international debate education association
Extracts of the General Assembly Meeting
held on November 3-4, 2004 in Istanbul Turkey
Meeting Minutes: November 3, 2004
Attendance of Voters: sixteen (16) initially + Mongolia (voted on, see below) =
seventeen (17) + Haiti (late arrival) = eighteen18
Katrin calls the meeting to order and introduces the Board. There are 16 voters present.
The participants introduce themselves.
Katrin introduces the moderators and informs the GA of Tomislav Reskovac‟s
resignation from the Board of Directors.
Katrin moves to inspect the agenda. We vote to ratify the agenda. It is a unanimous vote.
Slovenia (Boyana) requests that Noel disclose the overall attendance of voters (16). Noel
informs the GA that only one of Azerbaijan‟s two representatives can vote, and that the
Mongolian representative is petitioning to be made a voter.
Noel and Marcin request that proxies be presented. There are no proxies.
Noel announces that Marcin and Chris are serving on the election committee.
Chris reviews voting regulations. There are three candidates. Noel contributes to explain
some aspects of voting regulations. Marcin distributes ballots.
Lithuania (Virginija) moves that representatives of each of the countries from which there
are candidates speak briefly and offer introductions of those candidates based on their
own experiences of them. Dafo introduces the Bulgarian, and the Azerbaijani speaks on
the Azerbaijani candidate through a translator. The Ukrainian representative speaks
briefly about the Ukrainian candidate. Jurate offers a few comments on the roles the
candidates have played in IDEA.
The election committee leaves to count the votes.
Katrin moves to discuss voting on new members. Noel describes the three applicants. The
Mongolian representative, who is present, briefly speaks about her organization and its
history, and responds to some brief questions from the Board. Noel discloses that the
Mongolian application has been approved by the board, and requests that any members
with objections identify themselves. There are no objecting members present, and
Mongolia is made a voting member. The amount of voting members present is now
seventeen (17).
The election committee returns.
Noel speaks briefly about other applicants for membership. Noel first describes the
Kosovar organization, SFERRA (whose representative is absent). Noel discloses that the
Board has recommended that the GA vote on SFERRA‟s membership. Noel requests that
any members with objections identify themselves. There are no objecting members
present, and Svera is made a voting a member. Noel speaks about the Xi‟an / Beijing
organization and the support it has already received from OSI. Katrin speaks briefly on
behalf of its leader, David. Bojana raises a concern regarding the prospect of the
admission of too many Chinese universities to the GA, which, she argues, could skew a
representation that is otherwise roughly national. Virginja raises a question regarding the
national status of the university‟s program, and suggests that an agreement be drafted
between the Xi‟an organization and IDEA to give the Xi‟an group exclusive national
status. Noel notes that IDEA does not consider voting status exclusive national status. We
vote, and China is accepted unanimously.
We disclose the votes. Ivailo Iliev and Nino Tavadze have been voted onto the Board.
We break for coffee.
Katrin reconvenes the meeting. There are now 16 voting members present, as Bojana
(Slovenia) is not in the room.
Katrin moves to adopt the minutes of the last meeting. The vote to do so is fifteen (15)
for, with Slovenia abstaining and absent. Virginia suggests that we vote on this
meeting‟s minutes online. Noel informs her that Dutch law necessitates face-to-face
meetings.
Katrin moves to review IDEA‟s activities. She quickly reviews grants, tournaments,
trainings, meetings, publications, and the forum, and notes that detailed descriptions of
each of these activities can be found in the documentation packets distributed to the
members. Slovenia (Bojana) returns. The are now seventeen (17) voting members present.
We vote to ratify the report of IDEA‟s previous activities; the vote is unanimous.
Noel proceeds to describe IDEA-USA‟s activities. Noel describes the NFL / IDEA IDEP
partnership and The People Speak; this involves a brief discussion of finances, though
Noel defers the in-depth treatment of that topic until its place later on the agenda. Noel
notes that the Conference has become an IDEA-USA event, as have the Duino Institute
and the Parliamentary Debate Tournament. Noel discusses recent IDEA-USA fundraising
events and the DebateWatch initiative. Noel introduces the Memorandum of
Understanding between IDEA-NL / - USA, which was distributed to all members present,
and briefly summarizes it.
Harold intervenes to speak briefly and heartily on behalf of IDEA and its mission.
Harold clarifies that the State Department was not entirely to blame on The People Speak
budgeting shortfalls.
Katrin moves to begin discussion of the Accreditation / Standards document. Jurate
introduces it by addressing question of quality control. Jurate notes that the project started
in Dubrovnik and carried on through meetings and Amsterdam. Jurate acknowledges the
people who have been involved in the project and notes their varied backgrounds. Jurate
outlines the motivations behind the creation of the Standards document and the potential
benefits of an Accreditation structure.
Bojana questions the utility of Standards as far as survival and fundraising are concerned
(insofar as NGO staff have limited time, and are primarily concerned with funding,
Bojana argues, it is a concern that working on complying to the Standards may be a drain
on their energy); Virginija raises questions regarding the Standards‟ practicality. Chris
replies citing the value of Standards as (1) a mechanism for diagnosing weaknesses and
strength and (2) enhancing credibility to funders. Noel contributes by noting that the
Standards can enlighten potential funders as to IDEA‟s quality and ideals. Jurate draws a
parallel to the retail strength of ISO certification in the business world. Bakhytnur cites
the potential value of accreditation Standards in receiving UN funding in her own country
as an example. Harold comments on the successes of IDEA. Iulia Moldoveanu also
highlights the enthusiasm of local teachers for the Standards. Jurate, Bakhytnur, Chris,
and Marcin make some further comments in support of the Standards. Poldo comments
on the potential relevance of Standards to their own circumstances.
Sharon begins her presentation. Sharon briefly overviews the structure of the afternoon to
come and then introduces the Standards conceptually. We end slightly before lunch in
order to read the Standards and to have lunch.
Katrin reconvenes the meeting after lunch. There are sixteen (16) members present, as
Bojana (Slovenia) is not present. Slovenia is henceforth counted among the abstentions
on any votes that occur.
Sharon begins the afternoon session by describing the NGO accreditation process. We
cover the question of what a „stable, credible infrastructure‟ means, and move on through
other issues involving NGO accreditation. Questions are raised regarding time spent on
meetings, and other specifics that pertain to NGO accreditation; these questions are
handled by Sharon and Noel. Numerous specific suggestions are made regarding the
Standards‟ contents, Noel notes that many of these ideas have already been implemented
elsewhere in the document (for example, Harold notes that it may be possible for
questions regarding minimum participation levels to devolve into frivolous complaints on
the part of students‟ after not being selected, and Noel directs his attention to sections of
the Standards that elucidate this issue).
.
We break into discussion groups to close-read the sections of the Standards that bear on
NGO accreditation.
We return from our groups and share the issues that arose in them; the Board members in
charge of each group summarize the content of the discussion they oversaw for the
benefit of the GA. Chris Barron's group notes that accreditation on a local level may
result in disadvantageous tension between the individuals and organizations performing
accreditation and those individuals and organizations they are evaluating. Barron notes,
however, that his group agreed that the optional character of accreditation allows for such
circumstances to be avoided if necessary. Likewise, Barron notes his group's concerns
over the meaning of the “inclusivity” the Standards demands as far as the membership
practices of organizations are concerned: rather than demanding inclusive results (for
example, through the use of quotas), Barron notes that the Standards should (and do)
reward well-intentioned and intelligently conceived efforts to achieve inclusivity, and a
commitment to inclusivity as a goal. Jurate‟s group highlights the non-compulsory
character of the Standards, and notes how accreditation can be given provisionally and on
the condition that certain weakness be corrected. Svetlana‟s group raises an issue
regarding legal status (which the Standards appear to require in all circumstances – is this
possible in all countries?, she asks); it is agreed that this requirement is situation-specific.
Likewise, Svetlana‟s group seeks to clarify wording regarding organizational
management: do the Standards require a “Board of Directors” titled as such?; we agree
that no specific terminology or technical structure is implied, and move to change the
wording as necessary. Svetlana‟s group also seeks to clarify the meaning of the phrase
„long-term strategic planning‟: is a specific time-frame and level of development implied
here, or is the term more situation-specific?; Sharon and Katrin clarify that it is situation-
specific. Questions regarding possible motivation for individual teachers to embrace
accreditation are clarified and answered. Virginja asks if IDEA has specific, numerical
expectations of how many groups will undertake accreditation; Noel clarifies that it does
not, but encourages members to apply as they are willing, and suggests that applications
will gain momentum as time progresses.
During this discussion, Haiti (Jacob) has arrived. There are now seventeen (17) voting
members present.
We vote to approve the NGO Accreditation Standards. They are approved by all except
for Slovenia, who is absent and thus listed as abstaining.
We break for coffee.
We return and Sharon talks about IT Accreditation. Svetlana notes that we should clarify
that the trainer be able to “synthesize different viewpoints” in their qualifications. We
vote to approve the IT Standards. They are approved by all except for Slovenia, who is
absent and thus listed as abstaining.
We move to discuss the sanctioning of tournaments. Sharon briefly touches on these. We
note an error in the document, and agree to edit out the phrase „Unless hosted by a
national or regional organization‟ from this section. We agree to clarify the “inclusivity”
Standards such that limited entry-tournaments are permissible, and not considered
discriminatory. We vote to approve the tournament sanctioning Standards. They are
approved by all except for Slovenia, who is absent and thus listed as abstaining.
Noting that discussion have moved ahead of schedule, the Board proposes to advance the
first feasible item of tomorrow‟s agenda to today. The Board thus proposes changing the
agenda to discuss funding / sustainability issue.
Marcin begins by talking about sustainability. The Comenius issue is dealt with first, and
Marcin notes that this is still in progress. Marcin then talks about EC funding and its
general competitiveness – he notes that „the simple truth is that IDEA cannot solely rely
on EC funding‟. Marcin also notes that many grants will not include all the IDEA nations
as under their mandate. Marcin also initially brings up the fact that IDEA‟s Dutch
presence needs to be clarified. We move on to discuss the role of OSI. Svetlana describes
OSI‟s priorities and current activities. Noel contributes by suggesting that numerous,
though different, opportunities exist for members of the network to derive benefits from
OSI: he suggests that, for example, Roma initiatives are still attractive to OSI, and also
that work in Iraq and initiatives involving Caspian RevenueWatch are very fertile. Noel
also mentions the EC / EU Year of the Citizen initiative, and the anti-corruption work and
publications currently underway in Argentina. Partnering with other OSI initiatives is
thus heartily encouraged. The Macedonian representative notes that his organization has
been working alongside OSI in the field of anticorruption education, and that this has
been productive. The Moldovan board member offers further examples of beneficial
partnerships with OSI. Noel also notes that OSI will assist in cost-share expenses
necessary for IDEA affiliates to receive EC / EU grants, and notes that OSI does not tie
its disbursements to cost-share purposes. Virginja has a question regarding this practice,
and Katrin clarifies it and notes that EU law allows for this.
Noel moves on to the question of establishing an IDEA Office in the Netherlands. Noel
notes the recent investigation of the IDEA Board into possible office space in Gronigen
in the Netherlands. Noel calls the GA‟s attention to the job description included in the
packet. After a question from Poldo, Noel describes the unique advantages of having an
office in the Netherlands. We vote on voting now – there are two abstentions (Slovenia
and ?). We vote on creating an office in the Netherlands at HHS. This passes with all for
except for Slovenia, who is absent and thus listed as abstaining. We vote on the creation
of the fundraiser position. This passes with all for except for Slovenia, who is absent and
thus listed as abstaining.
We briefly mention the initiative to sell and purchase IDEA memorabilia. Noel notes that
the GA‟s earlier decision to prefer paying less for dues and more for services. Noel
describes the role of the Pittsburgh order fulfillment organization.
Chris distributes activity surveys for member feedback on their views of IDEA.
Katrin adjourns the meeting.
Meeting Minutes: November 4, 2004.
Attendance: Today, there are new arrivals - Romania, Germany, and Kosovo. There are
thus now twenty-one (21) voting members in attendance.
Katrin opens the meeting.
We decide, without voting, to continue the budget discussion of yesterday pending the
arrival of Karl Popper documentation copies.
Chris notes differences in the ways years have recorded on the budget (and the transitions
from a fiscal year to an extended year to an academic year). Chris also notes that the
budget is now being done in Euros, as opposed to dollars. Chris informs the GA that
more complete budget documentation will be posted online by the beginning of the
coming year. Chris comments that a certain shortfall relative to budget expectations is the
product of increased trainer costs, and that sustainability is thus still an issue.
Bojana raises a question regarding the $120,000 projected revenue from publications in
the coming year. How is this figure determined? Bojana also raises an objection to the
roundness of the figures, and questions whether the neatness of the documentation
reflects actual values. Chris notes that the previous budget reports have already been
created and adopted. Bojana suggests that we alter the GA statutes such that audited and
completed financial reports for previous years are available come the next GA meeting.
We vote on approving the 2003 / 2004 audits come next year, and the board unanimously
agrees.
We move to examine the projected budget for 2005. Upon questioning from Bojana, Noel
itemizes the document line by line. On the question of publishing revenue, Noel notes
recent developments and projected expansions in IDEA‟s publishing ventures.
We vote to approve the budget. Slovenia objects, Bosnia and Azerbaijan abstain.
Svetlana clarifies OSI‟s funding policies for Bojana.
Noel announces, on a social note, a voluntary boat tour of the Bosporus tomorrow
morning.
Sharon introduces DebateTracker. Noel distributes certificate of achievement for
members to examine.
Sharon begins to introduce Standards governing practices, and discusses Karl Popper and
2/4 Team Parli.
We break for tea and to divide into focus groups to discuss the Karl Popper guidelines.
We turn to issues brought up in the Karl Popper focus groups.
Chris proposes that, under Karl Popper‟s “First Negative Rebuttal” (III B 7), an unclear
sentence regarding the presentation of new arguments should be struck. Numerous
participants move to add a minimum time requirement within which tournament topics
must be disclosed. Marcin suggests adding an exceptional clause for public debates on
time-sensitive issues (which may be hampered by a one-month limit). We vote on
altering wording per an edit offered by Chris: all vote for save for Kosovo and Slovakia,
which abstain.
Noel notes that a grammatical change should be made to II A 3.
Rene‟s group raises a concern regarding the “Negative Argues v. Affirmative Position”:
does this mean that a Negative is not obliged to have a pre-prepared constructive? Noel
notes that, in circumstances of debating policy, it is hard to prepare a negative case before
the fact. Rene proposes that the text be clarified. Noel offers an alternative in which the
Negative may optionally „offer a case of its own‟. We vote. The edit passes supported by
everyone except Serbia, who abstains.
We vote on striking a sentence from III B 7. Noel and Chris clarify that this would allow
for a negative to (fairly) respond to new arguments brought forward by the affirmative
(i.e., to prevent sandbagging). We vote. The edit passes supported by everyone.
Virginja calls our attention to the section concerning the role of the judge. Rene raises a
question regarding different local judging paradigms; Chris replies by citing (1) the role
of the Standards as applying only to Sanctioned events and (2) the possibility of
modifying the Standards with approval for use in particular, sanctioned events. Noel adds
that these Standards will be appearing online, and that members who modify the
Standards with approval for a given event should inform all individuals involved for the
sake of transparency.
We vote to approve the Karl Popper Standards. The Standards are approved by everyone
except for Germany and Haiti, who abstain.
We break to inspect the Parli Standards. During the break, Patrick implements the voted
changes to the Karl Popper Standards.
We return and address the Parli Standards. Chris makes two suggestions regarding a
possible clarification of time limits. Under II A, we vote on changing the twenty minute
cap to a thirty minute one. All vote for, with Azerbaijan, Slovakia, the Czech Republic,
and Georgia abstaining. Patrick implements the change immediately following the vote.
Under IIA, Chris proposes adding clarifying sentence regarding time limits for
announcing tournament motions and individual motions (one month for the former, the
latter prior to the occurrence of actual rounds). We vote on the edit Chris proposes. All
vote for, with Haiti, Kazakhstan, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Lithuania, and Kosovo
abstaining. Patrick implements the change. Chris raises a question the meaning of the
word “relationship” in II A 1 / 2: is it a category beyond “value”, “fact”, or “true or false”?
Noel proposes a modification of the gloss such that “relationship” is encompassed in
descriptions of the other categories. Chris states that he feels that it is reasonable to
assume causality (“relationship”) can be subsumed under “fact”; Poldo requests
clarifications from Noel. Rene intervenes and notes that the document was composed by
experts, and that it is perhaps better to defer to them; moreover, Rene notes that the
Standards can be modified relative to experience over time. We take a vote on removing
„of relationship‟. Three for, four against, the rest abstaining. Consequently, no edits are
made.
Chris suggests that, under, II B 4 1, two sentences stipulating that the judging of Parli be
based on content be removed. Noel notes that a focus on content prevents imbalances
relative to language ability. Virginja questions as to what if not content, then, judges will
base their decisions on; Chris refers her, generally, to the general judging Standards.
Bakhyntur cites a specific example from her own experience that leads her to feel that
that style should be a secondary concern. The Kosovar representative, Jurate, and Marcin,
all share their personal opinions in a lively exchange. We vote on removing these two
sentences. Germany and Kosovo vote for; the rest of the GA votes for retaining the
sentence, with Serbia, Haiti, Romania, and Bosnia abstaining. Chris proposes adding two
parenthetical clarifications regarding the American and British parliamentary with 2- and
4- team parli, respectively.
Jurate raises a question regarding the final lines of II A: is internet research acceptable?
Noel suggests that decision can be made on a situation-specific basis. Noel proposes
adding a sentence stipulating that tournaments reach their own decisions as to the
acceptability of internet research. Bojana proposes a modification of the sentence that
alludes to criteria of equal opportunity; Noel suggests the addition of reference to the
Student bill of rights instead. Chris proposes a specific sentence encapsulating these
suggestions, and we vote. All are in favor, with Macedonia and Serbia abstaining.
Slovakia raises a question regarding a possible clarification of the role of the judge: in the
language as currently extant, do judges fill out a single ballot together (in a consensus
model), or do they each make their own decisions? Bojana expresses a dislike for the
consensus model. Noel likewise indicates a preference for judges making their own
decisions, and we all agree to let the paragraph stand.
Under III B 3, Chris proposes striking an erroneous sentence (left in accidentally during
the editing process). We vote to remove it, Bosnia and Serbia abstaining.
Patrick implements the changes voted on.
We move to discuss 4-Team Parliamentary Parli.
Chris proposes deleting a clause in III B e (regarding extensions), and Poldo proposes
replacing a „may‟, with a „must‟. We vote for, with Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and
Bosnia abstaining. Patrick implements this change immediately.
Chris proposes adding a sentence in III B e clarifying the meaning of „extension‟. We
vote for, with Bulgaria and Serbia abstaining. Patrick implements this change
immediately. Likewise, within III B e, Chris and Germany propose clarifying the
meaning of „substantive‟ and „argumentative‟ argument, and whether IDEA will permit
one and not the other in extensions. Noel proposes that the decision be left to tournament
directors. Chris proposes a sentence to add. We agree to table the decision before lunch.
We return and present the new amendment to the extension text. All vote for except for
Serbia, which abstains.
We vote on accepting the Parli Standards. All vote for, except for Kosovo, Czech
Republic, and Serbia, which abstain.
We move to issues of network functionality. Chris discusses the function of the buddy
system. Each board member briefly updates the GA on the activities of those
organizations they liaise with, but who have not sent representatives to the GA.
There is particular discussion of Russia. Russia, Iulia indicates, has lapsed in its
participation. Svetlana contributes to a description of OSI educational spinoffs in Russia;
the situation appears to be getting better (particularly as far as Novosibirsk is concerned).
Noel notes that, as of now, there is no officially extant entity coordinating national-level
efforts in Russia; at this point, much more of the work in that country is being done
regionally. Noel updates the board on the pending participation of Israel and Argentina.
Svetlana notes that some members neglect to reply to emails, and that this complicates
the organization of network-wide events.
Chris begins to discuss the creation of committees. Chris distributes a sheet on which
individuals interested in participating in committees can express interest (which is not
equivalent to joining those committees). Chris lists the committees IDEA is currently
soliciting for participation in. These are:
(1) Accreditation Committee
(2) Conference Committee (now nixed)
(3) Forum Committee
(4) Membership Committee
(5) PR Committee
(6) Grants / Proposals Committee
(7) Spring Training Event Committee
(8) Technology Committee
(9) Training Committee
(10) University Committee
(11) Fundraising Committee
Virginja raises a question regarding absent members: are we developing a concerted
strategy to deal with absenteeism? Chris notes that this is what the membership
committee is currently tackling, and Noel describes some of the finer aspects of the
Statutes as far as GA attendance is concerned. Noel also notes that there differences in
the circumstances of various members, and this may entail a heightened sense of
responsibility on the part of members.
We move to discuss the upcoming Forum in Macedonia. Marijan shares the details of the
location of the Forum and outlines the logistical aspects of the hotel (i.e., questions as far
as how rooms and the rest are concerned). Marijan describes the committee structure his
organization has created to handle the forum (encompassing IT, visas, etc.) The website
will go operative, Marijan indicates, at www.mof.or.mk/yfm on November 12, 2004.
Preliminary fundraising has already been undertaken, and Marijan provides of list of the
numerous organizations (Government, NGO, and corporate) his group has approached.
Marijan provides contact info for his group. Bakhyntur raises a question regarding
funding, and Marijan replies by indicating that some of the institutions on his list are
more likely funders than others; the preliminary figure of funding income he projects is
2-6,000 euros. Katrin urges GA members to contact the Macedonians regarding possible
Visa problems ASAP. Bojana asserts that problems with Visas would be resolved if
deadlines were advanced, to which other members point out that many teams are selected
for the Forum at the end of debating seasons, and that this would preclude early deadlines.
Jurate brings up the question of drinking at the Forum. This results in a lengthy
discussion. Virginja suggests making IDEA‟s alcohol policies transparent by publishing
them online. Jurate urges the GA members to insist that their students understand that
that the Forum is an educational event, and that drinking is antithetical to that: in Jurate‟s
words, this is a discussion that should take place at home prior to its occurring in the
Forum. Rene suggests fining organizations for when their children drink. It is proposed
that this idea be further investigated, and the vote to do so passes with Serbia and Bosnia
abstaining.
Jurate brings up training. Noel notes that, now, trainers will receive a lump sum based
upon travel quotes, and then can purchase tickets themselves (this will allow for trainers
to choose creative travel options if they wish).
Bojana brings the discussion back to the forum, and, specifically, suggests that the forum
is driven by two conflicting purposes (specifically, both training and the tournament).
Noel replies that splitting the two events would require addressing historically relevant
issues (specifically, the difficulty some teams experience attempting to fundraise for the
attendance of a training as opposed to for competing at a world championship).
We break for coffee.
Following the coffee, the Romanian representative proposes that her organization host the
2006 forum. She describes the specifics of the hotel her group has selected as a
potentially ideal situation. The Bosnia-Herzegovina representative also proposes her
nation as a possible location for 2006. Poldo suggests that Slovakia might be a good
choice for 2007 provided that the youth forum could occur in the same place twice. Rene
suggests the Czech Republic could also work for 2007. Bojana objects that many of these
places involve costs higher than those previously encountered by IDEA. Marcin notes
that even Accession countries have gotten more expensive, and that setting an arbitrary
and low price cap might, in even a short period of time, nix the possibilities of holding
forums elsewhere. Marcin also notes that it is generally agreed practice to cycle forum
locations to different regions so as to evenly distribute travel costs nations in different
reasons. The Bosnian representative consequently agrees that she is amenable to
proposing her nation again for ‟07. Chris distributes ballots.
Rene raises a question regarding the losses the Forum incurs. After discussion, Rene
notes that OSI funding appears to be relatively secure for the next year or two, and
proposes that IDEA begin to investigate options for less expensive forums. Katrin
specifically suggests that IDEA consider less expensive (non-hotel, but rather dormitory)
housing options. Marijan urges all members to pursue funding more aggressively.
Virginja also suggests that the organizer select multiple housing options so as to cater for
different participants‟ housing capacities. The Romanian organizer suggests that this
discussion is premature, and should occur when situations with OSI change. Katrin notes
the centrality of the Forum to IDEA‟s identity, and closes the discussion by noting how
questions regarding the future of the Forum may be better suited to the committees. Chris
collects the ballots after everyone has voted.
We move a discussion of FinEst. Katrin notes that the progress still appears to be
progressing well on the Estonian end, and that the Finnish group (made up not only of
Finns, but including foreign students living in Helsinki) is liaising with the Estonians to
aid in organization. Bojana objects to the fee for FinEst. Bojana then objects to the
Istanbul conference fee as being excessively high. Noel describes the financial
breakdown of spending associated with Istanbul, and proposes that individuals
henceforward handle their own finances and housing. Poldo notes that such
circumstances might preclude attendance on account of numerous contingencies. Virginja
then proposes holding the GA at the Forum. Noel proposes offering members various
options prior to the GA, and informing them of the price of a „package‟ deal involving
stay at the hotel alongside numerous other hotel options. Bojana suggests, finally, that we
push to choose cheaper hotels. The German representative concurs as to the relatively
high price of the current GA, and expresses a willingness to settle for less substantial
accommodations. Katrin states that, if the next conference is to be in Tallinn, she will
investigate budget options.
Chris discloses that Romanian has been chosen, by vote, as the site of the next Forum.
We move to vote on the location of the 2007 Forum, choosing between a Czech/Slovak
fusion and a site in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We vote on the location of the 2005 GA / Conference. We agree on Tallinn.
We vote on the location of the 2006 GA / Conference. We agree on Slovenia.
Jurate moves to discuss the 2005 Spring Event. Jurate notes that at the previous Spring
event was marked by a very heterogenous attendance (spanning both teachers, students,
trainers, etc.) Jurate proposes that we cater to a more clearly definted group next time
around. Marcin reminds the GA that it had previously expressed a preference for
sometime in March-April, and notes that, if the target audience is different, time may be
more variable. Bojana requests that the purpose of the training be clarified; Noel notes
that the original option, as conceived by the GA, was to provide training for teachers.
Katrin suggests that its purpose and emphasis perhaps be determined by the exigencies of
the upcoming drive for accreditation. Bojana suggests that the topic be debate as an
active method of teaching. Noel proposes that the training instead be conceived of as a
debate training „festival‟, featuring workshops on numerous topics including teacher
training. Bakhytnur suggests that the emphasis of the training be shifted from teachers to
NGO managers; i.e., create another workshop, possibly on NGO management. Bakhytnur
cites numerous examples of organizations which would benefit from such a training.
Chris proposes that all members write down what interest them as possible suggestions.
Virginja notes that a multiple-topic workshop would not be cost-effective. We move to
defer the question to the governing board or, per Chris‟ suggestion, to the spring training
committee for feedback later on.
We move to discuss Duino. Noel notes that it becomes progressively less and less costly,
and encourages Board Members suggest additional ideas for the space. Katrin notes that
it might be a good place for the Spring event to be moved. Marcin suggests that Duino be
used as a site for Legislative debate training.
We move to dicuss the ‟06 University tournament. We float, tentatively, Slovakia, the
Balkans, and the Netherlands. Azerbaijan / Georgia is also considered. Rene proposes
that we reconsider the date. We initially move to defer the question to the Board, but after
a quick discussion then choose ‟07 as Tblisi / Baku.
Chris discloses that we have voted that the 2007 Forum will be in the Czech Republic.
Marcin presents the Youth Parliament initiative. Marcin notes that a proposal has already
been submitted, and comments on his involvement with the Essex organization. Marcin
notes that a workshop will occur tomorrow, during the conference, in which further
details on YP will be discussed. Marcin notes that he is accompanied by Harold, whom
he credits with expertise and ability in explaining Legislative debate. Marcin then turns
over the discussion to Harold, who describes the history of legislative debate and
apostrophizes its appeal in the US.
Marcin and Svetlana briefly describe the Comenius project.
Marcin briefly discusses how the Comenius project draws on Debate Across the
Curriculum.
Svetlana presents the Comenius project. Bojana speaks heartily on behalf of debate
across the curriculum and the Comenius program.
Katrin suggests we collect brief notices about each member‟s program‟s successes, for
inclusion in a newsletter-like document.
The meeting is closed.