From: Anthony Reel [mailto:xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:58 PM
To: 'Jeremy Rose'
Cc: 'xxxxx'
Subject: State Tournament

Dr. Rose,

I am quite certain that you understand and perhaps are tired of being caught in the middle of this scenario.  I previously informed you of the issues prior to this year.  Since there is a brand new clean slate policy I will focus my complaint on the current year.  I have copied you on most of the communications beginning around November and you can see from that limited exposure that I have been very clear, persistent and forthright about several itemsnone of which was returned to me.  I would like to know with whom I need to speak about a formal complaint about the handling of the student side of the team and to discuss remedies for this year.

In e-mail and phone conversations with Zach as early as 8/16/03 I have been very clear that the only events that I wanted to attend were PLUM, the State Tournament and NPDA National Tournament.  (I picked up by late September that verbal conversations had assurances, feedback and advice that would never be confirmed in written word.

At that time I voiced the concern regarding (1) my inability to attend many outside the class events due to my commute and (2) personal misgivings vocalized at the end of last year between myself and Ryan and how those would prevent my being able to pursue my goals this year.  I have not asked for special consideration.  I wanted a forthright answer on how it would affect (a) my grade and (b) pursuit of my goals for the season.  Verbally Zach replied that it should not be a problem if I continue doing what I did last year (which was to help out with new members in the meetings, hanging flyers during my lunch in the med school buildings, sending e-mail to the scores of student groups that I am a member of regarding on campus events, recruiting efforts at every possible contact I make during my business day and at home in [non-metro county]).  I have done this without credit in relation to the class (which is as it should be since this manner of team aid was not laid out in the syllabus).

On 8/28/03 Ryan e-mail to me that If there are extenuating circumstances that prohibit taking the class we'll address those on a case-by-case basis.  And yet at each subsequent inquiry of my extenuating circumstances effect on my ability to go to state or gain an s in the class I was met w/ vagaries.

On 11/20/03 I asked if UMPDS was sending a team to the state tournament.  The answer again was vague, the same criteria for travel--participation at UMPDS events, competitive ability, and seniority--will be applied to the decision.  Up to this point there was nothing indicating that participation at UMPDS events was the primary criterionand since it was an answer to a direct question regarding my participation it was still impossible to infer such.  Nonetheless I decided to be direct in reply with So, basically, my level of involvement to this point, if continued would or would not warrant sending me?  Again the response was indirect and again gave no indication that my level of participation at UMPDS events was the primary criterion. Involvement is but one factor the determines who will be going.  Competition is another.  Neither of these things are considered in a vacuum--they are considered in relationship to the rest of the team.  As such, it would be inappropriate for us to make some pledge when we are unable to know if it will be sustained.

I wanted to know if my participation would be a hindrance to my attending the state tournament.  If it were then I would know the fall semester would be a waste of time in relation to my goals for the year.  Again on 12/4/03 I asked directly, So, I ask for a straight answer.  Given the current involvement and assuming it continues as it is what is preventing you from saying, Anthony, you will be one of the people going to Concordia on 2/21/04-2/22/04 for the MCFA State Tournament, just like last year?  No answer was received.  I think that this would have been a good time to say, Youre level of involvement needs to improve or some type of feedback.

While this alone should be worthy of action I should say that there is more.  I began to inquire about the teams finances, for reasons that do not matter directly to the debate team but have high relevance in other areas.  After doing extensive research I found that the records I seek are considered public record according to state law and University policy.  I informed Ryan and Zach in person that I would like those records and that it would be easiest for all involved if I asked them directly and they complied.  Zach left the conversation and Ryans response was inappropriate and shocking that I wrote down verbatim what was said and created a blog for my personal record on which to keep the quotes.  His response was, in order of delivery, as follows:
1) "[the team has] no intention to cooperate ever"
2) "[He] will delay that information until the end of time"
3) "[I] at risk of failing the class" (to which I responded that my performance was in line with syllabus to receive a 'B' and that since I was taking the class pass/fail that was sufficient. Ryan B's. response was that there was not a determination yet by them "as to what the bottom threshold is for failing the class. So watch yourself.

Later that night he sent to me an e-mail that said the following, on 12/10/03 @ 8:51 PM: Subject line: I stand corrected

""S Represents achievement that is satisfactory, which is equivalent to a C- or better." (http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/policies/gradingpolicy.html)

Sincere apologies for any confusion or stress generated over the uncertainty that I incorrectly articulated."

This is just the tip of the iceberg which I believe warrant swift, immediate and public remedy.  So I close with this question, Who should I direct my grievance to officially?

Anthony Reel
H: xxx-xxx-xxxx
W: xxx-xxx-xxxx