
have not advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first
year of novice eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility
until advancing to elimination rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of
the second academic year. Any debater with under 100 rounds of policy debate is
eligible for junior varisty. However, any debater who has won an elimination
rounds at three tournament in junior varsity, varsity or open at the college
level will be required to move to open. The elimination round provision will
only apply to those tournaments that clear to at least octos in the division
and does not count for partial elimination rounds. An exception will be made
for Junior Varsity National Tournaments. A waiver process for this section may
be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary situations.

Bylaw IX. Section 14. Rewrite Subpoint A as follows:
“Participant fee. Each person attending the CEDA national tournament will
pay a fee (determined by the host and the President). The fee should go
directly to the host institution to underwrite the costs associated with
hosting the tournament.”

Rationale:

The current host fee is regressive. We charge each school
$40 regardless of the number of people attending. A per person fee is more
appropriate. A per person fee is consistent with every other major national
tournament. A per person fee enables hosts to negotiate and provide meals
(breakfast, lunch and/or dinner) for the tournament. The exact amount of the
fee should not be set constitutionally since each host has different expenses.
Each bid can identify the approximate amount of the fee and the item(s) they
will provide.

Bylaw V. Section 11. Add the following: “The preference
system must include a method to affirmatively place women in judging
assignments. If a tournament director is unable or otherwise precluded from
affirmatively placing women in judging assignments, the tournament director may
appeal to the CEDA Executive Council for tournament sanctioning.”

Bylaw V. Section 11. Add the following: “The preference
system must include a method to affirmatively place racial minorities in
judging assignments. If a tournament director is unable or otherwise precluded
from affirmatively placing racial minorities in judging assignments, the
tournament director may appeal to the CEDA Executive Council for tournament
sanctioning.”

Bylaw VII. Section 3. Add the following: “Any debater
with under 100 rounds of policy debate is eligible for junior varisty. However,
any debater who has won an elimination rounds at three tournament in junior
varsity, varsity or open at the college level will be required to move to open.
The elimination round provision will only apply to those tournaments that clear
to at least octos in the division and does not count for partial elimination
rounds.”

New version would read:

A. A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24
rounds of team policy debate at the high school or college level, or CEDA
non-policy debate, or 50 rounds of Lincoln- Douglas Debate at the high school
or college level, or a combination of 50 rounds of team policy debate and
Lincoln-Douglas debate at the high school or college level. If a debater
competes in no more than 24 rounds of team policy debate during his/her first
year as a novice at the college level, they retain novice eligibility during
their second academic year in debate. However, if debaters have more than 24
rounds of team policy debate during their first year at the college level but
have not advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first year
of novice eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility until
advancing to elimination rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of the
second academic year. Any debater with under 100 rounds of policy debate is
eligible for junior varisty. However, any debater who has won an elimination
rounds at three tournament in junior varsity, varsity or open at the college
level will be required to move to open. The elimination round provision will
only apply to those tournaments that clear to at least octos in the division
and does not count for partial elimination rounds. An exception will be made
for Junior Varsity National Tournaments. A waiver process for this section may
be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary situations.

Rationale:

Currently novice eligibility rules are governed by the
number of rounds that the student has competed in. This is a good standard as
it measures actual experience and not years in debate which are extremely
variable both in terms of number of debates and experience.

Allowing debaters who have not yet won an elim in junior
varsity allows debaters with significant rounds for open, but lacking the skill
set to remain in junior varsity until they achieve a level of success/aptitude.

The elim rule is written to exclude very small novice
divisions and byes through partials. This ensures that the tournament is large
enough to represent a significant sample size.

Add to the constitution:

ARTICLE I:

Section 3. CEDA is organized exclusively for educational
purposes, included, for such purposes, the making of distributions to
organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal tax
code.

Section 4. No part of the net earnings of CEDA shall inure
to the benefit of, or be distributable to its members, trustees, officers, or
other private persons, except that the corporation shall be authorized and
empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make
payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth in ARTICLE
I, Section 3.

Section 5. No substantial part of the activities of the
corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to
influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate in, or
intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any
political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.
Notwithstanding any other provision of these articles, the corporation shall
not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by a
corporation exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal tax code,
or (b) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under section
170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future
federal tax code.

Section 6. Upon the dissolution of CEDA, assets shall be
distributed for one or more exempt purposes within the meaning of section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future
purpose. Any such assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by the Court
of Common Pleas of the county in which the principal office of the corporation
is then located, exclusively for such purposes or to such organization or
organizations, as said Court shall determine, which are organized and operated
exclusively for such purposes.

ARTICLE IX: Conflict of Interest Policy and Annual Statement

Section 1. Purpose

A. The purpose of this conflict of interest policy is to
protect CEDA’s interests when it is contemplating entering into a transaction
or arrangement that might benefit the private interests of an officer or
director of CEDA or might result in a possible excess benefit transaction.

B. This policy is intended to supplement, but not replace,
any applicable state and federal laws governing conflicts of interest
applicable to nonprofit and charitable organizations.

Section 2. Definitions

A. Interested person — Any director, principal officer, or
member of a committee with governing board delegated powers, who has a direct
or indirect financial interest, as defined below, is an interested person.

B. Financial interest — A person has a financial interest
if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment, or
family:

1. An ownership or investment interest in any entity with
   which CEDA has a transaction or arrangement,
   
   
2. A compensation arrangement with CEDA or with any entity
   or individual with which CEDA has a transaction or arrangement, or
   
   
3. A potential ownership or investment interest in, or
   compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which CEDA is
   negotiating a transaction or arrangement.
   
   

Compensation includes direct and indirect remuneration as
well as gifts or favors that are not insubstantial.

A financial interest is not necessarily a conflict of
interest. A person who has a financial interest may have a conflict of interest
only if the Board or Executive Committee decides that a conflict of interest
exists, in accordance with this policy.

C. Independent Director — A director shall be considered
“independent” for the purposes of this policy if he or she is “independent” as
defined in the instructions for the IRS 990 form or, until such definition is
available, the director –

1. is not, and has not been for a period of at least three
   years, an employee of CEDA or any entity in which CEDA has a financial
   interest;
   
   
2. does not directly or indirectly have a significant
   business relationship with CEDA, which might affect independence in
   decision-making;
   
   
3. is not employed as an executive of another corporation
   where any of CEDA’s executive officers or employees serve on that corporation’s
   compensation committee; and
   
   
4. does not have an immediate family member who is an executive
   officer or employee of CEDA or who holds a position that has a significant
   financial relationship with CEDA.
   
   

Section 3. Procedures

A. Duty to Disclose — In connection with any actual or
possible conflict of interest, an interested person must disclose the existence
of the financial interest and be given the opportunity to disclose all material
facts to the Board or Executive Committee.

B. Recusal of Self – Any director may recuse himself or
herself at any time from involvement in any decision or discussion in which the
director believes he or she has or may have a conflict of interest, without
going through the process for determining whether a conflict of interest
exists.

C. Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists —
After disclosure of the financial interest and all material facts, and after
any discussion with the interested person, he/she shall leave the Board or
Executive Committee meeting while the determination of a conflict of interest
is discussed and voted upon. The remaining Board or Executive Committee members
shall decide if a conflict of interest exists.

D. Procedures for Addressing the Conflict of Interest

1. An interested person may make a presentation at the Board
   or Executive Committee meeting, but after the presentation, he/she shall leave
   the meeting during the discussion of, and the vote on, the transaction or
   arrangement involving the possible conflict of interest.
   
   
2. The President or Chairperson of the Board or Executive
   Committee shall, if appropriate, appoint a disinterested person or committee to
   investigate alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement.
   
   
3. After exercising due diligence, the Board or Executive
   Committee shall determine whether CEDA can obtain with reasonable efforts a
   more advantageous transaction or arrangement from a person or entity that would
   not give rise to a conflict of interest.
   
   
4. If a more advantageous transaction or arrangement is not
   reasonably possible under circumstances not producing a conflict of interest,
   the Board or Executive Committee shall determine by a majority vote of the
   disinterested directors whether the transaction or arrangement is in CEDA’s
   best interest, for its own benefit, and whether it is fair and reasonable. In
   conformity with the above determination, it shall make its decision as to
   whether to enter into the transaction or arrangement.
   
   E.  Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy.
   
   1. If the Board or Executive Committee has reasonable cause
   to believe a member has failed to disclose actual or possible conflicts of
   interest, it shall inform the member of the basis for such belief and afford
   the member an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose.
   
   2. If, after hearing the member’s response and after making
   further investigation as warranted by the circumstances, the Board or Executive
   Committee determines the member has failed to disclose an actual or possible
   conflict of interest, it shall take appropriate disciplinary and corrective
   action.

Section 4. Records of Proceedings

The minutes of the Board and all committees with board
delegated powers shall contain:

1. The names of the persons who disclosed or otherwise were
   found to have a financial interest in connection with an actual or possible
   conflict of interest, the nature of the financial interest, any action taken to
   determine whether a conflict of interest was present, and the Board’s or
   Executive Committee’s decision as to whether a conflict of interest in fact
   existed.
   
   
2. The names of the persons who were present for discussions
   and votes relating to the transaction or arrangement, the content of the
   discussion, including any alternatives to the proposed transaction or
   arrangement, and a record of any votes taken in connection with the
   proceedings.
   
   

Section 5. Compensation

A. A voting member of the Board who receives compensation,
directly or indirectly, from CEDA for services is precluded from voting on
matters pertaining to that member’s compensation.

B. A voting member of any committee whose jurisdiction
includes compensation matters and who receives compensation, directly or
indirectly, from CEDA for services is precluded from voting on matters
pertaining to that member’s compensation.

C. No voting member of the Board or any committee whose
jurisdiction includes compensation matters and who receives compensation,
directly or indirectly, from CEDA, either individually or collectively, is
prohibited from providing information to any committee regarding compensation.

Section 6. Annual Statements

A. Each director, principal officer and member of a
committee with Board delegated powers shall annually sign a statement which
affirms such person:

1. Has received a copy of the conflict of interest policy,
   
   
2. Has read and understands the policy,
   
   
3. Has agreed to comply with the policy, and
   
   
4. Understands CEDA is charitable and in order to maintain
   its federal tax exemption it must engage primarily in activities which
   accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes.
   
   B. Each voting member of the Board shall annually sign a
   statement which declares whether such person is an independent director.
   
   C. If at any time during the year, the information in the
   annual statement changes materially, the director shall disclose such changes
   and revise the annual disclosure form.
   
   D. The Executive Committee shall regularly and consistently
   monitor and enforce compliance with this policy by reviewing annual statements
   and taking such other actions as are necessary for effective oversight.
   
   

Section 7. Periodic Reviews

To ensure CEDA operates in a manner consistent with
charitable purposes and does not engage in activities that could jeopardize its
tax-exempt status, periodic reviews shall be conducted. The periodic reviews
shall, at a minimum, include the following subjects:

1. Whether compensation arrangements and benefits are
   reasonable, based on competent survey information (if reasonably available),
   and the result of arm’s length bargaining.
   
   
2. Whether partnerships, joint ventures, and arrangements
   with management organizations, if any, conform to CEDA’s written policies, are
   properly recorded, reflect reasonable investment or payments for goods and
   services, further charitable purposes and do not result in inurement or
   impermissible private benefit or in an excess benefit transaction.
   
   Section 8. Use of Outside Experts

When conducting the periodic reviews as provided for in
Section 7, CEDA may, but need not, use outside advisors. If outside experts are
used, their use shall not relieve the Board of its responsibility for ensuring
periodic reviews are conducted.

Section IV

Section 1: The CEDA Topic Selection Committee will be
responsible for choosing problem areas and writing debate topics. The CEDA
Topic Selection Committee will consist of nine members: Two of the following
(President, 1st Vice President, 2nd Vice President) three at-large members, one
undergraduate student representative, one graduate student representative, one
representative appointed by the National Debate Tournament, and one
representative appointed by the American Debate Association.

Amendment takes effect: First full topic cycle after
approval.

Text:

Within each four-year cycle the national topic should
reflect a rotation of at least one of each of the following topic categories.

1) Domestic – A topic that relates to issues within the
United States.

2) Legal – A topic that relates to a controversy within
legal jurisprudence and where the topic wording emphasizes legal research.

3) International – A topic of primarily international
relations or policy.

Graduate Assistant 

Section 17: The final round of CEDA Nationals shall have an
odd number of judges, between 9 and 13 as determined by the below criteria.

A. (1) Each regional representative shall provide a judge
and an alternate to judge the final round at the national tournament.

(2) If, by the close of registration, a region has not
presented the Tournament Director with the name of a judge selected by their
region for the final round panel, that region’s slot shall be forfeited.

(3) Following the conclusion of the debating in the
quarter-final round, the debaters shall preference any regionally selected
judge, including any alternate which may assigned to the finals round panel,
who were not on the original preference sheet. No restrictions shall be placed
on the preferences.

B. (1) Any remaining slots on the final round judging panel
shall be filled with available judges, maximizing mutuality and preference
based on each teams mutual preference judging rankings.

(2) As soon as possible after the semi-finalists are
identified, the tournament staff shall post a list of judges they believe to be
available who are highly preferred by the remaining teams with a request that
they makes themselves available to judge the final round.

Effective Date:

Next Ceda Nationals following passage of the amendment

Rationale:

This amendment is an update of the previous criteria for
final round panel selection. The previous language references a 9 category
system of MPJ which is not the system currently employed at CEDA Nationals.
Using more general language we can give the tab staff flexibility while still preserving
the addition of mutuality and preference on the panel. Additionally, the
previous language had the potential inequity of allowing two judges to be
placed to “balance” the high ranking of one regionally selected
judge.

Bylaw VI. Section 2. Replace with: “To be eligible for
CEDA points, a division must A) contain at least six teams from a minimum of
three different schools and B) may set the first elimination round bracket so
that half of the teams will advance (rounded down; for example, a tournament
with 26 or 27 teams would advance 13 teams to the elimination rounds). Once the
appropriate bracket has been established, tournaments may advance additional
teams with a winning record so long as the number of elimination rounds does
not change (i.e., a partial octafinal bracket can be filled with additional
teams, so long as a double-octafinal bracket is not created).

Current language:

Article IV. TOPIC SELECTION

Section 6:

“The chair of the Topic Selection Committee will be a
committee member selected by a majority vote of the committee.”

Proposed language:

“The chair of the Topic Selection Committee may be a
committee member selected by a majority vote of the committee. The committee
may also elect a non-voting chair from outside their membership.”

Rationale:

To give the topic committee the choice to select an outside
member as their chair.

Bylaw 5. Section 7. Change the rule from third Friday to the
second Friday.

Rationale: It is what we current allow.

Bylaw XII. Section 4. Little A. Eliminate select sweepstakes
award.

Rationale: The awards is outdated. It was created when there
were more than 200 member schools and those with limited travel budgets could
not hope to win an award. But, the expansion of the Newcomer criteria protects
this small group of schools.

Bylaw 4. Section 4. Add sentence: “In the event of a tie,
the resolution with the highest number of initial first-place votes will win.
If still tied, the resolution with the highest number of second-place votes
will win, and so forth.”

Bylaw 4. Section 4. Strike the following: “After all votes
are cast, the number of valid ballots will be determined, and it will require a
majority of that number (50% plus one) of first place votes for a choice to be
elected.”

Rationale: The sentence is duplicative and potentially
erroneous. For example, if 3 ballots were submitted, a vote of 2-1 produces a
majority. But the 50% plus one requirement would require a vote of 3-0 (1.5
plus 1).

Bylaw XII. Section 4. Little C. Replace affiliate with
emerging.

Rationale: Affiliate membership no longer exists.

Bylaw XIV. Eliminate entire bylaw.

Rationale: This doesn’t exist. It hasn’t for a long time. If
desired, the idea should be shifted to the electronic publication of CAD.

Article 5. Section 4. Strike Rocky Mountain and Southern
California from the list of regions elected in even numbered years.

Rationale: They no longer exist and this would make the
rotation 4 regions in even years and 5 regions in odd years.

Article 5. Section 3. Replace specific sentence with:
“Balloting shall cease at midnight 14 days after submission of the ballot.

Article 8. Section 1.D. and Section 2.D. Change 10 days to
30 days.

Rationale: These two changes make all balloting consistent –
30 days to distribute ballots and 14 days to vote.

Submitted 2-22-10

Add Bylaw XX. “A
waiver process for the preceding bylaws may be initiated by any member and
established by the Executive Council for extraordinary situations.”

Article IV Section 1. First sentence after the word
“Treasurer” insert “and Recording Secretary”.

Article IV Section 7. Add “The Recording Secretary’s duties
are to:

A. Record the minutes of each of the Association’s Annual
Business Meetings.

B. Record the minutes of each of the Associations Executive
Council Meetings.

C. Keep a record of all online meetings of the Association
that are not subject to privacy concerns.

D. Serve as a voting member of the Executive Council.”

Article IV Section 7-. Re-number all sections following
Section 7 as appropriate.

Amendment to the CEDA Constitutional By-Laws: V. Tournament
Sanctioning, Section 1

(to begin with 2010-2011 Tournament Calendar process)

Current Wording:

Section 1: For a CEDA tournament to carry sweepstakes
points, it must be sanctioned by the Executive Secretary and listed in the
official Calendar of CEDA Tournaments. To apply for official sanctioning, the
college or organization must request the CEDA Executive Secretary for approval
to hold a CEDA tournament at least 60 days in advance of the scheduled
tournament.

Proposed Wording:

Section 1: For a CEDA tournament to carry sweepstakes
points, it must be sanctioned by the Executive Secretary and listed in the
official Calendar of CEDA Tournaments as represented by the official CEDA
website/forum or a designated electronic proxy site. To apply for official sanctioning,
the college or organization must request the CEDA Executive Secretary for
approval to hold a CEDA tournament at least 60 days in advance of the scheduled
tournament. A tournament may also be sanctioned through the submission of a
regional calendar of tournaments submitted by a Regional Representative on
behalf of his/her region to the Executive Secretary.

The Executive Secretary will post all sanctioned tournaments
for the season on the CEDA Forums, and a tournament listed electronically on
the CEDA Forums will be considered a sanctioned tournament for the purposes of
sweepstakes calculations, unless otherwise noted by the Executive Secretary.

TRANSPARENCY IN VOTING RIGHTS

Submitted 2-21-09

Amend Article IV, Section 5 – Duties of the Executive Secretary

Currently:

4.Announcing results, including reporting the total number of ballots received.

Amend to:

4.Announcing results, including reporting the total number of ballots received and the total number of votes cast for each candidate and each ballot item. The Executive Secretary should also publish a voter roll of each program that voted in that election. This information should only contain a list of which programs voted and not include any information about how that program voted.

REVISIONS TO PROCESS
AND ADJUSTMENT OF CRITERIA FOR CEDA ANNUAL AWARDS

Submitted 2-21-09

Currently:

Among the awards given by the Association at the National
Tournament are the following:

Section 1: Scholastic All-American. First team Scholastic
All-Americans must have (1) at least a 3.50 cumulative GPA, (2) have attained
at least sophomore standing, and (3) a winning record in the open division
(minimum of 18 rounds). Second team Scholastic All-Americans must have (1) at
least a 3.25 cumulative GPA, (2) have attained at least sophomore standing, and
(3) competed in at least 18 rounds in the open division.

Honorable Mention Scholastic All-Americans must have (1) at
least a 3.00 cumulative GPA, (2) have attained at least sophomore standing, and
(3) competed in at least 18 rounds. There will be no minimum or maximum number
of students eligible for any of these awards. CEDA should provide trophies to
all First Team Scholastic All-Americans. Section 2: All-American Debate Squad
Award, which will be given annually to a maximum of thirty CEDA debaters for
their competitive success; good conduct; and squad contributions.

A. Criteria.
Recipients should demonstrate their competitive excellence, measured
qualitatively or quantitatively; evidence of their commitment to fair play in
the activity; and evidence of their contribution to the success and well-being
of their forensics program.

B. Selection
Process. There will be at least one recipient from each of the CEDA regions and
at-large recipients (who may come from any district) to total no more than
thirty. At least two recipients must be from community college programs. The
President will appoint a selection committee. No more than two students from a
given school shall receive this award.

C. Awards.
Suitable awards, funded by proceeds from the National Tournament, will be given
to recipients at the National Tournament. The Public Relations Committee will
publicize the winners to the news media and universities.

Section 3: Founders’ Award. The Founders’ Award will be
given annually to the school accumulating the most points over time in CEDA
sweepstakes. When a school wins the Founders’ Award, their accumulated points
revert to zero and they begin accumulating points anew the following year.

Section 4: Garrison Newcomers’ Award. The Garrison
Newcomers’ Award is given annually to the school with highest sweepstakes
points who currently is an affiliate member and who has not previously won the
award.

Section 5: Brownlee Award. The Brownlee Award is given
annually to a forensic educator who demonstrates outstanding achievement in
scholarship, education and service to CEDA.

Section 6: Future engraving costs for any travelling awards
presented by CEDA shall be borne by the CEDA treasury as an annual expense.

Section 7: Teams that attend and participate in six or fewer
CEDA sanctioned debate tournaments, excluding the CEDA National Tournament,
will be eligible for the Select Sweepstakes award. The same formula for
determining the national sweepstakes will be used. Teams eligible for the
Select Sweepstakes award will be equally eligible for national and regional
awards.

Section 8: The National Public Debate Award.

A. This
award is given to the intercollegiate debate program which, over the course of
the past academic year, has best advanced the values of debate in the public
sphere through sponsorship of one or more public debate activities including
international public debates, radio or television debates, public debates on
campus or for community groups, and through general promotion of public
discourse through diverse for a to promote critical examination of public
issues for general audiences.

B. Programs
seeking this recognition should submit a portfolio including a narrative
description of their public debate activities. Programs are also asked to
submit supporting materials of their choosing which might include participant
lists, publicity and promotional materials, attendance figures, transcripts or
recordings (audio, video, CD, etc.), commendations and letters of appreciation,
and any other materials that they feel are appropriate.

C. The CEDA
President shall designate appropriate individuals or a committee to receive,
evaluate, and archive materials. The individuals or committee may elect to give
up to three awards (recognized by plaques or trophies) and may also recognize
as many Honorable Mention entrants as they deem appropriate. Each recipient and
Honorable Mention will receive recognition through letters sent to the
appropriate officers of their academic institutions.

Portfolios will be submitted to the designated individual or
committee representative no later than the entry due date of the CEDA national
tournament.

Section 9: Galentine Award. The annual award named in honor
of Rebecca Galentine is designed to recognize an outstanding female debate
coach in CEDA. Service to programs and the organization, community building and
competitive success are the criteria for award selection.

Section 10: Brian “Baby Jo” Johnston Debater of the Year
Award. The annual award named in honor of 1994 CEDA National Champion Brian
Johnston is designed to recognize an outstanding debater in CEDA. Competitive
success and service to the community are criteria for award selection.

Section 11: Outstanding New Competitor Award

A. Criteria:
The recipient will be selected among a pool of applicants who began their
participation in interscholastic debate in college, are in their first year of
competition and are participating at the CEDA championship tournament. Their
application should show evidence of growth and participation in the activity. The
student’s participation during the year may have been at any level of
competition (e.g. varsity, junior varsity or novice). No preference will be
given for either regional or national travel schedules.

B. Selection
Process: Criteria will be developed for the Awards Committee, as well as a

Nomination Form. Nominations must be in writing, including
completion of the nomination form and a letter of recommendation from a
student’s coach verifying their eligibility for the award. Nominations may come
from any member school.

Section 12: CEDA Alumni Award

A. Criteria:
The award recognizes outstanding achievement, contribution and service by a
program alumna of a member school. The recipient need not necessarily need be
present at national championship tournament to win the award.

B. Selection
Criteria will be developed for the Awards Committee, as well as a Nomination
Form. Nominations must be in writing, including completion of the nomination
form which articulates the specific contributions and a letter of recommendation
from a student’s coach verifying their eligibility for the award. Nominations
may come from any member school.

Section 13: Outstanding Graduate Student Coach

A. Criteria:
This award is intended to recognize both the pedagogical and competitive
contributions to the growth and development of policy debate by graduate
student coaches, who are balancing their obligations to their school work and
that of their programs. The recipient needs to demonstrate excellence in
graduate and professional obligations as well as their work as coaches.
Preference will be given to candidates who are present at the CEDA national
championship tournament.

B. Selection
Process: Criteria will be developed for the Awards Committee, as well as a
Nomination Form. Nominations must be in writing, including completion of the
nomination form which articulates the specific contributions and a letter of
recommendation from a student’s coach or director verifying their eligibility
for the award. Nominations may come from any member school.

Section 14: Speaker of the Year

A. Criteria:
The award acknowledges the contribution of an individual during the past year
that made a positive contribution to public discourse on matters of social
import. The award recipient is a public personality involved in local,
regional, national or international affairs.

B. Selection
Process: Criteria will be developed for the Awards Committee, as well as a
Nomination Form. Nominations must be in writing, including completion of the
nomination form which articulates the specific contributions and letter(s) of
support. Nominations may come from any member school.

XII.         AWARDS

Amend to:

Section 1: National Recognition Awards. Each year the
organization should solicit nominations and recognize members of the community
by awarding the following honors. Each of these awards should be presented at
the national tournament. An awards committee should be composed by the First
Vice President to review nominations. Attendance at the national tournament is
not a requirement for nomination. Suitable awards, funded by proceeds from the
National Tournament, will be given to

recipients at the National Tournament. A budget for all
trophies should be approved by the Executive Council as part of the annual
budget. Future engraving costs for any travelling awards presented by CEDA
shall be borne by the CEDA treasury as an annual expense. The organization will
publicize the winners.

Section 2: Student Awards. The organization should solicit
nominations of outstanding students for each of the following awards. Awards
nominations should proceed in a uniform fashion, so that students nominated for
the most exclusive award are also applying, if eligible, for all other student
awards. Students may win multiple awards.

A. Brian “Baby
Jo” Johnston Debater of the Year Award. The annual award named in honor of 1994
CEDA National Champion Brian Johnston is designed to recognize an outstanding
debater in CEDA. The ideal candidate demonstrates competitive success and a
commitment to represent the highest values of the debate community.

B. Outstanding
New Competitor Award. The recipient will be selected among a pool of applicants
who began their participation in interscholastic debate in college, are in
their first year of competition and are participating at the CEDA championship
tournament. Their application should show evidence of growth and participation
in the activity. The student’s participation during the year may have been at
any level of competition (e.g. varsity, junior varsity or novice). No
preference will be given for either regional or national travel schedules.

C. All-American
Debate Squad Award. The organization should honor a maximum of thirty CEDA
debaters as those students who represent the best of intercollegiate debate.
They should demonstrate competitive success, academic success, good conduct,
and contributions to their squad. No more than two students from a given school
shall receive this award. At least two recipients must be from community
college programs.

D. National
Debate Scholar. The organization should honor students who maintain strong
academic records in addition to their competitive accomplishments. There will
be no minimum or maximum number of students eligible for any of these awards.
To be eligible for any level of national scholar recognition, a student must
have attained at least junior standing, competed in at least 18 rounds on the
current topic, and meet the minimum grade point average for that specific
award.

a. National
Debate Scholar – summa cum laude. Minimum 3.75 GPA.

b. National
Debate Scholar – magna cum laude. Minimum 3.5 GPA.

c. National
Debate Scholar – cum laude. Minimum 3.25 GPA.

d. National
Debate Scholar – Honorable Mention. Minimum 3.0 GPA

Section 3: Coaching Awards. The organization should solicit
nominations of outstanding coaches for each of the following awards.

A. The
Brownlee Award. The Brownlee Award is given annually to a forensic educator who
demonstrates outstanding achievement in scholarship, education and service to
CEDA. The award is named in honor of longtime coach and

founding CEDA member Don Brownlee. The ideal candidate
demonstrates some element of all three factors (scholarship, education and
service to CEDA).

B. The
Galentine Award. The annual award named in honor of Rebecca Galentine is
designed to recognize an outstanding female debate coach in CEDA. The ideal
candidate can demonstrate service to programs and the organization, community
building and competitive success.

C. The Matt
Grindy Outstanding Graduate Student Coach Award. This award is intended to
recognize both the pedagogical and competitive contributions to the growth and
development of policy debate by graduate student coaches, who are balancing
their obligations to their school work and that of their programs. The
recipient needs to demonstrate excellence in graduate and professional
obligations as well as their work as coaches.

Section 4: Program Awards

A. Select
Sweepstakes Award. Teams that attend and participate in six or fewer CEDA
sanctioned debate tournaments, excluding the CEDA National Tournament, will be
eligible for the Select Sweepstakes award. The same formula for determining the
national sweepstakes will be used. Teams eligible for the Select Sweepstakes
award will be equally eligible for national and regional awards.

B. Founders’
Award. The Founders’ Award will be given annually to the school accumulating
the most points over time in CEDA sweepstakes. When a school wins the Founders’
Award, their accumulated points revert to zero and they begin accumulating
points anew the following year.

C. Garrison
Newcomers’ Award. The Garrison Newcomers’ Award is given annually to the school
with highest sweepstakes points who currently is an affiliate member and who
has not previously won the award.

D. The
National Public Debate Award.

1. This
   award is given to the intercollegiate debate program which, over the course of
   the past academic year, has best advanced the values of debate in the public
   sphere through sponsorship of one or more public debate activities including
   international public debates, multimedia debates, public debates on campus or
   for community groups, and through general promotion of public discourse to
   promote critical examination of public issues for diverse and general
   audiences.
2. Nominees
   should submit a portfolio including a narrative description of their public
   debate activities. Programs are also asked to submit supporting materials of
   their choosing which might include participant lists, publicity and promotional
   materials, attendance figures, transcripts or recordings, commendations and
   letters of appreciation, and any other materials that they feel are
   appropriate.
3. The
   awards committee may elect to provide up to three awards each year and may also
   recognize as many Honorable Mention entrants as they deem appropriate. Each
   recipient and Honorable Mention will receive recognition through letters sent
   to the appropriate officers of their academic institutions.

Section 5: Community Awards. The organization should
recognize the following outstanding members of the extended debate community.

A. CEDA
Alumni Award. This award recognizes outstanding achievement, contribution and
service by a program alumna of a member school. The best candidates are those
who are not active coaches, but those alumni who embody the best values of
debate through their own debate, philanthropy, leadership. These candidates,
trained in debate, should now provide valuable service to our larger
communities.

B. Public
Advocate of the Year. The award acknowledges the contribution of an individual
during the past year that made a positive contribution to public discourse on
matters of social import. The award recipient need not have a direct
relationship to intercollegiate debate, but must be someone who has made a
significant difference in local, regional, national or international affairs.

REDISTRICTING –
WESTERN REGIONS

 Submitted 2-21-09

 Amendment to the By-Laws

 Currently II. CURRENT REGIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION

1. Northwest–Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Helena, Mt.
2. The West–zip codes 93000-97000 and Reno, Nevada.
3. Southern California–zip codes 90000-92999, Las Vegas,
   NV, Hawaii, Arizona.
4. Rocky Mountain–Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico,
   Montana and El Paso, Texas.

 Amend to:

1. Pacific – Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada
2. The West – Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana New Mexico,
   Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and El Paso, Texas.

 (Re-number all remaining districts after deleting the old #1
& 3)

REDISTRICTING –
MERGING SOUTHEAST CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST REGIONS

 Submitted 2-21-09

 Currently

9. Southeast Central–Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
   Mississippi and Alabama.
10. Southeast–North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and
    Florida.

 Amend to:

9. Southeast–Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
   Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee.

 (Re-number all remaining districts after deleting the old
#10)

INSTITUTE A DIRECT ELECTION FOR STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TOPIC SELECTION COMMITTEE

Submitted 2-21-09

Currently:

IV, Section 11: Student Representatives.

1. Each region will select a student representative who will serve as a member of the

Student Representatives Committee.

Student Representatives must be officially enrolled, undergraduate students in good standing at the college or university they attend.

1. The duties of the Student Representatives Committee are to:
2. Report the concerns of debaters to the Executive Council.
3. Select one debater to serve on the Topic Selection Committee

Amend to:

1. Provide input and support to the Executive Secretary for a national election of one debater to serve on the Topic Selection Committee. The Executive Secretary should direct a balloting system for the student representative that fulfills all elements of a CEDA ballot described in Article IV, Section 5.

DATE OF NATIONAL TOURNAMENT

Submitted 2-21-09

Currently:

1. Section 1: The Association will host a National CEDA Tournament in late March or early April.

Amend to:

“The Association will host a National CEDA Tournament in March or April.”

CLARIFY TIMELINE FOR SELECTING NATIONAL TOURNAMENT HOSTS

Submitted 2-21-09

Currently:

IX Section 2: The Executive Council of CEDA will receive bids from member schools wishing to host the tournament. Bids will be received at the Executive Council’s fall meeting for the subsequent academic year’s National Tournament.

Amend to:

“Bids should be received and reviewed no later than the Executive Council’s fall meeting for the subsequent academic year’s National Tournament.”

CLARIFY ENROLLMENT VERIFICATION

Submitted 2-21-09

Enrollment Verification

Currently:

X Section 3: The National CEDA Tournament entry form shall include a section in which the Director of Forensics of students being entered into the tournament verifies by signature that each student is in good standing and/or the date of graduation of each student. In the case of student run programs, a faculty advisor, students activities director, or Dean of Students must confirm this information.

Change to:

“Each program entering the National CEDA Tournament is required to submit official documentation from their college or university verifying that each competitor is currently enrolled and in good standing.”