Kyle, I do appreciate your comments. Again, I am not trying to ascribe any sort of intent to your post, nor do I believe it reflected any particular ill will toward me, but I am still concerned about the material effect that this type of restriction has.
tl;dr: voting members get to decide the criteria they use to vote, I think I’ve made a good case for why institutional affiliation should not be at the top of that criteria.
If this policy did exist, I would be structurally excluded from being able to run and be on the board so long as Jason was on. If this policy was applied to NPDA, Shannon would not be able to serve. I think both of those effects are steps in the wrong direction for the activity and its goals, and this approach makes a judgment that those forms of exclusion are less important than only one representative per school. This restriction wouldn’t exist in a vacuum. In addition to this, there are many other elements (such as someone who works for one school and coaches for another) that remain unaddressed if such a policy even were to be implemented.
The major thing for voting schools to consider is that the “one board member per school” restriction does not currently exist, so it is up to each voting school to make a decision for themselves on how important institutional affiliation is to them in relation to other factors of each candidate. I think that I’ve made a compelling case on my platform for many unique things that I bring to the table, and that my voting would be categorically distinct from and independent of anyone else serving from the same institution. Regardless of institutional affiliation, schools are voting on integrity and character. The concern about lack of democracy in the NPTE is one that would persist regardless of differences in institutions under the current system. Given that my platform is emphasizing support for CCs/JCs and schools with less funding, it should be apparent to voters that I am not voting on the competitive interests of Utah, but on my own aspirations of what this tournament and activity can be that at times might contradict what would seem to be Utah’s competitive interest.
I have already attended several NPTEs, have access to tournament bylaws, and will be in connection with many people who will attend the tournament. Additionally, I think Jeannie does a great job of pointing out the ways in which I am not the only potential member who has not attended each consecutive NPTE. There are coaches and schools who might not be able to attend due funding/travel restrictions, decisions made above their paygrade, or other factors. I was not able to attend in my first year at Pacific, for instance, because I had to fill in and teach an undergrad course when another TA in our department quit. Mandating attendance every year prior to being a board member in practice likely means that folks from schools who don’t have access to the same travel opportunities to the NPTE couldn’t participate either. Again, voting schools are choosing how they would like to vote, and I think I’ve made a case for sufficient NPTE experience.