Spring Coaches Meeting
Virtual
10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., May 7, 2022
Nyssa Gatcombe (incoming Yarmouth HS), Grace Raftery (Yarmouth HS), Dan Haskell (Cheverus HS), David Paye (Scarborough HS), Jason Curry (Greely HS), Kailey Smith (Camden Hills HS), Melanie Kyer (York HS), Lisa Melanson (Cape Elizabeth HS), Ellen Parent (Falmouth HS), Meghan Charest (Narraguagus HS), Elizabeth Holub (Narraguagus HS), Tom Macisso (Kennebunk HS), D’Arcy Robinson (Poland Regional HS), Pat Spilecki (Lewiston HS)
Nomination: Curry (Denk, Parent). One ballot.
As always, the minutes from the last meeting are posted to maineforensic.org.
Motion for approval: Parent, Kyer. One ballot.
Report coming soon. Our balance is very healthy since expenses decreased during the pandemic via virtual environment. Some of those expenses will translate next year, as the NSDA is charging to run tabulation for on-site tournaments.
Motion: Vote virtually on treasurer’s report when it’s published (Curry, Gatcombe) Unanimous.
Nomination: Denk (Parent, Kyer). Accepted. One ballot.
Nomination: Kyer (Denk, Paye). Accepted. One ballot.
Nomination: Paye (Kyer, Haskell). Accepted. One ballot.
Nomination: Haskell (Denk, Gatcombe). Accepted. One ballot.
Denk: On behalf of at least a couple decades of MFA leaders, I would like to express heartfelt thanks and appreciation for Gene Rouse of Skowhegan for his dedication to the Maine Forensic Association, especially the Extemporaneous Speaking event. He has served as our de facto moderator of the Extemporaneous Speaking room and written probably thousands of questions. He has coached hundreds of students at Skowhegan Area High School and mentored others across the state. We will miss his wry wit, demands to keep us on schedule, and expertise in supporting Extemp competitors.
Denk: Note that this is not a voted position, but I put it on the agenda because we do need to find volunteers to train to run the Extemporaneous Speaking room and write questions. I advocate for more than one volunteer.
Kyer: We ran into a few tournaments this year in which Gene couldn’t moderate.
Parent: I’m happy to run the room. We need to crowdsource questions. It’s a big lift and more than I can take on. Maybe every coach submits questions on the topics. This would also expose students to different types of writing and questions. I can devise a guide to writing Extemp questions.
Denk: We also need to generate topics at the beginning of the season. The speech moderator has often fetched topics from Gene. We could also crowdsource topics. I’ll add this as old business for the Fall.
Gatcombe: I’m interested in helping write topics and questions.
Curry: I see a flaw in the idea of coaches submitting topics and questions in that it discloses some of the questions.
Haskell: Crowdsourcing is a good idea. Also I’m concerned about folks who are here managing capacity. I wonder if the NSDA or another organization can offer topics and questions.
Denk: Yes, the NSDA publishes some things. There are also paid services.
Parent: Sure, some questions could be not a surprise, but students do pick out of a hat and might not hit their coach’s submission.
Nick Waldron has expressed that he needs to offload many of his webmaster and Tabroom support. We are looking for any volunteers to join the Tech Committee.
President-elect Kailey Smith has assumed responsibility as President. Thank you to outgoing President Jason Curry for his service.
Curry: If we do not have an in-person season in the Fall, we might not have an MFA much longer. We saw a decline in enthusiasm and interest, which affected positive competitive spirit. I have debaters who have never been to an in-person tournament, who have been to nationals (virtually). They thirst for the experience.
Gatcombe: I missed this last two years because the season was virtual. Showing up to a tournament was the point. There’s a dynamic in the coaches/judges lounge of conversation is so valuable.
Macisso: It’s imperative that we transition to safe competition. Sports is very much in-person and I can’t sell virtual debate.
Paye: The end of this last year was rough. We lost the Senate chamber at districts. Everyone wants to be back in person, but I’m going to address the other side. Just because sports and other activities do it, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. If COVID numbers do not support safe convening of participants, we need a system that prevents sickness. Long-COVID is a thing and we’re in the middle of another spike. I, too, want to be back to in-person. I’m not going to join an in-person at the risk of getting sick with long COVID.
Parent: Paye makes good points. I’m not a teacher and don’t have kids, so I’m not as close to the response to numbers. I heard Bangor returned to masking. Is this something we have VP Robinson take back to the MPA? This last year, Waldron helped walk us through an exercise to assess what we would need to do to run in-person competition. The logistics are challenging. I’d like to hear more about what schools have in place. Our competition is all day and brings in folks across the state.
Macisso: To clarify, I advocate for safe return.
Gatcombe: This offers an opportunity. If we control the number of people in a room or even cap event entries, it might encourage students to try something else.
Denk: To Gatcombe, we had such low speech numbers, that capping is moot. Leadership ran through scenarios to assess what we would need for safe in-person competition. It’s not impossible, but very challenging. The tech committee cannot advocate for hybrid format due to the length of challenges.
Raftery: Does anyone have insights into how other districts are handling safe competition? Is it possible in-person and some virtual?
Haskell: I support a mix-and-match season.
Kyer: We could run the in-person by event, too.
Parent: Perhaps every other? Allowing a few weeks so that we can see if we become superspreaders? Alternating could also solve some of the transportation woes.
Denk: We’ve landed where I was hoping we would: mix-and-match season. I recommend early season events be virtual for coach-judge experience and novice tournament.
Parent: I caution that we don’t front-end too much of the virtual stuff. Numbers will drop in the winter, which will come with colds and perhaps more COVID.
Kyer: Agreed.
Greely: My issue: If we don’t have live events at the start of the season, kids won’t come back. Yes, some of the training events can be virtual.
Some coaches have volunteered to host and they will confirm their sites with administration over the next few months. We are still looking for hosts, especially for November and end-of-season tournaments. View and comment on the working calendar here.
No representative to speak to this agenda item. The representatives listed above sent a letter to MFA leadership in late January expressing concern that:
Summary from K. Smith: While there is an overall desire for diversity of competition and growth of competition, schools that are not members of a national org expect to be competing against Maine schools since they’ve joined a Maine organization. There’s an inherent conflict of expectation between those schools and those who are members of a national org that expect to send kids to nationals.
Proposal from Melanson submitted by email: Especially since paying the MFA dues is optional (or only required for state championship, I believe), it would make sense to charge non-members (instate or out-of state) a higher fee to participate in the tournament. This is fair because the MFA incurs expenses (as you've outlined in your secretary's report appended to today's agenda) that dues-paying schools cover in addition to their tournament fees. [Another option offered by Tabroom.com support] could be [to assess] a "reasonable" non-member fee if our goal is to encourage more participation.
Points of information:
Haskell: I have no problem at all with out-of-state participants earning awards. We need the numbers and it only improves the integrity of competition.
Curry: It’s an MFA tradition that host schools set the rules for their tournament. If the host allows out-of-state registrants, those participating should be eligible for awards.
Robinson: Welcoming out-of-state competition increases the quality of competition and prepares our students for national competition.
Parent: Agreed. While it’s the host prerogative, the host should consider the burden on tabulation staff to manage the logistics of exceptions the hosts makes.
Robinson: Is there something procedural we need to consider in regards to Melanson’s proposal? Ellen, can you speak more about the tech logistics?
Paye: We don’t do ourselves any service if we isolate ourselves. I propose we let it go.
Kyer: It seems that the goal of charging out-of-state schools more is to discourage participation. Otherwise what is the purpose?
Paye: Agree with Kyer. Every week we have a conversation about how to increase numbers. Allowing out-of-state competition is a primary mechanism for allowing their registration. If anything, we should make it easier for them to join us.
Gatcombe: Bringing in the collegiate competition perspective, the New England district was known for being easy to win. We still welcomed the competition for the diversity of skill, perspective. Those are the friendships we still have.
Robinson: Even considering the expectation of MFA-only members, the diversity of skills and perspectives outweighs. Maine also has a reputation for being welcome and easy to work with. We should foster that.
K. Smith: Agreed. The benefit for the students overwhelms the other arguments. Note that there are some school programs in Maine whose validity is based on the team’s ability to bring home trophies. Let that add perspective.
Sam has been paying out of pocket for our website expenses, including domain and SSL. It’s time for the MFA to assume responsibility for these expenses. Therefore, I have two proposals:
Motion (Denk, Parent). Unanimous.
See Spring report for proposal.
Macisso: Can we get a discount with our non-profit?
Gatcombe: What are the services?
Motion: Pay $6/month and any one-time fees for Google services as of June 1, 2022 (Denk, Kyer). Unanimous.
Statement submitted by Russell ahead of meeting: Promoting collegiality and sportsmanship (esp. in Congressional Debate) -- How can we ensure that students feel welcomed when trying new events? How can we keep the dominance some teams experience in some events (such as Greely and Yarmouth in Congressional) from intimidating newcomers? How can we encourage students to try out new events to increase our whole district's success in NSDA Qualifiers? And how can we make sure that spirit is reciprocated between the two halves of this event? Tangent: How can we ensure that late drops at NSDA Qualifiers do not disincentivize participation by forcing students who have prepared to sit the event out?
Raftery: Russell’s agenda proposal originated from the district tournament when we had to drop the Senate and force some schools (Yarmouth one of them) to drop entries to comply with NSDA caps. In attempt to boost numbers to save the event, Russell heard from some coaches that students were less inclined to register because they had experienced intimidation. On the flip side, Congress needs to support Speech and Debate, which we were called to do, and still had to cancel speech events.
Curry: Point of information: In the case of so many drops, as someone who was watching registration numbers, we observed some large schools ignore the call to support and other schools that dropped their entire entry.
Denk: Do I understand correctly that we’re hearing about overt intimidation happening between students? If so, that’s deeply concerning.
Gatcombe: Some of this lends to a future agenda topic about safe conversations, in that some students have expressed challenges with some of the rhetoric that has come up and don’t feel safe engaging in exclusive conversations. Second, Russell has heard some coaches express that they don’t want to even ask their students to help boost numbers because Congress never helps boost Speech and Debate numbers.
Paye: This ties into docket submissions, too. One was based around religion/Catholicism that was ill-advised in how it was framed. Another was related to LBGTQ rights and the language used in the debate. There is a future agenda topic about how we handle these fraught and sometimes inappropriately framed arguments. We need to engage in debate on tough topics, but we absolutely need to sustain safe space. I’m torn on how to address this.
Macisso: The virtual element adds a difficulty. Even as adults, we have to learn to disagree without being disagreeable; it’s a dying art. Students are shying away from Congressional Debate because we’re losing the art of disagreement. We used to emphasize both sides. Returning to in-person could help provide opportunities to mentor each other through the difficult circumstances.
Curry: Agree with points from Macisso around the down-time/lounge time together. The virtual environment hides the human side.
Gatcombe: To return to encouraging cross-competition, we all fall into our comfort zones and without reciprocity we will continue to sit in our comfort zones. Can we require cross-competition? You’re only eligible for sweeps if you enter in two or more categories? Encouraging students will empower them to understand the other events and be better competitors in their preferred events. As coaches, can we exchange our skills and services to help?
Parent: As coaches and judges, we all have events we prefer and others we dislike. We need to get away from that for the sake of our students. We need to set examples for our students. I’m so proud of my one student who tried Congress. It would also be nice to take focus off the trophies. This is about the experience. I’d rather have my students fail miserably at this than with something higher stakes later in life.
Kyer: When we are live, I would LOVE to see us bring back some of the "exhibition" style activities while waiting for awards. It's an awesome way for kids to cross pollinate.
Raftery: Not sure how this would work in the in-person environment, but a couple of years ago we hosted a student and coach from a different (non-Congress) school in one of our virtual practices, and the student said it was pretty helpful.
Denk: The NSDA District tournament awards up to 4 sweeps, one of which requires entries in all 3 categories. We have some tactical approaches coming out of this conversation; keep those in mind. Don’t lose sight of the fact that this is a cultural circumstance that starts with us as coaches. How we talk about other events with our students—and allow our students to talk about their non-preferred events—matters. Discourage disparagement of other events. Honor preferences (for sure), but redirect the conversation into how interdisciplinary competition can only help their skills and comfort.
Denk: This has been an increasing problem that started even before the pandemic, however the pandemic circumstances have added to the difficulties. We went into this season hoping that a season-opening training would help volunteers feel less anxious about judging and thereby participate more. The tech committee still has plans to post the recording from that event and link to resources from the NSDA, it takes production time and we’re an all-volunteer crew. The fact is, we quickly had to turn our attention to launching the season.
Let me first clarify what has long been true: The burden of recruiting and training judges is on the coach. MFA officers and moderators are volunteers who serve to govern tournaments and events in accordance with the coaching organization. These are responsibilities above and beyond coaching. Therefore recruiting judges is a responsibility that we all need to share. Absent that distributed labor, we are left with throwing money at the problem and that works only when that money is enough to compensate for the gap. I predict that increased fees won’t effect change.
Parent: Denk hits on an important point: Money doesn’t run a tournament, judges do. We have scraped and begged and ultimately thrown in tournament officials to judge. It’s exhausting. If you know a coach who is not regularly judging, offer to train them. It’s weird for a coach to not judge. Judging improves your ability to coach.
Curry: I echo Denk and Parent. From a tabulation room perspective, we see the same people hiring judges and not judging themselves. Don’t pull yourself out of the judge pool and expect someone else to provide for you.
Robinson: Is this something to look at a larger perspective and evaluate this from another direction. Most organizations have a pool of officials/refs/judges. We might want to look at a model like that where we pool judges at the season level to hire out. Note: As a football official, I earn a lot more money for two hours than we pay our judges all day.
Gatcombe: I’ve been that judge who has been hired out. And I’m the judge who has been tapped for all rounds in the day. It’s exhausting and I’ll keep doing it as long as I get fed. However, the average person who dabbles in judging isn’t enough. It blows my mind that there are coaches who aren’t judging. About the quality of judges: Some judge with only the briefing. What can we provide online courses to train our judges? In talking with Macisso, we can try to reach out to Toastmasters. Can we also re-examine our restrictions?
Denk: We do manage a hire pool sometimes, however a bigger effort is resourcing we don’t have. Yes, we have NSDA courses and we should organize these.
Parent: I’m not opposed to creating a judge pool on the MFA side, but I can’t handle this until we’re done with virtual tournaments. My responsibilities in virtual season expanded tenfold, literally. I used to manage finances for one tournament (States), now I manage finances for every tournament.
Kyer: I like the simplicity and elegance of a hiring pool. I also recognize the headache of recruiting judges, however recognize that distributing the recruitment across all coaches is critical. We can’t just put it all on one or two representatives of the MFA.
K. Smith: Can we certify teacher contact hours?
Gatcombe: There are some platforms that would be free/inexpensive for hosting just one or two courses. I’m also volunteering to help generate content.
Robinson: I propose we form a subcommittee. One thing that might be getting in the way of solving this perennial problem is that we’re looking at this with eyes toward the old system. I know the MPA allows you advertise on their site for officials (football does).
Parent: If we do want to provide someone with a stipend, we need to think that through more thoroughly. We might reach out to the MPA for additional ideas.
Proposal: Change the name of Novice Prose Reading and Novice Poetry Reading to just Prose Reading and Poetry Reading. By changing the name, the MPA
Motion: Change the name. (Curry, Spilecki)
Robinson: I’m concerned that entrants will get confused and think they can enter in, for example, Poetry, then run the same material in OIL.
Amended motion: Change the name and update the handbook to describe the event as novice entrants only (Curry, Robinson). Unanimous
Russell’s submitted statement: One of our students was the only competitor to speak in negation on a bill banning conversion therapy earlier this year and was harshly penalized for it (ranked last by the parly despite there being several students who gave more than two speeches fewer than he). It would have been hard to oppose that legislation without being offensive, as indicated by the fact that no one else took his side. If we value even back-and-forth debate yet also an inclusive environment, this may be the only solution. I have attached the NSDA resource that outlines how they assess whether dockets and other resources are equitable and inclusive enough.
Raftery: I don’t think we need to venture into rejection territory, however there is legislation that triggers conversation between the moderator, coach, and possibly student. I don’t expect a bright line solution; it’s a balancing act.
Curry: I can see arguments that can be made for engaging in these topics. I would oppose restricting as much as possible.
Gatcombe: Two categories of thought: Let’s ensure there are arguments to be made based on how the legislation is written rather than debating, for example, human rights. Also consider if the topic should be limited to Senate with more experienced debaters. There’s a balance we can play to meet the students where they are in maturity and skill.
Macisso: As someone who doesn’t want to debate whether Puerto Rico should be granted statehood, I’d advocate that it falls on the coaches to have the more experienced debaters argue both sides of the argument.
Paye: Would we allow a debate on interracial marriage? No. In the case of debating conversion therapy, this is a topic that is not based in science and is wrong. We’re not here to debate human rights. To add legislation that purports to not debate human rights on a human rights topic, is still a debate on human rights. I know these debates happen in real life and there’s a bigger question we’re not addressing, but this is about kids and fun and competition and meeting people. They have a right to be who they are. There are topics we need to consider taking off the docket that fall into these categories.
Raftery: We still need to have a protocol. The NSDA resource can inform how we handle things and we have a conversation to assess case-by-case.
Gatcombe: [read NSDA resource]
Denk: I’ll add this to the fall for old business follow-up. Propose we brief coaches on the NSDA resource to inform their coaching of writing legislation. Leadership can commit to addressing issues on a case-by-case basis. One thing that would help: Publish deadlines for legislation submissions and make those deadlines advance enough to filter through.
Parent: The one topic we haven’t addressed in how we handled the case of the offensive language that occurred.
Paye: Clarification: The student was punished for language used in chamber, not the legislation.
Motion to adjourn (Parent, Denk).
The big difference with this nationals: You need to provide proof of vaccination or file an exemption.
Robinson is flying in Thursday. There will be a diocese-wide meeting Friday estimated 6:30 p.m., probably a the Grand Hyatt (tournament hotel).
There are draft schedules on the CFL site.
Keep an ear open for the service activity and please participate.
The docket is published.
Speechies should make sure they have their scripts on hand.
If you haven’t registered yet and intend to, get cracking. You’d be wise to watch this registration webinar: https://www.speechanddebate.org/nationals-registration-webinar/
Health & Safety - Nationals 2022
May 15:
June 1: Alternates registration is due.
Entry releases: Keep through Dec 31.
Late elim judge nominations.
Who’s going?
Script uploads: Read the requirements carefully.
There will be an app for the event. Download it and reach it thoroughly.
Topics are published. Docket goes up May 15.
You’ll receive your judging assignments on site. Then there’s a Judging Swap Window, June 9 – June 11 at 12:00 p.m. ET
Even if you’re bringing experienced judges, I strongly recommend sending them to the tournament site > Judges tab to comb through all the details.
Sunday includes registration check-in and the student expo. In addition, I recommend participating in the judge training, caucuses, and workshops. New coaches to nationals: I encourage you to attend the new coach reception.
Competition days: Read the schedules carefully. Arrive early. Negotiate carpools with other attendees from the district.