April 2020

American Forensic Association National Speech Tournament Committee Meeting

WebEx

9:00-11:45 a.m. and 1-4 p.m. Central Time

April 3, 2020

MINUTES

Committee Members in Attendance:

Lee Mayfield (Chair); Dave Gaer (Tournament Director); Darren Epping (Vice Chair);

Karen Morris (Secretary); Paxton Attridge (Sitting in for David Hale) (D1) Joe Gantt (D2);

Craig Brown (D3); Kittie Grace (outgoing Rep) /Najla Amundson (incoming Rep) (D4);

John Stanley (D5); Cory Paul Harrison (outgoing Rep)/Amy Martinelli (incoming rep) (D6); Nance Riffe (D7); Sarah Hinkle (D9); Kellie Roberts (Southern Rep); Mark Rittenour (Eastern Rep); Nathaniel Wilson (Central Rep); Brent Northup (Western Rep); M’Liss Hindman (Two- year Rep); Alli Kennon (Outgoing Student Rep); Tom Murabito (Outgoing Student Rep);

Ali Knighton (incoming Student Rep); Marley Lowe (incoming Student Rep); David Worth (Webmaster); Shannon LaBove (CDEA Chair)

Arriving Later: Megan Koch (Education Practices Representative/Social Media Chair)

Not Attending: Larry Schnoor (Chair, Board of Trustees); Frank Thompson (Chair Emeritus)

CALL TO ORDER

Mayfield called the meeting to order at 9:06 central time. Mayfield thanked us for joining us for the WebEx meeting. Since the agenda is so large, he asked that all the committee and officer reports to be submitted electronically and they have been embedded in these minutes prior to the meeting.

APPROVAL of Minutes from November 13, 2019 Meeting- Hindman moved and Hinkle seconded. APPROVED

OFFICER REPORTS

A. NST Committee Chair

Mayfield provided the following report.

· The final round recordings are now available for the 2019 AFA-NIET. There was a technical error in securing the recordings for ADS, Duo, and Prose--but all other recordings may be found at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/afa-niet-recordings/2019/ Many thanks to Bobby Imbody for overseeing the recordings of the final rounds, and to our tournament director Dave Gaer for putting the videos together for the Cornerstone site. Also, thanks go out to Minnesota State University - Mankato for hosting the site that makes this all possible.

· Working with Karen Morris and Kelly Young the NIET, with the approval of the full AFA membership, approved of the Name Change from National Individual Events Tournament to the National Speech Tournament. The proposal passed with a 40-3 vote. This change will be in place for the 2021 AFA-NST.

· Approved two competitors’ successful completion of their remaining year of eligibility based on accelerated/advanced/combined Bachelor/Master program. The Constitutional Proposal also passed on the latest ballot

34-3.

· Approved appeals for two tournaments based on weather related incidents.

· Requested Heidi Hamilton to reappoint Brent Northup, Western Rep., and Nathaniel Wilson, Central Rep.

· Appointed Najla Amundson Concordia College (2020-2022), and Joseph Lee, formerly of California State University, LA (2020-2022) to the Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Access.

· With the approval of the full AFA-NST committee, the 2020 National Tournament was canceled due to the Covid-19 pandemic—this is the first time in the history of the organization that the national tournament has not been held. See cancellation letter for details.

· AFA is calling for submissions for NFA 2020. The deadline has been extended until April 8^th. See the recent AFA newsletter for details.

B. NST Vice Chair

Epping said he had nothing to report at vice chair but will speak as chair of various other committees later.

C. Board of Trustees Chair

Schnoor’s report consisted of the Financial Statement which Gaer will address later.

D. Chair Emeritus

Thompson said he had no report at this time.

E. Tournament Director

Gaer provided a Financial Statement with a current balance of 6,368.13. He says we will have shipping costs to send the All-American Awards and the New Coach Awards but does not have an estimate yet. We owe $13,354.69 for trophies. There will probably be about $1,400.00 for shipping costs. We are still working to get the final total which may be $14,754.69. Gaer said he received official word that the AFA will provide a loan to the NST to cover trophies. They will be sending us $15,000.00 so that we can be solvent. We will have to pay this money back over time.

F. Secretary

Morris said her minutes from November will count as her report.

G. Webmaster

Worth reports that he has purchased nationalspeechtournament.com and will begin working on updating the site in terms of the name change when the semester ends. The cost was $200.00.

TOURNAMENT HOST REPORTS

A. 2020 – City of Santa Anna, CA

B. 2021 – University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Duncan gave the following report:

· Roberts had the 2020 AFA-NIET trophies shipped to Lincoln. They have been received and are being stored waiting instructions.

· Classrooms are all set. We have 96 reserved and will have more. Pound Hall, which is where my office is, is almost done with renovations and when it is finished this summer, we will have accessed to 30 more rooms.

· My plan it is to reserve more rooms than necessary than inspect the spaced to see what works best for our needs and will be closest to tournament headquarters in the union.

· Embassy Suites at 1040 P Street will be the tournament hotel. The cost for each room is $114 a night including a hot breakfast and with the possibility to have up to 6 people per room because these are two room suites. The hotel is two blocks off campus and a ten-minute walk to the Student Union and has 50 plus restaurants within a mile of it. The hotel block runs Tuesday March 30th through Tuesday April 6th. We have 100 rooms reserved but more can be added if the those book up. We encourage people to book the tournament hotel as they are working with us to provide the tournament special accommodations.

· Special accommodations:

o The hotel is giving free internet access to all of our rooms

o The hotel discounted its normal rate by $11 per room from $125 to $114

o Parking at the hotel is $11.25 per night which is cheap for downtown

o Free meeting space for Friday meetings

o Free lunch for our Friday meeting

o For every 50 nights booked we get one free night. We will use to take care of accommodations for our tournament director and use any extra rooms for hired judges who need them.

o Union & Meals – Our campus union has agreed to open early on Saturday and Sunday. We would prefer to not do a meal package. For three reasons:

1. Our union is not set up to do a convenient package with a temporary card. Doing so would present logistical challenges and costs. It might also require us to go to box lunches.

2 Our union has the current food offerings: Subway, Valentinos’ Pizza, Great Wall Chinese, Steak and Shake, and Chick-fila. While these offerings are great, they present limited options for vegans, vegetarians, people with gluten allegories etc. Our union is also not peanut free, which could be an issue.

3 Within a ten-minute walk of the union we have 50 plus restaurants. Within two blocks there are Jimmy Johns, Starbucks, Chipotle, Panera, Wendy’s, Jersey Mikes, Blaze Pizza, Raising Canes, several delis, and The Healthy Café (a fast option with excellent vegan and vegetarian options) and many more. It would likely be faster and easier to allow students and teams to choose their own lunch options.

· Our Convention Bureau is going to work with local restaurants to let them know about increased demand during the tournament and get us a list of places that can accommodate big groups for dinner.

· Open ceremony - Can be done wither Friday night or Saturday morning in the Union. My preference would be for Friday night, as it makes the set up and take down a bit easier and allows union staff to focus on other areas Saturday morning.

· We are working with our Tournament Director Dave Gaer to schedule a location visit.

· Tournament headquarters will be in the union and rounds Monday will be in the union. We have 16 performance rooms reserved there for us for Monday including the large ball room which can be divided up for finals rooms or expanded for awards. We are also attempting to reserve the campus movie theater and recital hall, which we think could be nice places for events that generally have large audiences.

· We will have a conference planning committee class and the members of our debate team to help with tournament operations.

· With the committee’s permission my plan is to create and publish a website for AFA 2021 this summer that would have all the information on it about the hotel, parking, area restaurants etc... and could be updated as we move closer to AFA.

· Any suggestions or feedback for the things committee needs or would like to see would be helpful. Our Director of Speech Allison Bonander had planned to talk to people and observe operations at AFA 2020, but since that will not be happening, any feedback on ways we can make the tournament run smoothly would be greatly appreciated. They do plan to reach out to recent former hosts to get their suggestions as well.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

A. AFA-NIET Student Committee (Epping/Kennon/Murabito)

This committee has nothing to report at this time but will instead speak to the many proposal discussed today come from the students.

B. Distinguished Service Committee (Epping/Roberts/Rittenour/Wilson/Northup)

Epping said he had not report since there was no recipient of the award this year.

C. Outstanding New Coach Award (Epping/Roberts/Rittenour/Wilson/Northup)

Epping reminded us that we had two new coach awards:

Jordan Johnson – University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Ryan Tinlin – University of Texas at Austin.

We will need to coordinate how we will deliver those awards to the recipients. They will be honored, and letters of nomination read at next year’s AFA-NST.

D. AFA-NIET Distinguished Alumni Award (Morris/Schnoor/Hindman/Brown/Worth

Morris said she also had no report since there was no recipient of the award this year.

E. Research (Thompson/Stanley/Kennon)

Thompson said he had not received any request for research to be conducted at

F. Awards (Gaer/Mayfield/Roberts)

Gaer had spoken about the awards in his tournament director report. Roberts will speak later about awards in her Alternative Awards Investigation Report.

G. Diversity, Equity, Access (LaBove/Amundson/Collins/Soibleman/Allen)

This committee had no report.

H. Ad Hoc Alternative Awards Investigation (Roberts/Morris/Riffe/Gaer)

This committee had no official report.

I. Ad Hoc Best Practices for Regular Season Tournaments (Stanley/Kennon/Hinkle/

Hindman/Gantt)

Stanley said he had nothing new to report for the Best Practices Committee. His committee is asking for a new charge or permission to be disbanded.

J. Ad Hoc Constitutional Updates (Morris/Thompson/Mayfield)

Morris said the March 2020 NST Constitution has been updated with both the name change (NIET to NST) and the eligibility. She has begun the updates to the bylaws with the name change but will not finish this copy until after this meeting as she is certain that there will be more changes to the bylaws. The most updated version of the bylaws will accompany this meeting’s minutes.

K. All-American IE Team (Roberts/Wilson/Rittenour/Northup)

Roberts provided the following report:

· Submissions

o COVID-19 impacts: Some unofficial transcripts were accepted because of the sudden tightened access to campuses. In those cases, I conferred with district chairs or coaches re: the accuracy of the transcripts that I was provided.

· 2020 All American Nominees

o 7 Automatics from Districts (No All American from one district)

§ There were 6 automatics in 2019

o 13 additional nominations (14 in 2019)

o 20 total submissions (same as 2019)

· 2020 Team TBA

o nominees are currently under consideration

· 2021 All American nominations reminders

o Deadline—March 15, 2021, Monday

o Coversheets should be completed for each auto and nominee packet.

o District Chairs should email PDFs of packets as soon as possible to All American Committee Chair and update if needed before the deadline.

o Suggestions for future nominee packets:

§ More description on service resume; explain the service--what did the nominee do; how many hours did they volunteer; was the service paid? Was it for college/class credit?

§ Consider adding more variety to the letters of support (maximum 3 letters); one letter must come from a coach; the others could come from someone who could speak to the nominee’s service or their academics to help explain those areas of the nominee’s packet

L. Manchester Scholar Series (Epping/Roberts/Rittenour/Northup/Wilson)

Epping reported due to delays in coordinating with Carlos Tarin’s research and programming office at the University of Texas, El Paso, Tarin has been given a one-year extension to present his research. This extension was given before the NIET was canceled.

M. Ad Hoc Committee on Future Planning in Forensics (Wilson/Brown/Rittenour/

Schnoor/Morris/Hale)

Wilson said his committee had nothing to report. He said we should look for a call for paper/panels for the Developmental Conference. The conference will occur at ISU on July 31-August 2^nd. His committee would like the AFA-NIET committee to explore the option of graduate student funding for the conference. He would like to hear the committee’s response.

N. Ad Hoc Committee on Limited Entry Sweepstakes (Kennon/Gaer/Grace/Harrison)

Kennon will speak about this when she presents her proposal as Addendum K.

TABLED BUSINESS

A. Proposal to Add a Second District Tournament to be held during Fall Semester (Wilson/Epping) Addendum A

Epping moved and Riffe seconded to take this off the table. Mayfield as us to speak to this proposal. Wilson said that the question we had at the November meeting was whether the legs from the Fall Districts would shift down after that tournament and the new proposal says that the legs will not shift down. Mayfield asked for a roll call form each member on this proposal.

District 1 (Paxton Attridge)—D1 is in favor of this proposal since D1 is rebuilding their membership.

District 2 (Joe Gantt)—D2 is not certain that it would benefit D2. This would probably be optional for D2. They wouldn’t really use it. But in favor for other districts’ use.

District 3 (Craig Brown)—D3 supports this proposal as it would give them a chance to rotate sites by putting one distinct in the north and one in the south.

District 4 (Kittie Grace/Najla (Amundson)—D4 is in favor of this proposal and agrees with D3 in that D4 would also have 2 locations for the district tournaments.

District 5 (John Stanley)—D5 is in favor but wonders about the impact on smaller tournaments.

District 6 (Corey Paul Harrison/Amy Martinelli)—D6 liked this proposal.

District 7 (Nance Rife)—D7 is in favor and said it would help smaller tournaments.

District 9 (Sarah Hinkle)-D9 is a small district and so D9 might not use it. If the Fall districts is optional, then D9 is in support.

Eastern Rep—Rittenour is in favor but would like to see this happen later in the fall and not earlier. He also thought that it would occur on a weekend that is taken. Snafu would have to give up a time period. But this would give mid-year grads an opportunity to qual without traveling the whole semester.

Southern Rep—Roberts wonders why optional if it is important, however she is in favor of it. She wanted to know what would happen if a school comes to the fall district and doesn’t go to the AFA-NST, can the qual bump down later. Wilson says what happens at the fall district tournament, stays at the fall district tournament

Central Rep—Wilson is glad that the fall districts is optional.

Western Rep—Northup had no opinion.

Two Year Rep—Hindman’s constituents did not have a lot to say about this proposal.

Student Reps--Kennon said students were in support. She asked if we could have two in the spring if we weren’t able to compete in the fall. Murabito said students had a hard time finding ways to communicate and two districts would allow more conversation.

CDEA Chair—LaBove was in favor of this proposal

Vote was taken and PASSED!

NEW BUSINESS

A. Proposal to Eliminate Preliminary Points from the Tabulation of Team Sweepstakes for 2021 (Riffe) Addendum B

Riffe said that she would table this discussion until the end of the meeting so that we could get to more pressing issues. She asked that we could come back to this at the end of the meeting. Mayfield agreed.

B. Proposal to Eliminate the Team Entry Cap of 66 for 2021 (Riffe) Addendum C

Riffe was willing to table but is looking to talk about this at the end of the discussion today.

Riffe Proposals (Addendum B and C) Revisited: This discussion occurred toward the end of the meeting after several proposals had been passed that allowed qualifications to become a less difficult for schools. The discussion centered around the history of the AFA-NST and the vision for who the AFA-NST is. Mayfield spoke about a time when the AFA-NIET was considered the most elite tournament and it was incredibly difficult to qualify for the tournament. He said individuals/programs took great pride in qualifying and saw getting to the National Tournament as quite a feat. Several older members of the committee spoke about bringing teams to the AFA-NIET and placing in the top 10 with 3 or 4 members because prelim points didn’t count and so if you just got students to finals then you could place in the top 10. They also spoke about how times were very different in that most schools attending the AFA-NIET felt that they could at least break something into out rounds at the tournament. The final rounds used to be more of a varied representation of the programs. The committee discussed that the identity of the AFA-NST has shifted but this shift may have come from proposals passed and not from an identity discussion. The committee agreed that the conversation about defining the identity of the AFA-NST needs to occur.

Both Proposals (eliminate prelim points and entry cap) FAILED

C. Proposal to create an On-Line Fundraising Campaign (Duncan) Addendum D

Mayfield asked Grace to speak about this proposal. Grace said that due to the fact that we had to borrow money from the AFA to pay for our trophies, this proposal is timely. Mayfield asked for opinion roll call of those present

District 1 (Paxton Attridge)—DI agreed that this would be a good idea.

District 2 (Joe Gantt)—D2 echoed the sentiment.

District 3 (Craig Brown)—D3 agreed.

District 4 (Kittie Grace/Najla (Amundson)—D4 offered that there should be a committee in place to make the decisions about how to collect and how to spend monies donated.

District 5 (John Stanley)-D5 is in support of the proposal.

District 6 (Corey Paul Harrison/Amy Martinelli)—D6 isn’t sure how this would work and so will be abstaining.

District 7 (Nance Rife)-D7 is concerned over the language and who would be in charge of the money

District 9 (Sarah Hinkle)-D9 is in favor of the proposal.

Eastern Rep—Rittenour is in favor of the proposal.

Southern Rep –Roberts was concerned about the parent organization and wondered if others like NDT did this type of fundraising. Mayfield assured her that we do have the ability to fundraise.

Central Rep-- Wilson said he was in favor of the proposal if the chair cleans up the language.

Secretary—Morris reminded us that the Constitution says that the Treasurer of the AFA-NST Board of Trustees is the person who is supposed to handle the money for the AFA-NST.

Western Rep—Northup said he is in favor, but we need to make sure that treasure of the Board of Trustees is part of this committee.

Two-year Rep—Hindman also cautioned us against using GoFundMe. She says it is difficult to get your money from them.

Vice Chair—Epping agrees with the Treasurer of the Board of Trustees being on the committee.

Student Rep--The students want the decision to be visibility. Marley says there must be a better way than a third party to raise money. She expands that if we wanted to create a committee, then the social media committee member needs to be a part of the committee

CDEA Chair—LaBove has some thoughts about the set-up of things. She says this is a 501C3 issue and needs to be a tax write-off.

Webmaster--Worth thinks many alumni would want to give.

Tournament Director—Gaer is in favor since he had to go to parent organization to ask for money this year. We just need to need to figure out the legalities.

Vote taken and proposal PASSED!

The AFA-NST chair will create a committee and figure out how to do this.

D. Proposal to Change the Voting Process of Changes to the Bylaws and Constitution

of the AFA-NIET (Duncan) Addendum E

Grace requested we table this proposal and come back to at the end of the meeting.

We were unable (due to time) to come back to this proposal and so it is TABLED.

E. Proposal to adjust By-Laws replacing ‘NIET’ for ‘NST’ for hosting information

(Gantt) Addendum F

Gantt says this is proposal is mis-labeled. The proposal is to move the hosting list out of the bylaws and just move it to a separate document (Addendum F-1). Epping called the question and LaBove seconded it. Question called. Vote taken. Proposal PASSED!

F. Proposal to Reduce the Number of Preliminary Points for the Tabulation of Team Sweepstakes for 2021 (Riffe) Addendum G

Riffe was willing to table this to the end of the meeting. We were unable (due to time) to come back to this proposal and so it is TABLED.

G. Proposal to Establish a Disability Accommodation Officer Position for the AFA- NIET (Murabito) Addendum H

Murabito explained the AFA-NST is supposed to have someone who deals with student’s disabilities, he would like to have a specific person. Mayfield asks is the CDEA would be able to take over this responsibility. Murabito wants to have this person be a bit more visibility. Morris says that students would be more aware of a place for them to speak if they could put a face to a name. Murabito asked that chair of the CDEA could be the face of this committee and accommodation. Gaer says he has met several needs of students and judges, but he would like to know what needs are not being met. Morris suggested an anonymous survey be sent out to the students to find out what unmet needs are occurring. Knighton said that most of the accessibility issues are true of most AFA-NST. There are a lot of obstacles to overcome. A lot of this has to do with the actual tournament site and the host. LaBove asked if Gantt’s committee would make sure that this was in the host requirement documents. Kennon says a survey would be great about what needs are not being met. Martinelli says it would be great to have this information before hosting the tournament. Riffe says that we need to be careful to maintain the confidentiality of the survey. Students want to be private. Riffe says she trust LaBove would handle this with grace. Gantt’s committee just added a new item to the Hosting form (Addendum F1).

Murabito TABLES this proposal and asks LaBove to send out a survey and then we might bring this proposal back up if needed in November.

H. Proposal to rotate NIET Hosting Bid to Mediate State Travel Ban Removing Schools from the AFA-NIET (Murabito) Addendum I

Murabito’s proposal states that the AFA-NST would not go to one of the “hate” states two years in a row. Mayfield said that we have spoken about this as a committee. Epping offered to help to revise this with Murabito. Gantt asked if Santa Ana is interested in 2022. Gaer said Tinajero is proposing a bid right now for 2022. Proposal is TABLED until November. Epping will work with Murabito and bring this back in November.

I. Proposal to Switch Extemporaneous Speaking and Impromptu Speaking Flight

Placing (Murabito) Addendum J

Murabito explains that if this proposal passes, then the patterns would change for the AFA-NST 2021 and would look like this.

A: Ext/Pers/POI/Prose

B: Duo/Imp/Inf

C: ADS/CA/DI/Poe

Murabito says the logic would be flight A would be first and extemp should be in that first pattern. He believes more people would do extemp instead of impromptu with the switch in pattern. Mayfield reminded us that the change in pattern was supposed to be for 2020 and 2021 and so we would only have this change in patterns which was proposed two years ago for one more year. The following discussion centered around the fact that we never had the chance to see the 2020/2021 pattern at a national tournament and we need to stick it out and let this change run its course. We will talk about this in November as we will have to decide if we want to go back to the original patterns, keep the 2-year experimental patterns or come up with a new pattern. TABLED until November.

J. Proposal to Include Limited Entry Sweepstakes (Kennon) Addendum K

Kennon clarified this proposal with her committee from the last meeting. They decided that the award would go to the top five schools with 15 entries or less. This would also cost 715.00 approximately (based on the last trophy invoice we received). Gaer said that the trophies went up in price and so he does not think this cost would be quite so low. Morris asked Kennon in her research is she say an overlap of schools winning team sweepstakes and this limited entry sweepstakes. Kennon said there would have been only one school last year. Mayfield asked for a roll call discussion.

District 1 (Paxton Attridge)-DI is in favor for small schools but worried about schools cutting entries to 15 or less.

District 2 (Joe Gantt)—D2 is in support of this proposal

District 3 (Craig Brown)—D3 is in support but Brown wondered if we got rid of preliminary points in a different proposal then there might not be anyone to win these awards.

District 4 (Kittie Grace/Najla (Amundson)—D4 is in support and would like the AFA-NST chair to make the clarification if double dipping can occur. District 4 has both types of schools (small and large).

District 5 (John Stanley)-D5 is in favor but worried about entry fees increasing to pay for the new trophies.

District 6 (Corey Paul Harrison/Amy Martinelli)—D6 is in favor

District 7 (Nance Rife)—Riffe thinks the discussion is in the wrong order. Like Brown, she sees several of the proposals to discuss today are contradictory. There is another proposal that amends the decisions to add 66 cap and prelims. The spirit is of the Small School Sweepstakes proposal is outstanding, but we need to not talk about who AFA-NST is before we begin voting on proposals.

District 9 (Sarah Hinkle)—Hinkle had to step out of the call.

Eastern Rep--Rittenour wonders why we need to give as big a trophy as proposed. He says smaller trophies would save us money.

Southern Rep-Roberts is still not certain about 15 entries as the cut off and has concerned about people chasing this award.

Central Rep—Wilson is in favor but wants to know where this money is coming from.

Western Rep—Northup says he is in support if we keep looking at the number 15 and see if this works.

Vice Chair—Epping thinks this is a good idea.

Secretary—Morris is concerned about schools double dipping.

Student Reps-Kennon says she would be willing to table after we talk about some of the other issues. Proposal is TABLED.

Towards the end of the meeting, after we had talked about many of the other proposals that seemed contradictory to this proposal, Kennon asked that we take a vote on this proposal since we had already had a discussion roll call. PASSES!

K. Proposal in Increase the Number of Eligible Legs at Regular Season Tournaments

(Kennon) Addendum L

Kennon said it was helpful to have the 9 to 7 decease in the number of schools needed to be an AFA-NIET qualifier. Since the 2 legs proposal did not pass this proposal was brought to the committee in its place. Mayfield said we tabled 8 proposals and they go hand in hand. He wanted us to get questions answered now and then we will come back to this one. LaBove asked for a preliminary vote of committee members.

District 1 (Paxton Attridge)—D1 is In favor of this since it is harder to qualify for the AFA-NST. His district sent very few people to AFA and this would help to rebuild this district.

District 2 (Joe Gantt) --D2 is in favor.

District 3 (Craig Brown)—D3 is against it. With having two district tournaments, this makes it easier and so tournaments will decrease. Brown said that people want to travel.

District 4 (Kittie Grace/Najla (Amundson)—D4 likes this proposal as it gives more quals for everyone and teams do not have to travel as much.

District 5 (John Stanley)—D5 was mostly in favor but the district was split.

District 6 (Corey Paul Harrison/Amy Martinelli)—D6 is very much in favor of this proposal and they do not believe that it will impact the structure of the tournament.

District 7 (Nance Rife)—Riffe asked if it would help to wait to see this would be needed after the 2 district tournaments occurred for at least a year. She believes we should pass it but implement in the year after next.

District 9 (Sarah Hinkle)-D9 is in favor since it is so hard to qualify. Hinkle does not think the two districts new policy will impact this once since hosting two districts are optional for districts.

Eastern Rep—Rittenour is in favor of the proposal and does not think the fall district tournament would bloat the national tournament.

Southern Rep-Roberts is in favor of this and reminded us that this is optional district.

Central Rep-Wilson says that the curse of the fours now changes to legs that count

Western Rep—Northup said that on face value this makes sense. But he thinks there are so many conflicting factors. He says there are so many identity questions left unanswered and we need to explore the identity questions. In past years we were very worried about getting bigger.

Two-year Rep—Hindman supports this but does not think we should roll all these changes out at the same time.

Secretary—Morris stated that she does not think we are ready to have this discussion until we have the identity conversation.

Student Rep—Students are in favor of this proposal as it is becoming increasingly harder and harder to earn legs that count.

Murabito called the question, LaBove seconded. Vote taken. Proposal PASSES!

Mayfield said to remember who we are and to make sure we are staying true to the AFA-NIET.

L. Proposal to Change the name, Move to a Standing Committee, Allow the Sexual

Harassment Officer to Become a Voting Member (Grace) Addendum M

Mayfield said as chair, he can move the committee to a standing committee.

The name was discussed, and the final name chosen was the Anti Sexual Harassment Resource Committee. The new name will be changed on the committee google site and in the bylaws. Name change PASSED!

The committee also voted on adding the SHO (Sexual Harassment Officer) as a voting member of the council. This change requires a change to the AFA-NST charter and thus a vote of the AFA Membership. The AFA-NST committee voted on this charter changed and this proposal PASSED!

Morris will create wording for the charter proposal for the new chair to add to the AFA Business meeting agenda for the November meeting.

M. Proposal Allowing Students to Compete at their 4^th AFA-NST/NIET (Epping, Mayfield, Morris, & Gaer) Addendum N (see discussion below)

N. Proposal for Supplemental Division – 2021 NST (Gantt) Addendum O

Mayfield said that since both these proposals deal with extending competing eligibility, we could talk about these proposals together. Consensus was that individuals were in favor of Addendum N but were unclear about Addendum 0.

Questions about the supplemental division were:

§ Why a cap of two events? Gantt says that this could increase but he was not sure how this would impact the tournament by taking people out of the judging pool to compete and also some to judge.

§ Would duo partners have to both be graduating seniors? Gantt says yes. This means that duo may be small, but this division is just for those who graduating.

§ Can graduating seniors come back and travel with a program for which they are not a student? This is unclear as some schools have policies in place that would not allow this.

§ Can a graduating senior who is not competing in the supplemental judge this division? This was not yet decided.

§ How much would this cost in trophies? This was not yet decided.

The question was called and a vote was taken. Both eligibility proposals PASSED.

The details for the supplemental division will be ironed out before or at the November meeting.

ELECTIONS

A. Chair (1-year term) (filling out the last year of Mayfield’s 2-year term) (2019-2021) Mayfield announced that both he and Morris are transitioning into new positions within their respective departments and felt it was best that the organization have leadership from individuals who are actively coaching programs.

“I have been involved with the NIET since the Fall of 1985. I have served as tournament staff, District 7 Chair, NIET Secretary, Vice Chair, and Chair. While it has not been the smoothest two years, it has been an honor serving as your Chair. I look forward to serving as the Chair Emeritus and continuing to serve the organization that has given me so much” --Lee Mayfield

Nominated were Kittie Grace, Nance Riffe and Kellie Roberts. Roberts declined the nomination. Nance Riffe was ELECTED.

B. Secretary (1-year term) (filling out the last year of Morris’ 2-year term) (2019-2021)

Morris is moving out of forensic into a teaching position at UWEC. She will be leaving this position early.

“Please consider the creation of the minutes from this conference call as my last duty performed as the AFA-NIET/NST Secretary. As you know, I have been given the opportunity at UWEC to step into a teaching only position and we are in the process of hiring a new DOF. Although I have one more year on my two-year term as Secretary, I cannot confidently say that I will be attending the AFA-NIET next year. I am not sure of my involvement in forensics next year and I do not believe it would be fair to saddle the new DOF at UWEC with the requirement that they need to take the old DOF to AFA-NIET with them. I love AFA-NIET and have had the pleasure of serving it in a variety of positions (D5 chair, Central Representative and most recently secretary). Thank you for the opportunity to give back to this organization and the community as a whole”. –Karen Morris

Nominated were Shannon LaBove, Megan Koch, and Joe Gantt. Gantt declined the

nomination. Shannon LaBove was ELECTED.

C. Vice-Chair (2-year term) (2020-2022)

Darren Epping was nominated and ELECTED by acclamation.

D. Tournament Director (1 year term) (2020-2021)

Dave Gaer was nominated and ELECTED by acclamation

E. Webmaster (2 year term) (2020-2022)

David Worth nominated and ELECTED by acclamation

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:44 pm (central time). Epping had moved at 4:20 that we have additional time to conclude our meeting that was to end at 4:30 pm.

Addendum A

Proposal to add a second district tournament to be held during the fall semester –

Nathaniel Wilson & Darren Epping

*New text for clarification underlined

Rationale: The current AFA qualification system incentivizes teams to travel up to 9 weekends per semester, making our competitive season significantly longer than other collegiate activities. This can lead to coach and competitor burnout and could be a significant contributing factor to the decrease in size and number of teams nationally. In short, recruitment and retention in the activity are hindered by our travel schedule. This proposal would add a second district tournament to be held during the fall semester of competition. Allowing two district qualification tournaments during an academic year (one in the fall and one in the spring) could decrease travel demands. To avoid the inevitable logistics problems that would arise, no alternate slots would be awarded during the fall semester district tournament.

To clarify, at the fall district tournament: The top 3 placements (or more based on entry size) automatically qualify for the AFA-NIET. If an event receives its third leg, the district automatic qualification will move down to the next highest placing entry. However, if an event receives a district automatic qualification at the fall district tournament and later qualifies at-large, the automatic qualification does not move down.

Current Language:

VI. District Qualification

VI-G. District Qualifying Tournaments shall be held after January 15 and no later than the third weekend in March

VI-I. It is expected that those qualifying to attend the National Tournament via the District Qualifier will do so. If for some reason a school or student intends not to advance to the National Tournament, that intention should be communicated to the District Chair as soon as possible and in no instance later than 16 days prior to the registration of the AFA-NIET in order to allow sufficient time to notify alternates from the respective District Qualifier.

Proposed Language:

VI. District Qualification

VI-G

Fall District Qualifying Tournaments shall be held after October 1st and no later than December 15th. Spring District Qualifying Tournaments shall be held after January 15 and no later than the third weekend in March

Addendum B

Proposal to Eliminate Preliminary Points from the Tabulation of Team Sweepstakes for 2021

Submitted by Nance Riffe, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Why

Over the past two years, many of the proposals brought to the AFA NIET committee seem to reflect three themes:

1. making competition at AFA more viable for small programs/programs with low budgets (additional district tournaments, lowering the cumulative number of legs to qualify, etc.)

2. finding ways to award small programs/programs with low budgets (ie, limited entry sweeps, adjusting the cap, etc)

3. making the distinctions between AFA and NFA clear and consistent.

A theme that has not come up formally to the committee (over the past two years at least) is the burden of the 66 cap. For large and/or well-funded programs, limiting the entries to 66 means that some of the students on those teams who did qualify for the NIET are not allowed to compete. For coaches who must turn away students who qualified, the process can be brutal.

One of the long-standing justifications of the counting of prelim points towards the team sweeps total has been to show students how they contribute their team’s overall success. But for some schools, the cap that accompanies that point system inherently prevents some students from contributing to their team’s overall success.

The National Forensic Association hosts a National Tournament that has an unlimited entry, counts prelim points towards Team Sweeps, and awards teams in categories according to team entry size. The National Speech Championship caps team entries to 22 slots. AFA can offer a different, distinct national tournament by awarding teams based on out round points. Should teams seek a particular kind of system of award, these three national tournaments should encompass disparate needs while not preventing any team from competing in one, two, or all three national competitions.

So, in an effort to address the needs of small/low-budget programs, to distinguish AFA from NFA, and to allow larger programs the chance to allow all of their students to compete at AFA and contribute to their team’s success, I propose that we, first, eliminate the counting of preliminary points to the team sweepstakes award and, second, eliminate the entry cap of 66 students.

By-Law Changes:

I. Awards

1. Individual awards will be presented in each event to those contestants advancing to the elimination rounds.

2. There will be 20 Individual Sweepstakes awards based on preliminary and elimination rounds, using the following point system: 3 points for each 1st, 2 points for each 2nd, and 1 point for each 3rd place ballot in preliminary rounds. Contestants in elimination rounds will receive points according to the following scheme: 6 for a 1st, 5 for a 2nd, 4 for a 3rd, 3 for a 4th, 2 for a 5th, 1 for a 6th and all others. The students must be eligible and compete in four AFA-NIET events for the Individual Sweepstakes awards.

3. There shall be 20 School Sweepstakes awards based on the following criteria:

a. Preliminary round sweepstakes points will be given for the top three students from each school in each event using the following scheme: 3 points for each 1st, 2 points for each 2nd, and 1 point for each 3rd. These preliminary round points shall be halved before tabulating the elimination round points.

b. All contestants in all elimination rounds will receive points according to the following scheme: 6 for a 1st, 5 for a 2nd, 4 for a 3rd, 3 for a 4th, 2 for a 5th, 1 for a 6th and all others. Maximum total per student per event would be 18 for elimination points (6 points each for 1st in a quarterfinal section, 1st in a semifinal section, 1st in finals); maximum total per student would be 108 (18 times six events) in elimination rounds; maximum total per school is infinite.

4. Other Awards

a. Traveling Trophy for School Sweepstakes.

b. Traveling Trophy for Individual Sweepstakes.

c. Top Community College Sweepstakes Award (a minimum of five community colleges must compete).

d. There will be an NIET-NDT award given each year to the school that has the highest combined scores in these two National Tournaments.

Addendum C

Proposal to Eliminate the Team Entry Cap for 2021

Submitted by Nance Riffe, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Why

Over the past two years, many of the proposals brought to the AFA NIET committee seem to reflect three themes:

1. making competition at AFA more viable for small programs/programs with low budgets (additional district tournaments, lowering the cumulative number of legs to qualify, etc.)

2. finding ways to award small programs/programs with low budgets (ie, limited entry sweeps, adjusting the cap, etc)

3. making the distinctions between AFA and NFA clear and consistent.

By-Law Changes:

F. ~~The total number of entries per school at the AFA-NIET is capped at 66 slots.~~ All schools that enter the AFA-NIET shall be limited to the number of (full-time equivalent) judges to cover their entry. 

Addendum D

AFA Proposal: Online Fundraising Campaign

Submitted by Aaron Duncan – University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Overview: This proposal would empower the Chair of the AFA-NIET to create a committee to oversee an online funding campaign. This campaign would take the form of other campaign used on platforms like gofundme, DonateNow, etc… Suggested dates for the campaign would include the National Speech and Debate Day (the first Friday of every March) and the tournament day of the NIET.

Rational: The financial stability of the AFA-NIET is fundamental to both the organization and college forensics’ continued success. Online fundraising provides a tool to begin the process of creating an independent fund and source of revenue for the AFA-NIET. Goals of the fund would include ensuring the solvency of the AFA-NIET should unexpected events happen (for example, needing to cancel the NIET because of the Coronavirus). As the fund grows, the National Committee would be able to hear proposals for how to use the fund. For example, creating a permanent endowment for the NIET, funding developmental conferences, offsetting tournament costs such as trophies, hiring a paid intern or other staffing, creating a financial assistance fund to help teams in need attend the NIET etc…

Proposal: The AFA-NIET National Committee adopts a resolution formally requesting the AFA-NIET President to conduct a fund-raising campaign on the behalf of the AFA NIET. The AFA-NIET charges the “Fund Raising Committee” with the creation and administration of at least one annual fund-raising campaign.

Addendum E

AFA Proposal: Changing the voting process of changes to the bylaws and coNIETitution of the AFA-NIET

Submitted by Aaron Duncan – University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Overview: This proposal would provide member schools the ability to vote directly on proposed changes to the bylaws of the AFA-NIET.

Rational: One of the central values of the AFA-NIET is that everyone deserves a voice and the power to effect change. Previously, direct voting on changes to organizational bylaws and the constitution presented a number of practical and logistical challenges. However, new technology has made it possible for direct voting by member schools in new ways. Other forensics organizations have demonstrated the viability of using SpeechWire to allow schools to vote directly on issues affecting the organization. Allowing schools to directly vote would offer a number of advantages over the current system:

1. This process is more democratic than the current representative based process. Schools will all feel like they have a voice in the process.

2. District chairs and regional representatives would be relieved of the burden of having to represent the voices of district schools and regions that often have divergent voices and opinions.

3. The process is fairer for all schools. Because the sizes of the districts vary greatly, some schools are more represented than others on the AFA-NIET Committee. For example, a district with 20 member schools has the same representation on the committee as a district with 5 member schools.

4. The process is more transparent and allows all schools to debate and discuss the proposal online and offline.

5. The national committee would still retain all of its power and responsibilities related to non-by-law issues such as selecting host for the AFA-NIET, oversee various awards, adjudicating rules violations, overseeing the growth of the tournament and activity etc…

6. Freeing the national committee of having to consider and vote on all bylaw issues will allow the committee more time to focus on other areas.

Proposal:

Current Bylaw:

XIV. Amendment

The provisions of this document may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the AFA-NIET Committee or majority vote at two consecutive meetings of the AFA-NIET Committee. 

Changed to:

XIV. Amendment

The provisions of this document may be amended by a two-thirds vote of AFA-NIET Member Schools. Voting may be done electronically, in person, or by mail. Administration of the vote will be overseen by the Chair of the AFA-NIET. Member schools should have no less than a 30 day time period to vote on any and all proposals.  

Addendum F

Proposal to adjust By-Laws replacing ‘NIET’ for ‘NST’ (Gantt)

~~XI. Hosting the AFA-NIET~~

~~A. The AFA-NIET employs an open bid system for location of the national tournament. Each year the tournament is intended to rotate geographically.~~

~~B. Requirements of Host School~~

1. Documents: a) A letter of invitation from the principal officer of the institution; b) A statement of any goals and/or services to be provided by the institution; c) A statement of any charges to be made for use and care of any facilities.

~~2. Supplies:~~

~~_______ Rapid photocopy machine (2 preferably)~~

~~_______ 5 IBM compatible computers with 2 high speed printers (5 preferably)~~

~~_______ 35 reams of paper (for schedules/results, etc.)~~

~~_______ Office supplies: pens, pencils, legal pads, markers, tape, scissors, paper clips~~

~~_______~~ ~~Large~~ ~~posting sheets (must be bigger than artist pad sheets)~~

~~_______ 4 projectors for power point postings~~

~~3. Facilities:~~

~~_______ Lecture Auditorium (750-800) (Auditorium needed for opening Session and Awards Ceremony)~~

~~_______ 90-100 classrooms (Sat/Sun)~~

~~_______ 16 Classrooms (as semifinals begin on Monday)~~

~~_______ Appropriate rooms for tabulation~~

~~All costs for campus security/room rental are to be borne by Host School~~.

~~4. Personnel:~~

~~_______ 35 judges (full time equivalent)~~

~~_______ 10-15 student helpers for the entire tournament~~

~~5. Services:~~

~~_______ Ground transportation to and from headquarters motel to the school is NOT required, but may be offered at a host's option. (Hosts are not expected to finance the motel/school transportation.)~~

_______ Availability of ground transportation--bus, rental cars, taxi--from commercial transportation centers to the headquarters motel. (Hosts are not expected to provide for or finance such transportation.) General cost estimates should be provided on the following items: $_____Taxi $_____Bus $_____Rental Cars

_______ Duplication costs for tournament program, ballots, schedule (Host schools are expected to provide for and finance duplication costs --estimates on expense to host school can be approximately 15 pages x 700 programs = rough cost estimate for program and schedules + cost of ballots on 6" x 8" cards times [approximately 11,000-12,000])

~~_______Visual Aid Check-in Station for competitors~~.

~~6. Meals:~~

~~_______ Meal package on campus Two options:~~

~~1) Provide a cost estimate for the following meal package options arranged via your campus food service: 2 continental breakfasts; 2 noon lunches; one evening banquet meal (may be buffet); or~~

2) Provide the one evening banquet with (indicated local restaurants or options for additional meals). Cost per person $_____ (Host school is not expected to pay for meals). Estimate number around 700 individuals.

~~7. Transportation:~~

_______ Availability of ground transportation (bus, rental cars, taxi) from commercial transportation centers to the headquarters motel. (Hosts are not expected to provide for or finance such transportation.) General cost estimates should be provided on possible expenses to be incurred for local transportation: $______ taxi $______ bus $______ rental cars

~~_______ Optional: Ground transportation to and from headquarters motel to the school (Hosts are not expected to finance or provide the motel/school transportation.)~~

~~8. Lodging:~~

~~_______ Please provide a list of area motels within reasonably close distance to campus (include current rates for Singles/Quads and any additional services provided by the motel).~~

~~9. Amenities:~~

~~_______ Fringe benefits: Specify any add-on advantages which might be forthcoming should your school be selected as Host.~~

~~C. The Bid to Host Form shall be submitted to the Chair of the AFA-NIET Committee no later than the deadline specified in the NIET Invitation.~~

D. Host schools are exempt from the first five-hundred dollars of their school's registration fee for the NIET. Money collected from a surcharge levied on all NIET participating schools also goes to the NIET Host School

replace with

XI. Hosting the AFA-NST

A. The AFA-NST employs an open bid system for the location of the national tournament. Inasmuch as possible, the tournament should rotate geographically across the United States.

B. Requirements of Host 

The AFA-NST shall maintain a document with hosting requirements on its website. The AFA-NST committee shall periodically review this document to ensure that the stated requirements meet the needs of the tournament.

Addendum F-1

AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION'S NATIONAL SPEECH TOURNAMENT BID to HOST THE AFA-NST

HOSTING INSTITUTION/ORGANIZATION:

BID SUBMITTED BY: ______________________________

POSITION: _____________________________________

Bids to host the AFA-NST are currently being accepted. The National Committee will attempt to choose sites that have reasonable access from all parts of the United States and will attempt to see that the tournament has geographic mobility. All schools submitting a bid for the AFA-NST are invited to have a representative attend the National Committee Meeting to present their bid. Representatives should be prepared to answer questions regarding their respective bid. Completion of the bid process is simply a matter of answering the questions below and attaching any additional materials needed to evaluate the bid. It is suggested that a minimum of ten packets with bid letters, local Chamber of Commerce data, lodging information, and letters from dignitaries (local, institutional and/or organizational) be submitted with each bid. Please return this form and any additional materials to the NST Chair.

REQUIREMENTS OF HOST: (Please place an "X" in the blank for each of the items you will guarantee to provide for the tournament).

REQUIRED DOCUMENTS : (A) a letter of invitation from the principal officer of the institution/organization; (B) a statement of any goals and/or services to

be provided by the institution/organization; (C) a statement of any charges to be made for use and care of any facilities.

SUPPLIES: Rapid Photocopy Machine (2 preferably)

______IBM compatible computers with 2 high speed printers (preferably 5)

Office Supplies: pens, pencils, legal pads, markers, tape, scissors, paper clips

15 reams of paper (for schedules/results, etc.)

_______Projectors for Power Point Postings

_______ Large Paper Rolls for postings

FACILITIES: Lecture Auditorium (750-800) (Auditorium needed for Opening Session & Awards Ceremony. Can be at institution or tournament hotel)

Minimum of 90-100 Classrooms (Prelims/Quarterfinals)

______ List of Accessible Buildings & Classrooms (inc. ramp access,

elevator availability, distance from headquarters)

16 Classrooms/Meeting Rooms with minimum seating of 50- 150 (Semifinals/Finals)

Appropriate Rooms for Tabulation (5)

** All costs for campus security/room rental are to be borne by the host.

PERSONNEL: 50 Judges (Full-Time Equivalent)

10-15 Student Helpers for the entire tournament

SERVICES: _______Duplication costs for tournament program, ballots, schedule (Host schools are expected to provide for and finance supplies and duplication costs. Estimates on expense to host school can be approximated by multiplying the cost of your local duplicating service per page times approximately 15 pages X 700 programs = rough cost estimate for program and schedules + cost of ballots on 6" x 8" cards [approximately 11,000- 12,000]).

Dining: The host has two options:

(1) _____ Provide a cost estimate for a meal package. Estimate must include how many meals are covered (2 or 3 days; lunch only or breakfasts also) Cost per person $ . Estimate around 700 individuals. Which meals are covered?

(2) _____ Provide no meal package, but illustrate the accessibility of

dining options near the competition site.

____ Fringe Benefits: Specify any add-on advantages which might be

forthcoming should your school be selected as host.

LODGING: Please provide a list of area hotels within a reasonably close distance to campus (include current rates of single occupancy and quad occupancy and any additional services provided by the motel/hotel). Please indicate which hotel you would prefer to list as the tournament hotel and an alternate.

NST hosts may utilize the hotel for components of the tournament operation. Please note the following as applicable:

______ Planning to host NST committee meetings at the hotel

______ Planning to host registration at the hotel

______ Planning to host district meetings at the hotel

______ Planning to host semifinals/awards at the hotel

______ Planning to host awards at the hotel

If the host is a member school, the first $500 of their NST registration is waived.

Addendum G

Proposal to Reduce the Number of Preliminary Points for the

Tabulation of Team Sweepstakes for 2021

Submitted by Nance Riffe, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Why

Over the past two years, many of the proposals brought to the AFA NIET committee seem to reflect three themes:

1. making competition at AFA more viable for small programs/programs with low budgets (additional district tournaments, lowering the cumulative number of legs to qualify, etc.)

2. finding ways to award small programs/programs with low budgets (ie, limited entry sweeps, adjusting the cap, etc)

3. making the distinctions between AFA and NFA clear and consistent.

The National Forensic Association hosts a National Tournament that has an unlimited entry, counts prelim points towards Team Sweeps, and awards teams in categories according to team entry size. The National Speech Championship caps team entries to 22 slots. AFA can offer a different, distinct national tournament by awarding teams based on outround points. Should teams seek a particular kind of system of award, these three national tournaments should encompass disparate needs while not preventing any team from competing in one, two, or all three national competitions.

So, in an effort to address the needs of small/low-budget programs, to distinguish AFA from NFA, and to allow larger programs the chance to allow all of their students to compete at AFA and contribute to their team’s success, I propose that we reduce the number of preliminary points counted towards team sweepstakes from 33 to 22.

By-Law Changes:

I. Awards

1. Individual awards will be presented in each event to those contestants advancing to the elimination rounds.

3. There shall be 20 School Sweepstakes awards based on the following criteria:

a. Preliminary round sweepstakes points will be given for the top two students from each school in each event using the following scheme: 3 points for each 1^st and 2 points for each 2nd. These preliminary round points shall be halved before tabulating the elimination round points.

4. Other Awards

a. Traveling Trophy for School Sweepstakes.

b. Traveling Trophy for Individual Sweepstakes.

c. Top Community College Sweepstakes Award (a minimum of five community colleges must compete).

d. There will be an NIET-NDT award given each year to the school that has the highest combined scores in these two National Tournaments.

Addendum H

Proposal to establish a Disability Accommodation Officer position for the AFA-NIET

Submitted by Tom Murabito

Rationale:

The current AFA-NIET committee lacks standards and procedures for submitting disability accommodation requests, as well as an appointment of an individual to ensure that these requests are sought out, communicated to judges, and held in confidence. Without clearly presented pathways to do so, students don’t report accommodation requests either because the possibility wasn’t communicated to them or they fear having accommodations will hinder their rankings in rounds, this is especially true for students with invisible disabilities. Having an appointed officer would ensure the issues arising from lack of preparedness for accommodations would be avoided. The DAO would be responsible for communicating how and where to submit requests, reviewing and making proper accommodations for said requests at the NIET, as well as ensure the confidentiality of student accommodation reasons. Finally, this position would make clear to the students, coaches, and judges alike all living with disabilities that they are safe and welcome attending the NIET.

Proposed Language:

XII. NIET Committee

I.The NIET formally recognizes a Disability Accommodation Officer (DAO) to handle and facilitate any requests of competition accommodation on the basis of disability at the NIET.

1. The Disability Accommodation Officer will be a university faculty member who participates in the forensics activities and organization of their respective institution.

a. The DAO will be appointed by the NIET Chair, in consultation with the NIET Committee, serving a term of two years and is subject to no term limit.

b. A DAO candidate is eligible for appointment under the following conditions, that their institution has attended the NIET for the past three years, the individual can ensure attendance to the NIET during their term, and regularly receives disability and diversity training from their institution.

2. The responsibilities of the DAO include:

a. To document requests for disability accommodations up until the NIET.

b. To ensure disability requests are heard, understood, and accommodated for both in and out of rounds.

c. To communicate discretely to judges of rounds where competitors are needing accommodations that students are doing so and should not be penalized as a result.

d. To actively seek out improvements to the NIET to become more ability aware in venues of awards, rounds, campus design, and evacuation procedures.

3. The first DAO shall be appointed from the NIET Committee, from which the following appointments, the NIET Chair is encouraged to seek candidates outside the committee who still quality with the above requirements.

Addendum I

Proposal to rotate NIET hosting bid to mediate state travel ban removing schools from the AFA-NIET

Submitted by Tom Murabito

Rationale:

In 2017 California legislatures passed an anti-LGBTQ+ state travel ban on state funded travel to the following states: Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. Washington, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont have also proposed similar restrictions. We saw the effects of California not being represented at the tournament going from 73 schools participating in 2017 to 65 in 2018. Similar to the decision to move Santa Ana’s bid to 2020, to offset this disruption, the AFA-NIET committee should ensure that no two consecutive national tournaments should take place in a restricted state listed above. Although it would be impossible, and not in the interest of this committee, to completely restrict these states from hosting the NIET, this ensures that schools from California and states similar to would have a biennial opportunity to attend.

Current Language:

XI. Hosting the AFA-NIET

A. The AFA-NIET employs an open bid system for location of the national tournament. Each year the tournament is intended to rotate geographically.

Proposed Language:

XI. Hosting the AFA-NIET

A. The AFA-NIET employs an open bid system for location of the national tournament. Each year the tournament is intended to rotate geographically.

1. In order to accommodate schools effected by state sanctioned travel bans, the NIET bid shall not be rewarded two years consecutively to the states Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

Addendum J

Proposal to switch Extemporaneous Speaking and Impromptu Speaking flight placing

Submitted by Tom Murabito

Rationale:

Currently the AFA-NIET is in a 2-year flight change pilot where Extemporaneous Speaking is in flight A and Impromptu Speaking is in flight B. Many students have expressed concerns with this current placement, specifically in issues of resource management and conflicting interest of desired events. Flight A currently requires several students to do both Dramatic Duo and Extemporaneous Speaking, meaning they are required to go to Extemp first, then go to Duo. Several scenarios can complicate the order of performances and delaying the flight as a whole. In addition, many students feel as if though pattern A is currently the pattern that is the most difficult overall. The current patterns make it difficult for smaller programs without complete limited prep or public address coaching to be competitive in all flights. In order to maintain the same breaks built in for Extemp prep, this proposal suggests switching the event in flights A and B except for Extemp and Impromptu. This gives students the option to explore limited preparation in an event like Impromptu without being directly put in the more rigorous event of Extemp, as well as alleviating concerns about Duo conflicting with Extemp. This pattern change would be applied to next year’s pilot year, meaning it will be reviewed following the 2021 NIET.

Current Language:

IV. Event Description and Guidelines

A. The 2020 and 2021 AFA-NIET will offer competition in the following events and conflict patterns.

A EVENTS

Dramatic Duo: A cutting from one or more texts of literary merit, humorous or serious, involving the portrayal of two or more characters presented by two individuals. The material may be drawn from any genre of literature. This is not an acting event; thus, no costumes, props, lighting, etc., are to be used. Presentation is from the manuscript and the focus should be off-stage and not to each other. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Contestants will be given three topics in the general area of current event, choose one, and have 30 minutes to prepare a speech that is the original work of the student. Maximum time limit for the speech is 7 minutes. Limited notes are permitted. Student will speak in listed order. Postings of topics will be staggered.

Informative Speaking: An original, factual speech by the student on a realist subject to fulfill the general aim to inform the audience. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time is 10 minutes.

B EVENTS

Impromptu Speaking: An impromptu speech, substantive in nature, with topic selections varied by round and by section. Topics will be derived from quotations. Speakers will have a total of 7 minutes for both preparation and speaking. Timing commences with the acceptance of the topics sheet. Limited notes are permitted.

Persuasive Speaking: An original speech by the student designed to inspire, reinforce, or change the beliefs, attitudes, values or actions of the audience. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.

Program Oral Interpretation: A program of thematically-linked selections of literary merit, chosen from two or three recognized genres of competitive interpretation (prose/poetry/drama). A primary focus of this event should be on the development of the theme through the use of narrative/story, language, and/or characterization. A substantial portion of the total time must be devoted to each of the genres used in the program. Different genre means the material must appear in separate pieces of literature e.g., A poem included in a short story that appears only in that short story does not constitute a poetry genre.) Only one selection may be original. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

Prose Interpretation: An original or selections of prose material of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. A primary focus of this event is on the development of the narrative/story. Play cuttings and poetry are prohibited. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time is 10 minutes including introduction.

IX. National Tournament

D. The 2020 and 2021 American Forensic Association National Individual Events Tournament will have the following events and conflict patterns:

Group A Events: Dramatic Duo Interpretation, Extemporaneous Speaking and Informative Speaking,

Group B Events: Impromptu Speaking, Persuasive Speaking, Program Oral Interpretation and Prose Interpretation

Group C Events: After-Dinner Speaking, Communication Analysis, Drama Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation.

Proposed Language:

IV. Event Description and Guidelines

A. The 2021 AFA-NIET will offer competition in the following events and conflict patterns.

A EVENTS

Program Oral Interpretation: A program of thematically-linked selections of literary merit, chosen from two or three recognized genres of competitive interpretation (prose/poetry/drama). A primary focus of this event should be on the development of the theme through the use of narrative/story, language, and/or characterization. A substantial portion of the total time must be devoted to each of the genres used in the program. Different genre means the material must appear in separate pieces of literature ( e.g., A poem included in a short story that appears only in that short story does not constitute a poetry genre.) Only one selection may be original. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

B EVENTS

IX. National Tournament

D. The 2021 American Forensic Association National Individual Events Tournament will have the following events and conflict patterns:

Group A Events: Extemporaneous Speaking, Persuasive Speaking, Program Oral Interpretation, and Prose Interpretation,

Group B Events: Dramatic Duo Interpretation, Impromptu Speaking, and Informative Speaking,

Group C Events: After-Dinner Speaking, Communication Analysis, Drama Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation.

Addendum K

Proposal to Include Limited Entry Sweepstakes  

Submitted by Alli Kennon

Background:

* The NIET currently has no policy to recognize or acknowledge the efforts of forensics

programs of limited entry, which are typically of schools with limited financial resources for forensics.

* Whereas the current sweepstakes awards system currently favors and skews to more financially secure schools, capable of taking the maximum entries (66) to the NIET each year, consistently ranking and placing within the top twenty schools’ sweepstakes.

* Many, if not all schools review competitive programs (athletic and academic,) via performances at national, conference, and regional performances.

* Smaller schools, who cannot afford the resources to take multiple entries, or the resources

available to maintain an equitable competitive edge, are placed at a disadvantage when

reviewed by Deans and Department Chairs when returning to the NIET.

* Other competitive national tournaments, such as the National Forensics Association (NFA)

provides a category based sweepstakes awards based on size of teams, and entries.

Proposal:

* That the NIET Committee, works in conjunction with the tournament chair to establish a limited entry sweepstakes award for the top five schools of fifteen (15) entries or less at the NIET, due to close to half (31/62) of the schools at AFA 2019 having 15 events or less.

· Total cost of five awards, if we are using the same awards as top 20, would be $715.00.

· Funding for this project would come from an additional 1.5 percent surcharge of the total cost of entries at registration at the NIET. This flat rate would provide adequate funding for five awards.

· Alternative means of funding can and should be discussed with the committee of the whole, along with the proposal’s merits. An alternative funding could come from the online fundraising committee, if passed.

· If passed, the surcharge or alternate means of financing the award begin at the next NIET.

Rationale:

*Representation: A limited entry sweepstakes award would give smaller, less financially well off forensics programs an opportunity to return back to their respective campuses with a more accurate measurement of team performance to ensure the NIET retains more schools and programs.

* Precedent: Many state tournament and collegiate forensics championships have in some

capacity a limited entry sweepstakes award, see TIFA.

* Inclusivity: Forensics as both a practice, and institution reinforces the idea that all should be

welcomed and respected regardless of any background, that line of logic should extend to

schools and universities of limited financial capacity to take more than limited entries

brought to the NIET.

* Cost-Effective: The NIET already presents awards to community colleges that participate at the NIET, and the limited entry sweepstakes award would function and act in the same

manner. With an already proven and working example, there is no reason as to why a

limited entry sweepstakes award couldn’t function similarly, and cost-effectively.

Addendum L

Proposal for Leg Eligibility Increase

by Alli Kennon

Rationale:

For regular-season tournaments to hold importance, they must create the most opportunity for students to enjoy competing while still gaining legs for AFA. In the last year, we’ve seen a decrease across the nation in numbers of entries at regular-season tournaments. For example, at the Larry Schnoor Invitational, 15 schools attended in 2016, and only 11 schools attended in 2019. Likewise, entry decline is most noticeable in Dramatic Interpretation at the Larry Schnoor Invitational. In 2016, there were 33 DIs, and in 2019, there were 11 DIs. Similar numbers show in Virginia at the Lovers Fall Swing, with 13 schools attending in 2016 and only 9 schools participating in 2019. Persuasive Speaking at Virginia is for Lovers Fall Swing went from 27 students in 2016 to 15 in 2019, almost cutting the entry in half. While these tournaments are some of the biggest in their district, tournaments across the nation are seeing a decrease in numbers and struggle to meet the seven schools’ requirements.

Many reasons could point to a decline in the entry. Various conversations have pointed to the fracturing of collegiate forensics into smaller fractions, different national tournaments, etc. Because of this, many tournaments run at the same time within the same weekend, pushing teams to choose between tournaments and causing most tournaments to be smaller. This is not necessarily a bad thing, rather, more cause for a leg eligibility increase due to different teams looking for different things. Likewise, first-year retention is a big issue many AFA focused team’s face. Students are often struggling to place first or second in a final for the leg to count. Throughout this year, we’ve seen students achieving success but still falling short of qualifying to the AFA-NIET due to the low amount of legs that count with the decreased numbers at tournaments. This difficulty can result in many first-year and second-year students stepping away from forensics, as they are not able to attend the same national tournament as many of their teammates. Increasing the ability for legs to count could allow more competitors to qualify to the AFA-NIET, encouraging first-year retention. An increase could also create more opportunities for tournaments to be more about the enjoyment of performance and less about a game of obtaining legs. Finally, an increase could also encourage students to more easily participate in life outside of forensics, creating a likelihood for retention as the student takes on more responsibilities throughout their time in undergraduate. Thus, this proposal seeks to increase leg eligibility to ½ of legs counting, reliant on the total number in each event. This will ensure the AFA-NIET is still distinct from other national tournaments by still requiring three legs to qualify, and will encourage more participation from across the nation in our national tournament.

Existing Language in the By-Laws:

3. The three tournament placements used for qualification may not exceed a cumulative total of eight (8), based on the following formula:

# of entries in the event

# of legs earned

Places that earn legs

2-4

1^st

5-8

1^st, 2^nd

9-12

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd

13-16

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th

17-20

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th

20+

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^{th, 6th}

Proposed Language:

3. The three tournament placements used for qualification may not exceed a cumulative total of eight (8), based on the following formula:

# of entries in the event

# of legs earned

Places that earn legs

2-3

1^st

4-5

1^st, 2^nd

6-7

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd

8-9

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th

10-11

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th

12-13+

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^{th, 6th}

Addendum M

Sexual Harassment Policy Committee Proposal: Name Change, Move to a Standing Committee, Allow the Sexual Harassment Officer to Become a Voting Member

by Kittie Grace

Proposal: To change the name of the Ad Hoc Sexual Harassment Policy Committee to the Sexual Harassment Education Committee and make the committee a standing committee.

Rational: This committee oversees the title IX/sexual harassment education forms and resources for the AFA-NIET. This committee’s work is continuous, as the rules and regulations surrounding sexual harassment education shift yearly. This committee assists the host school in educating the AFA-NIET members, students, faculty, coaches, and judges about the resources provided by the host school and gives members the procedures to follow if a harassment or assault case were to occur during the AFA-NIET. The committee also serves as the people to report to during the AFA-NIET. The importance of this committee is vast. Students want to see this committee become a permanent committee showing that the AFA-NIET takes assault, and harassment issues seriously.

The Sexual Harassment Officer (SHO) should also become a voting member of the AFA-NIET Committee mirroring the Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Access. This furthers the importance of marginalized voices on the AFA-NIET Committee and shows the AFA-NIET members that both diversity and harassment issues are important matters to this organization.

Addendum N

Proposal Allowing Students to Compete at their 4^th AFA-NST/NIET

(Epping, Mayfield, Morris, & Gaer)

Proposal: The AFA-NST/NIET will allow students who still meet the student eligibility requirements as outlined in the AFA-NIET bylaws to compete in their 4^th AFA-NIET. To be clear, this proposal applies to students who would have competed at their 4^th AFA-NIET in 2020 but were unable due to the cancellation of the national tournament. Those students who wish to compete at the 2021 AFA-NST/NIET may do so with the following stipulations:

1. They may only compete in the events they qualified in during the 2020 competitive season. They can compete in duo with their same partner if their partner still meets the student eligibility requirements.

2. To increase equity in the field, they are not able to compete in regular season tournaments because they used their regular season eligibility. Giving a student a fifth year of competitive experience during the regular season could be an unfair advantage to other competitors.

3. They are not allowed to judge during the regular season. Per our by-laws, this would forfeit the student’s eligibility.

4. Competitors need not compete with the cuttings/scripts they qualified with for the 2020 NIET—allowing them to make timely changes of their choice.

Rationale: Why not let any senior compete? Given liability issues, most schools would not allow a student who has graduated represent their institution/allow the team to pay for those slots at the national tournament.

In the status quo there is nothing to help even a small number of students have their final AFA-NST/NIET. This proposal at the very least could allow some of those students experience their final AFA-NST/NIET.

Finally, this proposal is not meant for students to delay their graduation plans. Instead for students who would be in their fifth year of school, this would give them a chance to compete at the AFA-NST/NIET. As much as we all find tremendous value in forensics participation, we must weigh those benefits against pushing a student to take out another year of student loans to compete at the 2021 AFA-NST/NIET.

Addendum O

Supplementary Division – 2021 NST

Joe Gantt

Proposal: The AFA-NIET/NST will allow students who would have competed in their final NIET in 2020 to compete in a supplemental division at the 2021 NIET/NST.

1. Competitors are eligible for this division if:

a. They used their final semester of eligibility during the 2019-2020 season;

b. They used their final national year of eligibility during the 2019-2020 season; or

c. They graduated on or before August 31, 2020

2. Competitors may enter up to two events for this division. They must be selected from the events qualified during the 2019-2020 season.

3. The division will consist of three preliminary rounds, a semifinal round and a final round. A minimum of 1 judge will judge preliminary rounds, while a minimum of 3 judges will judge elimination rounds.

4. All competitors in this division will be considered to be independent entries.

a. The supplementary division will not be considered for tournament sweepstakes.

b. Competitors may partner in duo with any other competitor eligible for this division.

c. Competitors will not be judged by any person who would otherwise be blocked from judging them, despite their independent status.

5. Competitors need not compete with the cuttings/scripts that they qualified with for the 2020 NIET.

6. Competitors are allowed to judge during the 2020-21 regular season.

7. Competitors are allowed, and are encouraged, to be a judge for the standard division of the 2021 NIET/NST.

Rationale: While the proposal for extending a fifth year of eligibility is welcome and may be a benefit for a few students, its utility is unfortunately limited for the vast majority of students who have lost their 2020 NIET- those who plan to graduate after this semester.

The 5^th year proposal, though explicitly stating that students should not delay their graduation plans, will surely cause some to evaluate whether they should do so in order to have an opportunity for closure to their careers. Furthermore, there is an equity issue in that schools that can fund a 5^th year via scholarships will have an advantage over schools that cannot fund such participation.

The supplemental division proposal will allow more to compete and will not force these difficult decisions from students. Importantly, this proposal allows competitors in this division to judge throughout the year and to be a judge at the NIET/NST, which may allow schools to fund their travel if they are serving as a judge for the school for the standard division.

This division can work at the 2021 NIET/NST if competition in the supplemental division begins with three rounds on Friday evening (all in the same pattern), with a semifinal round on Saturday and a final round on Sunday. This will be an additional benefit to students going forward as they will be able to watch the supplemental final rounds – and twice the number of educational videos posted on Cornerstone.