Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members?
I knew that story about taking Ricky and Nate to their very first college tournament would come in handy some day! Kidding. But I have coached my share of successful debaters, either tangentially or directly (some of them even request me), so I get what it means to be “competitive”. (I also think someday someone should do a study on the “sports psychology” of competitive debate). I also run a rather large University tournament at NYU for a scholarship program, where all of the competitive parameters are at my discretion. I’ve hosted tournaments, and travel regionally and nationally, so I understand the needs of a variety of programs. I view myself as an educator. I became a debate coach because as a teacher I believed in debate as a unique pedagogical opportunity. Freire was my hero for lesson planning before he was an argument to most of you. Educational goals, curriculum development, and pedagogical techniques so ALL students can learn are what I do. People talk about callings, passions, and vocations, and education is mine. I think we should do MORE with how we promote ourselves as an academic pursuit, and working in University administration gives me a perspective on how to communicate our needs to those who control our resources. (I also have a 5 year stint in project management training just to round out my background in admin, and it would be nice to use it more often). One of my stated goals as CEDA 2VP and beyond is to refocus the coordination of research and professional opportunities for our graduate coaches to make their time in debate seen as professionally beneficial in their larger academic fields. I do also coordinate multiple schools on a regular basis. Seriously, what’s another 80 or so programs and their admins to learn about? I also perform miracles, but only in association with running a debate tournament. (Reserving an entire street in NYC for parking and getting a Giants Super Bowl victory in conjunction with our regional tournament are the latest examples. I'll work on loaves and fishes in conjunction with breakfasts at CEDA Nats). Actually, I think my best qualification is my willingness to listen to others, and to learn from others, because this national organization serves so many types of schools. But there’s another question that speaks more to that point next, so … Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? I think my ability to work well with others, to listen and respect different views and different program needs, and to accept that I need to learn from others are my best qualifications for the role of 2VP and beyond. I believe in first trying to reach consensus through reason. I think diplomacy and tact are the first approaches to creating resolution. This isn’t to say I’m not argumentative occasionally, or I haven’t used an adversarial approach to reach understanding (I am an actual debate coach afterall), but I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong, and I’m willing to try to mend bridges if there has been misunderstanding. I understand the need to talk to people individually when pushing forward and agenda, and I understand when it’s necessary to present a united front for the good of a group, even if it’s not my own personal agenda. I think I’m on the same page as Gordon on a lot of his ideas for the next year (in fact, I’m pretty sure Gordon wishes I would ask his opinion about policy stuff a little bit less). I respect Sue deeply, and usually find myself mentally going “extend” for points she has made in EC conversations. I don’t think my vision of CEDA is radically different than theirs. For those who would be 2VP after me, I would make sure that my long term goals with the organization are clearly articulated so that implementation wasn’t a surprise. Finally, I will underscore that working with others, and forwarding individual as well as collective goals is essentially what already do as the Assistant Director of the New York Coalition. My entire coaching career has prepared me for working and leading with others (and demonstrating those skills were exactly why I was elected to exec board of the BQCFL when I was a high school coach - even speech people thought I was uniquely good and playing with others to get things accomplished and write new policies that served the best interests of all our member institutions). And if my interactions with you don’t involve hybrid policies or locating the charter bus that is 7 hours late for a tournament in a place including the name "Virginia", I'm usually pretty laid back about most debate issues. Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? I think it’s more an issue of minor repair. I think the EC needs to be smaller, which redistricting may do inevitably, and which could conceivably alter the larger national dynamic. I think the 5 National officers need to be empowered for some direct action a bit more. I think Regional Reps should have more than a purely democratic function in official regional policy, because program growth initiatives work better on a local level. I think it is a professional job to lead this organization – but I’m not yet sure a different kind of management structure is what is right for us. There may be a better way to structure our organization, but it’s not a whim, and we’re an organization that actually has the skills to research the pros and cons of alternatives. I would probably not initiate a large restructuring in my leadership position, but I would be willing to consider and support a proposal brought to me that seems to have merit. Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why? Honestly, I'm indifferent with conferences individually, but I recognize they may be needed nationally, which is why I voted in favor of them. I debated and coach is a very geographically blessed area that allows for real regional travel, but I understand why there is a real need for restructuring for others. Honestly, for my program, geography can continue to be destiny, or Andy and I can finally create the I-95 conference. At a minimum, I support all of Jeff’s proposed realignments for regions, because there needs to be some kind of change. Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? I think we do need an official "CEDA" or debate business communication mechanism. This is why I have supported moving certain business to the website discussion boards when possible (such as topic paper conversations). Any change is going to require retraining those of us who are in the habit of checking the edebate archives, or having them emailed to us, and I think we still need to have a space for "community socialization" (and maybe revamped DCA, poker tournament results, and fantasy league requests ...). However, I think "business" needs to be moved to account for the emerging fluidity of electronic communication and its long term implications. This may be as simple as a division between CEDA-L, edebate, and discussion threads, rather than a new communication mechanism. I understand the need to balance freedom of expression and inclusion with our prthink the solution ultimately may not be one source of communication. Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? I certainly favor it more than the AFA version, and I favor having such an amendment in general. I think the current version is sufficient, and as I said in my candidate statement, I think we need to be leaders in this, not followers. I would be willing to revisit and to amend the amendment after it passed if we identify a significant way to improve it, but I don't want to wait to see what other organizations decide for us. I would rather initiate action now. Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? I think I've discussed some of this on the edebate post related to this topic (Neil's Question: It's 3AM ...http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-December/077119.html), but I'll add that my experience over the past year has been that when possible, preferably we should respond in writing to allow for convenient vetting by the National EC officers and a PR person. The response time should not ever be longer than a week, but preferably as immediate as possible. I think when time allows the entire EC should be consulted, and if time does not allow for that, the entire EC should be informed that an immediate response was required so that they are not caught off guard. At a minimum, an official PR officer and the CEDA President should be the default leaders of the response. More importantly, we should be creating our own press, and we should be identify potential bad PR points to have a response proactively at the ready, rather than "waiting" to see if it's an issue. Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? 1) Yes for 2/3. 2) Sometimes. Look, we already have a sexual harassment policy (which also needs to be updated a bit) which allows sanctioning to a degree, or at least action to address the issue. In general, I’m a fan of us having a sexual harassment policy where we can ask people to leave so we can encourage our debaters to stay. (And I'm a little disturbed very few other forensics organizations have a similar policy – in fact I’ve been working with some APDA students who are interested in creating that as their legacy to their activity). I think a policy related to other offenses should involve a tiered system of tournament and school based conversations, investigations, or actions as appropriate that could possibly lead to sanctioning action if the offense were serious enough. I think we should encourage hosts to establish parameters that they feel comfortable with as educators, academics, and hosts to encourage discussions. I don't think it's CEDA's job to report a number of things to an individual's home institution - that should be left to the Director of the program once CEDA has been in contact with that Director regarding the issue, potential further inquiry, and any action. In the case when it is a Director in question, then we may need to examine further action of alerting the individual's home institution (whomever is their "supervisor" or appropriate department) directly, at a minimum indicating that an investigation is under way. I'm not sure what "physical harassment" was meant to encompass, but I'm reasonably sure assault and battery are criminal offenses. Somehow, I think criminal behavior may be something we want to discourage, but depending on where we are, campus security and host institutions may not let it be just up to us. I had 8 years teaching in high schools in Brooklyn - and I've engaged in my share of "conflict resolution", to use an encompassing euphemism. The lesson I learned fare variety of approaches, and engaging in reasonable conversation is the first step, and that having a series of procedures is essential. I think "Verbal Harassment" may be too vague in a speech activity beyond what is encompassed in the other areas (sexual harassment, threat of violence). As I said in a previous question, I support a professional conduct amendment in some manner to clearly articulate CEDA's role and the limits of its authority, in part because it delineates CEDA's jurisdiction/authority better and because it does create reasonable procedures. I think this issue is identifying that there are some things that will not be left to us in the long run anyway, and prioritizing the ways we want to control our own destiny for our members in this area. The EC will not act without authority to do so, but in an ideal world, I think CEDA's organizational structure requires some such authority for the good of our community. Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? Being nominated at NCA was a bit of a surprise (I was quite insistent that Mike Davis had me confused with someone else when he told me). But as I considered the opportunity and discussed it with others, it seems a natural extension of my increasing involvement in the organization. I'm currently the Regional Rep for the largest Region in CEDA. I have been attending or viewing the Topic Meetings for the past 3 years to understand the process and because I believe our resolutions can be better. I have attended more NDT Committee meetings than some of its members over the past 5 years because I think we need to take action when our organizations have competing policies that hinder participation in the world of the "merger". I want to be CEDA President because I think we are at a point as an organization that we need continue the progress we've made with accountability, while still moving forward with initiatives that encourage the growth of debate. I think this will require building bridges and understanding the needs of many different kinds of programs and schools, and I think I have a willingness to follow through and succeed with that very necessary work, and to take the initiative in creating cross-organizational discussions about policies (a concern for others it seems based on the number of mentions of the NDT is the previous questions). I have a respect for what we do well as an organization, but a recognition of where we can improve, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just for the sake of perceived progress. I have seen how much work it takes to be CEDA President, and I recognize that I am in a position professionally to dedicate myself to the position over the next 5 years to accomplish the goals I set forward. I also feel that the immediate future of our organization requires an understanding not only of debate, but of University admin, which I have. Mostly, I really believe in our community, and I would consider it a privilege to work at advancing our goals together. _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
