WSDC 2001: Johannesburg, South Africa
Minutes from Council Meeting

CHAIRMAN: Steven Budlender, South Africa
SECRETARY: Belinda Fynn, South Africa

DELEGATES:
Argentina - Sebastian Percival
Australia - Andrew Gormly
Bangladesh - Nasreen Kama
Bermuda - Mary Murray
Canada - Rupert Ray
Czech Republic - John Wickham
England - Marc Whitmore
Estonia - Andreas Kaju
Germany - Angelika Höeness
Greece - Heather Quirk
Hong Kong - David Milnes
Indonesia - Ria Dharmawan
Ireland - Dick Wafer
Israel - Asher Weill
Kenya - Justa Wawira
Lithuania - Virginija Paksiene
Netherlands - Daragh Grant
New Zealand - Rosemary Dixon
Pakistan - Raziuddin Shaikh
Peru - Sixto Ramos
Portugal - Hugo Tavares
Scotland - Pat Slaven
Singapore - Geetha Creffield
Slovakia - Miroslav Skovajsa
Slovenia - Bojana Skrt
South Africa - Stuart Theobald
U.S.A. - Richard Sodikow
Wales - David Pritchard
Zimbabwe - Gavin Peter

OBSERVERS:
Argentina - Cecilia Videla
Argentina - Valeria Pietronave
Argentina - Daniela Senés
Argentina - Christina Hidalgo
Australia - Christopher Erskine
Bangladesh - Dilruba Sharmeen Ali
Canada - Ron Lee
Canada - Janet Webster
Czech Republic - Tim Farmer
England - Elizabeth Virgo
England - Trevor Sather
Germany - Michael Pates
Greece - Russell Courts
Hong Kong - Brandon Barnes
Israel - Mishael Zion
Kenya - Rose Wambui Gathaiya
Portugal - Silvia Pacheco
Scotland - Diana Gotts
Singapore - Furdip Singh
Singapore - Paul Tan
Singapore - Rajpal Sing
Singapore - Vernie Oliveiro
Singapore - David Gabriel
Singapore - Gerald Yeo
Slovenia - Leja Lesjak
South Africa - Scott Burnett
U.S.A. - Phyllis Hirth
U.S.A. - Sue Wenzlaff

1. Recognition of voting and non-voting members:

Voting and non-voting members were recognized under Rules 23 and 27. The twenty-two countries eligible to vote on rule changes were: Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Czech Republic, England, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Scotland, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, U.S.A. and Wales.

2. Ratification of minutes of the previous meeting held in Pittsburg 2000

Item 20: Right to withdraw a team - the words "whether he had the right to withdraw his team" were amended to read "whether a coach had the right to withdraw their team".

Item13: Debaters' behaviour - Mark Gabriel queried whether a solution had been agreed to following the discussion recorded. The Council agreed that no solution had been reached and the minutes were not amended.

A motion to ratify the 2000 minutes with item 20 amended as above was then proposed by Pakistan, seconded by Peru and unanimously passed.

3. Future hosts update

This discussion was deferred until later in the meeting - see section 11.

4. Proposed amendments to the World Schools Debating rules

Steven Budlender pointed out that the proposed amendments to the rules had been circulated by email on 28 January 2000 and that this was in fact just under the required month's notice required as per Rule 27(a) of the official rules governing the Championships. This notwithstanding, Israel proposed a motion that the proposed rule amendments nevertheless be reviewed and voted on by the voting members present. This motion was seconded by Singapore and unanimously accepted.

Trevor Sather then presented to the council the proposed rule amendments as follows:

Rule 4(a)
"Each country may send only one team to represent it at the Championships."
To be amended to: "Each country may send only one team to compete at the Championships"

The purpose of this change was to allow a 'dummy' team to be entered in the case of a last-minute withdrawal. The motion to accept this amendment to Rule 4(a) was proposed by England, seconded by the Netherlands and passed with 21 votes in favour, 1 abstention.

Rule 6 (b)
The second sentence: "The teams in each debate shall be selected by random draw, and in the discretion of the host may be selected by power pairing"
To be amended to: "The draw for the preliminary debates is to be conducted by the Convenor; it may either be made randomly or using a system, at the Convenor's discretion to achieve approximately equal and fair sets of opponents for all teams"

Trevor Sather commented that he was not satisfied with the wording of this amendment and called for comments. A discussion ensued as to whether a specific system should be specified - for example adopting the system used for the 2001 Championships - but it was decided that such a fixed system would not be desirable.

It was suggested that the wording of the amendment be changed so that the amended sentence would read: "The draw for the preliminary debates is to be conducted by the Convenor using a system to achieve approximately equal and fair sets of opponents for all teams."
The motion to accept this change to the wording of the amendment was proposed by England, seconded by Greece and unanimously passed.

The motion to accept the revised amendment to Rule 6(b) was proposed by England, seconded by Ireland and unanimously passed.

5. Appeals Committee Report

Chris Erskine reported that the Appeals Committee - consisting of himself, Sue Wenzlaff, Steven Budlender and Mark Gabriel - had only dealt with one issue during the course of the year.

This was the request by the Czech Republic to waive Rule 4b(iii) to allow an overage Czech debater to compete. The debater had been selected due to the fact that the coach was new to the Championships and not aware of the rule. The Appeals Committee reached the decision not to waive this rule. The Committee questioned whether it even had the power to waive rules and further felt that even if such a power existed, it should not be used in this case.

6. Report on Worlds Incorporation

It was noted that a tripartite committee had been established as a result of discussions held during the previous years' meeting, whose purpose was to investigate the mechanics of forming a World Schools Incorporated body. This committee consisted of Christopher Erskine, Ard van der Steur and Elizabeth Virgo.

Chris Erskine outlined the history of the project and its purpose, and regretted the absence from the Championships of Ard van der Steur whose task it had been to investigate the possibilities of forming a body under the auspices of IDEA. He stressed that the main reason for establishing an incorporated body was to assist future convenors to secure funding, by being able to offer companies the associated tax benefits of donating money to a recognised charity. He stressed that this issue will become increasingly more urgent, especially when approaching major sponsors.

The discussion was then opened for comments:

Asher Weill called for input from previous convenors commenting that he had not felt the need for such a body when approaching sponsors when Israel hosted the tournament. (1997)

• Sue Wenzlaff mentioned that Pittsburgh (2000) had solved the problem by acting under University auspices

• Mary Murray (Bermuda 1997) - commented that approaching sponsors as a registered charity had been helpful.

• Chris Erskine felt that in organising the Championships at Canberra, it would have been helpful to have been able to approach sponsors as part of an appropriately registered body.

Steven Budlender suggested that a more formally constituted body would be necessary in order to provide long term sponsorship to support various teams even if it were not necessary to raise funds for hosting the Championships.

Daragh Grant expressed the desire that such a body be kept separate from the 'World Schools Debating Council'

Trevor Sather re-emphasized the need for long-term 'poor team' sponsorships.

Sixto Ramos enquired as to the legal implications of the choice of Country under whose laws the incorporation would take place.

• Chris Erskine responded that laws would vary by country and that an appropriate country could be decided upon after considering the various options.

Dick Wafer put the question to the Singapore organisers as to whether they felt the need for such a body, from their organising perspective

• Geetha Creffield replied that Singapore is hosting under the auspices of its own national debating organisation, which is registered as a non-profit organisation, and hence are able to make use of the accompanying tax benefits to potential sponsors. She mentioned that it would however be very useful have separate money as a reserve pool and to be able to send to certain teams. She stressed the need if such a body is formed for open accounting, and for very clear guidelines to be developed.

Richard Sodikow questioned what the required minimum infrastructure would be in order to meet the legal requirements for forming an incorporated body.

• Christopher Erskine responded that in Australia the minimum requirements are that one person agrees to be the 'Public Officer', that the organisation have an official address, that an AGM be held, and that a constitution be followed. (No permanent office required)

• Marc Whitmore suggested that if yearly accounts needed to be submitted, that an appropriate levy should be added to the Championships admission price, to cover such administrative costs.

Geetha Creffield suggested that a proposal be tabled that a group be formed to look into obtaining more significant investment, and that a group of interested persons begin work on a draft constitution.

Marc Whitmore suggested that a better sense was needed of the relevant issues, before tabling such a proposal, so that specific questions could be focussed on.

Emmet Coldrick raised the issue of tax benefits, and pointed out that this should be a deciding factor, when choosing the base country for the organisation

Daragh Grant added that the organisation should be based in the country with the highest tax deduction rates.

Chris Erskine noted that while such an office could be based in the Cayman Islands, to take advantage of this, it would mean a loss of credibility when approaching potential sponsors. He stressed that American sponsors for example, would probably require an American based office.

Richard Sodikow noted that while he had previously opposed the project because of the cost of incorporating, he had modified his views, but was still hesitant in light of the practicalities involved

Gurdip Singh suggested that with the many things that needed consideration, a professional team needed to be put together to do the relevant research.

Elizabeth Virgo suggested the possibilities of becoming affiliated as an organisation with IDEA - which has been very successful and which has clear aims to further debating.

Bojana Skrt added that IDEA would accept any individual country as a member.

Asher Weill noted that this was the 4th year during which the issue of incorporation had been discussed without making progress and suggested that there needed to be a mandate put forward to obtain a concrete proposal from IDEA.

Chris Erskine noted that the original mandate to investigate the possibilities offered by IDEA was given to Ard van der Steur who due to his absence was unfortunately unable to report back to the committee

Steven Budlender called for interested people to investigate the possibilities further.

• Marc Whitmore offered himself as a person to take on the 'Donkey Slog' - as a full-time employed debates officer.

Steven Budlender suggested that Chris Erskine, Marc Whitmore and Elizabeth Virgo, form the investigation committee - and asked for comments as to whether more people where needed.

• Chris Erskine suggested that the committee would need a European civil law expert.

• Geetha Creffied suggested David Gabriel as the appropriate lawyer.

Steven Budlender tabled the motion that a four person committee consisting of Marc Whitmore, Chris Erskine, Elizabeth Virgo and David Gabriel, be given the mandate on behalf of the World Schools Debating Council - to investigate further the possibilities of forming an incorporated body and the alternatives. This motion was proposed by Singapore, seconded by the U.S.A. and unanimously accepted.

Trevor Sather stressed the need for absolutely regular updates on the committee's progress and suggested using email as the best means of communication.

7. Internet

Trevor Sather spoke about his current project for IDEA - the Debatabase

He also informed the Council that he had purchased the schoolsdebate.com domain name and intends to develop it as a debating resource. He appealed to council members with good resources and/or press coverage connections to speak to him after the meeting. He also spoke about revamping the present mail list and encouraging its wider use in exchanging information between countries, and about establishing a World Schools Debating council list serve.

He appealed to the council for any interested potential contributors to speak to him after the meeting. He then put the issue of the cost of maintaining the website before the council - it is at present being maintained at private expense.

Marc Whitmore noted how useful this years WSDC website had been and expressed his belief that the only way forward lay in encouraging increased use of emails and the internet.

Steven Budlender called for all interested people to speak to Trevor after the meeting.

8. Appeals Committee Election

It was noted that the appeals committee for 2001-2002 would be made up of Steven Budlender (past convenor), Marc Gabriel (present convenor), and Sebastian Percival (future convenor). Chris Erskine was proposed as the fourth member by Pakistan, seconded by Singapore, and there being no further nominations, duly elected.

9. E.S.L. Award

Trevor Sather noted that the official criteria for the E.S.L. award, were that it be awarded to the 'most promising team whose members speak English as a second language" (Rule 19(a)).

Debate ensued as to whether the award should be awarded to Greece - who it was proposed had undoubtedly shown great promise and improvement, or whether the award should be made as it traditionally has been, to the highest ranked ESL team not to have reached the semi-finals - Pakistan.

After discussion, the decision was reached to make the award to Pakistan, in keeping with the traditional criteria, as understood by the contestants - but it was noted that this issue would have to be clarified in the future rules.

10. Best New Team Award

Steven Budlender announced that the 2001 organising committee had decided to present an award to the best 'new team' in the competition - the recipients to be announced at the Championship Prize giving. It was noted that Kenya is not a 'new team' having competed in Edinburgh previously.

11. Future Hosts Update:

a. 2002 - Singapore
Mark Gabriel introduced himself and the other members of his committee present. He also introduced Gerald Yeo as a representative of the primary sponsor: the Singapore International Foundation. He noted that the Education Ministry was no longer involved in the Championship, which will now fall under the auspices of the Debating Organisation of Singapore.

He gave notice that the Championships will be held from 23 January 2002 - 1 February 2002, and mentioned that information packs and interest forms are available. The championship website is http://www.debatesingapore.com. He warned that an entry cap may be placed at 32 teams and appealed to all countries to submit their early registration / interest forms as soon as possible.

A payment deadline will be set, and countries with problems will be considered on an individual basis. He assured the committee that Singapore has a very enthusiastic debating culture, and promised interested, knowledgeable audiences. Participants will stay in the Concorde Hotel, which is close to a major shopping area. He said that Singapore is a very safe country, and described the climate as warm and humid. He warned those planning to attend that Singapore has harsh anti drug, and drinking laws.

Gerald Yeo briefly issued an invitation to participate in the 2002 Championships on behalf of the Singapore International Foundation, and expressed his delight, that Singapore would be hosting the event.

The floor was then opened for questions.

• Daragh Grant questioned the harshness of Singapore's smoking laws - to which Geetha Creffield replied that there shouldn't be any problems.

• Raziuddin Shaikh raised the issue of money problems - to which Mark Gabriel responded that countries would be considered on an individual basis.

• Marc Whitmore queried what the entry fee would be - to which Mark Gabriel responded that a decision would be made shortly.

A promotional video for the Singapore 2002 Championships was then shown. Mark Gabriel reminded delegations to book flights early as the Chinese new year occurs a week after the Championships begins.

b. 2003 - Buenos Aires, Argentina
Sebastian Percival announced that the Championship would be organised by the Argentinean Debate Federation and introduced the federation committee.

He said that the Championships will be held in August 2003 (winter) and noted that there could be few difficulties in raising funds because 2003 is an election year. However, the committee have obtained sponsorship from the local Stock Exchange and will probably set a team cap at 32/34 countries. He said that there would be a need for many international judges. Accommodation will be in a Hotel or in Residences (not home-stay). A tour of Argentina will probably be offered after the Championships. He then distributed promotional posters. In response to questions, he said that safety should not be a major issue, and also that debates would be held primarily in private schools where the English level is better.

c. 2004 - Lisbon, Portugal
Hugo Tavares said that the preparations were still in a very embryonic stage, but that the organising committee was on the verge of obtaining a major KPMG sponsorship. The Championships would be held in January/February. He said that a more formal bid would be presented to the council at Singapore 2002.

d. 2005 - Calgary, Canada
Ron Lee gave a multimedia presentation. He said that the Championships would be held in late January/early February. In response to questions from Council members, he confirmed that the schedule would not expect participants to rise earlier that 6:30 am, and that the organising committee would be sending judges to preceding Championships to gain experience. He requested a formal letter stating the 2005 Championships had been awarded to Calgary. This was agreed to with Steven Budlender responsible for drafting the letter.

e. Other expressions of Interest
Hong Kong, Scotland and Ireland expressed interest in hosting future championships. When queried as to whether any felt able to host in 2004, Hong Kong replied not, and both Scotland and Ireland felt that it would be difficult, although not impossible.

12. General

• Marc Whitmore announced the second ESU Internet Debate to be held on 12 March 2001.

• Daragh Grant suggested the need to amend rule 20(e) to prevent the use of mobile phones during debate preparation time.

• Bojona Skrt extended a general invitation to attend the IDEA summer camp in St Petersburg starting 24 August 2001. ( contact: bojana@lj-oz.sik.si)

• Leja Lesjak extended an invitation to both competitors and judges to the European Debate Championships to be held in Slovenia (contact: leja_lesjak@hotmail.com)

• Michael Pates extended an invitation to the Stuttgart Debating week. (Contact Marinella@t-online.de or Angelika Hoeness: Hoeness@t-online.de)

• Raziuddin Shaikh mentioned that a Championship would be held in Pakistan in late December. (contact: Saleem A. Kashmiri kash@aitchison.edu.pk)

• Heather Quirk asked council members to inform her of any 'non-debating' English events, not held in the U.S.A

13. Vote of thanks

David Gabriel expressed the Council's thanks to both Steven Budlender and the 2001 organising committee.

There being no further business, the meeting was closed.

< 2001 Table of Contents