The Chairperson informed the members that the Minutes of the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997 had been timely forwarded by the Stellenbosch Committee, but they had been misplaced during the moving of EOC offices and had not been retrieved yet. As a consequence, the approval of the Minutes of the XVII WDC Meeting was tabled for a later meeting on January 5, 1998.

The Chairperson proposed then that the WDC discusses the three outstanding issues from the Stellenbosch Meetings, namely:

• Report of the Revision Committee
• The n-1 rule for adjudicators
• The verbal adjudication proposal

Rd’C: Suggested that since the Report of the Revision Committee contained several amendments to the WDC Constitution, it would have been better to discuss during the meeting of January 5, 1998.

The suggestion was unanimously accepted. The Council went on to discuss the other two issues:

During the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997 a motion was passed that each participating University must send one adjudicator for each team after the first.

Chair: Informed the WDC that the "rule" has been observed with great diligence on the part of the Executive Organizing Committee (EOC) and the two cases where the "rule" was not enforced were results of "force majeur" (people falling sick just prior to the arrival)

CAN: Inquired about incidences where judges were turned away.

Chair: Explained that these were limited cases and had to do with adjudicators who applied for participation after the registration deadline.

SCO: Inquired as to the experience and the ranking of the adjudicators

CRO: Inquired what happened in Stellenbosch

Chair acknowledged Simone Murray (SMu) Deputy Chief Adjudicator

SMu: Explained the ranking of judges was done on the basis of their documented past ranking in WUDC as well as the information that they provided in their registration forms and personal knowledge when applicable.

MAL: Indicated that some of the experienced judges get to judge "low" debates

SMu: Explained out that the tournament is in the third round and as power-pairing had only been effected for the last two the effect might not be obvious just yet.

PHI: Proposed that the information regarding the ranking of adjudicators be passed on from one Organizing Committee to another.

SMu: Agreed that this can be arranged

RSA (Carel): Pointed out that as a result of the n-1 rule there was an inflow of judges who were not necessarily qualified. No EOC should be blamed for outside inexperienced judges.

Rd’C: Inquired as to whether there is a problem with tabulation

Chair: Informed members that there were only a few instances where the Chairpersons were misallocated

NZL: Reported one incident where there was no third judge in the panel.

Chair & SMu: Indicated that every effort was being made to avoid this and that during the first three preliminary rounds there were no debates judged by only one adjudicator. Still, the tournament rules allow for panels of two or even a single adjudicator.

SMu: Added that some judges simply leave without notifying

IND: Proposed that we allowed flexibility among the judges to decide for themselves who is more experienced.

SMu: Pointed out that this may have potential for abuse.

SCO: "Institutions should take responsibility for judges and even get penalised if their judges do not show up."

RSA: Asked whether only experienced judges should be allowed to participate

SMu: Indicated that a problem may rise when new countries participate. What about global expansion?

PHI: Proposed a motion that all adjudicators go through a test and are ranked. Institutions should train their judges.

MAL: Asked whether information on judges was transferred from Stellenbosch to Athens.

Chair: Answered that it was and pointed out also that last year’s judges constituted only a small percentage of this year’s.

CAN: Reported that he had rankings and information on judges but they were not accepted.

Chair: Answered that he was not aware of the incident and would look into it.

PHI: Re-addressed the issue of tests and inquired about their effectiveness.

Rd’C: Stated that tests are good and effective and proposed that accreditation tests for judges are organised on Day 1 of each round of the Championship.

SMu: Suggested that this might constitute a problem since videotapes of past finals are common knowledge.

CAN: Proposed instead a live debate similar to the one organised in Cork and moved that the matter be addressed by the Review Committee.

During the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997 a motion was passed that verbal adjudication (including the announcement of results) will be employed on a trial basis in Athens.

Chair: Informed the WDC that the EOC after careful consideration of the conditions and information available viewed this as a very risky exercise and in many ways a logistics nightmare (similar to what happened in Toronto in 1991). Went on to explain that in two instances when it was tried in Greece, not only did it cause substantial delays and aggravation, but also led to several instances where adjudicators were harassed by debaters who disagreed with the decision that they made.

ISR: "The important thing is for the adjudication sheets to be given out before the end of the tournament."

IRL: Suggested that oral adjudication could have caused a lot of tension and arguments.

MAL: Suggested that according to the WDC motion the results should be announced after every round.

Rd’C: Asked on what authority Athens did not comply with the motion.

Chair: Replied that according to the EOC’s estimations it could not be done and it could have a serious effect on the tournament.

ENG: Suggested that probably it can not be done. We have to be realistic.

AUS: Related her experience that verbal adjudication can go on after each round.

RSA: Suggested that it can not work.

NZL: Explained that such a system works in Australasian competitions.

Chair: Suggested that the EOC was not aware of it.

PHI: Asked how much time is required for tabulation.

Chair: About 40 minutes.

CAN: Asked whether Greece can simply violate the rules by not practising verbal adjudication.

SCO: Suggested that the Council’s decisions can not be disregarded.

NZL: Pointed out that nevertheless, pragmatics do count and that the EOC does have authority.

IND: "There has to be flexibility."

USA: Agreed that there has to be flexibility on issues but not on those in the constitution.

Chair: Pointed out that the employment of verbal adjudication on a trial basis was a motion and not a constitutional article. The EOC did its best endeavours but it was not possible to implement it.

Rd’C: So! A meeting of the Council should have occurred PRIOR to the tournament.

Chair: Suggested that this was not feasible because there are not always permanent bodies regulating debate in each country.

NZL: Proposed that for this tournament the adjudication sheets be given to the participants at the end of each day up until the sixth round.

CAN: Asked whether Philippines will employ verbal adjudication.

PHI: Answered positively because it works for them.

ISR: Proposed to table this discussion until next year when it will be tried.

NZL: Suggested that both can be done.

Motion unanimously approved that results and adjudication sheets are released as soon as possible before the seventh round of the competition.

Chair: Acknowledged Carel Nolte (CNo), Chairman of the EOC of the XVII WUDC.

CNo: Presented the financial report on the Championships which in effect indicated a deficit SAR 140.72.

Chair: Informed delegates that participation in the tournament had exceeded 800 people. The tournament will probably run with a small deficit mostly due to the size of social events, but the college has agreed to cover the difference. Pointed out also, that as the EOC did not constitute a separate legal entity, Deree College had undertaken full control over the finances of the tournament and that at the end of this entire exercise they would be a complete report-audit by an independent accounting firm.

MAL: "Judges are always last in the queues."

CAN: "The queues are very long."

Chair: Indicated that the problem of long queues in the cafeteria was addressed by the EOC and was solved.

PHI: Mentioned that there was a huge problem with Visas.

Chair: Informed members that this was a result of the recently enforced Shenghen treaty. The EOC worked closely with delegates from those countries that could not secure a Shenghen Visa in order to make sure that they were allowed to enter the country. Apart from the fact that the EOC was in close contact with the Greek ministries of Foreign Affairs and Public Order, the Championships Chair, Secretary, and the Tournament Director were at the Passport Control at the airport when the first delegates from the Philippines arrived and an EOC contact has been there since.

Chair: Acknowledged Peejay Garcia (PJG), Chief Adjudicator, XIX WUDC, Ateneo de Manila University.

PJG: Informed the delegates that they have chosen their Deputy Chief adjudicators, namely John Long, Ray d’Cruz, Ben Richards, and Omar Sallahuddin. Accreditation tests will be conducted for all judges as part of a new institution which they will introduce in Manila, the World Masters Debating Championships.

The WMDC will be an open event held simultaneously with the WUDC where competitors are selected by their respective countries. Competitors may be graduates, post-graduates, or whatever else have you and they will all be expected to adjudicate in Worlds.

Visas will not be a problem and what is more, they will be a special queue at the airport at Passport Control.

Because the tournament will be expanded from 7 to 8 days, and because of recent economic developments the participation fee will increase to USD 295.

Moreover, in an effort to keep the tournament to a manageable size we propose to put a cap on participation.

Finally, we will enforce oral adjudication.

CRO: "Will there be arrangements for travelling?"

PJG: Indicated that participants will have to arrange this individually.

USA: Asked what the cap will be.

PJG: Answered that the cap will probably be up to 2 or 3 teams per university.

SCO: Asked whether there will be any deviations from the cap in favour of Asians.

PJG: Indicated that they will be no deviations for anyone. There will be uniform application of the n-1 rule and the cap.

CAN: Suggested that the cap should not apply for future tournaments.

IND: Asked what the criteria for financial assistance will be.

PJG: Indicated that they will probably apply to participants from developing nations and would mostly be discounts.

Motion passed unanimously that the Ateneo de Manila University, Manila, Philippines will be the hosts of the XIX World Universities Debating Championships.

Chair: Wished the Manila Organizing Committee the best of luck in their endeavours.

Chair: Acknowledged representatives from the University of Sydney (SUU).

SUU: Presented the University of Sydney’s bid, indicated that there will be no problems with the Sydney Olympic Games, and that as a matter of fact, the Championships is considered an Olympic event. The principles of oral adjudication, the cap and the N-1 rule will apply. Participation fee is estimated at USD 250-300 for 8 days. Finally, Julian Morrow would probably undertake to be Chief Adjudicator.

ENG: Asked whether there will be financial assistance for countries from Europe since both tournaments in 1999 and 2000 will be so far away

SUU: Answered that arrangements will be made with Quantas for cheaper tickets and the option of accommodation in dorms will be offered.

Motion passed unanimously that the University of Sydney Union, Sydney, Australia, will be the hosts of the XX World Universities Debating Championships, conditional to confirmation of the bid by the WDC during its meeting in Manila.

During the X World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1990 a motion was passed that as of 1991, no individual be allowed to participate in the Championships more than four times ("grandfather clause").

Chair: Pointed out that the ‘rule’ has never been enforced and that it constitutes an extremely difficult task for any EOC to perform such a check as there are no records from previous championships.

CAN: Indicated that a way must be found to maintain and forward history.

IRL: Pointed out that violations occurred both at Cork and Stellenbosch.

SCO: Pointed out that the WDC needs to address also whether participants are actually enrolled to the Universities that they represent.

NZL: Indicated that Unions should be responsible for that.

ISR: "Sanctions should be enforced on Universities which cheat. They could be prevented from making the break."

NZL/ MAL: Disagreed as such an approach does not solve the problem.

Rd’C: "Any effort to start keeping records now will be enforceable in 3 years."

CAN: Insisted that something should happen now

BAN: "Each society and university must undertake the responsibility to check."

USA: "A relevant question should be included in the registration form."

ENG: "People might not necessarily be honest and others may be falsely accused."

Rd’C: "The incidents in these Championships are limited to two or three teams."

IND: "It must be on the institution to set foot."

PHI: Questioned whether we should enforce the rule this year or next year

Chair: Agreed with the previous comment. It needs to be established whether it is feasible to enforce the rule this year, given the apparent lack of information.

ENG: Suggested that it is not feasible to enforce the rule this year, but we should let violators know.

SCO: Pointed out that the rule is common public knowledge and that those who are currently violating it are very much in knowledge of it.

Rd’C: Indicated that in essence this discussion applies to one or two people from specific institutions. Went on to mention that it was brought to his attention that members of a specific team from the University of Western Australia seem to be in violation of the rule.

ISR: Proposed that the WDC decides when all the necessary information is available.

ENG: Questioned whether the information can be made available in time!

Members at this point felt that it was not possible to resolve the matter and it was agreed that the matter is tabled until new information arises.

13:40 Recess for lunch

15:00 Meeting begins.

The Chairperson welcomed delegates. Discussion on eligibility criteria and other related issues then commenced anew. Extensive and very productive discussion then followed regarding the issue in hand and various constructive ideas regarding the effective enforcement of the "grandfather clause" and the implementation of eligibility criteria.

BAN: Proposed that a rule be made that each society accredits the participants who represent it in any round of the WUDC.

USA/ ENG/ GRE: All pointed out how this may not necessarily be possible.

Chair: Proposed the following amendment Article 22 part 1 of the WDC Constitution to (to be voted during the meeting on January 5, 1998)

No individual may compete in more than four Championships in which she/he is eligible to make the break

Pointed out also that the WDC should in effect conclude that teams participating as "dummie", "swing", "shadow", or "home " teams cannot make the final series and should be considered non competing.

ENG: Defined the possible problems of eligibility being institutions that do not exist, delegates that are not enrolled and delegates that the institution does not approve of.

MAL: Proposed that we request from all participants to submit a letter from their society that they are endorsed and a certified Xerox copy that they have registered for at least one course to this institution.

ISR: Suggested that we ask for credentials from the relevant Ministries of Education.

ENG: Pointed out that this may also be a problem

Rd’C: Suggested that MAL proposal seemed the only effective solution.

ENG: Questioned whether this would involve increased paperwork for the EOC

CAN: Suggested that once the existence of an institution is established then the rest of the documentation is rather simple and my be incorporated in the Registration Form. Special attention should paid when new institution apply.

IRL: Moves that a list of recognised debating societies, bodies, university club’s etc. be established to which new ones will be added after proving conclusively their existence.

CAN: Seconded

Motion passed unanimously that for the purposes of the WUDC, a list of recognised debating societies, bodies, university club’s etc. be established to which new ones will be added after proving conclusively their existence.

Two more motions were then formulated (Chair, Rd’C, MAL) and unanimously approved in principle (to be officially voted during the meeting on January 5, 1998):

To be replace Article 22, clause 1:

Competitors who satisfy the requirements of the Article may compete in a team eligible to make the final series a maximum of four Championships. This provision shall take place from January 6, 1990.

To be replace Article 22, clause 4:

Competitors shall provide evidence of their student status upon postal registration or by post within three weeks of Internet registration provided that Internet registration takes place at least eight weeks prior to the Championships.

Extensive discussion took place regarding mostly the course of action that should be taken when institutions fail to complete their financial obligations to the host institutions. In particular, the case of McQuarie University (AUS) which was mentioned in the Stellenbosch Report as not having fulfilled its financial obligations to the host was also extensively discussed.

Rd’C: Pointed out that the important thing is to find a way to protect the host institution from "bad debts"

Chair: Informed members that Athens followed a rather stringent policy and did not allow anyone to participate unless they were paid for. Pointed out however, that there are many parameters that cannot be controlled effectively, such electronic transfer of funds, delays in the banks, etc.

Rd’C: Moved that no individual or institution should be allowed to register and participate in any WUDC if they owe money to any previous host and until they pay that host.

MAL: Seconded

Motion passed unanimously that no individual or institution should be allowed to register and participate in any WUDC if they owe money to any previous host and until they pay that host.

Rd’C: Moved that McQuarie pays the Stellenbosch Organizing Committee

RSA: Seconded

Motion passed unanimously that McQuarie pays the Stellenbosch Organizing Committee.

Chair: Asked for any other comments. As they were none, he went on to thank everyone for their participation and remind them the next meeting of the Council will take place on Monday, January 5, 1998 at 18:30, same venue.

Meeting concluded at 18:00

Chair: Asked if delegates had any comment or remarks regarding the Minutes of the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997.

NZL: Proposed the we approve the minutes of Stellenbosch and that every effort be made to secure a copy of the second meeting in Stellenbosch.

IRL: Seconded

Motion passed unanimously that the Minutes of the XVII World Universities Debating Championship Council Meeting of January 1, 1997 are approved and that every effort should be made so that the minutes of the Second WDC meeting in Stellenbosch be made available in the next WDC meeting in Manila.

Chair: Acknowledged the Chairman of the Revision Committee, Mr. Ray d’ Cruz (RdC). Mr. D’Cruz was appointed Chairman of a Multinational committee established by the WDC during its first meeting in South Africa in order to evaluate the constitution and make recommendations to the Council in Athens

Rd’C: Reported that the RevCom consisted of the following members

• Ray D’ Cruz (chair)
• Brent Patterson
• Omar Salahuddin Abdullah
• Conrad Kemp
• Ben Karlin
• Jeremy Green (not present)
• Tommy Tonner (not present)

and clarified that the amendments submitted have only been endorsed by the members present.

Following a suggestion from ENG the WDC went on to discuss the Proposed Constitutional Amendments submitted by the Revision Committee (RevCom) (pls. See relevant appendix). For each point discussed, there was extensive discussion which was then reflected in the final phrasing of the motion/ amendment. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity the discussion is not recorded in these minutes, but is available should it be required.

To be inserted as Article 7, Clause 11 (to replace the existing clause 11):

On every substantive motion placed before the WDC, delegates representing Status A nations will be entitled to cast four (4) votes, delegates representing Status B nations will be entitled to cast three (3) votes, delegates representing Status C nations will be entitled to cast two (2) votes, delegates representing Status D nations will be entitled to cast one (1) vote.

Status A nations are nations represented by teams eligible to participate in the final series of the Championships from four or more recognised institutions for two consecutive years.

Status B nations are nations represented by teams eligible to participate in the final series of the Championships from three recognised institutions for two consecutive years.

Status C nations are nations represented by teams eligible to participate in the final series of the Championships from two recognised institutions for two consecutive years.

Status A nations are nations represented by teams eligible to participate in the final series of the Championships from one recognised institutions for two consecutive years.

Nations are allowed a lapse of one year in the level of their participation, before their status is downgraded. Any change of status can apply for only one (1) level per year.

IRL/ USA: Moved

ENG: Seconded

Motion passed unanimously with the following clarifications:

• Host university is considered a recognised institution
• At the end of this meeting the status of nations will be determined based on their participation in Athens and will be applied in the meeting in Manila.
• The term "charter nation/s" should be replaced by the term "Status A nations"