A proposal advocating the states’ right to secede from the Union was debated in First Committee on Sunday. Author Christopher Russo of New Jersey strongly argued for both the importance and debatability of this proposal, stressing that the right to secede is a part of the U.S. system of checks and balances and a means to avoid civil war. Russo stated that secession is “essential for democracy, the foundation of our nation, prevents tyranny, and is an inalienable right of the people.”

The long-standing debate over states’ rights and sovereignty was touched upon, garnering both support and opposition. Those in favor of the proposal argued that it simply allows the right to secede, and states would do so only if it was no longer beneficial to be a part of the Union. Opposition during the debate focused on the question of negotiations about federal property and resources in a state that secedes’ as well as the idea that allowing secession would contradict the spirit of the United States.

So, you’ve chosen an issue that interests you, written a proposal that you think will improve the situation, and are getting ready for next week and wondering what comes next. You’d like to flesh out your ideas for your opening and summation speeches with examples and supporting information, not to mention finding all the answers to those technical questions you know will come up.  But where do you start?

Start with the answer to your original question–the one that got you interested in the first place.  Why did you decide to solve this problem the way you did?  Can you find other sources that support your solution?  Next, move on to the justification for supporting your proposal.  Who (or what) will it help, and how?  What makes it worth worrying about?   After that, consider the surrounding questions that you may have to answer.  A good way to do this is to play devil’s advocate for yourself–write down as many questions and counter-arguments as you can think of.  It’s also a good idea to run your proposal by your friends and family and see what questions and counter-arguments they come up with.  They may have a completely different take on it, and give you some valuable insight into why someone might oppose your proposal.  Write all the questions and counter-arguments down, and then find answers for them and write those down too.  It’s very handy to have a concise answer sheet to refer to when you’re up at the podium, so that you don’t forget compelling information in the heat of the moment.

When you are doing your research, make a point of using reputable sources.  Citing Wikipedia is a lot less powerful than citing an organization or publisher with established credibility (think National Enquirer vs. The New York Times–which report on the world financial situation would you be more likely to trust?). Take the extra step to find solid research on your topic.  A good jumping-off point is Google Scholar, which can help you find articles on your issue.  If you live near a university, you may be able to have guest access to their academic journal databases, which are a valuable resource.  Some public libraries (or maybe even your school library) may also offer access to these databases.  One particularly good database is JSTOR, where they have articles on a variety of topics.

Finally, how much research is enough research?  Honestly, you can never have too much research.  My first year at CONA,  one delegate went up to the podium with one of the fattest three-ring binders that I had ever seen–filled with articles and information on their proposal.  Not everyone comes with that much research,  and it certainly isn’t required (save the trees!), but I know that that delegate was ready to answer any question, big or small,  obvious or obscure–and I think that’s a pretty good feeling to have.  So do as much research as you need to feel good about presenting your proposal, and don’t worry about how much (or how little) research other people are doing.

Also, if, in the course of your research, you come across something amazing that you didn’t get to include in your submitted proposal, don’t worry, there’s still time in 1st committee for amendments

~ Sarah Gillig – College Staffer

Lots of information is available on the Conference Website as of June 18 at 9PM (Central Daylight Time) .

At www.ymcacona.org/2009 you can find …

• Proposal Topics (including Author & Committee Assignment)
• Committee Chair Assignments
• Proposal Sharing Group Leader Assignments
• Conference Life Committee Listing
• Schedule
• A ‘What to Bring’ List
• Committee Clerks (coming Friday)

When viewing the Proposal Topics page, you can use interactive features to view by Committee letter or  Delegation.  If you have trouble viewing, here are some tips:

1. use Microsoft Internet Explorer
2. Make sure cookies are enabled
3. Search for Microsoft Web Component on the Microsoft Support Page
4. If all else fails there check out the Committee Roster for a low-tech solution

Something new for 2009:  There is now time on the schedule for Proposal Authors to meet and discuss combining their proposals.  This will take place from 9:30 – 10:00 a.m. on Sunday in Washburn Center.  Once Proposals are combined they can not be un-combined.  Please read the Mountain Manual for more information about combining, including how it effects your voting.
So check out www.ymcacona.org/2009 for all the information there is about this year’s confernece!

The 2009 Conference will be bigger and better than ever.  Over 700 students and adults are registered and we are all excited about the conference this year.

Keep looking back here for more news and updates.  There will be a lot of information posted on or before June 19 including Committee Assignments and Committee Chairs.

You can also Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.

The last activity of the night, before the delegates head off to their delegation meetings and then bed, different delegations perform devotionals to inspire and encourage their fellow delegates. The first night, Massachusetts set the stage of devotionals throughout the week. When asked who was the main person in charge of their devotional, Jonathan Mojica said that Alexis Morin was the one who came up with the idea. He also said the delegation as a whole came together to make it well presented. Mojica said that the colors of their shirts were symbolizing the YMCA core value of caring as well as explaining passion. The shirts faded from red into white. This was to show that caring comes out of having passion for something, but passion is much bolder and stronger. Some people were nervous to present this idea, but others were very excited to be able to show the conference what Massachusetts could bring to the table. Mojica also said “I would like to thank everyone for the attentiveness that they showed during our devotional.”
On Sunday night, Model UN performed a Sesame Street themed skit in Ware Pavilion on honesty. Second year delegate, AJ Horowitz of the Model UN delegation was kind enough to answer our question. He said that Olaniyi Solebo, the previous Secretary General, Kelsey Coolidge, the Deputy Secretary General, and Dan Morris, the incoming Secretary General, were the masterminds behind the script of their skit. “They wrote three scripts, one based on Sesame Street, one based on Pinocchio, and one based on Winnie the Pooh. They emailed everyone in the delegation the rough drafts of the three scripts and then we all voted on them,” Horowitz said. Horowitz also mentioned the advisors had little to no part in the planning or execution of the devotional. The Model UN delegation was assigned their topic (honesty) and performed their skit really well. Each delegate was a different Sesame Street character and told the rest of the conference the importance of honesty from the perspective of their respective characters. Oscar the Grouch, played by Horowitz, confidently told everyone he was very honest because he constantly displayed how he really felt. Horowitz said that they didn’t even practice that much because they didn’t ever see each other before the conference and so were only able to rehearse when they actually got on the Mountain. “We didn’t even know who was going to be who until Saturday night. We practiced once Sunday morning and a couple of times right before we went up,” Horowitz said. Horowitz told us that he thought it went “surprisingly well.” “It was really cool. Afterwards we were in a huddle and people came up and gave us hugs and stuff. I liked knowing that what we did didn’t go unappreciated,” Horowitz said. All in all, the well thought out Model UN devotional was a stupendous success.
On Monday night this week the devotional was presented by the Ohio delegation. The Ohio delegation enjoys bringing new ideas to the Conference on National Affairs. Their devotional was not the normal lecture of one of the YMCA core values. Instead, the presentation of responsibility by the Ohio delegation was a pleasant surprise. They were able to pull together a presentation that was original and like nothing else. Vannessa Wilson was the main coordinator of the devotional for her delegation. When asked the day before how much they had left to get done before they were ready for their presentation, Wilson responded “We still have a lot to get done, but we will be ready when the time comes.” Wilson and the rest of the Ohio delegation were trying to bring the new idea of describing responsibility in stepping. Many other delegates found the presentation very entertaining and amusing. By being able to allow the other CONA delegates to relate on more of a secular term, the Ohio delegation was able to captivate on a unique level. By stepping up to this level they showed that they could take responsibility when given the opportunity to present a core value at this conference.
Tuesday night, July 3rd, the Washington delegation performed a devotional on respect. We interviewed Alex Mech and asked him about the behind the scenes preparation that went into their enlightening performance. “We got together and couldn’t agree on one thing because we all had different ideas. The one thing we did agree on was that we didn’t have to agree with each other to respect each other,” Mech said. They decided that the best way to start was to go around and say what they each individually thought respect was. They ended up deciding that the best way to present it was just for everyone to tell the rest of the conference what their individual thoughts on respect was. “We tried to show respect to each other while we were presenting. Our main goal was to get people thinking,” Mech said. When asked what he gained personally from the experience, Mech told us “I think I always thought of respect as one thing and my own view of it without writing it down. I learned that there are multiple views of respect and I think it is an action rather than a definition.”

In Heaton Hall at yesterday’s General Assembly session a proposal was passed that would have turned heads if you only heard the title. It was to legalize prostitution. But what if the proposal vote was pretty much a landslide and favored the legalization of prostitution? Well that was the case yesterday, because so many pro speakers were passionate about this proposal. The argument favored in business mostly, because it makes prostitution a business, and as we all might suspect, it will be a very successful business. But is it morally correct? That was a question asked, but proved to be a weak argument compared to the business side, the money side.

Although many delegates make it look very easy, proposal writing consists of a lot of preparation along with critical and logical thinking. Debating is something that improves with experience; however, there are many steps delegates can take to improve their style.
It all begins with choosing the right proposal. A huge part of moving on to General Assembly or Plenary is how one presents his proposal; however, choosing the right proposal facilitates presenting and defending it. David Murdter, California, gave many great tips for proposals. Murdter made his breakthrough at last year’s General Assembly where he successfully proved all of his adversaries wrong in his summation. He said to choose an obscure proposal. When speaking about his proposal this year, Murdter said, “When I first read the research, it caught me unaware.” Newer ideas will spark more new debates; therefore, a newer topic will score better. The second step after choosing a proposal is researching it. “I become as knowledgeable as I can,” Murdter said. The best way to prepare your argument is not only to dissect all the points, but to also write down a list of counter-arguments. This way, the delegate is prepared for any possible con-speakers.
While pro-con debate occurs, it would be beneficial for the delegate to keep a list of arguments in favor of his proposal for the summation. Jordan Smith, North Carolina, said “Keeping statistics is the best way to prove points, although dramatic stories can sometimes move people.” The summation is the icing on the cake to a proposal. Keeping the summation to the point finishes the debate very well. The best way to keep a proposal going is to know it inside and out. If it is very original, debatable, and presented well, then it has a lot of potential. If the delegate just stays well-informed and debates well in committee, he or she can make it through to Plenary.

CONA 2008’s largest combined proposal met a grim fate Monday as it failed to make the cut to Second Committee. The diverse group of seven delegates, ranging from New Jersey to Missouri to South Carolina, independently came to the same conclusion and drafted proposals to eliminate the Electoral College American Presidential elections. “We all had basically the exact same proposal,” Sean Costello, an author from Massachusetts, said. They were united in their belief that the Electoral College be replaced by a simple popular vote. “I’ve never been a fan [of the Electoral Collge],” Siofra Robinson, author from North Carolina said. “I couldn’t count the number of people on one hand that support it.”
All of the authors were understandably disappointed that their proposal did not make it further. They all agreed that they did most poorly on their originality rating, just by virtue of their being seven of the same proposals, in addition to debatability. Also critical was the proposal’s placement on the docket, dead last. “By the time ours was up for debate, people were sick of Electoral College proposals,” explains Courtney Arnold of South Carolina. “[By the end] voting gets meaner.”
What makes this defeat surprising, however, is the situation that arose just two years ago. In that session, seven delegates, including current PO Derek Summerville, combined to create the same proposal for eliminating the Electoral College. This nearly identical situation and proposal passed Washburn General Assembly. Ten years before, the advisor to Derek Summerville created the same proposal with ten other delegates and also went to General Assembly. Even in this session, two other proposals for eliminating the Electoral College who did not combine with the other seven advanced.
Summerville expressed surprise at the early death of this proposal, especially because of the large number of authors. “Usually the opposite happens,” Summerville said. “Often those who stay out of that alliance get left behind. They probably would have gone to Plenary or GA if they had combined.”
Despite the disappointment, all the authors were enthusiastic about the experience. “It was really great,” Costello said. More than anything, they were all glad to have the opportunity to work with and get to know one another. “We were all really diverse and learned about each other’s cultures,” Morgan Jordan of Tennessee said. “I know I wouldn’t have bonded with as many others as I did if we didn’t all combine and work together.”
The failing of this proposal displays just how influential and unpredictable combining can be. Although many times combing can advance a proposal’s prospects, it can just as easily bring it down. Although a proposal’s failure can bring frustration, combining always brings the opportunity for new experiences and new friendships.