AUDU 2007 Meeting Minutes

Asian Universities Debating Union-AUDU
2007 Union Meeting Minutes
Union Meeting on May 14th 2007
Venue: Institute of Technology Bandung, Indonesia


Ratification of New agenda
Added a few agendas
Unanimous

Eligibility Concerns
UPM: Propose motion “The council to formulate the complain to explicitly state the complain”
No one speaks of the complain.
CSB:
DLSU: Before the council talks about the complain, then there should be a formal motion.
UPM: Content of complain?
Leloy: Highlights 10.1 of Constitution. Complains are addressed to ADMU A (Leloy, Glenn, and Sharmila have graduated) and DLSU. ADMU A has graduated last semester (March).
DLSU: DLSU has one debater who has graduated in the December term. No classes in the last term.

Leloy: It has been customary for Philippines to send March graduates in Australs or Asians. Even if Estelle is not attending classes in the last term, but technically she still is a student of DLSU. Any clarification/motions?
UPM: Motion: “Formalize complain to have a member of council to explicitly state a complain against DLSU”
Seconded by NUS
Vikram: Do we have to open a vote for eligibility? Should we use this vote to clarify future cases?
Leloy: Motion seconded, so have to open a vote.
Vote: Unanimously passed.
UST: Motion “To exempt DLSU for break”
Seconded by UPM
Latif: Should conclude if it is a violation of the constitution
NUS: Supports Latif.
Leloy: Highlights that it is a violation to Article 10.1.
Latif: Were you asked to do anything for school?
DLSU: Attend graduation practices, file papers for academic scores, can only claim a diploma only after all that is done.
IIU: “enrolled in university” means enrolled in a class or enrolled just to be admitted as a student, doesn’t end until diploma is taken.

DLSU: diploma was received in March.
Vikram: It is quite clear that it is a technical violation. Can we just propose an exempt so that it won’t be precedence?
UPM: can we accept the rational from IIU first?
Leloy/Vikram: We should give an exempt first then if needed we can modify the constitution.
UST: Motion “To open a vote to decide whether or not the DLSU violation is a technical violation”
NUS: We cannot have two motions on the table.
Seconded by ADMU
Leloy/Vikram: No more clarification? (none)
Vote
For : 31
Against : 0
Abstain : 20
DLSU is in technical violation of Article 10.1
NTU: Motion “To exempt DLSU from the violation”
Seconded by ADMU
ADMU: No maligning intent in the violation.
For: Abstain 1, no against, rest for.
Leloy: Motion to ratify break.
Vote: Passed, no against, no abstain.

Bids for AUDC 2008
Leloy: Invites IIU to present bid.
Tasneem: Explains bid, lines out the bid, invites Dr. Atmo (Director of IIU Student Development) to speak
Dr. Atmo: express gratitude to ITB, three out of four IIU campuses came to Bandung for AUDC, shows seriousness in bidding, next year’s AUDC is also a celebration of IIU’s 25th anniversary. Hopefully, having AUDC in IIU can stimulate debating in IIU and Malaysia. Continues to explain about geographical features and enticing matters about both IIU and Malaysia.
Tasneem: explains about IIU, Malaysia should be given a chance
Capability
Campus has agreed to sponsor financially and give free facilities.
IIU is also experienced in hosting Australs and Malaysian Inter-School tournaments
Malaysia Campus is beautiful, as known as the garden of knowledge with 101 parks for people to sit and relax. Campus has a circular feature, easy to get lost.

Tournament Details
Registration fee: RM 700, will try to reduce to RM 500. Free airport pick up, hotels will be located in KL (three star). Provide tour to Genting Highlands. Will promote participation from South East Asia and Arabic nations.

Committee
Yem Muhammad (IIU) will be Convener. Tasneem will be Deputy Convener.

Adjudication Core
Chief Adjudicator: Mohd. Abdul Latif
DCA: Sir Martin Cortez (The Philippines), Priyam (Singapore), Ravi (Thailand)
There will be a fourth DCA that will be decided later (if any from sub continent).

Will conduct a number of adjudication trainings, IIU adjudicators are reputable as 5 adjudicators in the main break are from IIU.

Subsidies
Plan to subsidize USD 1500 for sponsor 50% registration fee of former champions and adjudicators, will not count IIU judges in that matter.
Latif: Sponsorship from IIU as much as RM 25,000 has been approved, there will be no charges for transportation. Have engaged negotiations with Shell since last year. Hotels will be kept at three star to not burden participants with high registration fee.

Sushil: 1. Suggestions à not subsidize debaters but rather based on the adjudication tab.2. Criteria à if there are excessive number of applicants, how will that be sorted out?
UPM: Agrees with Sushil, adjudication credentials should be paramount
Vikram: As long as the process is transparent, all is fine.
SMU: When will AUDC be held?
Latif: May 1-8. IIU is having its short term, preliminaries will be held on Friday to Sunday.
Vikram: Request for exam calendar. Singapore will have its exam on the first week of May. Asked to return the focus to adjudication sponsorship criteria. Suggests to be based on the AUDC Adjudication Tab.
Sani: How about top notch teams who want to judge?
Yves: Can use national adjudication tab.
Sushil: Finalist can be considered. They should have sufficient knowledge of debating.

DLSU: still, that is only a possibility that those debaters can be good adjudicators.
NUS: suggests to take the top 15 adjudicators and that the sponsorship is reimbursable.
SMU: what is the tournament cap?
Latif: 80 to 100 teams. Subject to logistic constrains.
DLSU: How do we apply for the sponsorship?
(Back to exam calendar)
Singapore: First week of May
DLSU: Last week of May
Vikram: Clarifies that the IIU adjudication core fulfils the criteria set in the Constitution, two of the DCAs are from Charter A institutes (Article 13). All four adjudication core members meet the requirements of their membership. Asks what to do if someone bails out?
Latif: Suggests to use online voting.
SMU: minimum 2 DCAs with Charter A status, asks for clarification.
Vikram: language is ambiguous, will be clarified later in the Constitution discussion.

Latif: Subsidies judges apply to n-rule? Suggest so as the judges have already made effort as in paying for their respective tickets.
SMU: should be acceptable.
Vikram: Opens vote to ratify adjudication core
For : all
Against : none
Abstain : none
Asks to open motion to ratify IIU’s bid.
NUS proposes motion to ratify IIU’s bid, SMU seconds
For : all
Against : none
Abstain : none
IIU Malaysia is the host of AUDC 2008

Adjudication Core Requirements
Highlights Article 13.2.1 of Constitution
SMU: suggests for the ‘two years’ to be counted from the bid.
Vikram: leaves too much time to not be involved in debating
Sushil: Suggests to not restrict to months
Vikram: asks for ‘two years prior to the tournament’ or ‘two years prior to the ratification of the bid’
SMU: suggests “last two AUDC, two Australs, two Worlds”
UPM: symbolic, can include future experience
DLSU: How is that?
Latif: ratification is to ensure that the people are involved
Vikram: Two years prior to the ratification might leave too much time absent. Allows people who have been missing for 4 years to be Adjudication Core members.
NUS: Can enforce people to participate more after the ratification.
SMU: talks about something with active debaters…
UST: Asks if there are any other qualifications.
UPM: ratification can happen later.
SMU: Sir Martin last participated 2 years from IIU AUDC. Proposes to amend Article 13.3.1 to “must have adjudicated or debated in previous 2 AUDC/Australs/Worlds prior to the tournament”

Sushil: then ITB cannot include someone that last participated in NTU.
SMU: it’s still in two previous tournaments, then it is still okay.
Assumption: a ratification can be done later.
NUS: not necessarily mutually exclusive.
IIU: whenever the ratification is held, it should still be subject to the early ratification. IIU seconds the motion from SMU.
Leloy: Opens vote
For : 41
Against : none
Abstain : none

N-Rule and Adjudication Core members
Vikram: explains the background of how the motion came about.
SMU: Are the DCAs funded by the host institution?
ITB: Yes they are.
Leloy: Can we just add that to Article 13.6?
NUS: proposes to amend Article 13.6 to “DCAs may not be used to fill the N-rule requirement for any institution”
Leloy: Opens vote
For : unanimous
Against : none
Abstain : none

E-For-L break
Leloy: Asks to ratify the E-For-L break
Break ratifies unanimously

Online Committee
Leloy: Explains that the executive committee needs someone to set up a board and bug the union reps to vote in its discussions.
Mahidol volunteers, nominates LP.

Communication Committee
Leloy: Currently, this function is done by host universities, thus has minimum continuity on the goal to increase mo participating universities.
SMU: this function can be done by volunteers
Leloy: They should have knowledge on design and copywriting. Does SMU want to volunteer?
SMU: declines volunteering. No one can design.
Leloy: Asks if SMU wants to appoint a person.
SMU: No need to add new post in ExCo. Function can be done by the communication officer. Thus, nominates Carlo Cabrera, NUS seconds.
Motion passes unanimously

Other concerns
SMU: Adjudication core member requirements should include more than just what is stated in the constitution.
Leloy: once the online group is running, we can have online discussions on that or it can be discussed in IIU.
UPM: issues about break eligibility should be flagged before the preliminaries.
Vikram: Explains how the DLSU case came about.
UPM: proposes to add “preparing for graduation” in Article 10.1, SMU seconds
Motion passes unanimously

SMU: on the tab issues, the adjudication core can require sufficient justification for participants giving 1s or 5s to avoid abuse from the teams.
UPM: if the decision of that particular round is not acceptable, there is no way it can be changed.
SMU: can we just make it mandatory for teams to write 2 or 3 lines of comments for giving 1s or 5s?
Sani: adds burden to the Adjudication Core.
Latif: in ITB AUDC, the feedback seems to be consistent in the later rounds.
SMU: can we have that in the next Adjudication Seminar?
Latif: Sure we can.
Sani. Shadow Adjudication core disbanding. Does it mean that it has to do more check and balance?
Vikram: Only concerned about extraordinary upgrading.

Sani: Appendix E. Consider including “campuses” in the criteria of separate institutions, geographically separated means hard to gather also.
NUS: such things should be sorted out on a case per case basis.
Vikram: what happens if they get voted out and don’t get treated as different institutions?
Leloy: Teams should assess their likelihood of then being passed.
Latif: “to treat separate campuses as separate institutions”
SMU: Are UPD and UPM different campuses?
UPM: Yes, we have different Chancellors.
Vikram: but if UITM has 17 different campuses, then they will have 17 union votes all together.
Latif: But they are all Cs and it is very temporary.
Leloy: So, is IIU putting up a motion to let this go for just IIU this year? “separate campuses are separate institutions for IIU”
SMU: Can we add “reasonably” to the motion? Also has problems with “independent administrative”
Leloy: We can add “distinct administrative”
Motion passed unanimously.

Leloy: Proposes motion “to thank ITB for being a great host”
Motion passed unanimously.

Leloy: Proposes motion “to thank the Adjudication Core for being very distinct and transparent through out the tournament”
Motion passed unanimously.

Election for 2007/2009 Executive Committee
Leloy: Asks for nomination for returning officer.
SMU: Nominates Vikram, NUS seconds.
Leloy: Opens nomination for Chair.
AdMU: Nominates Mark Cordiner, NTU seconds. Mark accepts.
UPM: Nominates Estelle Osorio, NTU seconds. Estelle accepts.
DLSU: proposes to close nomination, NTU seconds.
Leloy: Invites both nominees for a speech.
Mark speaks very long.
Estelle speaks.
Votes Estelle : 25
Mark : 22
Abstain : 3
Estelle Osorio is the Chair for 2007/2008
Leloy: Opens nomination for Vice Chair
DLSU: nominates Mark.
Mahidol: proposes to close nomination, NTU seconds.
Mark speaks, again.
Votes For : 48
Abstain : 2
Mark Cordiner is the Vice Chair for 2007/2008

Leloy: opens nomination for Secretary
NUS: nominates Miko Biscocho, NTU seconds.
Leloy: invites Miko to speak.
Miko gives a speech.
Votes For : 45
Abstain : 5
Miko Biscocho is the Secretary for 2007/2008

Leloy: Opens nomination for treasurer
Sushil: Nominates Madhav, IIU seconds.
SMU: nominates Carlo, NUS seconds.
NTU: proposes to close nomination, AdMU seconds
Leloy: Invites both nominees to speak.
Madhav speaks
Carlo speaks
Votes Madhav : 28
Carlo : 24
Madhav is the Treasurer for 2007/2008

Leloy: opens nomination for Equity officer
IIU: nominates Meor, Assumption seconds.
NUS: proposes to close nomination, NTU seconds
Leloy: invites Meor to speak
Meor gives a speech.
Votes For : 43
Against : none
Abstain : 7
Meor is the Equity Officer for 2007/2008

Leloy: Opens nomination for Communication Officer
Mahidol: nominates LP, Assumption seconds.
NTU: proposes to close nomination, NUS seconds.
Leloy: Invites LP to speak.
LP gives a speech.
Votes For : 47
Abstain : 5
Luang Pi is the Communication Officer for 2007/2008

Leloy: Opens nomination for Adjudication Officer
SMU: nominates Latif, NTU seconds.
IIU: nominates Sani, NTU seconds.
Latif: declines nomination.
Leloy: Invites Sani to speak
Sani gives a speech
Votes For : 45
Abstain : 7
Mohd. Sani is the Adjudication Officer for 2007/2008

Leloy: opens nomination for Publication officer
SMU: nominates Carlo, IIU seconds
DLSU: proposes to close nomination, NTU seconds
Leloy: Invites Carlo to speak
Carlo gives a speech, again.
Votes For : 47
Abstain : 5
Carlo Cabrera is the Publication Officer for 2007/2008

Regards,
Rashedul Hasan Stalin

Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AUDC/files/