<%@LANGUAGE="VBSCRIPT" CODEPAGE="1252"%> World Schools Debating Championships: London, England, 1999

WSDC 1999: London, England
Minutes of Council Meeting

held on 6th February 1999 at 10.30am at
the English-Speaking Union, London

CHAIRMAN: David Bussey, England
SECRETARY: Elizabeth Virgo, Bermuda


DELEGATES

Argentina

Maria Benaglia

Australia

Christopher Erskine

Belarus

Margarita Bendetskaia

Bermuda

Mary Murray

Brunei Darussalam

Mohammad Abdoh

Canada

John Baty

Czech Republic

John Wickham

England

Trevor Sather

Estonia

Artur Taevere

Finland

not represented

Germany

Angelika Hoeness

Greece

not represented

Hong Kong

not represented

Ireland

Richard Wafer

Israel

Asher Weill

Lithuania

Alina Gutauskiene

Netherlands

Ard van der Steur

New Zealand

Andrew Stockley

Pakistan

Mehvesh Mumtaz

Peru

Sixto Ramos

Poland

Marcin Zaleski

Portugal

Pedro Alves

Scotland

Patricia Slaven

Singapore

Geetha Creffield

Slovak Republic

not represented

Slovenia

Bojana Skrt

South Africa

Steven Budlender

Spain

not represented

Ukraine

not represented

USA

Richard Sodikow

Wales

David Pritchard

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Argentina

Sebastian Percival

Bermuda

Gladstone Thompson

Canada

Janet Webster

England

Karen Leetch, Dan Neidle

Germany

Michael Pates

Ireland

Emmet Coldrick

Lithuania

Alma Juozaitiene

Netherlands

Bibilotte Duyvesteyn, Tobin Bechtel

Pakistan

Salma Abdul Rahman Khan

Peru

Rosemarie Arens

Scotland

Diana Gotts

Singapore

Priya Rajan, Paul Tan, David Low

USA

Phyllis Hirth, Sue Wenzlaff

 

1.

Voting and non-voting members were recognised under Rules 23 and 27. The nineteen eligible to vote were Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Czech Republic, England, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, USA and Wales.

2.

The minutes of the previous meeting held in Jerusalem in 1998 were corrected by adding Phyllis Hirth (USA) and Dan Neidle (England) as in attendance. Motion to adopt (Prop: USA; Sec: Ireland) was passed unanimously. Under Matters Arising, it was suggested that all the videos used for training should be checked for completeness. David Bussey undertook to locate a new home for the library. (Action: England)

3.

Arrangements for 2000. David Bussey reported that it was apparent even by September 1998, past the suggested deadline of June 1998 agreed by the Council, that there were still significant problems over funding the New York-based Worlds. Accordingly, the Appeals Committee agreed to begin looking for an alternative venue. It took until late January 1999 for Sue Wenzlaff to confirm an offer. Richard Sodikow, who then withdrew the New York bid, was warmly thanked for his efforts and commended for offering to work with Sue Wenzlaff. She then put forward a proposal for it to be held in Pittsburgh under the auspices of Duquesne University, making it clear that the National Forensic League would not be involved. A limit of 34 teams would be in place and she asked for all interested to contact her as soon as possible. The timing would be from 29th January 2000 to 6th February and a charge of 200 dollars per person would be in force. Richard Sodikow offered interested teams the opportunity to debate in New York prior to the Championships. Sue Wenzlaff's proposal was accepted unanimously by the Council. (Action: USA)

4.

Arrangements for 2001. Steven Budlender reported that, although fundraising had only begun in January 1999, he and his colleagues were optimistic about the prospects of hosting 2001. Judges could be drawn from those who took part on the Stellenbosch University Worlds in 1996 and the National Schools championships, which would be held for the first time in April 2000 and would act as a dry run for the Worlds. Two senior judges would be asked to come early and help, as would the Deputy Chief Adjudicator for the National Schools in April 2000. The fee for judges would be halved and countries encouraged to bring more than one or two experienced judges with them. On the issue of security, both Canada in 1993 and Bermuda in 1997 had been concerned about this and consulted local authorities as to the course of action to be taken. Steven Budlender assured the Council that this was being given full attention. The proposed dates of 4th February through 11th would see a start one week later than those used in the past four Championships but all but three of those countries present confirmed this was not a problem. It was agreed that South Africa be given the deadline of June 1st to secure sufficient levels of funding and backing. If this is unachievable, Christopher Erskine said Australia would be prepared to step in and offer a significantly reduced Championships in August 2001. (Action: South Africa)The 2001 Championships should be held in South Africa, unless funding could not be confirmed by June 1, 1999, in which case Australia would take over. (Prop: Australia; Sec: Canada; passed unanimously).

5.

Arrangements for 2002. [a] A presentation for the Calgary Stampede to host, with a limit of thirty countries, was made. It was made clear that this did not actively involve the Canadian Debating Federation. Further concerns were whether the current Stampede Committee would still be in place for an event in 2002 and whether local judges would be available in adequate numbers. The proposal was therefore rejected and David Bussey authorised to write to the Calgary Stampede, reporting the Council's decision. (Action: England) [b] Singapore then reported that its bid for 2002 has met with some fundraising difficulties, given the recent economic situation, but expect to return in 2000 with a firm plan to cater for up to thirty one teams, for the last week in January and first in February. Considerable time and money is being invested in training judges for the event.[c] It was agreed that Singapore should continue its plans as first choice for 2002. (Action: Singapore).

6.

Arrangements for 2003. Argentina tabled an intention to host for 2003 and will return in 2000 with an outline proposal.

7.

Amendment: A Two-Divisional Championship. New Zealand proposed: "The Rules should be amended so that there be two divisions for the Championships, one for the more experienced teams and one for the less experienced teams, and that each country have the right to choose which division its team should enter."New Zealand raised the issue of the disparity between the new participants of recent years and the established teams. A number of the newer entrants reinforced the advantages of being exposed to stronger teams. The USA is examining the practicalities of power pairing after initial rounds and South Africa proposes to hold two days of competitive debating before the start. The motion was withdrawn.

8.

Amendment to Rule 9: Distribution of the Draw. New Zealand proposed: "The Convenor shall send a draw to all teams entered in the Championships no later than one month before the start of the Championships. The draw shall comprise the topics for the prepared debates in the preliminary rounds and the sides each team shall take for those topics."
New Zealand raised the issue of the number of prepared motions, the length of time teams know which side they will debate and the problems for scattered team members. A one month deadline was proposed. A number of past convenors raised the question of last minute team withdrawals and substitute teams and the impact on the draw and hence sides. It was also pointed out that a competitive edge could be given to a team hearing another team's, much stronger, case and then adapting it for its own use. The USA proposes to release the topics in mid-November but needs countries to indicate they will attend before that. The motion was withdrawn.

9.

Amendment to Rules 7 & 8: Octo-Finals. Australia proposed that, in view of the postal ballot held on this in 1998, this matter should be fully discussed by the Council via a motion to delete Rule 7 (d). This motion was defeated unanimously. (Amendment to Rule 7 (d)): "The number of teams for Octo-Finals be increased from 25 to 32 or more." (Prop: NZ; Sec: Pakistan; defeated by 10 votes to 4, with 5 abstentions).(Amendment to Rule 8): "Octo-Finals, Quarter-Finals and Semi-Finals shall be impromptu debates." (Prop: England; Sec: Australia; passed unanimously).

10.

Amendment to Rule 20: Preparation Materials To insert Rule 20 (d), renumbering current 20 (d) as 20 (e): "Teams may use their own written materials during their preparation for impromptu debates (e.g. dictionaries, almanacs). Convenors should remind new teams attending of this Rule." (Prop: Australia; Sec: Singapore; after earlier proposal by England; passed by 18 votes with 1 abstention).

11.

Amendment to Rule 27: Postal Ballots England raised the question of administering a postal ballot. Some time was spent discussing who was to cast a country's vote; it was agreed that personnel changes within a country needed to be notified to the current Convenor.To insert Rule 27 (d) as follows:"A resolution to amend the Rules may be passed by postal ballot (including post, fax or e-mail) between two World Championships with the following conditions:

  1. The Convenor of the next Championships shall be responsible for the holding of the ballot, and must do so if requested by any two countries (as Proposer and Seconder).

  2. All countries entitled to vote according to the Rules are notified of the resolution no later than one month prior to the holding of the ballot. All other countries present at the previous World Championships without voting rights should be notified of the resolutions at this time and invited to give official comments.

  3. A two-thirds majority of those entitled to vote cast votes in the postal ballot.

  4. A two-thirds majority of those taking part in the ballot pass the resolution.

  5. A member of the Council is entitled to vote in postal ballots if that countrys team has participated in two previous world Championships (in accordance with Rule 27 [c]).

  6. The official voting representative of each country shall be the same representative as at the preceding World Council meeting. If that person is not available, the country's National Committee shall appoint a successor. If there is no National Committee, the representative shall be at the discretion of the Appeals Committee."

(Prop: England; Sec: Israel; passed by 17 votes to 1 with 1 abstention).

12.

Amendment to Rule 27 (a): Length of notice for proposed Rule Changes. "The period of notice be reduced from one month to four days."NZ commented that this did not give enough time for consultation with a national body. The Netherlands felt that a number of issues arose and needed to be dealt with straight away, whilst the USA felt that hurried decisions were counter-productive.(Prop: Israel; Sec: Netherlands; defeated by 7 votes to 5 with 7 abstentions).

13.

Amendment to Rules 21 and 32: Appeals Committee To renumber 21 as 21(a) and insert 21(b) as follows: "The Council will be governed by a body consisting of the Appeals Committee (as appointed under [present Rule 21]). The member elected by the Council will serve as Chairman of the Council." (Prop: Israel)New Zealand pointed out that there had been a great deal of discussion on this matter at Council meetings since 1994. Australia said the numbers had grown substantially and that over forty countries had participated and competitions of over thirty countries were now normal. The Appeals Committee had existed for two years and had sent and received a significant number of emails on an ad hoc basis involving both Bermuda and Israel. It was appropriate to look at the situation. The USA suggested the name should be changed from Appeals Committee to Executive Committee but was concerned that 'ad hoc' and 'governed' raise issues. An extensive proposal is to be tabled at the Council Meeting in 2000. (Prop: Netherlands; Sec: USA; passed unanimously.)
The composition of the Appeals Committee was then raised. Amendment to Rule 31(d): "...by the current Convenor, or, if unavailable, a nominee." (Waiver motion - Prop: Israel; Sec: Canada; passed unanimously. Amendment - Prop: USA; Sec: Israel; passed unanimously.)Amendment to Rule 32: "...and the end of the next Championships." (Prop: Israel; Sec: Canada; passed unanimously.)Christopher Erskine is to be re-elected as Fourth Member of the Appeals Committee. (Prop: Israel; Sec: Canada; passed unanimously.)

14.

Amendment to Rule 13: Renumbering Delete Rule 13 (b) and renumber 13 (c) as 13 (b). (Prop: England; Sec: Pakistan; passed unanimously.)

15.

World Schools Development Elizabeth Virgo reported that she had had little time to proceed, because of her move back to the UK. She planned to move ahead and approach some foundations. Trevor Sather reported that the Karl Popper organization was very active in Eastern Europe and that the ESU was in touch with forty countries. The 1999 Championships had raised the price for observers attending, and he recommended that future convenors charged all observers full cost in order to keep registration fees as low as possible for competitors. Wales wondered whether a team should be limited to four debaters rather than the maximum of five.

16.

Age Limits for Competitors Future convenors were asked to draw participating countries attention to the interpretation of the age Rule and that competitors should not have reached their nineteenth birthday at the start of the Championship in which they compete. Amendment to Rule 4(b)(iii): "not to have reached their nineteenth birthday by the start of the Championships". (Prop: Australia; Sec: Israel; passed unanimously.)

17.

Most Promising ESL Team (Rule 18(a)) The Convenor nominated Argentina to receive this award in 1999, and the Council congratulated Maria Benaglia on her work with the team.

18.

Vote of Thanks to Organising Committee The USA and Australia thanked the Convenor and Organising Committee of the London Worlds for their hard work on behalf of the Council.

19.

Training for Adjudicators The Netherlands stressed the importance of the training for judges, and was concerned that future Convenors should continue to ensure this happens.

20.

Meeting Adjourned

 

held on 6th February 1999 at 10.30am at
the English-Speaking Union, London

CHAIRMAN: David Bussey, England
SECRETARY: Elizabeth Virgo, Bermuda


DELEGATES

Argentina

Maria Benaglia

Australia

Christopher Erskine

Belarus

Margarita Bendetskaia

Bermuda

Mary Murray

Brunei Darussalam

Mohammad Abdoh

Canada

John Baty

Czech Republic

John Wickham

England

Trevor Sather

Estonia

Artur Taevere

Finland

not represented

Germany

Angelika Hoeness

Greece

not represented

Hong Kong

not represented

Ireland

Richard Wafer

Israel

Asher Weill

Lithuania

Alina Gutauskiene

Netherlands

Ard van der Steur

New Zealand

Andrew Stockley

Pakistan

Mehvesh Mumtaz

Peru

Sixto Ramos

Poland

Marcin Zaleski

Portugal

Pedro Alves

Scotland

Patricia Slaven

Singapore

Geetha Creffield

Slovak Republic

not represented

Slovenia

Bojana Skrt

South Africa

Steven Budlender

Spain

not represented

Ukraine

not represented

USA

Richard Sodikow

Wales

David Pritchard

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Argentina

Sebastian Percival

Bermuda

Gladstone Thompson

Canada

Janet Webster

England

Karen Leetch, Dan Neidle

Germany

Michael Pates

Ireland

Emmet Coldrick

Lithuania

Alma Juozaitiene

Netherlands

Bibilotte Duyvesteyn, Tobin Bechtel

Pakistan

Salma Abdul Rahman Khan

Peru

Rosemarie Arens

Scotland

Diana Gotts

Singapore

Priya Rajan, Paul Tan, David Low

USA

Phyllis Hirth, Sue Wenzlaff

 

1.

Voting and non-voting members were recognised under Rules 23 and 27. The nineteen eligible to vote were Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Czech Republic, England, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, USA and Wales.

2.

The minutes of the previous meeting held in Jerusalem in 1998 were corrected by adding Phyllis Hirth (USA) and Dan Neidle (England) as in attendance. Motion to adopt (Prop: USA; Sec: Ireland) was passed unanimously. Under Matters Arising, it was suggested that all the videos used for training should be checked for completeness. David Bussey undertook to locate a new home for the library. (Action: England)

3.

Arrangements for 2000. David Bussey reported that it was apparent even by September 1998, past the suggested deadline of June 1998 agreed by the Council, that there were still significant problems over funding the New York-based Worlds. Accordingly, the Appeals Committee agreed to begin looking for an alternative venue. It took until late January 1999 for Sue Wenzlaff to confirm an offer. Richard Sodikow, who then withdrew the New York bid, was warmly thanked for his efforts and commended for offering to work with Sue Wenzlaff. She then put forward a proposal for it to be held in Pittsburgh under the auspices of Duquesne University, making it clear that the National Forensic League would not be involved. A limit of 34 teams would be in place and she asked for all interested to contact her as soon as possible. The timing would be from 29th January 2000 to 6th February and a charge of 200 dollars per person would be in force. Richard Sodikow offered interested teams the opportunity to debate in New York prior to the Championships. Sue Wenzlaff's proposal was accepted unanimously by the Council. (Action: USA)

4.

Arrangements for 2001. Steven Budlender reported that, although fundraising had only begun in January 1999, he and his colleagues were optimistic about the prospects of hosting 2001. Judges could be drawn from those who took part on the Stellenbosch University Worlds in 1996 and the National Schools championships, which would be held for the first time in April 2000 and would act as a dry run for the Worlds. Two senior judges would be asked to come early and help, as would the Deputy Chief Adjudicator for the National Schools in April 2000. The fee for judges would be halved and countries encouraged to bring more than one or two experienced judges with them. On the issue of security, both Canada in 1993 and Bermuda in 1997 had been concerned about this and consulted local authorities as to the course of action to be taken. Steven Budlender assured the Council that this was being given full attention. The proposed dates of 4th February through 11th would see a start one week later than those used in the past four Championships but all but three of those countries present confirmed this was not a problem. It was agreed that South Africa be given the deadline of June 1st to secure sufficient levels of funding and backing. If this is unachievable, Christopher Erskine said Australia would be prepared to step in and offer a significantly reduced Championships in August 2001. (Action: South Africa)The 2001 Championships should be held in South Africa, unless funding could not be confirmed by June 1, 1999, in which case Australia would take over. (Prop: Australia; Sec: Canada; passed unanimously).

5.

Arrangements for 2002. [a] A presentation for the Calgary Stampede to host, with a limit of thirty countries, was made. It was made clear that this did not actively involve the Canadian Debating Federation. Further concerns were whether the current Stampede Committee would still be in place for an event in 2002 and whether local judges would be available in adequate numbers. The proposal was therefore rejected and David Bussey authorised to write to the Calgary Stampede, reporting the Council's decision. (Action: England) [b] Singapore then reported that its bid for 2002 has met with some fundraising difficulties, given the recent economic situation, but expect to return in 2000 with a firm plan to cater for up to thirty one teams, for the last week in January and first in February. Considerable time and money is being invested in training judges for the event.[c] It was agreed that Singapore should continue its plans as first choice for 2002. (Action: Singapore).

6.

Arrangements for 2003. Argentina tabled an intention to host for 2003 and will return in 2000 with an outline proposal.

7.

Amendment: A Two-Divisional Championship. New Zealand proposed: "The Rules should be amended so that there be two divisions for the Championships, one for the more experienced teams and one for the less experienced teams, and that each country have the right to choose which division its team should enter."New Zealand raised the issue of the disparity between the new participants of recent years and the established teams. A number of the newer entrants reinforced the advantages of being exposed to stronger teams. The USA is examining the practicalities of power pairing after initial rounds and South Africa proposes to hold two days of competitive debating before the start. The motion was withdrawn.

8.

Amendment to Rule 9: Distribution of the Draw. New Zealand proposed: "The Convenor shall send a draw to all teams entered in the Championships no later than one month before the start of the Championships. The draw shall comprise the topics for the prepared debates in the preliminary rounds and the sides each team shall take for those topics."
New Zealand raised the issue of the number of prepared motions, the length of time teams know which side they will debate and the problems for scattered team members. A one month deadline was proposed. A number of past convenors raised the question of last minute team withdrawals and substitute teams and the impact on the draw and hence sides. It was also pointed out that a competitive edge could be given to a team hearing another team's, much stronger, case and then adapting it for its own use. The USA proposes to release the topics in mid-November but needs countries to indicate they will attend before that. The motion was withdrawn.

9.

Amendment to Rules 7 & 8: Octo-Finals. Australia proposed that, in view of the postal ballot held on this in 1998, this matter should be fully discussed by the Council via a motion to delete Rule 7 (d). This motion was defeated unanimously. (Amendment to Rule 7 (d)): "The number of teams for Octo-Finals be increased from 25 to 32 or more." (Prop: NZ; Sec: Pakistan; defeated by 10 votes to 4, with 5 abstentions).(Amendment to Rule 8): "Octo-Finals, Quarter-Finals and Semi-Finals shall be impromptu debates." (Prop: England; Sec: Australia; passed unanimously).

10.

Amendment to Rule 20: Preparation Materials To insert Rule 20 (d), renumbering current 20 (d) as 20 (e): "Teams may use their own written materials during their preparation for impromptu debates (e.g. dictionaries, almanacs). Convenors should remind new teams attending of this Rule." (Prop: Australia; Sec: Singapore; after earlier proposal by England; passed by 18 votes with 1 abstention).

11.

Amendment to Rule 27: Postal Ballots England raised the question of administering a postal ballot. Some time was spent discussing who was to cast a country's vote; it was agreed that personnel changes within a country needed to be notified to the current Convenor.To insert Rule 27 (d) as follows:"A resolution to amend the Rules may be passed by postal ballot (including post, fax or e-mail) between two World Championships with the following conditions:

  1. The Convenor of the next Championships shall be responsible for the holding of the ballot, and must do so if requested by any two countries (as Proposer and Seconder).

  2. All countries entitled to vote according to the Rules are notified of the resolution no later than one month prior to the holding of the ballot. All other countries present at the previous World Championships without voting rights should be notified of the resolutions at this time and invited to give official comments.

  3. A two-thirds majority of those entitled to vote cast votes in the postal ballot.

  4. A two-thirds majority of those taking part in the ballot pass the resolution.

  5. A member of the Council is entitled to vote in postal ballots if that countrys team has participated in two previous world Championships (in accordance with Rule 27 [c]).

  6. The official voting representative of each country shall be the same representative as at the preceding World Council meeting. If that person is not available, the country's National Committee shall appoint a successor. If there is no National Committee, the representative shall be at the discretion of the Appeals Committee."

(Prop: England; Sec: Israel; passed by 17 votes to 1 with 1 abstention).

12.

Amendment to Rule 27 (a): Length of notice for proposed Rule Changes. "The period of notice be reduced from one month to four days."NZ commented that this did not give enough time for consultation with a national body. The Netherlands felt that a number of issues arose and needed to be dealt with straight away, whilst the USA felt that hurried decisions were counter-productive.(Prop: Israel; Sec: Netherlands; defeated by 7 votes to 5 with 7 abstentions).

13.

Amendment to Rules 21 and 32: Appeals Committee To renumber 21 as 21(a) and insert 21(b) as follows: "The Council will be governed by a body consisting of the Appeals Committee (as appointed under [present Rule 21]). The member elected by the Council will serve as Chairman of the Council." (Prop: Israel)New Zealand pointed out that there had been a great deal of discussion on this matter at Council meetings since 1994. Australia said the numbers had grown substantially and that over forty countries had participated and competitions of over thirty countries were now normal. The Appeals Committee had existed for two years and had sent and received a significant number of emails on an ad hoc basis involving both Bermuda and Israel. It was appropriate to look at the situation. The USA suggested the name should be changed from Appeals Committee to Executive Committee but was concerned that 'ad hoc' and 'governed' raise issues. An extensive proposal is to be tabled at the Council Meeting in 2000. (Prop: Netherlands; Sec: USA; passed unanimously.)
The composition of the Appeals Committee was then raised. Amendment to Rule 31(d): "...by the current Convenor, or, if unavailable, a nominee." (Waiver motion - Prop: Israel; Sec: Canada; passed unanimously. Amendment - Prop: USA; Sec: Israel; passed unanimously.)Amendment to Rule 32: "...and the end of the next Championships." (Prop: Israel; Sec: Canada; passed unanimously.)Christopher Erskine is to be re-elected as Fourth Member of the Appeals Committee. (Prop: Israel; Sec: Canada; passed unanimously.)

14.

Amendment to Rule 13: Renumbering Delete Rule 13 (b) and renumber 13 (c) as 13 (b). (Prop: England; Sec: Pakistan; passed unanimously.)

15.

World Schools Development Elizabeth Virgo reported that she had had little time to proceed, because of her move back to the UK. She planned to move ahead and approach some foundations. Trevor Sather reported that the Karl Popper organization was very active in Eastern Europe and that the ESU was in touch with forty countries. The 1999 Championships had raised the price for observers attending, and he recommended that future convenors charged all observers full cost in order to keep registration fees as low as possible for competitors. Wales wondered whether a team should be limited to four debaters rather than the maximum of five.

16.

Age Limits for Competitors Future convenors were asked to draw participating countries attention to the interpretation of the age Rule and that competitors should not have reached their nineteenth birthday at the start of the Championship in which they compete. Amendment to Rule 4(b)(iii): "not to have reached their nineteenth birthday by the start of the Championships". (Prop: Australia; Sec: Israel; passed unanimously.)

17.

Most Promising ESL Team (Rule 18(a)) The Convenor nominated Argentina to receive this award in 1999, and the Council congratulated Maria Benaglia on her work with the team.

18.

Vote of Thanks to Organising Committee The USA and Australia thanked the Convenor and Organising Committee of the London Worlds for their hard work on behalf of the Council.

19.

Training for Adjudicators The Netherlands stressed the importance of the training for judges, and was concerned that future Convenors should continue to ensure this happens.

20.

Meeting Adjourned

 

< 1999 Table of Contents