AFA NEWSLETTER VOL. 33, NO. 2 – February, 2011

Officers of the AFA, p.  2

AFA Award Winners p. 3
Call for Submissions & Nominations pp. 4-8

Alta Conference p. 8
AFA Committees 2010-11 pp. 8-10
AFA Business Meeting Minutes pp. 10-16

AFA National Council Meeting Minutes pp. 16-30
AFA Ballots, p. 30-31




 VOL. 33, No. 2—February 2011

The AFA Newsletter is published three times each year and is sent to all current AFA individual members. The first issue (September) contains a directory of current members of the American Forensic Association and a supplement to the tournament calendar for the current academic year. The second issue (January) contains the minutes of AFA Business and National Council meetings from the AFA’s annual convention and a supplement to the membership directory. The third issue (June) contains the tournament calendar for the following academic year. Each issue also contains news items of interest to members.


You are invited to submit material to be published in the Newsletter. You may submit news items, announcements, or articles (especially ones which are related to forensic activities). Items for the newsletter should be sent to: James W. Pratt, PO Box 256, River Falls, WI 54022, or via e-mail to Closing dates for each issue of the Newsletter are September 15th, for issue #1; January 15th, for issue #2; and June 15th, for issue #3.



 President, Rich Edwards, Baylor University        

Vice President, Scott Harris, Univ. of Kansas

Immediate Past President, Dan Cronn-Mills, Minnesota State University

Vice President for High School Affairs, Dan Lingel, Plano, Texas

Two-Year College Representative, M’Liss Hindman, Tyler Jr. College

Recording Secretary, Katie Lavelle, Univ. of Northern Iowa

Executive Secretary, James W. Pratt, University of Wisconsin-River Falls

Webmaster, Allan Louden, Wake Forest University

Co-Editors, Argumentation & Advocacy, Catherine H. Palczewski and John Fritch,

University of Northern Iowa

Chair, NDT Committee, Tim O’Donnell, University of Mary Washington Committee

Chair, NIET Committee, Frank Thompson, University of Alabama

Nominating Committee

               David Cheshier, Georgia State Univ.

               Becky Opsata, California State Univ. Northridge

               Ed Panetta, Univ. of Georgia (Chair)

               Larry Schnoor, Mankato, Minnesota

               Ben Voth, Southern Methodist Univ.





The following awards were announced at the 2010 AFA Convention in San Francisco:


 Distinguished Service Award

Frank Thompson

University of Alabama

 Lee Mayfield

James Madison University

 Leah White

Minnesota State University – Mankato

 Rohrer Award for Dissertation/Thesis (2009)

Chad Kuyper (MFA-Thesis)

Minnesota State University-Mankato

 Rohrer Award for Dissertation/Thesis (2010)

William Keith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

 David Beard, University of Minnesota-Duluth

 J. David Cisneros, University of Georgia



Call for submissions

Argumentation and Advocacy, the flagship publication of the American Forensic Association, invites scholarly submissions concerning any dimension of argumentation studies, contemporary or historical, including but not limited to argumentation theory, public advocacy, culture and argument, public and political argument, legal argument, forensics, and pedagogy. Studies employing any appropriate research methodology are welcome.

To facilitate a timely review process, manuscripts conforming to the guidelines for submission should be submitted via the online submission portal to:

Catherine H. Palczewski and John Fritch, Co-Editors-Elect

Argumentation and Advocacy

New users should first create an account. Once a user is logged onto the site, submissions should be made via the "Submit Paper" function. Authors should also complete the "Author Information" request.

E-mail correspondence should be addressed to

Inquiries about book reviews should be sent to Gordon Stables of the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California at

AFA Tournament Calendar. 

To have a tournament listed in the published calendar, tournament hosts can submit information to the AFA website: Information may also be submitted directly to the calendar editor:   Include the tournament dates, tournament name, contact information for the tournament host, events to be held, and number of preliminary and elimination rounds.  Information should be submitted by June 1, 2010.


The Daniel Rohrer AFA Research Award recognizes outstanding scholarship in argumentation and forensics published in the previous calendar year. Any published article, text, or book in the field of argumentation and/or forensics is eligible for nomination. To nominate a published scholarly article please send a letter of nomination detailing why the publication should be honoured and a copy of the complete publication.  If the publication nominated is a book, a copy of the table of contents and of one chapter is sufficient.  Electronic submissions are preferred; hard copy submissions should include six (6) copies of all necessary materials.  Eligible scholarship for 2009 must have a publication date of 2008. The award shall be presented at the annual AFA business meeting to be held in Chicago in 2009. The committee chair must receive nominations no later than October 1, 2009. Nominations received after this date may not be considered.

The AFA Outstanding Dissertation or Thesis Award recognizes the best dissertation or thesis in the theory and practice of argumentation and forensics completed in the previous calendar year.  The candidate must be a member of AFA.  To nominate a thesis or dissertation, a letter of nomination detailing the significance of the dissertation or thesis (usually from the project advisor), a copy of the table of contents, and a representative chapter of the completed study.  Electronic submissions are preferred; hard copy submissions should include six (6) copies of all necessary materials.  Eligible scholarship for 2011 must have a completion date of 2011. The award shall be presented at the annual AFA business meeting to be held in New Orleans in 2011. The committee chair must receive nominations no later than October 1, 2011. Nominations received after this date may not be considered.

Information about past recipients of these awards may be found on the AFA website.

Send nominations and submissions for the 2011 awards to:

Jim Dimock
Speech Communication Department
230 Armstrong Hall
Minnesota State University, Mankato

Mankato, MN 5601

The AFA Distinguished Service Award recognizes long-term service to the American forensics community.  The recipient of the award typically comes from within the forensics community (active or retired).  Nominations do not need to be elaborate.  When possible, however, a nomination file may include a letter of nomination and the candidate's vita, indicating service and supporting items.  Areas of interest to the committee might include items such as: positive impact on the field in terms of current research practices, educational practices, community development, and consideration of career as a model for AFA professionals.

Nominations should be sent to:

David Gaer

Laramie County Community College

1400 E. College Dr. Cheyenne, WY 82001


Distinguished Service Award                          Distinguished Speaker of the Year

1979 - Annabel Hagwood                                    1979 - Henry Cisneros

1980 - Austin J. Freeley                                     1980 - Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

1981 - George Ziegelmueller                             1981 -Thomas Bradley

1982 - Glen Capp                                               1982 - Joshua Everett

1983 - Lucy Keele                                              1983 - Larry Pressler

1984 - Wayne Brockreid                                   1984 - Paul Simon

1985 - Malcolm Sillars                                      1985 - Richard Lamb

1986 - Jack Howe                                              1986 - Frank Zimring

1987 - Vernon McGuire                                    1987 - C. Everett Koop

1988 - Donn Parson                                           1988 - Ann Richards

1989 - David Zarefsky                                      1989 - Dianne Feinstein

1990 - Raymie McKerrow                                                1990 - Lawrence Tribe

1991 - Gerald Sanders                                       1991 - William Brennan

1992 - Walter Ulrich                                           1992 - Barbara Jordan

1993 - Scott Nobles                                            1993 - Hilary Rodham Clinton

1994 - Jerry Anderson                                       1994 - Brian Lamb

1995 - Larry Schnoor                                        1995 - Barbara Jordan

1996 - Bill Balthrop                                           1996 - Bill Moyers

1997 - Rebecca Bjork                                       1997 - Franklyn Haiman

1998 - James W. Pratt                                       1998 - Kofi Annan

1999 - Joseph W. Wenzel                                  1999 - Columbine High School Parents

2000 - Jerry M. Goldberg                                  2000 - Jimmy Carter

2001 - James A. "Al" Johnson                         2001 - Jimmy Carter

2002 - Guy Yates                                               2003 - Janet Reno

2003 - James F. Klumpp                                    2004 - Christopher Reeve

2004 - Dale Herbeck                                           2005 - Nina Totenberg

2005 - David Hingstman                                   2006 - Nancy Pelosi

2006 - Melissa M. Wade                                 2007 - Paul Newman

2007 - Allan Louden                                      2008-Sandra Day O'Connor

2008-Duane Fish

2008-Bruce Manchester

2009-Ross Smith

2009-M'Liss Hindmann

2011 Alta Conference

The 17th Alta Conference on Argumentation will be held July 28-31, 2011, in Alta, Utah. Cosponsored by the National Communication Association, the American Forensic Association, and the University of Utah, the Conference brings together scholars interested in all aspects of argumentation. All sessions will be held in the Cliff Lodge at Snowbird in Alta, Utah, which also provides lodging and meals as part of a four day conference package. Thomas A. Hollihan of the University of Southern California will be the keynote speaker. Presented papers will be considered for publication in the Conference volume.

  • Call for Papers, Panels, and Abstracts
  • Conference Housing Information
  • Copyright agreement for authors submitting to volume (doc) (pdf) (attach to papers and submit at registration; signature of each author required on co-authored work)


Conference Web Site:

Conference Director: Robert C. Rowland , Department of Communication Studies, 102 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-7574

Local Host: Danielle Endres, Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112

AFA Tournament Calendar.  To have a tournament listed in the published calendar, tournament hosts can submit information to the AFA website:  Submit a tournament. Information may also be submitted directly to the calendar editor:   Include the tournament dates, tournament name, contact information for the tournament host, events to be held, and number of preliminary and elimination rounds.  Information should be submitted by June 1, 2011.


* = Committee chair

 Educational Development and Practices Committee

*Megan Houge Koch, Illinois State University (term expires 2011) -

Wade Hescht, North Harris College (term expires 2011) -

Ken Young, James Madison University (term expires 2012) -

Curt Gilstrap, Drury University, (term expires 2012) -

NEWLY APPOINTED: Rae Lynn Schwartz Dupre, Western Washington University (term expires 2013)

 Finance Committee

*Lee Mayfield, James Madison University (term expires 2012) -

Larry Schnoor, Minnesota State University, Mankato, (term expires 2011) –

Bobby Imbody, Kansas State University (term expires 2011) -

Aaron Duncan, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (term expires 2012) -

NEWLY APPOINTED: Ben Voth, Southern Methodist University (term expires 2013) -

 Professional Development and Support Committee

*Jason Warren, George Mason University (term expires 2011) -

David Gaer, Laramie County Community College (term expires 2011) -

Tim Brown, Cedar Crest College (term expires 2012) -

Susan Collie, University of Wisconsin-Stout (term expires 2012) -

NEWLY APPOINTED: Randy Cox, University of Texas, Austin (term expires 2013) -

 Publications Committee

*Stephen Croucher, Bowling Green State University, Chair (term expires 2011) -

Dawn Bartlett, Doane College (term expires 2011) -

Penni Pier, Wartburg College (term expires 2012) -

Kevin Minch, Truman State University (term expires 2012) -

NEWLY APPOINTED: Matt Gerber, Baylor University (term expires 2013) –

 Research Committee

* James Dimock, Minnesota State University, Mankato (term expires 2011) –

Treva Dean, University of Alabama (term expires 2011) -

Richard Paine, North Central College, (term expires 2012)

Chad Kuyper, Florida State College, Florida State College, Jacksonville (term expires 2012) –

NEWLY APPOINTED: Peter Pober, George Mason University (term expires 2013) -

 NDT Committees

 National Debate Tournament Committee

Ron Stevenson, Wayne State, Central Representative (term expires 2011) 

Tim O'Donnell, Mary Washington College, VA, Eastern Representative (term expires 2011)

REAPPOINTED: Edward Lee, Emory University, Southern Representative (term expires 2012)

REAPPOINTED: Sarah Partlow, Idaho State University, Western Representative (term expires 2012) -

 National Debate Tournament Board of Trustees

Scott Segal, Bracewell & Guiliani (term expires 2011) -

Allan Louden, Wake Forest University (term expires 2012) -

Sherry Hall, Harvard University (term expires 2013) -

Greg Rosenbaum, Palisades Associates – (term expires 2014)

NEWLY APPOINTED: Daniel Wiese, Grand Valley State University (term expires 2015)

 NIET Committees

 National Invitational Events Tournament Committee

Kellie Roberts, U of Florida, Southern Representative (term expires 2011) -  robertsk@UFL.EDU

Daniel Leyes, Brookdale Community College, Eastern Representative (term expires 2011) -

REAPPOINTED: David Gaer, Laramie County Community College, Western Representative (term expires 2012) -

REAPPOINTED: Karen Morris, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Central Representative (term expires 2012) -

 National Invitational Events Tournament Board of Trustees

Lee Mayfield, James Madison University (term expires 2011) -

Penni Pier, Wartburg College, Iowa (term expires 2012) -

Kellie Roberts, University of Florida (term expires 2013) -  robertsk@UFL.EDU

Leah White, Minnesota State University Mankato (term expires 2014) –

NEWLY APPOINTED: Marlin Bates, University of the Pacific (term expires (2015) -


American Forensics Association Business Meeting

 November 13, 2010


Parc 55 Hotel 4-7pm

 Approval of Agenda

 Meeting Starts @ 3:59pm


Rich Edwards calls meeting to order

 Rich Edwards – We distributed last year’s minutes electronically. Are there any additions or changes? Since I’m hearing none, can we approve last year’s minutes?

 Motion – Jim Dimock, Jim Klump

 Meetings Passed

 Rich Edwards – It’s now time for reports for the committees.

 In terms of slots, we lost one, the convention planner that he passes off to Scott. For the building bridges convention, San Francisco is a smaller site, so we lost one slot. We had 15 slots; NPDA got one of those slots. So, we have 14 sessions at the convention, I encourage you to take them in, they are all listed in the NCA program.

 From the President’s Report:

-Dan and others dealt with these issues. Kevin Minch dealt with whole CIDD issue with NCA over the past few years.

 Kevin Minch – As many of you are aware, NCA discussing shutting down the Committee on International Discussion of Debate. We were able to get a stay execution. We were able to discuss insurance and reevaluate some things. We are trying to get liability off NCA; AFA helped. It looks like we have most of the issues resolved. The first committee meeting is tomorrow, so I’ll know more after meeting. Some of you know this; the British are in the US; that tour ends shortly. The Japanese contingent is in the spring. The Americans are in Japan in summer. So, we will catch up by summer. NCA is more comfortable with situation. The British are doing demonstration on Monday. All Academic Calendar provide a helpful profile.

 Rich Edwards – Kevin, we appreciate your work. NCA had a lot to do. We just hosted British at Baylor.

 Rich Edwards – We have a great debt to Dan and Jim for sharing advice and suggestions, Jim for saving all of us.

 Scott Harris – New Vice President of AFA:

 I’m very excited to be involved, I’m leaving to go to planning mission, and to plan for next year. In New Orleans, the topic is voice.

 Daniel Cronn-Mills – I have nothing in particular to share.

 Dan Lingel – I’m the new rep for high school affairs from Dallas Jesuit.

 With my work with the 2 year circuits. I’m hoping to recruit more high school coaches and teachers. I’m been in a high school for 17 years. Need more educators to come our way.

 M’Liss Hindman– Forensics alive and well in two year circuit.

 Kate Lavelle –  Please give me newsletter items. Email to

 Jim Pratt – Financial Report

It’s printed out on green. Everything is good news and in good financial shape. I have only a few things to point out.

1. Page 2 – line 80 – there’s a whole column of expenses for Argumentation & Advocacy. We had 7 issues of Arg and Advocacy last year, normally, we are on budget for 4. We will be on schedule by the end of last fiscal year. It costs extra, but we have collected money in the past, already been received some new money.

2. Page 1 – line 9 – 186 v. 51 references subscription agencies, such as libraries. They don’t like to pay for future subscriptions without the last issue of the previous one in hand. They’ve withheld money, and are sending it our way.


Ballot sales continue at even keel. It’s a service; it helps the support of Catholic high school friends. It doesn’t cost us money, and it helps us balance out on income and expenses

 Line 23 – For royalties, the numbers continues to go up each year from EBSCO electronic publication for Argumentation & Advocacy. We have 14,000 payment is guaranteed royalty. This is an important source of income.

 Jim Klumpp – I’m going to read a report from historian (Jerry Sanders)

 Thank. I’m missing this first convention missed in 40 years, but I have a short report to us. We have a search for new historian for AFA. We think under present circumstances, it’s a prudent thing to do. We’d like to bring this person up to speed. We still have administrative tasks up to from the former president of AFA (there is an oral history project). We have more of colleagues interested in research at archives at University of Utah. We will continue as long as I can to be of assistance. I can do no more than labor of love. We will continue fund raising; we want to invite life members to start another contribution. It has been a few years since I wrote the first one, not too soon to write another one. I would like to submit an article to the newsletter. We need more research & scholarly work; I’m not trying to usurp new person. Any way to help, I would consider it.

 Status Quo Figures

There is $925 in archives fund. Any thoughts for application and awarding of research grants?

 I wish you great success the best regards Jerry

 Rich Edwards – We owe Jerry a debt of gratitude for all of his work.

 The National Council has approved requests for fundraising. He has asked the National Council to prepare a replacement, it seemed apparent not ready to resign. We have appointed Jim Klumpp as the historian in waiting.

 Jim Klumpp – I don’t share Jerry’s politics. I agreed to do it. Jerry’s not done yet. I will work with Jerry so when he is ready to hand things over, at his speed, we can begin doing things that he’s talking about.

 Rich Edwards – Thanks for being willing to work in this capacity.

 Can we have the Reports of Standing Committee?

 Educational Development – Wade Hescht

 We’ve appointed a new chair, Curt Gilstrap Drury University. Is there acceptance of the report of the committee?

 It has been accepted.

 Report of Finance

 Lee – Thank you for the proposed budget. Thank you to Jim for preparing it, I move that we accept his budget.

 Jim Pratt – most of it is the same as it was in the past. Added with Cate’s request, to have an editorial assistance with Argumentation & Advocacy. We want to pay the editorial assistant during summer months. During the during the regular school year, UNI assumes expense

 For website maintenance, we have made a $600 request. We also have an item of $2000, a few years ago to be paid to Delfine Massey (reconstructed design). She offered to remain as webmaster, replacing Al Louden, assisting in the past. Assuming a liason with people in the organization, we have not published a directory since 2007. We are eager to get an electronic version up; it is just around the corner, since we have someone who is paid to do it.

 Rich Edwards – Do we have any questions about budget?

 Acceptance of Budget/Finance Committee

 Professional Development & Support

 Our new Chair is Susan Colley from the University of Wisconsin-Stout

 For the AFA Distinguished Service Award, we are please to recognize a member and a strong presence for 32 years. He has been in his current position for 28 years. For the NIET, he has coached IE, PD, Policy, Parli, and really helped keep organization alive. He is the chair of NIET for the last 4 years and has been named teacher of year. We give the award to Frank Thompson from the University of Alabama.

 All in favor? The report passes.

 Publications – Stephen Croucher.

 I was elected to remain as chair for next year

 I’d like to have a brief discussion of reputation of Argumentation & Advocacy. We have conducted a study of reputation. Kevin Minch, thanks for discussion. We talked to Sue’s committee. Over the past 10 years, we have worked with the committee to see if we could talk about different journals in forensics, see if we could do a similar document with the field. For instance, there are different steps for tenure; we wanted to see if editors could talk to see what their journals are all about. Do they have different purposes? We wanted to see if that could help? It could it be included in the prior documents. We are talking as an idea, to see if it could work.

 Most of committee discussion was about Argumentation & Advocacy.


Cate Palczewski – I’m here representing John Fritch and me. His son is at playoff game.


Short version – We were appointed in November, we started accepting manuscripts in April. It was the summer was when the first issue was printed. There were 3 essays under Hample’s editorship, who finished with us.


Our next issue is a special issue edited by Damon Pfiester. We had healthy with our November 1 deadline. Right now, the copy-editing is getting done.


Our plan is by Winter 2011 to have the 3rd issue on track, which will help us bring in money.


Transition was setting up online Dropal  from the AFA website. Jeff Jarman, our web guru is exceptional.


There were a few glitches, but we have increased the process.


We are taking a yearly report to the editors posting on AFA and the Argumentation and Advocacy website. We don’t have a report from us.


Since April, we have received 40 manuscripts, but we have not accepted any yet. We wanted to finish up Hample’s final 3 months. We will be posting this information on the website. We want to make it easy for authors with promotion and tenure.


Long term planning

We want to redesign of cover of journal. We have commissioned the Women’s Studies in Communication artist. It’s quite lovely. We will have some new covers floating around.


We are trying to create resources on how to conduct good reviews. There really is no place to learn. So we are working with guidelines to teach people how to read reviews. Right now, very few essays are revise and resubmit. The publication rate is high. Most people don’t work through this process. We would like to provide guidance for reviewers and submitters.


Rich Edwards  - I’m pleased that we are back on normal publication schedule.


Rich Edwards – Any questions?


All in favor - Passes


Research Committee – Jim Dimock


  1. We had to determine award winners –

For our dissertation and thesis. We had a number of submissions. We’d like to thank community for making the selection difficult. We agreed to award 2010 Award to Inroads to Outrounds: An intercultural study by Chad Kiper.


  1. ROHRER awards

No 2009 submissions, but we would like to reopen the process. We encourage the community to nominate more people. We’d like lots of good nominations and lots of good submissions.


2009 ROHRER – Toulmin’s Rhetorical Logic – William A. Keith

2010 ROHRER –Latino/as Party Politics – J. David Cisneros. A portion of this work was published in Argumentation and Advocacy.


We are asking the winners of dissertation & thesis award winners to serve on a spotlight panel in 2011 in New Orleans.


  1. We have a few language changes to calls for awards.

Our submissions are up, but they could be higher. There is a lot of great research being done. We want to encourage as many of those and want to see these things recognized.


Proposed Changes

Currently, the ROHRER award reads: “to nominate a scholarly published article” we’d like to strike the letter of nomination. It adds extra work that slows down the process. People feel like they need to write the article. Just submit the article. We wanted to make a statement that we welcome submission. We’d especially want to seek out forensics applications, so we’d like to push emphasize on forensics.


In the call for Brockriede award, we have nonbinding & flexible deadlines. We have not processed one Brockriede grant. We’d really like for more research. There is some money, it is sitting there.


Rich Edwards – We’d like to make submission process easier, need more time?


Jim Dimock- We’d rather have more time.


Report Approved


Nominating committee is making an appeal for nominating committee. David Cheshier says we need nominees.


Report of NIET – Frank Thompson


Thank you for the award


  1. We hosted national tournament at U Wisconsin– Eau Claire. We had 44 schools and 1574 entries.
  2. Larry Schnorr is wonderful
  3. Bradley was the sweepstakes winner
  4. Community College award was won by Tyler Community College
  5. Distinguished Service awards were won by Lee Mayfield from JMU and Leah White from Minnesota State University-Mankato.


In 2011, the University of Nebraska-Kearney will allow us to descend on our town. In a meeting earlier, we have decided that in 2012 Texas State – San Marcus


There will be a development conference in Minneapolis. We will have 44 forensics programs represented with 92 participants, including 25 undergraduates.


Rich Edwards – Tim O’Donnell is not here. The NDT Committee has not met yet, they will meet at Wake. The NDT last year was won by Michigan State University. We have received no indication of any old business.


Gordon Stables – I have some information from the Wake Forest University working group. It’s not a full proposal, but an information sheet. I’m from USC, and I have a term as the President of CEDA. Last year, the NDT and CEDA were hosted at the same school (Cal-Berkeley). It was a big success; we had the largest turnout with 218 teams at CEDA Nationals.

But there is bad news; we need to work with Tim O’Donnell. There are some areas of joint concern, and we have drafted a professional conduct.


They are symptoms of broader problems. We must treat institutional members face at this point.  We have invented debate now, but we don’t have a governing program. Previously, AFA was the organizing space. It changed eligibility standards, which came from NIET, it caught NDT/CEDA by surprise. We have a large problem in dealing with these areas, and last year, we talked the last year’s challenges. Consequently, we have a proposal based on last year’s discussion.


We propose to create a charter by this body that is one tier below. It is designed to serve as an organization below this body, and to provide the hub. We would like the capacity to govern and make changes. We would like a legislature of coaches and would like to select an executive director. We need an executive director to work as the legal face and serve at the front end.


For instance, when the University of Richmond decided to discontinue the team, the university used the argument that based on a representative survey; a student run parliamentary program would work best. It doesn’t require faculty coaching, which is counterintuitive, we know that parliamentary debate requires coaching. We can have difference of agreement in terms of types of activities, but there are places where we agree.


Using a grant process, we would like to increase stories. Our members are in competition, but we could serve the broad collective. The individual members not as part of the organization. We would like to work together on strategic planning. We don’t ask question. Issues emerging and trends in high school, such as the growth of public forum. There are no large-scale ways that they work. Inability to plan is worth creating a larger program.


Last year, we relayed this to the NFL. They were excited to learn that they want to engage them structurally. They offered us free office space and were interested in a working partner.


We want individuals to provide feedback. We want them to be involved in process.


We would like to amend the organization. We are in the process of working with individual charter and groups and another committee. Right now, there are too many of us. We need to reduce individual jobs and committees. It’s important, based on feedback and complaints. We’d like to bring this proposal back to organization for decisions.


Rich Edwards – Gordon Stables has asked for email comments about his proposal at Are there any questions or comments? Gordon is not asking for action at this point.

There is an action item in the publication committee. They would like to make a change in bylaws without notification and it requires a 2/3 vote of those present. The purpose is to provide lead-time in appointment of new editor. Cate and John are not resigning. Once AFA appointed as editors, the person or people are expected to put an issue out in the following summer.


Stephen Croucher – The time frame is difficult. For many editors, the time is very tumultuous and difficult for the editor and others that work with them. It’s rather difficult to make this timeline between November to June, there is not much time. Cate Palczewski asked to extend transition period to make it better.


In Section 9 of the bylaws, the part about the editors of Argumentation & Advocacy.


Currently, the editors of Argumentation and Advocacy are nominated by publications committee and appointed by National Council. Nomination and appointment 2 AFAs before (language from notes)


It doesn’t say in the bylaws when nominations to happen. In the past, it’s always been before start of editorial board. It has been the custom to do it one year before. We need to given them time to learn how to do more logistics and communities and call, and provide more time for the editorial team to get going. We need to give editors can get more time. Section 2 is the same, the term has not changed, we are simply appointing a year early, so the editor elect knows earlier.


Nominations and appointments take place two AFA National Conventions before the beginning of the appointment.


Any questions?


We are formalizing the appointment and nominations of when they take place. They need an extra year for transition. We will forward from publication


Taking a vote – all in favor. It passes unanimously.


Rich Edwards – Any Resolutions? Hearing none, there is a reception from 7 to 10pm.


Entertained motion to adjourn @ 4:50pm.


American Forensics Association National Council Meeting


November 13, 2010


Hearst Room, Parc 55 Hotel

San Francisco


AFA National Committee Meeting –


11:59am – Rich Edwards Starts the Meeting


I.                Call to Order


Introduction of everyone new officers


Members of the National Committee – Includes Chairs of the Committees (AFA)


M’liss Hindman is not here. She is busy with NIET Committees. Three people were conflicted about which meeting to attend.


II.              Reports of Officers and Committees


I.                Wade – Standing Committee

Elect Curt Gilstrap Drury University has been elected as the new chair for 2011-12.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – Explains the petition process for graduate students who want to compete at Nationals.


There is a petition if there is a grad student who wants to compete at NDT/NIET. It must be reviewed and discussed. There are standards and guidelines about competition; students can get value besides coaching and judging. These requests are not common, but it does happen on occasion. AFA controls for districts and nationals, but not individual tournaments. Individual tournaments at discretion of tournament hosts about competition for graduate students. It is up to tournament directors to make decisions about competitors.


Rich Edwards – what happens with any ethical violations?


Wade Hescht– It goes to committee.


Rich Edwards – What is the history of the claim of violation?


Daniel Cronn-Mills – We deal with district and nationals, at an invitational, up to tournament director.


Rich Edwards– I would presume that petition comes to me. The petition needs to be routed to Educational Practices Committee.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – NDT/NIET have own internal positions. They can petition for the full NFA to vote on committee. After they voted, participants didn’t bring it up to the full committee


Rich Edwards – Their committee only deals with appeals?


Daniel Cronn-Mills – They can bring it straight to us, but normally works through the charters of the NDT or NIET on this matter.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – NIET made ruling, they just let it end at that.


Wade Hescht– That’s all to report.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – There are no challenges about the new behavioral conduct policy that we implemented last year.


Rich Edwards – Is there a proposal for change and some of the wording, anyone heard?


Wade Hescht – Nothing came to committee.


Gordon Stables  – This is still active. I have a report scheduled for tomorrow. I can follow back up with structural changes. I want to create a neutral third party to understand the process. Given how new the procedure is, can only turn to the committee for information. Need to have someone not directly involved with the committee to help explain the process.


Rich Edwards – It will be available at business meeting for the report. Sit in for M’lssa.


Financial Report from  - Jim Pratt:


Everything is good and ready to go. Started off with good news in finance committee. [Jim passes out a document with line items of budget for AFA] There are a few things that I would like to highlight here:

There is good news, even though it involves expenditure of money. [Referencing the report] Notice on p.2 Line 80, the Argumentation &Advocacy report. We published 7 issues of Argumentation & Advocacy last year. This publication brings us up to date. We just mailed the labels for the next issue, which brings us up to date. We had to pay more money because we are caught up from last year (we only did 3 last year, we were budgeted for four). It cost us more than was budgeted, but we had money left over in reserves, as you can see in the document.  (Bottom line – page 2 – line 101 – took 18,000 out of reserve $$).


In line 9, it talks about the institutional agency money, which are the library subscriptions for Argumentation and Advocacy. Their behavior is that they don’t send dues payments until the last issue is in hand. When we got behind with issues, we didn’t get money from agencies, last year was 51, had 51 payments of about 200-225 subscriptions. We went way up since end of fiscal year. We are continuing to increase our payments from subscription agencies.  Our individual memberships the same, and our dues item good (income).


On line 23, it has royalties. We have an exclusive arrangement with EBSCO for electronic copies of Argumentation and Advocacy. We receive 3,500 per quarter (which is a flat rate subject to variation). We have negotiated an increase in flat rate because they are making money, and we are making money. We will receive 15,000 from EBSCO agreement.


No unusual expenses. On line 43, there are bank charges for processing credit card payments for membership. When people make direct payments or memberships that come in via PayPal, we get charged about 3% per transaction. This is not a matter for concern.


On line 31 (NDT subscriptions).  We make $25,000 tournament income, which is followed on AFA credit card. For the credit card processing charges, we pick them up.


We pick up charges for all other dues. We don’t bill back for credit cards charges. We try to support other activities of other organizations.


Our ballot sales shrunk, but they are staying stable at this point. They are not an income, but the line charge extra penny + shipping and handling. We are selling to the National Catholic Forensics League and High Schools as a good service.


Here’s a White sheet with a copy of proposed budget. I want to make a few changes.


On line 31, we as a committee have decided that it would be an accumulated line item for future conferences ($2500).

On line 34 – Continuing line item ($2500).


We want to encourage, we figure that there will be requests for this kind of funding – put it in every other year for the budget.  It will help with the Argumentation Conference (Line 29), if we have a budget $1000 per year, send them money every 2 years, it will be more consistent and predictable in budget.


These changes have total expenses to 45 – to $58, 650 (change 46).


Rich Edwards   - Does approval part of the business meeting (agenda)?


James Pratt– The chair of committee will present report this afternoon, part of his report is the proposed budget, and the finance committee. There will be votes on both of these issues, approving these changes.


Rich Edwards – I will print it out.


Location Committee – Argumentation & Advocacy funds


There is a motion that involved budget, AFA will provide up to $2400 for editor of Argumentation & Advocacy for the hiring of an editorial assistant. Committee approved unanimously


Rich Edwards – This is a separate budget item, $2400.


Cate Palczewski –The rational for this decision. We found out that our university was willing to support the editorial assistant during academic year. But over the summer, there is no funding for summer. This summer, our Graduate College is helping out, but it won’t happen in the future. We would like to keep our assistant at 20 hours a week to assist with journal. 20 hours a week for 12 weeks, $10/hour, $2400 total.


Rich Edwards – If this funding would be approved, would it go to institution, or who would deal with the money?


Cate Palczewski – How did the $500 in the past get dealt with?


Rich Edwards – It was below 1099 requirement.


Jim Pratt – We sent directly to assistant, just made out a check. Can do it either way, if we do it as a 1099.


Rich Edwards – Do you have to do any other 1099?


Jim Pratt – They send a 1099, the standard form. I’ve notified the IRS that you have gotten the money. The accountant can do anything that we need. Can we make it payable to institution if they prefer to pay it through the system?


Cate Palczewski – There’s a good chance they would take 10% off the top. The Journal of International and Intercultural Communication uses a private contract for their editorial assistant.


Jim Pratt – If you folks think it is a good idea.  Do we need a second here?


Rich Edwards – Tell us procedurally what to do.


Jim Pratt – It becomes a part of this group?


Rich Edwards– Part of other items, bring it up later.


Rich Edwards – Chair recommendation?


JP – Aaron Duncan from Nebraska – Chair recommendation?


Rich Edwards– Can we talk about how to approach later, new business item and how to handle it? It should be since the finance committee did not bring that up.


Professional Development – No one is here – only one member here


Rich Edwards – We have been communicating via email. We have selected Frank Thompson for the service award. Last year, he directed the NIET, and received strong support on committee. It seems obvious that would be a well-deserved award.


Rich Edwards – It makes sense to present at the NIET.


Daniel Cronn-Mills –We can order the plaque, take it to NIET and we’ll have a big splash.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – We need to reinforce to incoming chairs that they need to push out award nominations to the various communities.


Rich Edwards – I copied a lot of the charges to the committees from Daniel Cronn-Mills, I looked at bylaws, did not give them the charge for a speaker of the year. They did nominate a speaker of the year, when I spoke to him, too late for the committee to deal with it. Where are we at the speaker of the year? There have been a couple of years where we didn’t do one. Does the national council want to nominate or approve a speaker of the year? Something that we have to think about


Daniel Cronn-Mills – Should we bring in anyone outside of forensics? 


Stephen Croucher - We need to think about it. We don’t want to do one, but we should try to think about it.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – I’ll contemplate it.


Publications Report?


Stephen Croucher– We talked about Argumentation and Advocacy. We talked about the reputation of the journal and forensics publications. We discussed a few years ago, talking about redesigning the cover, and dealing with some of the potential, where does Argumentation and Advocacy stand? Cate and John [Fritch] are trying to address these issues. Our committee can’t address everything. Some things we can’t take care of. One of the things that Kevin mentioned, Professional Development & Support, thinking about tenure guidelines. We should look at all forensics journals and other forensics journals. Talking with different editors, have them write a short synopsis. Who is there journal? What are their aims? Maybe try to do more with professional development and publication. Try to do more on rank and tenure. Try to hash out cooperation. If we look at journals, if you’re at a non-forensics school, you may need help in explaining to the tenure committee. These types of questions, work in previous report, do something next year.


Stephen Croucher – The electing chair, Rich reappointed me to committee. All business.


Cate Palczewski  – Argumentation and Advocacy. John Fritch and Cate Palczewski are editors. There will be a special issue about Logos and Logosphere (guest edited by Damien Pfister).  Dale had three accepted issues, the issue at press. There are three under Dale, 2 book reviews, all appearing.


Next issue within minutes – issue that is a nice transition issue –we have an issue explaining the last three essays. We have an essay explaining last three essays. We have pieces from Mitchell et. al, Doyle Schrader, and a quantitative piece.  Then, we have a special Issue by Damien Pfister. Right now, essays have been selected, and ¾ essays are copy editing now. By Winter 2011, we should be back on schedule with issues with submissions under editorship. We think that we will have an issue out on time. Get back on the schedule for payments.


The end result is, we have a different time line. It is too fast to have the editors, get elected and turn around. We’d like to push it back another year to the official take over of the journal.


Stephen Croucher –Could we propose to the committee here? Changing time frame for editor position (4 year term), where would we make this change?


Rich Edwards – In the by-laws, it says that it’s a 3 year term.


Stephen Croucher– Could we have a one-year editor elect position? We’d have to change the bylaw to make an editor elect position. It would be 3-year editor position, with a transition. Right now, there is so much to deal with everything. The committee is in full support to help transition of journal. There is no financial burden on AFA for this change, it doesn’t not hurt the current editor, nor does it diminish prestige. It’s a one-year editor elect, like with AFA.


Daniel Cronn-Mills [to Cate] Are you in for 4 years?


Cate Palczewski – We are assigned to cover 3 volumes; that’s what we are covering. We are locking down 49, and having a new person come in to get 50 ready.


Rich Edwards – If we changed the bylaws, still problems of getting elected now.


Cate Palczewski – If the person who follows us is selected one year in advance, it helps with editorial works, such as what do they want to do for submission. It solves administrative problems. But it doesn’t address the submission numbers.


Stephen Croucher – It gives them time to start communicating in the process.


Scott Harris – Do we need to have this change? Create a new position?


Jim Pratt – It should be clarified in the by-laws. We don’t have to create a specific position; we just need to change the appointment date to a year earlier. It could be easily changed.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – We just need to stipulate it.


Rich Edwards – It needs to be in the Bylaws, nominated by the publicity committee, and appointed by council. They can appoint associate editors, concurrent with current editors. The editor of Argumentation & Advocacy serves a three-year term.


Scott Harris – We could select as associate editor for a year, and then they could be promoted to editor.


Stephen Croucher – When are they elected?


Gordon Stables – You could hold an election a year prior, following the normal schedule.


Stephen Croucher – Just add to bylaws for the charge of the publications committee.


Scott Harris – Just don’t start the clock.


Stephen Croucher – Just state when the term begins.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – The selection is there, appointment here.


Cate Palczewski – Let me throw one more pebble into this discussion (this is John’s idea). 50th year is after our term. John wants to be editor for volume 50. He wants to offer, if you want to keep us on, we would be planning for a gangbuster set of issues for the 50th anniversary year. John wanted to propose this, why not break the rules more. You can’t judge how we are doing, if you are thinking about next year appointing the editors. We aren’t interested in another term, but we would be willing to stay for another year.


JD – How would it happen?


Stephen Croucher – We didn’t discuss in publications, we would have to start there. Unless we are overruled, we can discuss it next year.


Rich Edwards- My reaction would be a matter of the publications committee; it would recommend a re-nomination or re-election on that year. Nothing that prevents us from re-assigning at any time.


Rich Edwards – The only alternative is changing from 3-4 year term.


Stephen Croucher – We would want to see issues before anything was discussed to renew or extend term.


Rich Edwards – At the appropriate term that we would want to.


Scott Harris- Is the committee ready to make a decision?


Stephen Croucher – In terms of outreach and call, what have you seen issue wise? The idea is this extra year, so it should be an easy re-write.


Rich Edwards – It’s a good idea, a necessary idea. For amendments to bylaws, they are not just commonly understood. Could you work on a revision of the bylaws? These require a 2/3rd majority vote.


Gordon Stables – If you are worried about language and practice, you could you run for the second term to build up the term.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – You have revisions, and have a new editor every 2 years.


Jim Pratt – It could be sunset revisions, which are temporary changes for single amendment that are built into change after previous rule. Running for a 2nd term and then re-signing is cumbersome and confusing.


Cate Palczewski – Part of the problem was the tight process, included in a proposal if we had time during the selection process. Tight time to get documents, part of me springing it was the process last year was constricted.


Rich Edwards – And complicated by the fact that we were behind.


Stephen Croucher – This is a very easy one-sentence fix.


Cate Palczewski – There are 2 issues. First, moving selection back a year. Second, what do we do with 50th anniversary issue?


Stephen Croucher – Right now, it’s one year before, now, it will take 2 years before the editorial term. It says nothing now about when it is announced.


Cate Palczewski – Editorial selection, the first issue is in June.


Rich Edwards – It might be confusing to say two years. Selection should be sufficient to provide a one-year transition.


Stephen Croucher – We’ll work on something…


Rich Edwards – Anything else, everyone comfortable? Jim, does that address the concern that you raised?


Jim Pratt – You could peg it to the national convention, the second national convention prior to the beginning of the term. Without specifying the date, hold the business meeting.


Stephen Croucher – Two AFA National Conventions prior to the beginning of the term.


Rich Edwards – Would it have to pass as a prior convention meeting?


Cate Palczewski – The implication is that next year at this time, the publications committee will be selecting a new editor.


Richard Edwards – I think so, but how does it work with 50th anniversary?


Stephen Croucher – Nominations and appointments take place two AFA National Conventions before the beginning of the appointment.


Rich Edwards – Not amending bylaws by accepting your committee report.


Cate Palczewski – We started using online submission portal. Jeff Jarman set it up and we will continue to keep using it. We are very happy with it.  We have gone to digital editing, final manuscript and CADMUS. It took authors too long to make the editor.

Using track edits on the manuscript, given authors, we have a three-day turn around from the authors. We asked for 10, but this process seems to be working well. All on report sent around.


Things John Fritch and Cate Palczewski are working on:

Redesigning the cover. We are using the Women’s Studies in Communication cover artists because we want to make the journal look more like a top tier. We are putting all publications statistics online, so it will be much easier to cite acceptance and rejection for the journal.

We have the Damien Pfister special issue, followed by a guest edit from Robin Rowland on the 35th anniversary of Goodnight spheres of argument essay.

One of our goals with the journal is to take it seriously to train reviewers to be good reviewers. We send a copy of the letter to the editors to all, and we want new reviewers to learn from elder reviewers. Eventually, we would like to put up things for reviewers, such as how to give good reviews, and how to read reviews for authors. We think that there is an educational value in learning these practices.


Jim Pratt – What is DOI? Dale Hample wrote to me and said that this is something that I should find out about using in Argumentation and Advocacy. I don’t know what this is. His explanation doesn’t make sense.


Stephen Croucher – It’s an element required by 6th edition of APA. The DOI is useless. Most librarians don’t use it. For Argumentation and Advocacy, how do I assign this? Journals look archaic if it doesn’t have it. It seems silly.


Rich Edwards – We just need to have the librarian create a DOI.


Research Committee: Jim Dimock


This year, there was more to look at it, and more submissions than in recent years, so we are covering more awards than typical.


We had 3 submissions for the dissertation and thesis award.


We selected “Inroads to Outroads” – Chad Kuyper (MFA-Thesis from Minn-Mankato) for the 2009 ROHRER award. We had excellent submissions.


Toulmin’s Rhetorical Logic – William Keith (Wisconsin-Mil) & David Beard (Minn-Duluth) was the 2010 ROHRER award


Latino/as Party Politics – A Case Study in Argument – J. David Cisneros was the ROHRER Award winner.


For other business


Procedural Questions

1.      We want to make some minor changes to the language in the call for the ROHRER awards. Asks for submissions to be accompanied by letter of support. We see it as kind of a barrier that is reducing submissions. Simple email would be fine. Everyone read them, never used the letter as the basis of decisions, we could strike line from requirement, could still send the line. Want to reduce perceptual barrier to ROHRER awards. 2 years, 3 submissions – it’s a step up from last year,  put we’d like to get it up higher.


2.     Use later submissions we could put a deadline on it, or no deadline, don’t pay any attention, forget about.


3.      Don’t know if call language is in the by-laws – 3rd language – editors note, wanted to put a committee note is what we are looking for. Committee felt like we needed to emphasize the forensics of Diss/Thesis and ROHRER awards. Language does say that we are acknowledging in forensics, not and/or. We did it become issues with people in determining award winners. We’d like to stress that we are interested in supporting forensics research, not just argumentation and debate.


Rich Edwards – Dan and I looked; neither of us saw anything about the language in these awards that has been adopted by prior action and committees.


Jim Pratt – I will defer to the person who has there is nothing in the by-laws.


Rich Edwards – My sense is that it is done if the committee and accepts it. Just ask in the business meeting.


Cate Palczewski – Can I speak up even if I agree? There are two things to think about –


  1. The committee changed laws in the past.
  2. Part of the change, just forensics in the past, argumentation got added to expand types of things that got covered. It doesn’t go against original spirit of ROHRER awards. Somewhere there is listed what the ROHRER award is for.


Jim Dimock – It’s clear, but not super clear.


Rich Edwards – Could you put down on paper the particular change?


Jim Dimock – The committee wanted to leave it at the way it is, not a change. It’s just, so you know. As a committee, we are concerned that not everyone realized that it was that way. We don’t want to exclude things that shouldn’t be considered.


Rich Edwards – There were two other cases passed along to me.


Jim Dimock – As the chair Recommendation, my term expires in 2011. The committee was fine with me staying on in this position.


Rich Edwards – Are you willing to accept the position?


Jim Dimock – Yes.


Jim Pratt – Have you assigned dollar amounts to the awards? [The diss/thesis & ROHRER]


Jim Dimock – Have we given cash awards?


Jim Pratt – Just plaque awards


Jim Pratt – Forward me the names and I’ll send out plaques.


Jim Dimock – When the newsletter comes out, I’d like to add a list of distinguished speakers. I’d like to add to it to a list of ROHRER awards and Diss/Thesis winners.


Rich Edwards – The historic list is on the website.


Jim Dimock – Putting it in the newsletter would help.


Cate Palczewski – DOI by Balcon will cost $500. Cate needs more money. The impact for DOIs will be part of a proposal for next year.


Rich Edwards – That’s fine with me.

Rich Edwards – Nothing from NIET or NDT


Gordon Stables – Debate Governance. At the Wake Forest University conference, there was a discussion of the process on governance in debate structure. We need a more streamlined way to function, based on our history; we would like to have a clear path to function. We are presenting a path forward. Today I’d like to provide a rough outline in two steps.


  1. I’d like to begin the process of a new, chartered, committee to serve as a delegated branch below this organization. It could govern as organization for government.


There are tensions, one chartered committee with NDT; there are a series of affiliated organizations. But, if there is interest, a committee of folks should be organized for how this committee would be involved, in terms of structured with new organizations. Not all would choose to do this, you can opt out if you want.


I believe that it would be mimicking high school organizations. For instance, you could have a legislative council (elected) executive director who would be full time, but not at first.


What I’m proposing is an interim step, perhaps to provide course release, where this person is still employed, not on the hook, but I would like to create an additional pool of time for executive director. I think it’s important to create strategic planning and work outside of the organization.  I would like to provide a new rise for discussion.


For example, at the University of Richmond, there were great tensions when the administration decided to cut the policy program and switch to parliamentary debate. There is no situation where the NPDA, answer questions about who signs contract, we don’t have a person who can go in and act as an advocate for policy debate.


This is more of the questions of what is the way that debate grows over next 5-10 years. The lack of a plan is a decision, and it means that we need to make a lot of changes.


Todays draft becomes amendment that needs to be approved. I don’t want it outside of AFA.


Jim Pratt – Is there a funding plank?


Gordon Stables – Generating and money would have to model NFL programs where the membership is limited. We can’t create tariff, but we are investigating larger national tournament. Outside of the organization, we have grant foundation, people like Jon Brushke, and we have individual members.


Last year, we proposed to do a national debate on topic with Gordon Stables and Tim O’Donnell. We want to feed it to individual member schools because member schools far more capable


This plan is designed to help use the infrastructure, elements like new media and work, using pathways to digital literacy provides tremendous incentive, but right now, we are not positioned to be progressive.


Rich Edwards – Gordon Stables, my biggest question is that if it is clear to you that they aren’t interested in having an organization over them that is very determinative, what power would the Executive Director have? Advocate for debate?


Gordon Stables – Well, managing tensions. This organization runs the NDT (AFA). When AFA changed eligibility rules, it changed NDT, ADA and CEDA. Also, tournament practice not governed, for instance, an assistant coach is running a coaches poll, which has a number of benefits for schools.


This should be part of the apparatus, would be NDT ranking structure, part of the narrow focus on NDT, or National Debate Association. They could provide program evaluations and they could be the public face of debate. In a world, the scale of events gives them opportunity. The NDA does planning 2-3 years out, and creates an incentive structure, for instance, things like a lower per night conference than individual levels. Things like $20 hotels, secondary ways to save money for members.


In terms of eligibility, the NDT committee talks about 4 or 5 years. The change in AFA is all positive or negative, right now; it’s a huge problem right now. NDT, CEDA may not manage the change – eligibility is one that is talked about as an issue that needs to be coordinated.


Another place is the NFL, where they have found that private sector are sources. Issues such as the National Topic and Educational Reform topic with some collective action.


Rich Edwards – Feedback?


Gordon Stables – The reaction was unbelievably negative. They were worried about how to judge debates. At the CEDA meetings, booed, why do this?


  1. I’m trying to channel [Ross] – presentation was modest – why not understand?
  2. Richmond example, not equipped to handle the administration cutting the program.


This organization manages the NDT and steps. The AFA could do that through a good course of action. CEDA/NDT are separate with the same 25 people back and forth to meetings. There is something else we can gain from working together.



Gordon Stables – We want others to be in charge of it


Gordon Stables – In terms of research production, issues like Urban Debate, we did research, academically qualified research, we need assessment data on why those activities function.  We want to be able to show how they get a unique educational return, by providing a new evaluation assessment, it leads a lot of programs if they have something like that, and it could work.


Scott Harris – Where do you go from here? Is there a way to create a charter? Could it be a more specified proposal? Removes sense of ambiguity…


Gordon Stables – We want different constituents as part of writing. That needs to be more than my idea for parts of charter and national topic selection. All of it is involved in discussion, CEDA in part of organization, it can’t be in an addition, and it can’t be adding jobs, seen as taking away from something else


Right now, for 110 collegiate policy programs, there are 28 jobs that are regional representatives. We have to get way; it’s a small elected community. What does joint interest look like? Loss autonomy means there is too much overlap between CEDA/NDT. Like current status


Rich Edwards – ADA has affiliate status.


Gordon Stables – I’m worried, there was great discussion about the role of caucus. We have experienced shortage in membership in the change. We always preach the importance of tournament model.


AFA reform would be critical to create the organization, I don’t want it done outside, I don’t want to sever the last relationship, and the institutional affiliations are not as strong. For instance, the NDT committee would prefer to meet at a tournament.


Rich Edwards – Gordon Stables is not asking for a particular thing, he views it as an informative process, and would look for individuals involved in a working group on a charter. We want representation from the community. This means more work and people would have to sign up for committees.


Rich Edwards – Are we comfortable?


David Cronn-Mills – There’s nothing wrong with it. In debate, there is a lot of spread, and public forum is increasing.


Scott Harris- You have a situation where there is a difference between Public Forum v. Policy Debate.


Gordon Stables – The fastest growing high school competition is PF. There is no strong high school analogy.


David Cronn-Mills – Two guys did it, where does it go, how does it interact with other communities?


Rich Edwards – That’s on the agenda for later.


Rich Edwards - For website maintenance, it’s in the budget, we will communicate with Al.


Rich Edwards – When Al talked to me about website changes, he wants to make it more full time, and make it easier, quarterly newsletter, clearer where officers could communicate (paper call).


Jim Pratt – I have not talked to all?


Rich Edwards – Why, he would like more of a Webmaster?


Jim Pratt  - There is a proposal formalizes her as Webmaster.


Daniel Cronn-Mills – Any of national council knows, the interface not intuitive, it doesn’t get done. Chairing committees were not updated. Reverted to old model, which we have to make up.  Lots of people don’t understand how it works.


Rich Edwards – Any other questions?


Jim Pratt – Not need to put on the agenda. My issue is getting online directory, we have not published a directory since 2007. Almost ready to go, when we start paying $600 per year, I’m going to communicate that it must get done.


Rich Edwards – Al Louden felt like he was the go between, he thinks it’s better to pay a small stipend to the person maintaining the website.


Rich Edwards – Jim is here. Jerry Sanders is historian and has done a great service to the organization. He was unable to be here this year; there is some concern that he sort of resigned as historian. He is still interested in working on projects, perhaps serving as a historian emeritus. The committee should consider a replacement, we would be interested in your replacement, Jim Klumpp, are you willing to consider position?


Jim Klumpp –At MD, we have a coach in waiting, Jim as historian in waiting. Historian is liaison to archives. The archives in Utah. Jerry was very active. We don’t want to step in too quickly. Does that make sense?


Rich Edwards – That makes sense. There is an obvious interest in encouraging Jerry to do what he feels comfortable doing. Question for Jim or Dan, if we don’t make the change, should we appoint Jim Klumpp as historian in waiting?


Rich Edwards – What’s the proper procedure?


Jim Pratt – We don’t have it in the report.


Jim Klumpp – This is happened really fast.


Jim Pratt – I’ve indicated that I will continue as long as I can that I can be of assistance. We should begin the search for a new historian for AFA. If you accept that charge, the search is underway.


Rich Edwards – Would it be in order if I would just announce that the council has become the search, ask as historian in waiting? Would that be all right?


Jim Klumpp – How does it work?


Daniel Cronn-Mills – It’s not elected, so I assume it’s appointed.


Jim Pratt – He does ask permission of the council to send another letter to invite life members of AFA to make a contribution to the archives.


Rich Edwards – unanimous vote


Alta – Robin Rowland – AFA Conference


Insert full call of Alta call in the minutes, etc.


Minneapolis IE Conference- Larry Schnorr


Rich Edwards – three items from Larry Schnoor (page in form)

We need to be put in NIET, the points of information from IE development conference.


One action item - $2400 budget item for


Jim Pratt – Let’s strip money from the committees and make a permanent shift. It’s not a bad idea to have the money they for future editors.


We need to get money for Educational Development & Practices, Finance, PD&S – leave them with $100. With the remainder of funds, we don’t need Webmaster line 41 anymore, we take away Webmaster, and leaving website with $500, taking $150 off top.




$300 from unbudgeted reserve – leads to $1900 to $500 presently there in line 28


Rich Edwards – Vote on it. There is a motion to make changes.


Daniel Cronn-Mills ––Second


Unanimous acceptance


Rich Edwards – A procedural question. If group approves budget, approves change? Or do we need to make a separate change?


Jim Pratt – Tell Lee, ask him his change. Whether he has any objections to it, we’ll present it as the recommendation to financial committee.


Rich Edwards – Other items of business?


Rich Edwards – Various items, I will revise agenda for afternoon. No new business items, we will add items based on what happened here,


Daniel Cronn-Mills – For the 50th anniversary, if you knew who the editor was, they could be guest editors for 50th year. That person could appoint them, and if we found person well enough ahead. They could plan for 50th year, and that person would come in knowing that they would have a two-year. We could plan in transition year and avoids all of the languages and changes.


DL – Could always split them?


Rich Edwards – Anything else? Add new items to agenda


Adjourned at 2:06



Bylaw change for research

Nominations and appointment shall take place two AFA National meetings before the start of the editorial term.


Alta Deadline - March 4




Robin Rowland wants to remind folks that the deadline for submission to Alta is Friday March 4, 2011.  As those of you know who have attended the conference, Alta combines high quality scholarship with a very congenial setting.  I hope that you will consider submitting a paper, abstract, or panel proposal. 

Call for Papers, Panels, and Abstracts

Theme: Reasoned Argument and Social Change

Submissions for the Program: Please send electronic versions of completed papers, panel proposals, or extended abstracts to the Conference Program Planner, Robert C. Rowland<> ( by Friday, March 4, 2011.

Deadline for Submissions: Friday, March 4, 2011

Submission Format: Drafts of completed papers. Papers should be no longer than 3,000 words, excluding notes and references, in APA form, and submitted as a MS Word document (doc), WordPerfect (wpd), or Rich Text (rtf) format, with MS Word preferred. Authors must also obtain written approval to publish any copyrighted material Evidence of permissions must be presented at the Conference.

Panel proposals should provide a title, names and addresses (including email) of participants, an abstract for each paper, and a brief explanation of the importance of the panel (500 words or less). If respondents are included, their role should be explained. We discourage panel proposals in which all participants are from the same institution.

Extended abstracts of paper proposals (at least 500 words) should be substantial enough to indicate the scope, direction, and merit of proposed papers. Assessment will be based on the evaluators' understandings of the projected paper discussed in the abstract.

If possible, submissions should reflect the Conference theme.

Multiple submissions are permissible, but not encouraged.

Presentation Guidelines: The Alta Conference encourages discussion and audience participation. Thus, each oral presentation (paper or response) should not exceed 15 minutes and the total presentation time for a panel (papers and respondents) should not exceed one hour.

Conference Proceedings: Papers delivered at the conference will be reviewed for possible publication in the Conference Proceedings. Only completed papers (including those proposed for panels and in abstracts) forwarded to the Conference Program Planner by July 1 will be considered for inclusion. Papers may not exceed 3,000 words, excluding notes and references. Endnotes should not exceed two double-spaced pages and should be in the same font as the rest of the paper (12-point, Times New Roman). Papers must follow APA style. Authors who wish to have their papers considered for publication in the Proceedings will also need to bring three hard copies of their papers with final edits completed, 1 disk copy, a copyright agreement (doc<>, pdf<>) signed by all authors, and appropriate permissions on any material in the essay requiring permission for publication.

Graduate Student Scholarships: Limited scholarships are available for graduate students whose institutions are unable to provide financial support. Please indicate if you are a graduate student who wishes to apply for a scholarship and have your advisor send the conference director a brief letter of support.

Conference Director: Robert C. Rowland<>, Department of Communication Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045.


AFA Budget Report will be sent as a separate attachment.


 All ballot forms consist of three pages: original on white, and two carbonless copies on pink and yellow. Form W also has an additional white half-sheet.


All ballot forms are supplied in lots of 100 @ $15/100


A: CEDA with boxes (8-1/2 x 14")

E: Without boxes  (8-1/2 x 11")

H: Lincoln-Douglas without boxes (8-1/2 x 14")

P: Parliamentary (8-1/2 x 14")

W: With short form, with boxes (8-1/2 x 14")


All orders are sent via Federal Express and are subject to a $5.60 handling and packing charge plus actual Federal Express charges. Usual delivery time is two weeks; Second Day Air or Next Day Air are available at an additional charge.


BY TELEPHONE: 1-800-228-5424

BY FAX: 1-888-314-9533


BY MAIL: Box 256, River Falls, WI 54022-0256

All orders will be confirmed.

 Specify form, quantity, date needed, shipping & billing addresses.

Invoices sent after shipment.