Latest News
Squashing Dissent
11/03/10 22:38 Filed in: Notes from Jonathan
Friends, tonight I was informed by Mr. Wunn that he no longer requests my service as a member of the Public Forum Advisory Wording Committee. My specific transgression? I included a topic that his office had rejected on my ballot and encouraged other members to do the same. My larger transgression? Questioning the autocratic power of the NFL Executive Director.
The message could not be more clear. Our league's leadership - leadership of a league founded to promote debate no less - does not welcome distention by its members. Our league's leadership is ceding control of important policy decisions to sponsors. And our league's leadership is willing to engage in punitive actions towards those who attempt to bring about change.
More than ever, it is essential that we redouble our efforts to bring change to the leadership of our league. In the coming days I will be working tirelessly to spread awareness of these flawed practices and asking coaches around the country for your votes to help change them. If you can volunteer your time to contact coaches in your area to speak personally with them and explain why this election is so important, please email me today! I appreciate you joining me in this effort to bring about reform.
The message could not be more clear. Our league's leadership - leadership of a league founded to promote debate no less - does not welcome distention by its members. Our league's leadership is ceding control of important policy decisions to sponsors. And our league's leadership is willing to engage in punitive actions towards those who attempt to bring about change.
More than ever, it is essential that we redouble our efforts to bring change to the leadership of our league. In the coming days I will be working tirelessly to spread awareness of these flawed practices and asking coaches around the country for your votes to help change them. If you can volunteer your time to contact coaches in your area to speak personally with them and explain why this election is so important, please email me today! I appreciate you joining me in this effort to bring about reform.
A Response to Mr. Wunn's Letter
04/03/10 10:28 Filed in: Notes from Jonathan
It’s the day before the Harker tournament and there is an awful lot going on. I’m still busy trying to unravel the email issues from last night and Mr. Wunn has posted a long explanation at PFDebate.com of his view of the Public Forum sponsorship situation. I wanted to take a moment to respond to his latest statement.
I’m thrilled that our shared, persistent objections to the current process continue to motivate Mr. Wunn to reflect on the status quo. I disagree with his characterization of some of the facts and believe that the source of the misunderstanding he cites is a continued lack of transparency from Ripon. His explanation of the sponsorship process concedes that sponsors have control over topic areas. His description of the role of the NFL office staff’s role in shaping topics demands an answer to an entirely new question: why does Mr. Wunn prefer the judgement of his handful of closest staff members to representatives of the coaching community at-large on the Wording “advisory” Committee? What are his thoughts on further reform of the Public Forum topic selection process to include a substantially greater voice for the membership at-large? It is because I believe many of you continue to find the answers to these questions unsatisfactory that I will continue to press for greater reform and openness.
Though I’ll continue my advocacy of these positions privately as a member of the Wording Committee, I don’t want this to become the only issue at play in this campaign. There are many ways that the services offered by the NFL to its membership could be drastically improved and I’m interested in discourse on all of these subjects. Be sure to check out the platform to see the wide range of goals presented by our campaign.
I’m thrilled that our shared, persistent objections to the current process continue to motivate Mr. Wunn to reflect on the status quo. I disagree with his characterization of some of the facts and believe that the source of the misunderstanding he cites is a continued lack of transparency from Ripon. His explanation of the sponsorship process concedes that sponsors have control over topic areas. His description of the role of the NFL office staff’s role in shaping topics demands an answer to an entirely new question: why does Mr. Wunn prefer the judgement of his handful of closest staff members to representatives of the coaching community at-large on the Wording “advisory” Committee? What are his thoughts on further reform of the Public Forum topic selection process to include a substantially greater voice for the membership at-large? It is because I believe many of you continue to find the answers to these questions unsatisfactory that I will continue to press for greater reform and openness.
Though I’ll continue my advocacy of these positions privately as a member of the Wording Committee, I don’t want this to become the only issue at play in this campaign. There are many ways that the services offered by the NFL to its membership could be drastically improved and I’m interested in discourse on all of these subjects. Be sure to check out the platform to see the wide range of goals presented by our campaign.
The Limitations of Gmail
03/03/10 23:34 Filed in: Notes from Jonathan | Coaching Stories
The idea behind the blog posts here is, for the most part, to discuss substantive issues related to the campaign. But I’m laughing at myself pretty hard right now and thought it’d be worth sharing with you.
One of the things I’ve been working on for the campaign, that until tonight had not been put into use, is a databases of all the coaches in the league. The NFL provides each candidate with a set of mailing labels (which is a nice enough service), but I don’t have $1,000 for postage lying around so I decided to harness the 21st century solution. I also have to give credit to Mike Wascher for his help in moving this project along.
Anyway, though I’m not done with the list I was excited by the March Rostrum (complete with candidate statements) hitting my mailbox at Harker today. I decided I’d put out an email elaborating a bit on my candidate statement and sharing one of my favorite forensics anecdotes: the day I first met a nun in real-life (and how cool I thought that experience was)! After spending about two hours entering more email addresses and setting up gmail to send from the PeeleForBoard.com domain name, I was ready to send. That’s where things got messy. Quite understandably if you send a whole lot of email (particularly ones with a lot of bounces) gmail will conclude you’re a spammer and shut you down for 24 hours. So now I’m serving out my time in the corner until I can try again to complete my mailing.
Alas, I promise to use the email list wisely. Seeing as to how the NFL endorsed me using the USPS to physically mail every coach, I think it’s in the spirit of the campaign to email every coach to communicate with them as well. So I’ll keep working to get in contact with all of you. In the meantime, you could go ahead and get in contact with me! I love answering campaign questions and hearing words of encouragement.
As always, thanks for stopping by.
One of the things I’ve been working on for the campaign, that until tonight had not been put into use, is a databases of all the coaches in the league. The NFL provides each candidate with a set of mailing labels (which is a nice enough service), but I don’t have $1,000 for postage lying around so I decided to harness the 21st century solution. I also have to give credit to Mike Wascher for his help in moving this project along.
Anyway, though I’m not done with the list I was excited by the March Rostrum (complete with candidate statements) hitting my mailbox at Harker today. I decided I’d put out an email elaborating a bit on my candidate statement and sharing one of my favorite forensics anecdotes: the day I first met a nun in real-life (and how cool I thought that experience was)! After spending about two hours entering more email addresses and setting up gmail to send from the PeeleForBoard.com domain name, I was ready to send. That’s where things got messy. Quite understandably if you send a whole lot of email (particularly ones with a lot of bounces) gmail will conclude you’re a spammer and shut you down for 24 hours. So now I’m serving out my time in the corner until I can try again to complete my mailing.
Alas, I promise to use the email list wisely. Seeing as to how the NFL endorsed me using the USPS to physically mail every coach, I think it’s in the spirit of the campaign to email every coach to communicate with them as well. So I’ll keep working to get in contact with all of you. In the meantime, you could go ahead and get in contact with me! I love answering campaign questions and hearing words of encouragement.
As always, thanks for stopping by.
Conversations with a District Chair
07/02/10 10:18 Filed in: Notes from Jonathan
Sitting in the Stanford tab room last night, I had the chance chat with the Great Salt Lake District Chair, Frank Langheinrich. The conversation of course started out with the usual tab room fare, discussing the multitude of room and judge changes. But soon the conversation shifted to the state of our league.
Frank shared some of the same concerns that I’ve heard from so many other district chairs and committee members. He talked about the frustration of increased NFL fees without being informed about the league’s budget. He spoke of the difficulty of bringing new teams into his district and how disheartening it is to constantly be threatened by Ripon with Red District status. Frank, who said that he’s a long time supporter of the NFL, has grown jaded with the direction of the league.
I shared with Frank how our campaign is about addressing these very issues. His enthusiasm for my platform was heartening. As I talk to people around the country, I find more and more coaches who want these changes. Let’s keep working hard to improve our league as we cast ballots for the Board of Directors.
Frank shared some of the same concerns that I’ve heard from so many other district chairs and committee members. He talked about the frustration of increased NFL fees without being informed about the league’s budget. He spoke of the difficulty of bringing new teams into his district and how disheartening it is to constantly be threatened by Ripon with Red District status. Frank, who said that he’s a long time supporter of the NFL, has grown jaded with the direction of the league.
I shared with Frank how our campaign is about addressing these very issues. His enthusiasm for my platform was heartening. As I talk to people around the country, I find more and more coaches who want these changes. Let’s keep working hard to improve our league as we cast ballots for the Board of Directors.
Getting it all out on PFDebate.com
25/01/10 20:22 Filed in: Notes from Jonathan
This is reposted from PFDebate.com. I encourage you to go there to check out the full discussion so that you can have context for what’s written below!
--
I’m glad that we all seem to at least agree that it is good to have a public debate about the selection process and role of sponsoring organizations. I certainly appreciate my colleagues thoughts thus far. I had a pleasant discussion with Mr. Wunn earlier this afternoon that was helpful in understanding more clearly what the NFL is and is not doing regarding Public Forum topics.
Before getting into the finer details, I think that the central concerns of my letter have gone unaddressed by Mr. Schappaugh and Mr. Stevens. The NFL Executive Director has been given unchecked power to negotiate topics with sponsors, the NFL has not been transparent in this process (resulting in the kind of murkiness I’m about to discuss), and that the selling of PF topics uniquely preys upon this event as a revenue stream. Simply restating “sponsorship money is good” is nonresponsive to these arguments.
If you’re interested in the minutia of it all, here’s the best clarification I can offer right now. Mr. Stevens is correct to say that the topic areas are born of a grant proposal. I don't feel that I have the right to reveal email correspondence written by others in a forum like this, but suffice it to say the following:
A) Upon some members’ expression of disapproval when we learned of the February-April sponsorship deal last November, the wording committee received what was at best an unclear explanation from the Executive Director of what role the sponsoring organization played in topic area selection. In rereading old emails tonight, my interpretation of this explanation does suggest that the sponsoring organization played a role in narrowing the scope of topics. Nonetheless, Mr. Wunn assured me that the topic areas were drawn from the grant proposal and I accept his word. Keep in mind though that this means that even though the NFL has a committee that is charged with writing topics, a small group in the NFL office chose to prepare topics for the proposal with no input from the committee whatsoever. Nor does this address the November topic, which was sponsored by an organization clearly focused on the issue of failed states. It would appear - though due to insufficient communication from the NFL we can't be sure - that the November sponsor was heavily involved in that topic area selection.
B) I'm not sure why who approached who to initiate sponsorship discussions is relevant if the concern is that topic selection is not being driven by coaches. Again referring back to the internal information shared with the wording committee (information that I argue should be available to the full NFL membership), it would appear that the February-April sponsor approached several organizations looking to donate to academic debate. To me, that means that the sponsor initiated the process.
The bottom line is this: us members of the wording committee can come here and argue about who knew what and when. But we’re the lucky few that even have a remote clue about what’s going on, and even we’re not being told everything. The very limited input that you, the membership of the NFL, has in the Public Forum topic process is the wording committee. Letting sponsors sometimes choose the topic area is bad, but this lack of transparency is even worse. It is time for significant democratic reform in the selection of Public Forum topics.
--
I’m glad that we all seem to at least agree that it is good to have a public debate about the selection process and role of sponsoring organizations. I certainly appreciate my colleagues thoughts thus far. I had a pleasant discussion with Mr. Wunn earlier this afternoon that was helpful in understanding more clearly what the NFL is and is not doing regarding Public Forum topics.
Before getting into the finer details, I think that the central concerns of my letter have gone unaddressed by Mr. Schappaugh and Mr. Stevens. The NFL Executive Director has been given unchecked power to negotiate topics with sponsors, the NFL has not been transparent in this process (resulting in the kind of murkiness I’m about to discuss), and that the selling of PF topics uniquely preys upon this event as a revenue stream. Simply restating “sponsorship money is good” is nonresponsive to these arguments.
If you’re interested in the minutia of it all, here’s the best clarification I can offer right now. Mr. Stevens is correct to say that the topic areas are born of a grant proposal. I don't feel that I have the right to reveal email correspondence written by others in a forum like this, but suffice it to say the following:
A) Upon some members’ expression of disapproval when we learned of the February-April sponsorship deal last November, the wording committee received what was at best an unclear explanation from the Executive Director of what role the sponsoring organization played in topic area selection. In rereading old emails tonight, my interpretation of this explanation does suggest that the sponsoring organization played a role in narrowing the scope of topics. Nonetheless, Mr. Wunn assured me that the topic areas were drawn from the grant proposal and I accept his word. Keep in mind though that this means that even though the NFL has a committee that is charged with writing topics, a small group in the NFL office chose to prepare topics for the proposal with no input from the committee whatsoever. Nor does this address the November topic, which was sponsored by an organization clearly focused on the issue of failed states. It would appear - though due to insufficient communication from the NFL we can't be sure - that the November sponsor was heavily involved in that topic area selection.
B) I'm not sure why who approached who to initiate sponsorship discussions is relevant if the concern is that topic selection is not being driven by coaches. Again referring back to the internal information shared with the wording committee (information that I argue should be available to the full NFL membership), it would appear that the February-April sponsor approached several organizations looking to donate to academic debate. To me, that means that the sponsor initiated the process.
The bottom line is this: us members of the wording committee can come here and argue about who knew what and when. But we’re the lucky few that even have a remote clue about what’s going on, and even we’re not being told everything. The very limited input that you, the membership of the NFL, has in the Public Forum topic process is the wording committee. Letting sponsors sometimes choose the topic area is bad, but this lack of transparency is even worse. It is time for significant democratic reform in the selection of Public Forum topics.
A Call to This Campaign
24/01/10 22:29 Filed in: Notes from Jonathan
Friends,
As many of you heard last week in my announcement on Facebook, I have decided to seek election to the NFL Board of Directors. In the first 48 hours of our campaign group launching, we already had over 200 supporters bringing together coaches, students, parents, and community members who support the values that I intend to bring to the Board of Directors.
I value my fellow coaches. That’s how I know that coaches like you who are young, who are in the trenches building programs from scratch with limited resources deserve a greater voice in our league’s leadership. I share your experiences, having been an all-but-volunteer head coach at East Chapel Hill High School from 2002-2007. I have not forgotten what it’s like to battle zero budget and bureaucracy armed only with our love of this activity. My candidacy is about making advocacy and assistance for new programs and coaches the number one priority for the NFL.
I value democratic control of our league. Have you ever wondered where all of your membership fee money goes? Me too, that’s why I believe that a budget summary for the league should be published in the Rostrum and posted on NFLOnline. Have you ever been concerned about the growing influence of sponsors, particularly as their influence creeps into areas like debate topic selection? Me too, that’s why I support reforms to make sure that the we coaches retain control of league policy, not sponsors. Have you ever been frustrated that you lack access to your elected representatives on the Board of Directors? Me too, that’s why I pledge to continue to use the power of this website to be in constant conversation with all of you around the country, so that I can translate your shared concerns into action.
Those are the values that motivate me to undertake this seemingly impossible run. 28-year-old enthusiasm and such frank discussion of how to make our league better hasn’t been the traditional winning formula for national office in the NFL. Over these next two months listen for a common theme in the testimonials of those who know me best: my career so far has been all about defying the traditional formula. If you’ll lend me your support I will put this plain-spoken, enthusiastic voice to work for all of you.
Cheers,
Jonathan
As many of you heard last week in my announcement on Facebook, I have decided to seek election to the NFL Board of Directors. In the first 48 hours of our campaign group launching, we already had over 200 supporters bringing together coaches, students, parents, and community members who support the values that I intend to bring to the Board of Directors.
I value my fellow coaches. That’s how I know that coaches like you who are young, who are in the trenches building programs from scratch with limited resources deserve a greater voice in our league’s leadership. I share your experiences, having been an all-but-volunteer head coach at East Chapel Hill High School from 2002-2007. I have not forgotten what it’s like to battle zero budget and bureaucracy armed only with our love of this activity. My candidacy is about making advocacy and assistance for new programs and coaches the number one priority for the NFL.
I value democratic control of our league. Have you ever wondered where all of your membership fee money goes? Me too, that’s why I believe that a budget summary for the league should be published in the Rostrum and posted on NFLOnline. Have you ever been concerned about the growing influence of sponsors, particularly as their influence creeps into areas like debate topic selection? Me too, that’s why I support reforms to make sure that the we coaches retain control of league policy, not sponsors. Have you ever been frustrated that you lack access to your elected representatives on the Board of Directors? Me too, that’s why I pledge to continue to use the power of this website to be in constant conversation with all of you around the country, so that I can translate your shared concerns into action.
Those are the values that motivate me to undertake this seemingly impossible run. 28-year-old enthusiasm and such frank discussion of how to make our league better hasn’t been the traditional winning formula for national office in the NFL. Over these next two months listen for a common theme in the testimonials of those who know me best: my career so far has been all about defying the traditional formula. If you’ll lend me your support I will put this plain-spoken, enthusiastic voice to work for all of you.
Cheers,
Jonathan
An Open Letter to the Forensics Community
21/01/10 14:51 Filed in: Notes from Jonathan
January 21, 2010
To the Forensics Community:
As a member of the NFL Public Forum wording committee, I would like to take a moment to sound an alarm over our deeply flawed topic selection process. As many of you puzzled over the decision to revisit lobbying as a topic (previously debated in January 2007), you almost certainly are not aware of how the NFL arrived at all its 2010 resolutions thus far.
As has been done with increasing frequency in recent years – including four topics so far this year – the NFL Executive Director has sold the topic selection rights to a sponsoring organization. In fact, the rights for the February, March, and April topics have together been sold for the lucrative sum of $150,000. This additional funding for the league is of course wonderful news for our activity. It will be used to enhance the repertoire instructional materials for debate, to expand nfltv.org, and to grant additional scholarships at Nationals. These are significant benefits that must be acknowledged as part of a fair public discourse on the NFL’s topic selling policy.
Currently by rule the NFL Executive Director retains final, sole authority to write Public Forum topics. The wording committee serves in only an advisory capacity and is comprised of coaches who serve at his leisure. Though the Executive Director has in the past deferred almost exclusively to the recommendations of the wording committee in months where there is no sponsor, when topics are sponsored there is very little wording flexibility and no advance input as to topic area.
As a result of this autocratic power of the Executive Director to sell topics, Public Forum is uniquely subjected to the whims of sponsoring organizations, diminishing it in comparison to the other debate events. Certainly the Policy and Lincoln-Douglas community would laugh at the thought of being told - with no advance input - that they were debating a topic selected by a sponsoring organization. They simply wouldn't hear of it. Even "lowly" Congress isn't made to debate a packet of legislation selected by the sponsor du jour. Public Forum is being used as the revenue stream because it lacks the respect afforded by longevity or the strength of a well-organized coaching community. Public Forum has been a growth engine for participation in the debate activity, but frustrating its coaches and participating students through second-class status may serve to reverse that trend. Or, with Public Forum showing the revenue potential of topic sales, perhaps soon Lincoln-Douglas and Policy coaches will find themselves under significant pressure from Ripon to accept similar compromises to the integrity of those events.
Nor is this process transparent. We have no idea which potential sponsor organizations are being told yes, which (if any) are being told no, and the rationale behind those decisions. Is there a political or pedagogical agenda behind the selection of certain organizations? I suspect not at this point, but worry as the practice of selling topics proliferates that we will someday find ourselves debating a resolution worded by an interest group that is highly polarizing. If an organization comes to the NFL and wants a resolution that pushes the activity in a direction that is inconsistent with the will of the majority of coaches, will they be told no? We as coaches have no way to know other than faith in the officials hired by the Board of Directors we elected. As the wording committee that is rendered useless by the selling of topics, we as the NFL membership have lost the only awareness outside of Ripon of the topic selection machinery.
Yes, seeking partnerships and sponsorships could be a financial boon to the league with the multiplier effect of building greater public interest in our activity. Still, this must be done carefully with coaches as the driving force in topic selection and wording. The NFL should instead be reforming in a direction that involves significantly larger numbers of coaches in the Public Forum topic selection process, not excluding the membership from any real voice for three months at a time. I hope you will make your voice heard to the Executive Director and through the upcoming Board of Directors elections.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Peele
Candidate for NFL Board of Directors
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events
The Harker School (San Jose, CA)
To the Forensics Community:
As a member of the NFL Public Forum wording committee, I would like to take a moment to sound an alarm over our deeply flawed topic selection process. As many of you puzzled over the decision to revisit lobbying as a topic (previously debated in January 2007), you almost certainly are not aware of how the NFL arrived at all its 2010 resolutions thus far.
As has been done with increasing frequency in recent years – including four topics so far this year – the NFL Executive Director has sold the topic selection rights to a sponsoring organization. In fact, the rights for the February, March, and April topics have together been sold for the lucrative sum of $150,000. This additional funding for the league is of course wonderful news for our activity. It will be used to enhance the repertoire instructional materials for debate, to expand nfltv.org, and to grant additional scholarships at Nationals. These are significant benefits that must be acknowledged as part of a fair public discourse on the NFL’s topic selling policy.
Currently by rule the NFL Executive Director retains final, sole authority to write Public Forum topics. The wording committee serves in only an advisory capacity and is comprised of coaches who serve at his leisure. Though the Executive Director has in the past deferred almost exclusively to the recommendations of the wording committee in months where there is no sponsor, when topics are sponsored there is very little wording flexibility and no advance input as to topic area.
As a result of this autocratic power of the Executive Director to sell topics, Public Forum is uniquely subjected to the whims of sponsoring organizations, diminishing it in comparison to the other debate events. Certainly the Policy and Lincoln-Douglas community would laugh at the thought of being told - with no advance input - that they were debating a topic selected by a sponsoring organization. They simply wouldn't hear of it. Even "lowly" Congress isn't made to debate a packet of legislation selected by the sponsor du jour. Public Forum is being used as the revenue stream because it lacks the respect afforded by longevity or the strength of a well-organized coaching community. Public Forum has been a growth engine for participation in the debate activity, but frustrating its coaches and participating students through second-class status may serve to reverse that trend. Or, with Public Forum showing the revenue potential of topic sales, perhaps soon Lincoln-Douglas and Policy coaches will find themselves under significant pressure from Ripon to accept similar compromises to the integrity of those events.
Nor is this process transparent. We have no idea which potential sponsor organizations are being told yes, which (if any) are being told no, and the rationale behind those decisions. Is there a political or pedagogical agenda behind the selection of certain organizations? I suspect not at this point, but worry as the practice of selling topics proliferates that we will someday find ourselves debating a resolution worded by an interest group that is highly polarizing. If an organization comes to the NFL and wants a resolution that pushes the activity in a direction that is inconsistent with the will of the majority of coaches, will they be told no? We as coaches have no way to know other than faith in the officials hired by the Board of Directors we elected. As the wording committee that is rendered useless by the selling of topics, we as the NFL membership have lost the only awareness outside of Ripon of the topic selection machinery.
Yes, seeking partnerships and sponsorships could be a financial boon to the league with the multiplier effect of building greater public interest in our activity. Still, this must be done carefully with coaches as the driving force in topic selection and wording. The NFL should instead be reforming in a direction that involves significantly larger numbers of coaches in the Public Forum topic selection process, not excluding the membership from any real voice for three months at a time. I hope you will make your voice heard to the Executive Director and through the upcoming Board of Directors elections.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Peele
Candidate for NFL Board of Directors
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events
The Harker School (San Jose, CA)
Welcome