Minutes of the 2003 World Schools Debating Council Meeting

MINUTES OF THE 2007 WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATING COUNCIL MEETING IMPERIAL PALACE HOTEL, SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA PART 1 – 9 JULY PART 2 – 11 JULY

CHAIRMAN: Christopher Erskine (Australia)

MINUTES: Mark Gabriel (Singapore)

DELEGATES: Argentina - Cristina Hidalgo Australia - Todd Golding Bangladesh - no representative in attendance Bermuda - Trevor Leitch Canada - Kristopher Ade Czech Republic - no representative in attendance England - James Probert Estonia - Ragnar Siil Germany - Christopher Sloan Greece - Effie Giannakouri Hong Kong - Sam Greenland Hungary - Szilvia Mandli India - Gitanjali Singh Indonesia - Rivandra Royono Ireland - Dick Wafer Israel - Hayah Goldlist Japan - Junichi Miyagawa Kuwait - Andrew Kenning Lithuania - Virginija Paksiene Malaysia - Mrs Jagjeet Singh Mongolia - Allison Hahn Netherlands - Jeannette Baljeau (9 July) / Ard van der Steur (11 July) New Zealand - Claire Ryan Pakistan - Taimur Bandey Peru - Sixto Ramos Philippines - Jimmy Soriano Romania - Simona Mazilu Scotland - Irene McGrath Singapore - Mark Gabriel Slovakia - Eliska Kutenicova Slovenia - Bojana Skrt South Africa - Daniel de Kadt South Korea - Joshua Park Sri Lanka - Sajith Amendra United States - Phyllis Hirth Wales - Martin Pollard

OBSERVERS: Australia - Elizabeth Sheargold Bermuda - Jennifer Haworth Canada - Martin Poirier Germany - Nico Bodenschatz Indonesia - Santi Nuri Dharmawan Ireland - Jim McElroy Japan - Masako Suzuki Kuwait - Zaynab Al Nasser - 2 -

Romania - Catalina Sectreteanu Scotland - George Molyneaux South Africa - Shakila Kooblal United States - JJ Rodriguez Wales - Bethan James Wales - Helen Penny Wales - Lewis Turner

Opening Remarks

Christopher Erskine, the Chairperson of the World Schools Debating Council Executive Committee, opened the meeting. He noted that the meeting would be held in two parts in order to allow time to consider and discuss all the items on the agenda while fitting in with the schedule of the 2007 World Schools Debating Championships. The first part of the meeting was to be held that morning. The meeting would then be adjourned and continued two days later on the morning of 11 July.

Recognition of Delegates

Mark Gabriel, Secretary of the World Schools Debating Council Executive, noted the delegates present. He noted that among the countries represented at the 2007 World Schools Debating Championships, Bangladesh, Japan, Malaysia and Mongolia, had not participated in at least two of the previous three championships, and therefore would not be entitled to vote on any proposed changes to the WSDC Rules at this meeting, though their delegates were welcome to vote on motions which did not seek to amend the WSDC Rules. He noted that Bangladesh was participating in its second consecutive WSDC, and thus would be eligible to vote in any postal ballots held in the coming year. However Japan, Malaysia and Mongolia would need to enter a team in at least one of the next two WSDCs before becoming full voting members of the Council.

Ratification of the Minutes of the 2006 World Schools Debating Council Meeting

The minutes of the 2006 Council meeting in Calgary, Canada, were ratified unanimously without any amendments.

Matters Arising from the Minutes

No matters arising were raised.

Report on Postal Ballots 2006-7

Mark Gabriel noted that two postal ballots of the World Schools Debating Council had been held since the 2006 Council meeting:

October-November 2006 Postal Ballot

This was held to determine to determine the debater eligibility criteria for the 2007 World Schools Debating Championships following the event’s postponement from February to July 2007. 26 of the 31 countries who were eligible to vote submitted their ballots. These 26 countries were: Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Czech Republic, England, Estonia, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Kuwait, Lithuania, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Scotland, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, and the United States. There were three proposals on the ballot: - 3 -

Proposal A

The WSDC Rules insist that debaters must be aged 14-18 on the day that the championship begins. For 2007 only, it was proposed that this rule be changed to allow debaters who are aged 18 on 20th February 2007 (the day the event was originally scheduled to commence) to participate, even if they subsequently turn 19 before the tournament begins.

Votes in Favour - 24 Votes Against - 2 Abstentions - 0

Therefore this proposal was adopted.

Proposal B

The WSDC Rules allow students who have left secondary school to be debaters in the championship provided that they left school less than six months before the championship begins and are not enrolled at a tertiary institution where term has started. For 2007 only, it was proposed that this rule be changed to allow students who would have met this criteria on 20th February 2007 to be team members on one condition – that if they have started at a tertiary institution, they have not yet represented that institution in debating competitions against other tertiary institutions. Thus they would be welcome to take part in internal debating activities at their university, but not to represent their university in any formal debating tournaments until after WSDC 2007.

Votes in Favour - 12 Votes Against - 14 Abstentions - 0

Therefore this proposal was defeated.

Proposal C

It was proposed that if Proposal A and/or B was adopted, all countries who were planning to use a debater on their teams under the provisions of Proposal A and/or B should be required to register the name of that debater with the organisers in Seoul by 20th February 2007, and provide a description of that individual’s circumstances. After that date, countries would not be allowed to newly-select debaters under the provisions of Proposal A and/or B. If a debater who registered under these provisions subsequently dropped out of the team, they may only be replaced with a student who would meet the regular entry requirements under the WSDC Rules.

Votes in Favour - 25 Votes Against - 1 Abstentions - 0

Therefore this proposal was adopted.

May-June 2007 Postal Ballot

The Executive Committee of the World Schools Debating Council – on the advice of its Finance Working Group (chaired by Trevor Sather) – proposed the following:

. Incorporating the World Schools Debating Championships as a limited company, based in the United Kingdom . That we apply for charitable status for that company . That, once this is done, elections be held for nine Trustees to oversee the charity, and ensure that it is well-run and meets its financial obligations - 4 -

. That a ‘Development Board’, including certain Trustees and co-opted others with relevant professional experience, also be created to handle the day-to-day running of the charity . That we define the voting members of the charity as the existing and future voting delegates of the World Schools Debating Council, who elect the Trustees.

A postal ballot was initiated in may 2007 seeking an in-principle endorsement to these proposals from the World Schools Debating Council, though not yet a seeking to amend the WSDC Rules accordingly. 25 of the 31 countries eligible to vote submitted their ballot forms. These 25 countries were: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, England, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Kuwait, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Scotland, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, and Wales.

Votes in Favour – 24 Votes Against – 1 Abstentions – 0

(Note: No postal ballot was held to elect the 2007 Motions Selection Committee as there were five candidates for the five elected places, thus all five candidates were deemed elected.)

Proposed Amendments to the WSDC Rules

Incorporation of World Schools Debating Championships

Chris Erskine noted that the Executive Committee had originally intended to propose amendments to the WSDC Rules regarding the incorporation of the World Schools Debating Championships as a limited company, based in the United Kingdom. However the Executive Committee had subsequently decided to withdraw these proposals in order to seek further advice from solicitors in London before putting these proposals to the Council. Therefore this proposed amendment was therefore withdrawn.

Eligibility of Competing Nations

This amendment was proposed by the Executive Committee.

It was proposed that all references in the existing WSDC Rules to the term ‘country’ be replaced with the term ‘nation’.

It was further proposed that the existing rule 5 be replaced with:

5. (a) Under these rules, a nation must be either:

(i) a member state of the United Nations; or

(ii) recognised under rule 5 (b) or 5 (c).

(b) A territory may be considered a nation under these rules if:

(i) it is eligible to enter teams in competitions organised by at least two of these organisations:

(a) the Fédération Internationale de Football Association;

(b) the International Olympic Committee;

(d) the International Rugby Board; or

(ii) a two-thirds majority of the World Schools Debating Council agrees. - 5 -

(c) Two or more territories may be considered a single nation under these rules if a two-thirds majority of the World Schools Debating Council agrees. The Council's approval must set out the name under which that nation’s team may compete and the flag or symbol that it may use.

(d) If:

(i) a territory’s status changes immediately before a championship;

(ii) that territory asks to be considered a nation under these rules, but it does not meet the criteria set out in rule 5 (a) (i) or 5 (b) (i); and

(iii) the Executive Committee of the World Schools Debating Council does not consider it feasible to seek the Council’s consent under rule 5 (b) (ii) before that championship,

the Executive Committee may declare that the territory is a nation under these rules for that championship only. The Executive Committee must consider the organisational needs of the territory and the Convenor when deciding whether to make that declaration.

(e) The World Schools Debating Council must resolve any disputes about eligibility. If the Executive Committee declares that a territory is a nation under rule 5 (d), the Council may decide later that the territory is not a nation under these Rules. However, the Council may not disqualify that territory from fully participating in the single championship allowed by the Executive Committee.

The proposal was adopted unanimously.

Code of Conduct

This amendment was proposed by the Executive Committee.

It was proposed that rules 28 and 29 be amended to read (changes in bold):

28. (a) There shall be a Charter for the Championships.

(b) The Charter is a part of these Rules and shall be amended in accordance with the requirements for amending these Rules.

(d) A team will forfeit any debate in which it fails to abide by the Charter.

(e) Following the first rounds and before any draw is made for subsequent round, the all teams must declare their willingness to debate nay team which has qualified or any motion or will forfeit their place in the subsequent rounds in favour of the next ranked team.

(f) Every host must agree to abide by the Charter.

(g) The Council may consider the failure of a host to abide by the Charter and take such action as it sees fit.

29. (a) There shall be a Code of Conduct for the Championships, as set out in Annex Three to these Rules.

(b) The Code is a part of these Rules and shall be amended in accordance with the requirements for amending these Rules.

(c) Each participant at a Championship shall agree to abide by the Code of Conduct and shall indicate that agreement in writing prior to the Championship as specified in the Code of Conduct.

It was also proposed that a new annex entitled ‘Annex Three: Code of Conduct for the World Schools Debating Championships’ be added to the WSDC Rules, the proposed text of which was presented to the meeting. - 6 -

Claire Ryan noted that she had worked on the proposed Code with a working group of the Executive Committee, made up of people from around the world, and that she had looked at the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) and laws in her home country of New Zealand when drafting the Code.

Several amendments to the text of the proposed Code were suggested.

It was proposed that 1.4 (c) (iii), which stated that Team Managers must “be deemed legally an adult or have attained the age of majority in both the host nation and in the nation the team represents”, be deleted. Jeannette Baljeau said that she felt that younger Team Managers should be allowed if the parents of the team members did not object, as countries with financial constraints may wish to send a younger coach. She noted that regularly young people travel around the globe without adult supervision in today’s world. Effie Giannakouri said that she felt the minimum age of 19 for Team Managers [as required by 1.4 (c) (ii)] was problematic as some smaller countries may wish to send coaches aged below 19. Phyllis Hirth stated that she was concerned with the idea of any delegation placing a teenager in charge of a team of teenagers. She argued against deleting 1.4 (c) (iii) and suggested raising the minimum age for Team Managers to 21. She noted that hosts would have to assume legal responsibility for teams in cases where their chaperone was not legally old enough to do so. Jimmy Soriano said that he felt there must be a valid reason for imposing a minimum age on Team Managers, and that he felt that the legal age of adulthood in the host country made more sense than an arbitrary number. Sam Greenland noted that some young people are more responsible than others, but stated that he felt the issue of someone being able to be legally responsible for the team was the most important factor. Hayah Goldlist questioned why 19 had been chosen as the minimum age for Team Managers in 1.4 (c) (ii). Mark Gabriel stated that this was because 18 is the maximum age for debaters, and 19 would ensure that Team Managers are older than debaters. Chris Erskine noted that the current wording of the Code would require countries to have a Team Manager older than 19 in cases where the age of majority in the host nation is above 19. In such cases, host nations would need to make participating teams aware of this before registration opens. Sixto Ramos that he felt young coaches and Team Managers should be allowed if their country agreed to assume responsibility for them. Todd Golding said that this would be acceptable in cases of civil liability, but not in cases of criminal liability. He noted that prosecutorial authorities would be likely to take the view that someone accompanying a team travelling overseas to an event like WSDC should be deemed responsible for them. Claire Ryan argued that someone must be legally responsible for teams in loco parentis, and that this was more important issue than a team’s right to decide that a young person is mature enough to be responsible for them. She argued that the role of Team Manager is a significant responsibility, and that the person taking on this role must be of an appropriate legal age. The proposed amendment to the Code was withdrawn.

It was proposed that 1.5 of the Code should have an extra definition added which would read: “ ‘Age of majority’ means the age at which an individual becomes an adult as specified by either the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child or the legislation of the host nation, whichever is the older age.” This proposed amendment to the Code was passed unanimously.

It was proposed that in 4.5 of the Code, the heading and point (a) should read “special protection and assistance”, and that point (a) (ii) (which read “give the person complained about special protection during the hearing”) be deleted. Chris Erskine questioned what would happen in cases where someone was deemed a minor in their home nation but an adult in the host nation. Claire Ryan said that in such cases, the person would be treated as an adult. The amendment was passed unanimously.

It was proposed that an additional clause 5.6 should be added to the Code which would read: “A record of decisions made under 5.3 shall remain on file for five years after the decision has been made, or for five years after the person complained about has been readmitted, whichever is the later date.” Chris Erskine noted that keeping records of decisions would help future Complaints Committee see patterns in behaviour. Kris Ade noted that keeping records would help guide future decisions. Effie Giannakouri suggested keeping records of decisions reached, but erasing the names of the individuals involved from the records after five years. - 7 -

Todd Golding suggested suppressing the names of individuals, but still allowing restricted access to the names for members of the Executive Committee and the officers of the Code. Dick Wafer suggested that the length of time records are kept for should depend on the severity of the offence. Mark Gabriel argued that it an organisation which does not have permanent offices and which is run by volunteers, keeping records permanently would be easier to manage than keeping them for a while and then ensuring they are deleted after a specific period of time. He also noted that institutional memory among the WSDC community will mean that some incidents will still be remembered beyond five year even if records are deleted. The amendment was withdrawn. It was agreed that the Executive Committee would look into whether an amendment to the Code to deal with this issue should be proposed again in the future.

It was proposed that 6.3 (c) of the Code should be amended to read “the applicant and such persons as the applicant may decide”. This proposed amendment to the Code was passed unanimously.

It was proposed that a point (v) be added to 6.5 (b), which would read “(v) the person who made the original complaint about the applicant.” This amendment was passed unanimously.

A vote was taken on whether or not to adopt the amended Code of Conduct as an new annex to the WSDC Rules. The adoption of the Code was passed unanimously.

Martin Pollard raised the issue of whether it would be advisable for host organising committees to create further documents for participants or parents to sign in addition to the Code of Conduct. Claire Ryan noted that the Code of Conduct is not an indemnity form, and that this issue of absolving legal liability is a separate issue. She suggested that the Executive Committee should look into this. She also noted that it is advisable for any such documents to be issued well in advance of the championships.

Team Managers and Team Coaches

This amendment was proposed by the Executive Committee.

It is proposed that a new rule 4A be added to the WSDC rules which would read:

4A. (a) Every team at the championship must be accompanied by a team coach.

(b) All team coaches must be aged 19 or above.

(c) Each nation which sends a team to the championship shall appoint a coach, adjudicator or registered observer from that country to serve as their team manager, who shall be responsible for looking after the welfare of their team members and ensuring their compliance with the Code of Conduct.

(d) All team managers must be aged 19 or older and must legally be deemed an adult in both the host country and the country the team represents.

Jimmy Soriano asked whether in situations where the age of adulthood in host nations was older than 19, the coach and Team Manager would have to be older than 19. Mark Gabriel stated that in such situations, the Team Manager would have to be older than 19, but the coach could still be 19. Hayah Goldlist asked why coaches had to be 19, not 18. Mark Gabriel said this was ensure that coaches were older than debaters. Jeannette Baljeau asked what the entry fee for Team Managers would be if they were not also acting as a coach or adjudicator. Mark Gabriel said that this would be up to the host. He noted that in the past, people attending WSDC who were not debaters, coaches or adjudicators were normally charged an observer’s entry fee. Todd Golding said that he felt that Team Managers should be of an age commensurate to their responsibility, and that having a person clearly designated as being responsible for each team is important. He added that he - 8 - felt that Team Managers should not be charged an entry fee higher than that of coaches or adjudicators if teams are required to have one. Martin Pollard said that he felt that countries should ideally send a coach or adjudicator to the championship who is old enough to take on the role of Team Manager rather than sending an extra person just to fill this role.

It was proposed that the wording of 4A (d) be amended to read: “(d) All team managers must be aged 19 or older and must have reached the age of majority in both the host nation and the nation the team represents.” This amendment to the text was agreed unanimously.

The amended proposal was passed unanimously.

Dealing with Complaints about Judges

This amendment was proposed by the Executive Committee.

It is proposed that a new rule 16A be added to the WSDC Rules which would read:

16A. (a) Any complaint about a judge in a particular debate shall be made to the Chief Adjudicator:

(i) Within 24 hours of the alleged incident giving rise to the complaint,

(ii) By:

(a) A judge or judges accredited by the Chief Adjudicator for the tournament and who were on a panel of judges with the judge who is the subject of the complaint; or

(b) The official and registered coach or team manager of a team participating in the tournament who shall make the complaint in writing;

(b) Complaints shall include but are not necessarily restricted to one or more of the following:

(i) The judge has misdirected him/herself as to one or more of the rules of debate to a significant extent;

(ii) The judge has made remarks prior to, during or after a debate in a way that raises significant doubt as to his or her impartiality for that debate.

(i) Whether the complaint can be resolved without further investigation; or

(ii) Whether the complaint requires further investigation in which case the Chief Adjudicator shall undertake such further investigation including but not limited to talking to:

(a) The judge who is the subject of the complaint, and

(b) Other judges on the panel with that judge, and/or

(d) Such other persons as the Chief Adjudicator shall deem appropriate.

(d) In conjunction with the Chief Adjudicator’s panel, the Chief Adjudicator shall determine the complaint by:

(i) Dismissing the complaint; or

(ii) Upholding the complaint and:

(a) Taking no further action; or

(b) Counselling the judge; or - 9 -

(c) Directing that the judge act as a ‘shadow judge’ for such portion of the championships as the Chief Adjudicator shall deem appropriate; or

(d) Directing that the judge undergo further training prior to acting further as a judge at the championship; or

(e) Standing the judge down for such portion of the championship as the Chief Adjudicator shall deem appropriate; or

(f) Referring the matter to the Complaints Officer.

(e) No determination pursuant to Rule 16A (d) (ii) shall be made without the further investigation to which Rule 16A (c) (ii) refers and in particular, without first speaking to the judge who is the subject of the complaint.

(f) Where a complaint has been determined according to rule 16A (d) (i), the Chief Adjudicator shall advise the following people:

(i) The person or persons who made the complaint, either in writing if the complaint was in writing or verbally if the complaint was made verbally;

(ii) Where the determination according to Rule 16A (d) (i) is the result of the further investigation to which Rule 16A (c) (ii) refers, the judge who was the subject of the complaint shall be advised in writing.

(g) Where any complaint has been determined pursuant to Rule 16A (d) (ii), the Chief Adjudicator shall advise the following people in writing:

(i) The person or persons who made the complaint;

(ii) The judge who was the subject of the complaint;

(iii) The Chief Adjudicator of the immediate following championship.

(h) Notwithstanding Rule 16A (a)-(g), no result of any debate shall be overturned.

Claire Ryan noted that this was a practice which had been in place for a while, and this proposal was to formalise the practice by adding into the Rules.

The proposal was passed unanimously.

Guidelines for Determining Ability to Judge Debates

It is proposed that the existing rule 14 be expanded to read (changes in bold):

14. (a) The Chief Adjudicator may assess an eligible judge at any time before or during a championship to determine that judge’s:

(i) competence to judge, and

(ii) understanding of the Rules, the Judging Schedule, and any guidelines and instructional material authorised by the Council.

(b) The Chief Adjudicator may at any time, as a result of an assessment in accordance with Rule 14 (a), decide that that judge should not judge any debates, or should not judge any further debates without a further assessment if the Chief Adjudicator is satisfied that there is sufficient doubt about that judge’s ability to judge competently or impartially.

(i) Whether the judge has been able or unable to give sufficient reasons for awarding the debate to one team as against another; - 10 -

(ii) Whether the judge has misdirected himself or herself as to some or more of the rules of debate to a significant extent;

(iii) Whether the judge has made remarks to a team or other participant at the championship in a way that casts significant doubt as to the judge's competence or impartiality;

(iv) Whether as a result of excessive consumption of alcohol or other substances or tiredness or sickness or other such factors, the ability or perceived ability of the judge to judge competently is seriously in question;

(v) Whether a complaint has been upheld against the judge pursuant to Rule 16A.

(vi) Any representations made by the judge in question;

(vii) Any other matter the Chief Adjudicator considers relevant

(d) Before deciding whether a judge should not judge a further debate or debates, the Chief Adjudicator in conjunction with the Chief Adjudicator’s panel shall determine whether the matter could be more appropriately resolved by counselling or other appropriate procedure.

(e) In undertaking an assessment provided for in Rule 14(a) the Chief Adjudicator shall:

(i) inform himself or herself of evidence and facts as he or she deems fit; and

(ii) consult with the Chief Adjudication Panel

(f) Notwithstanding Rule 14 (a)-(e), no result of any debate shall be overturned.

The proposal was passed unanimously.

Fixing the dates of the championship

This amendment was proposed by New Zealand and seconded by Hong Kong.

It was proposed that the existing rule 23 be amended to read (changes in bold):

23. (a) The Council shall meet at least once each Championships and shall decide:

(i) The venue and approximate dates for the next Championships subject to rule 23 (b) and (c);

(ii) Any amendments to be made to these Rules as well as any other matters that it thinks necessary.

(b) Championships shall be held annually where possible and shall be held either wholly within the period 1 January to 28 February or the period 1 July to 31 August.

(c) The dates and venue for the Championships shall be fixed no later than two Championships prior to the one for which the dates and venue are to be fixed (“the scheduled Championships”) subject to Rule 23 (d) (deferral) and Rule 23 (e) and (f) (variation).

(d) In the case where the Council is unable to decide the venue and therefore the dates for the scheduled Championships in accordance with Rule 23 (c), the Council may defer the fixing of the dates and venue of the scheduled Championships for such time as it shall consider necessary but no later than 12 months prior to the first day of the scheduled Championships.

(e) The Council may vary the dates specified in Rule 23 (b) provided that such variation is passed by a two-thirds majority of those members entitled to vote according to the rules and either present or casting votes in a postal ballot; and

(i) such variation is passed no later than 12 months before the first day of the scheduled Championships, or; - 11 -

(ii) in the case where the dates for the scheduled Championships have already been fixed, and it is proposed to vary the originally fixed dates, no later than 12 months prior to the first day of the originally scheduled Championships, or;

(iii) where the variation is considered less than 12 months prior to the first day of the originally scheduled Championships, only in a case of genuine emergency, disaster or Act of God (as determined by the Council by a two-thirds majority of those members entitled to vote according to the Rules and either present or casting votes in a postal ballot)

(f) The Council may vary the venue which has been fixed in accordance with Rule 23 (c) or (d), provided that such variation is passed by a two-thirds majority of those members entitled to vote according to the Rules and either present or casting votes in a postal ballot; and

(i) such variation is passed no later than 12 months before the first day of the scheduled Championships, or;

(ii) where the variation is considered less than 12 months prior to the first day of the originally scheduled Championships, only in a case of genuine emergency, disaster, Act of God, issues of safety for participants, failure of the host to abide by the Charter or lack of preparedness by the host (as determined by the Council by a two-thirds majority of those members entitled to vote according to the Rules and either present or casting votes in a postal ballot).

It was further proposed that these amendments to rule 23, if adopted, should not take effect until 1 January 2009.

Claire Ryan noted that the intention behind this proposed amendment was to give participating nations a greater degree of certainty about the timing of the championships in the future following decisions that were taken to postpone the 2006 and 2007 championships from their originally scheduled dates. She noted that the pattern of timing of the championships had varied a bit in recent years, and that this had caused difficulties for some countries. The proposal would mean that future championships would need to be scheduled to be held in either in January-February or July-August, and the dates would need to be fixed two years in advance. The amendment would still allow for the dates to be moved in unforeseen circumstances, but only if a two-thirds majority of the World Schools Debating Council votes to do so. She said that she felt that the Council would act reasonably in such circumstances. Irene McGrath noted that where one championship is held only six months after the previous one, this means that some students can end up attending the competition twice within the same academic year. Chris Erskine noted that this problem arises because countries in the northern and southern hemispheres have different academic years, and the most ideal time to host the championship is usually not the same for northern and southern hemisphere nations is usually not the same.

The proposal was passed unanimously.

Eligibility of debaters who attend schools outside their own country

This amendment was proposed by Canada and seconded by Singapore.

It was proposed that the existing rule 4 (b) (i) and (ii) be amended to read:

(b) A member of a nation's team must:

(i) have been a full-time student at a secondary school within six months of the start of the Championships

(ii) either:

(a) be ordinarily resident in the nation, or

(b) be a citizen of the nation, or

(c) have been a full-time student at a secondary school in the nation within six months of the start of the Championships - 12 -

Martin Poirer noted that in Canada there are students who live in the United States and cross the border on a daily basis to attend schools in Canada, and vice-versa. The WSDC Rules say that a team member must be both “ordinarily resident in the country” they represent, and “have been a full-time student at a secondary school in the country within six months of the start of the Championships”. Thus students who live in one country and go to school in another are ineligible to be debaters at WSDC. The proposed amendment would allow such students to debate at WSDC, representing either the nation they live in, the country of their citizenship, or the nation they go to school in. Mark Gabriel noted that the proposed amendment would also allow citizens of a country who are living abroad to represent either the country of their citizenship or the country they live or go to school in. He noted that the number of students who would be in a position to represent more than one country would be relatively small, but argued that in cases where a student has such legitimate ties to more than one nation, it was reasonable to allow them to represent either of those nations at WSDC. James Probert argued against allowing citizenship to be a criteria and noted that the concept of citizenship was not clear in the nations of the United Kingdom. He added that that the proposal could cause teams to try to poach debaters from other nations, or students to try out for more than one team. He suggested removing the residency and citizenship criteria and making attending a secondary school in the nation the only criteria. Martin Pollard said that he felt that debaters should study in the education system of the country they represent at the championships. Trevor Leitch noted that Bermuda’s WSDC team often suffers because the country’s best and brightest students go abroad to study. Sam Greenland stated that he felt that poaching of team members by other countries was unlikely. Eliska Kutenicova asked if exchange students who come to Slovakia would be eligible to represent the country at WSDC. Mark Gabriel said that they would under the proposal if they were full-time students at a secondary school in the nation within six months of the start of the championships. Effie Giannakouri asked if the proposal would allow a student of Greek origin whose family had lived in Australia for three generations to represent Greece. Mark Gabriel stated that they would if they held Greek citizenship. JJ Rodrigiez noted that the United States had been unable to include an American citizen on its team that year because her family was living in Singapore and she went to school there. He stated that he felt such students should be able to represent the country of the citizenship, and that sometimes the country they were living in would not have a WSDC team. Allison Hahn noted that the proposal would potentially allow new countries the chance to include experienced debaters based overseas into their teams. Kris Ade stated that in the overwhelming majority of situations, the proposal would not change the potential eligibility of most debaters. But in the cases of a few students whose circumstances are unusual, he felt it would be best to allow them as many opportunities as possible to be eligible.

An indicative vote was taken on the principle of whether eligibility should be limited to the nation in which a student attends school, or whether it should be widened to encompass a student’s citizenship, residency and school attendance:

In favour of allowing students to be eligible to represent only the nation where they attend school - 8 In favour of allowing students to the nation of their citizenship, residency or school attendance - 20

Mark Gabriel proposed that 4 (b) (ii) (b) be reworded to read: “be a passport-holding citizen of the nation”. James Probert argued against this amendment to the wording. He noted that it was exclusionary as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not issue their own passports, students from the UK would not be able to take advantage of this provision if they were living overseas. A vote was taken on this amendment:

For - 20 Against - 8 Abstentions - 0

James Probert proposed that 4 (b) (ii) (a) be reworded to read: “have been ordinarily resident in the nation for the previous 12 months”. This amendment was adopted unanimously. - 13 -

A vote was taken on the proposal as a whole:

For - 22 Against - 2 Abstentions - 2

Therefore the proposal was adopted.

Chris Erskine proposed that the Executive Committee be tasked to look at this rule and determine whether any further amendments to the wording would be desirable:

For - 23 Against - 1 Abstentions - 0

The Executive was therefore task to further examine this rule.

Eligibility of debaters who are preparing to start tertiary education

This amendment was proposed by Singapore and seconded by Lithuania.

It was proposed that 4 (b) (v) be amended to state that debaters must:

(v) not be enrolled at a tertiary or post-secondary school institution where their first term of study begins on or before the opening day of the Championships

Mark Gabriel noted that the principle of this had been agreed at the previous year’s World Council meeting. The proposal would thus to formalise and clarify this in the Rules.

The proposal was adopted unanimously.

Report of the 2007 World Schools Debating Championships Organising Committee

Joshua Park, the Convenor of the event, noted that three new nations had entered teams in the championships for the first time in 2007 – Japan, Mongolia and India. Malaysia had also sent a team to the championships after several years’ absence. He noted that the event had helped to raise the profile of debating in Korea, and that the Seoul metropolitan government had indicated that they would now continue to give support to debating. He stated that there had been media interest in the event, particularly for the Grand Final. He noted that several debates had been recorded, and that he would make those debates available to other countries who wished to purchase copies. He added that the volunteers who had helped out with the organisation of the event had gained valuable experience and done an excellent job. He noted that the event had originally been scheduled for February 2007. However because of organisational and funding-related problems that had arisen after the change in national and provincial governments in South Korea and the conduct of nuclear tests by North Korea in 2006, a decision was made in consultation with the World Council and its Executive Committee to postpone the event to July, which had allowed his team to be in a better position to run the 2007 championship.

Sam Greenland stated that he was unhappy that the Hong Kong flag placed at his team’s table for the debates was the flag which had been abolished in 1997. He stated that he was therefore withdrawing his consent for films and pictorial materials of the team to be used unless he could review and approve them first, as images of the old flag could impact his future teams’ funding and support. He also noted that he was unhappy that camera crews had filmed his team immediately after they lost the quarter-final debate when the students were feeling emotional despite requests for them to stop doing so. - 14 -

Claire Ryan stated that she felt that camera crews filming adjudicators while they filling in mark sheets and having confidential discussions was problematic. She noted that she had not consented to recordings of her being used. Sixto Ramos stated that he was disappointed that there had been no audiences for many of the debates. Joshua Park said that unfortunately many of the schools had been in the middle of their exam periods during the championships, so many active debate schools had been unable to host rounds. Also some schools had chosen not to allow their students to miss classes during the day to watch debates. James Probert asked why the event was held during the schools’ exam periods. Joshua Park stated that schools had changed their exam period from the previous year and that he had not realised there would be a clash at the time the dates were set. Bojana Skrt asked why many of the debates had been held at the Korea International School even though this school had been on holiday during the event. Joshua Park stated that the intention had been for most of the rounds to be held at foreign language Korean schools rather than international schools. However, despite letters from the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, the Canadian Ambassador and the Mayor of Calgary requesting support, he had been unable to persuade schools to host the rounds. The Korea International School had kindly allowed the use of their facilities even though the school was on holiday. Helen Jarman raised several points: - She noted that she was disappointed that the debaters had not always been treated respectfully, for example by being shouted at when boarding the buses or by being questioned about incidents without their coach present. - She said that she felt that the hotel was not an ideal venue for the event as it had no congregation areas, did not allow the student to use certain facilities, and had a lack of Halal, Kosher and vegetarian food available. - She said that she felt that more activities should have been arranged to keep debaters occupied in the evenings, and that teams should have been informed beforehand where meals and/or transportation to venues for meals was not covered in the registration fee. - She stated that she felt that the draw for the debates should have been given out to all the teams at the same time. - She said that she felt that a call should have been put out for more international adjudicators to attend. Chris Erskine asked how many countries would have been able to send more adjudicators if they had been asked to. James Probert said that he could have put out a call and that it might have been possible. Claire Ryan noted that some adjudicators had left it until quite late to confirm whether or not they were able to attend, while others had registered and then dropped out. Asking for more international adjudicators at a late stage had not been possible as numbers had to be confirmed in advance with the hotel. Bojana Skrt suggested that the registration deadline for judges should be earlier in future to allow more time to deal with a shortfall. Ard van der Steur noted that confusing messages had been given about the drinking age in Korea, with some people saying it was 19 and some that it was 21. Bojana Skrt said that she felt that debaters should not be drinking at the championships. Phyllis Hirth noted that enforcement of a drinking age would be an issue at the 2008 championships in the United States, and that she felt participants should respect the laws and the wishes of the hosts when they come to an event in another country. She added that she hoped that people with responsibility for chaperoning their teams would be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Sixto Ramos said that he felt that the draw for the debates should be released two weeks in advance. Mark Gabriel noted that that was not possible this time because Montenegro had pulled out of the event less than two weeks before and India had only confirmed its attendance a few days before the competition began. Claire Ryan noted that New Zealand had initially planned to send a team to the event and had taken steps in October 2006 to pay over NZ$11,000 for flights. As a result of the postponement of the championship, several of the selected debaters had become ineligible, and assistance from the organisers in recovering payments had been promised but had not been forthcoming. New Zealand had not yet received compensation, and had been disappointed at the tone of communication from the organisers. New Zealand did not send a team to the championships for the first time since 1988. Joshua Park said that he had been impressed by the student-focused nature of previous championships he had attended and had attempted to keep this in mind, but was sorry if expectations had not been met. With regards to New Zealand’s situation, he said he would do everything he could to ensure that their compensation payment was handled as soon as possible. Mrs Jagjeet Singh noted that the tournament had become a very big event over the years, and stated that she appreciated Joshua’s efforts in brining the event together. - 15 -

Chris Erskine noted that, despite criticisms, the WSDC community was thankful to the organising committee for the work they put in to make the event possible. Mark Gabriel noted that Korea had a shorter than usual lead time for running the event, having been confirmed as hosts on in December 2005. He added that WSDC would benefit if future hosts could be confirmed three or more years in advance. Sam Greenland noted that Korea had stepped in as hosts later than usual after Hong Kong’s earlier tentative bid had proved to be unfeasible. He added that he was very grateful to Joshua and the volunteers for the huge amount of effort they had put in. He proposed a motion of thanks. The motion of thanks was accepted by acclamation.

EFL and ESL Awards 2007

Mark Gabriel noted that the top ranking English-a-as-Second-Language (ESL) or English-as-Foreign-Language (EFL) team at WSDC 2007 were:

ESL category: 1. Pakistan 2. South Korea 3. Philippines

EFL category: 1. Slovenia 2. Indonesia 3. Estonia

Christopher Sloan noted that he felt that the present criteria for the ESL and EFL categories created an unreal distinction. He stated that opportunities for English language exposure vary greatly between countries. He said that he felt that much more detailed information about students’ backgrounds should be submitted before classifications are made, and that there should be greater flexibility in the criteria.

Future Championships

2008

Phyllis Hirth, the Convenor for the 2007 championships, noted that she was looking forward to welcoming the WSDC community to Washington DC in 2008. The event was scheduled to be held from 7-17 September, and participants will be staying at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City. She stated that teams should ideally arrange to fly into Reagan National Airport which is about 10 minutes’ drive from the hotel. Other airports in the area – Dulles and Baltimore-Washington – are about one hour’s drive away. She noted that some debate venues have already been secured, and that coaches and adjudicators will be asked to help conduct workshop and seminars on debate and incorporating debate into the curriculum at the venues. She noted that she was proposing JJ Rodriguez from the US and Aaron Maniam from Singapore (who lives in Washington DC) to be the co-Chief Adjudicators.

The proposal of JJ Rodriguez and Aaron Maniam as Chief Adjudicators was adopted unanimously.

2009

Effie Giannakouri stated that Greece was extremely keen to host the championships in Athens in February 2009. She noted that she has started talking to potential sponsors, however at this stage it was too far away to persuade them to commit. However she stated that many things can be organised fairly inexpensively in Athens, and that even if there was no sponsorship it should still be possible to run the event with participants paying entry fees of approximately 450 Euros per person, with the entry fees covering accommodation, transport and some meals and social events. If sponsorship comes in, the first priority would be to provide more meals, and the second to lower entry fees. She noted that she has been looking into hotels that would provide rooms starting from 70-80 Euros per night for double rooms, and that host schools should be able to provide buses and lunches. She stated that key people involved in the organisation would include herself, Eirianna Kouri and Helen Kolais.

The proposal from Greece to host the 2009 championships in Athens was adopted unanimously. - 16 -

2010 and beyond

Dick Wafer stated that Ireland was hoping to be in a position to make a bid for the 2010 championships.

Ard van der Steur noted that the Netherlands was hoping to be able to host either the 2010 or 2011 championships in Rotterdam.

Catalina Sectreteanu stated that Romania hoped to be able to host the championships in the future. She noted that Romania has experience in hosting the IDEA Youth Forum and has been successful in fundraising.

Daniel de Kadt stated South Africa has been talking about making a future bid to host the championships in a costal city – probably either Cape Town or Durban.

Andrew Kenning stated that he continues to pray for a two-state solution in Israel, which would make it feasible for Kuwait to host the championships.

Taimur Bandey noted that Pakistan has similar problems to Kuwait, though could possibly look at co-hosting the championships with India.

Hayah Goldlist stated that Israel also hopes that a change in the regional security situation will make it feasible to hold the championships there again in the future.

Elections for the 2007-8 Executive Committee

Dick Wafer, the appointed Returning Officer, outlined the election procedures, listed the candidates, and distributed, collected and counted the ballot papers. The results were counted during a short break. When the meeting reconvened the following results were announced:

Chairperson

Christopher Erskine (Australia) - 32 votes Re-open nominations - 0 votes

Therefore Chris Erskine was elected.

Vice-Chairperson

Mark Gabriel (Singapore) - 32 votes Re-open nominations - 0 votes

Therefore Mark Gabriel was elected.

Secretary

Claire Ryan (New Zealand) - 32 votes Re-open nominations - 0 votes

Therefore Claire Ryan was elected.

Block of Six Executive Committee Members

JJ Rodriguez (United States) - 31 votes Martin Pollard (Wales) - 28 votes James Probert (England) - 27 votes Bojana Skrt (Slovenia) - 26 votes Taimur Bandey (Pakistan) - 24 votes - 17 -

Sixto Ramos (Peru) - 23 votes Irene McGrath (Scotland) - 20 votes Jimmy Soriano (Philippines) - 8 votes

Therefore JJ Rodriguez, Martin Pollard, James Probert, Bojana Skrt, Taimur Bandey and Sixto Ramos were elected.

[ Note: After the meeting, the Executive agreed the following chairmanships for its working groups: Adjudication - Mark Gabriel & Claire Ryan Debate Administration - JJ Rodriguez Hosting - Martin Pollard & Sixto Ramos Incorporation & Publicity - Christopher Erskine & James Probert New Countries & Language Issues - Taimur Bandey & Bojana Skrt ]

Chris Erskine noted that Executive Committee owes a considerable debt of thanks to Trevor Sather, who did not attend WSDC 2007 and was stepping down as Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee for personal reasons. He noted that the creation of the committee was Trevor’s initiative, and that he had contributed greatly to the Executive and to WSDC over the past decade. A motion of thanks for Trevor Sather was accepted by acclamation.

Any Other Business

Dick Wafer read out a letter from three member of the 2007 Motions Selection Committee – Andrea Coomber, Christopher Bishop and Noel McGrath. The letter noted that during the discussions of the Motions Selection Committee, it had been suggested that it may be a good idea to use motions for certain rounds because this would place particular teams on particular sides for that debate, and that this was something which had occurred at previous WSDCs. They stated that they felt that such practices undermined a fundamental tenet of debating, left the event open to possible manipulation, and went against the spirit of the Charter that every team should be treated equally. Mark Gabriel, the Chairman of the 2007 Motions Selection Committee, noted that one motion used in the 2007 championship mentioned a particular country by name – the United States. The committee had discussed whether particular consideration should be given to which side of that debate the US team should be placed on. But since some members of the committee were strongly opposed to doing so, the committee had not used this as a criteria when deciding which motions to use for each round. Phyllis Hirth noted that this issue may have first arisen as a result of objections she raised regarding one of the motions used at the 1999 championships. However she said that the issue she had been attempting to raise back then was regarding the suitability of motions relating to one country, and that attempting to fix the sides was not in her opinion a viable solution to motions that are unfair to a particular country. Ragnar Sill said that debaters must to able to debate any side of a motion, but that another potential issue could be the reaction of the audience or journalists who watch debates and may perceive teams to be official representatives of the countries. He said that in certain cases it may be inappropriate to record or use video material from a debate where the arguments raised by a team may be viewed as provocative arguments from representatives of their country. Beth James suggested that the preamble that Chairmen read out before debates could clarify that teams did not get to choose the sides they were on and that they are not speaking as official representatives of their nations. Chris Erskine said that such preamble often goes over the head of audiences, and that perhaps giving them a piece of paper to explain this might be better. Hayah Goldlist suggested that adjudication summaries could also highlight this. JJ Rodriguez said that safeguards can be put in place to ensure the fairness of the draw. Dick Wafer said that he felt the allocation of sides in the draw must be completely random. Todd Golding proposed that the principle that any team may be required to debate any motion and any side of any motion as embodied in the Charter should be reaffirmed, and assignment of proposition or opposition sides should be entirely random save and except that for the preliminary rounds each team shall be assigned an equal number of proposition and opposition sides, unless there is an odd number of preliminary rounds in which case the differential shall be no more than one. This proposal was passed unanimously. - 18 -

Irene McGrath spoke on behalf of George Moleneaux, who was not present as he was helping the Scottish team prepare for the Grand Final. She raised the issue of transparency of accounting, and whether host organising committees should be required to work on a non-profit-making basis, or whether it should be acceptable for them to make any profit from the championships. She further raised the issue of what any surpluses in host organising committees’ accounts should be used for, and whether or not the Executive Committee should be responsible for supervising this. Chris Erskine noted that the Executive Committee currently has no such power over Convenors, and that in his view it is implicit in the Rules that World Council does not either. The World Council awards the hosts, but the Rules and convention are such that the host carries the event through. He stated that the path being flagged here by Scotland would represent a sea change with many implications, not least who is legally responsible for the championships. He noted that scrutiny leads to responsibility, and thus carries legal implications. Phyllis Hirth stated that she felt such issues should be considered alongside the incorporation of the championships.

Masako Suzuki said that Japan had been treated very warmly during its first appearance at WSDC, and expressed her appreciation to the community. She stated that her team had enjoyed the tournament, and that Japan hopes to continue to be involved. Chris Erskine noted that it was always a pleasure to welcome new countries, and even better when they return to participate in future years.

Meeting Closed: 1.03 pm