JSA Spring Leadership Conference Agenda

* Spring Leadership Conference *
Cover Design: Courtney
1
Spring Leadership Conference
Sunday, May 19
th

Cochran
Agenda at a Glance
Sunday, May 19th
, 2012
Registration 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
Registration Registration Desk
Opening Session 11:00 AM – 11:25 AM
Governors’ Addresses Carmel
Program Director’s Address Carmel
Block I 11:30 AM – 12:15 PM
Upcoming Chapter Presidents Meeting #1 Carmel
Moderating Workshop and Certification Newport A
Debate: Religion Newport C
Lunch 12:15 PM – 1:15 PM
Block II 1:20 PM – 2:05 PM
Everything Chapters Workshop Newport A
Debate: Affirmative Action Newport C
Block III 2:10 PM – 2:55 PM
Cabinet Information Session Carmel
Debate: American Civil War Newport A
Debate: Tax Policies Newport C
Block IV 3:00 PM – 3:45
PM
What Type of Leader Are You? Carmel
Activism Workshop Newport A
Debate: Nurture vs. Nature Newport C
Closing Session 3:45 PM – 4:00
2

PM
Full Agenda
Sunday, May 19th
, 2012
Registration 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
Registration Registration Desk
Please sign in at the registration test to pick up an agenda and a name tag!
Opening Session 11:00 AM – 11:25 AM
Governor Julianna Joss and Governor-Elect Sabrina Lieberman will open up the Spring
Leadership Conference with a few remarks as well as give a few notes on the events of the day.
Afterwards, your Program Director, Tracy Poindexter, will speak about the upcoming
information for the 2013-2014 JSA year.
Block I 11:30 AM – 12:15 PM
Led By: Tracy Thomas
This Meeting is mandatory for all upcoming Chapter Presidents for the 2013 –
2014 JSA year. If a Chapter President is unable to attend (or has not been elected
yet, another delegate must attend to represent his or her school. Every school
must have a representative! This meeting will focus on how to use MyJSA, registration
deadline protocol, and other vital JSA business for the upcoming year.
Moderating Workshop and Certification Test Newport A
Led By: Timothy Kang (Van Nuys)
Want to moderate at a convention next year? For anyone that wants to moderate in a major
convention this year, attending this workshop is mandatory. First, you will learn the basics of
moderating; for some this will be simple review. Afterwards, the debate department will
administer a test that will check your knowledge. Those that have moderated before and pass
with a certain percentage will become Certified Moderators.
Debate: Religion Newport C
3

Moderator: David Gumberg
Pro: Ahmend Shah
Con: Benjamin Fuligni
Resolved, that most “major” religions are fundamentally the same.
One need only open a history book and turn to any page to find some reference to a war or
fight based entirely on religious differences and misgivings. Certainly, religious conflicts have
instigated some of the worst battles or persecutions of any particular group. These conflicts
spawn from theological discrepancies in any particular religion: the Shiites and the Sunni cannot
agree upon whom was Muhammad’s true successors, Protestants and Catholics note the flaws in
each other’s central principles, etc. However, this poses the question: are most religions truly
different? In essence, they involve abiding by core tenets that were given to them by a divine
figure. Does this qualify them as fundamentally the same?
Pro:
-Most, if not all, provide a moral code by which to live.
-A divine figure(s) of some sort is present.
-Many share similar figures (e.g. Abraham of the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian faith) and
legends pertaining to the creation of the world/man, natural occurrences, etc.
Con:
-The extent of aforementioned divine figure(s)’ influence and power often varies—also, how
many there are.
-In many cases, largely different practices that must be upheld.
-There are still glaring differences between the theologies.
Helpful source:
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm
This website contains a chart that includes over 40 belief systems and lists key aspects regarding
them, such as God(s), afterlife, and practices. Given the nature of the topic, it will be difficult
to find sources that present both arguments in an unbiased manner.
Helpful hints:
Before presenting your actual argument, you should define what the resolution means to you,
for it is written with deliberate ambiguity: your opinion of “major religion” may differ greatly
with that of the delegate sitting to your left or right. Also, it will be very easy for any particular
speaker to go off on a tangent about this religious war or conflict or a tragic instance of
persecution, but make sure that your argument centers around the prompt: fundamental
4

similarities—you’re probably going to want to define what “fundamentally the same” means.
Finally—this applies to most scenarios of public speaking or writing—don’t engage in
unnecessary ad hominem, or attacking the person instead of the argument. Because anything
pertaining religion can easily spark a heated argument, be careful not to criticize a person with a
derogatory diatribe or harshly worded question: “is the speaker aware that he’s completely
wrong…”; you should be able to figure out how the rest shouldn’t go.
Lunch 12:15 PM – 1:15 PM
Time for lunch! Be sure to get something to eat, but to bear in mind the flow of traffic and time
it will take to commute back and forth!
Block II 1:20 PM – 2:05 PM
Led By: Samantha Garfield (Harvard-Westlake) and Lindsay Wilson (Buckley)
This Meeting is mandatory for all upcoming Chapter Presidents for the 2013 –
2014 JSA year. If a Chapter President is unable to attend (or has not been elected
yet, another delegate must attend to represent his or her school. Every school
must have a representative! This meeting will focus chapter building and the role of
Chapter Affairs.
Everything Chapters Workshop Newport A
Led By: Julianna Joss (Orange County School of the Arts) and Chris Van Dam (John Burroughs)
Chapters are the core of JSA; without them, our organization would not exist. What are some
ways to start up a successful chapter or expand a stagnant one? How do we save “dying”
chapters or make meetings as engaging as possible? This workshop is open to all chapter
members, especially individuals on a chapter board who are looking to make their chapters the
best they can be.
Debate: Affirmative Action Newport C
Moderator: Anna Nguyen
Pro: Lilia Abecassis
Con: Ernesto Ambrocio
Resolved, that affirmative action, given America’s past, is acceptable.
Although it is not alone in doing this, the United States—government and people—has a long
history of poorly and “unjustly” treating African Americans, Native Americans, Irish, Germans,
Chinese, and the list goes on (please don’t be offended if a particular race wasn’t mentioned in
this list). It took many years for the country to rectify most of the wrongs it had committed,
5

and for many, it was rarely enough. Initiated under JFK, affirmative action was primarily
designed to ensure that applicants to federal positions would have an equal likelihood of being
selected despite their race or creed. Affirmative action soon became synonymous with the
college application process, especially after Bakke v. Regents, which declared the constitutionality
of affirmative action. In essence, affirmative action is designed to ensure that the minorities be
granted a fair chance at attending the college of their choice, as if to right past wrongs.
However, it is considered unfair that a person’s future be determined largely by the color of
their skin rather than the content of their character, as MLK would say, and their merits. Given
the U.S.’ history of unfair racial treatment and affirmative action’s “role” in attempting to
correct it, is affirmative action truly acceptable?
Pro:
-The quota system (a school must have “x” people of this race, this race, and that race) is no
longer in place—deemed unconstitutional—so the impact is not as severe.
-Accounts for years of wrongdoings, or at least attempts to.
-Increases diversity.
Con:
-It can easily lead to reverse discrimination.
-It can be seen as condescending to the beneficiaries and crippling to others.
-May result in greater racial tensions.
Helpful sources:
http://civil-rights.lawyers.com/discrimination/Arguments-For-and-Against-Affirmative-
Action.html
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5916/Affirmative-Action.html
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm
http://www.k-state.edu/media/webzine/0203/aapros&cons.html
This debate will have a wealth of information regarding the topic that is biased towards a
particular argument or completely neutral. When citing a source, you’ll have a greater effect if
you cite a source such as ProCon or BalancedPolitics because they are known for their neutrality
and tendency to present both sides as evenly as possible. In general, try to use these sources.
You can use Wikipedia, but don’t use it as your primary or sole source of information.
Helpful hints:
Like the debate pertaining to religion, it will be very easy for this to get carried away,
particularly since college letters have all come out and decisions made. Make sure not to stray
away from the topic, which emphasizes America’s PAST. Mentioning the present (and future)
is perfectly acceptable, but don’t let it dominate your argument. Because some delegates may
be passionate about the debate for whatever reason, make sure that you have sufficient
6

knowledge, research, and confidence when stating your point: don’t say that “race and high
school/college achievement have been shown to be connected” or that “this person didn’t get
into his or her dream school because of affirmative action.” For example, if you mention Abigail
Fisher, perhaps the most commonly cited example of affirmative action, have some research
done about her beforehand: she was hardly outstanding, test score and activity-wise, for the
university that had a higher turn-down rate than even Harvard College. Finally, while statistics
and research studies will be effective to a certain degree, employing poignant anecdotes or
stories—along with good rhetoric and speaking—may be what wins you the Best Speaker gavel.
Block III 2:10 PM – 2:55 PM
Cabinet Information Meeting Carmel
Led By: Sabrina Lieberman (Marlborough) and Matthew Cohen (Tarbut V’Torah)
Interested in applying for Southern California Cabinet for the 2013-2014 JSA year? Please
attend this information session to learn more about the structure of Cabinet, responsibilities of
Cabinet Members, and the application process. If you cannot attend this meeting due to a
debate, not to worry, you can still sign up to get all the information and application emailed to
you.
Debate: American Civil War Newport A
Moderator: Jacques Jougla
Pro: Timothy Kang
Con: Aidan Perricone
Resolved, that the American Civil War could have been avoided.
Time frame: Establishment of American colonies to the Battle of Bull Run.
*Read helpful hints.
Perhaps the most well-known American war that caused the one of the greatest losses of
American lives in the country’s relatively short history, the American Civil War forever
remains in infamy as the war that split the country apart. Of course, there were divisive issues
including slavery and states’ rights vs. federal authority that had overtaken the nation in the
years prior. To a great extent, the damage wrought by these disagreements made reconciliation
seem impossible and war inevitable. However, many believe that if the federal government,
specifically President James Buchanan, attempted more strongly to compromise with the South
on certain issues and subdue them on others, that the Civil War could have been largely
avoided.
7

Pro:
-Conflicts at states such as Kansas could have been resolved with the federal government’s
assistance and lessened the tensions.
-Strong government intervention could have stopped Confederate efforts before the war began.
-Had the Founding Fathers or drafters of the Constitution dealt with slavery and the matter of
states’ rights vs. federal power explicitly when they had the opportunity to do so, the issue
would have long been resolved.
Con:
-Decisions such as the Dred Scott cases made fighting inevitable as racial tensions reached the
breaking point.
-Southern states had long since supported nullification and secession.
-The issue of slavery still remained and reached its high point during this time period.
Helpful sources:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296669-2 (long video, but it’s worth watching!)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/housedivided/2010/11/david_blight_could_the_war_ha.
html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/housedivided/2010/11/john_marszalek_could_the_war_
h.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/housedivided/2010/11/brent_glass_could_the_war_hav.
html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/housedivided/2010/11/harold_holzer_could_the_war_h.
html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/housedivided/2010/11/dana_shoaf_could_the_war_have.
html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/house-divided/2010/11/kate_masur.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/housedivided/2010/11/gary_gallagher_could_the_war_.
html
The video in the first link is the best source, in my opinion, to get the fullest idea of the issue at
hand. However, the other links provided all present the opinions of respected history professors
and commentators throughout the country. Although the individuals are biased, they present
facts that back their arguments. The best source: your history text book and your brain.
Helpful hints:
Note that the resolution provides a time frame to limit your argument to: the establishment of
the colonies to the first battle of the Civil War, the Battle of Bull Run. The primary reason for
doing so is that the resolution itself merely states that the Civil War could have been prevented.
If that were left alone, a delegate could say: “it could have been avoided if the Europeans didn’t
8

start the slave trade” and yadda yadda yadda. Although the time frame limits what you can (or
rather shouldn’t) say, you still have a plethora of information to refer to: Bacon’s rebellion,
which led southerners to prefer slaves over indentured servants; the nullification crisis during
Jackson’s term (or more appropriately, reign), which began the large scale debate of states’
rights vs. federal authority; etc.
This is a debate where no preparation or prior study will result in nothing but humiliation and
tears, not necessarily in that order—over-exaggerating, of course. Don’t speak unless you’re
confident in your knowledge of the topic; emotional appeal will hardly help.
Debate: Tax Policies Newport C
Moderator: Paul Iskajyan
Pro: Matthew Cohen (Tarbut V-Torah)
Con: Ernesto Ambrocio
Resolved, that the United States adopt tax plans such as the Buffett Rule.
Historically, the United States government has provided wealthier individuals and large
corporations with tax breaks and deals that significantly improved their income at the expense
of the working class. Only in times of dire economic crisis or wartime (most notably World
War II) did the taxes on this portion of America increase significantly. Once the issue was over,
taxes would decrease slowly but surely. Warren Buffet, a renowned billionaire, conceived the
aptly-named Buffett Rule: a plan to tax anyone that made over a million dollars for 30% of their
income—more than what they currently pay. This plan would force the wealthier members of
society, 0.3% to be exact according to the White House, to contribute more to society, given
that middle class and lower class citizens usually have to pay a higher percentage of their
income. With the increased amount of money available to the government and the American
people, benefits may be available for the “victims” of the Buffett Rule and others alike from
whatever economic stimulation that may ensue. Of course, this plan is seen by some as too
extreme and others as not enough. Should the United States enforce some plan similar to the
Buffett Rule?
Pro:
- It will help alleviate some of the economic burden on the lower-middle class by providing
more revenue for the national government (the money can be invested in welfare programs).
-High income taxes in the past have correlated with economic growth.
-It promotes economic fairness.
Con:
-Any such plan may discourage economic ventures because of the knowledge that a significant
portion of the profits will be taken.
-Companies and individuals can still hide assets on off-shore accounts and avoid the increase.
-Given that it only takes .3% of the population, the expected increase in tax revenue would not
9

be truly significant.
Helpful sources:
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/taxing_rich.htm
http://www.tcnjmagazine.com/?p=5422&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://wtvr.com/2012/04/13/breaking-down-the-buffet-rule/
http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/135950/the_buffett_rule_a_balanced
http://2012election.procon.org/view.answers.election.php?questionID=1741
These sources break down the Buffett Rule and present arguments from politicians and those
derived from economic logic pertaining to increasing taxes on the rich. However, it will be
extremely helpful to research America’s history of high (and low) taxes and what economic
repercussions followed. A glance at worldwide taxation systems would help also.
Helpful hints:
This is a debate where the economic buffs will truly shine: while emotional appeal will work to
a certain extent, it won’t have as much effect as statistics and historical evidence will—none of
the three will have any effect at all if you don’t have a good speech! Ideally, you should base
your argument primarily around economic facts, support it with historical evidence or other
economic theory (e.g. Keynesian economics and supply-side economics), and finally use
emotional appeal of any sort to win over the audience. Even though you’re speaking to a group
of teenagers, solely relying on emotions will make it very hard to win a debate about
economics.
Block IV 3:00 PM – 3:45 PM
Leadership Workshop: What Type of Leader Are You? Carmel
Led By: Julianna Joss (Orange County School of the Arts)
In a world filled with various different types of leaders, it is hard to distinguish which type of
leader you are. Whether you are a compassionate or confrontational leader, this workshop is
designed to help you figure out what type of leadership category that suits you best. We will
discuss effective ways to guide people and advice on what to do, and not to do. We will then
put your newfound sense of self-awareness to the test in an exciting crisis scenario.
Activism Workshop: Passion to Action Newport A
Led By: Jessica Shin (University) and Kevin Gu (University)
As individuals, we all have something that we cherish or are extremely passionate about;
whether it is bullying, the environment, or a pressing political issue – everyone has something
10

that he or she is impassioned about. We want to nurture that passion and make your individual
voices heard and to initiate change. The workshop will teach different ideas and ways to get
your voice heard or to start a movement. Former Speaker of the Assembly, Karina Jougla, will
also be speaking about the Girl Up movement.
Debate: Nurture vs. Nature Newport C
Moderator: Jane Lichacz
Pro: Matthew Cohen
Con: Daniel Hamidi
Resolved, that nurture is more powerful than nature.
Nature or nurture? This age-old question has boggled psychologists, caretakers, and a large
portion of the human population. Is your personality contingent upon your genes or your
upbringing? What about your intellect? And, more controversially, your sexual orientation?
The topic of nature versus nurture has been studied for countless years and decades, and results
supporting both factors sway the debate in either way. As such, this resolution requires very
little explanation: is how and where you are raised more important than what genetics you
were born with?
Pro:
-Environmental factors and social conditions play a strong role in childhood development
-There are several studies pertaining to the connection between social conditions and
intelligence.
Con:
-There are several miracle stories of twins that were separated at a young age that ended up
remarkably similar in many aspects.
-There are several studies pertaining to the connection between race and intelligence.
Helpful sources:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120612101334.htm
http://environmentalet.org/psy111/naturenurture.htm
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture
http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?
nid=2026&dat=19981113&id=hr4jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y9AFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2506,1277412
Researching for this debate will mostly consist of analyzing studies pertaining to nurture vs.
nature such as the ones mentioned above, left ambiguous so you can do that part, and
11

formulating your own opinion.
Helpful hints:
Because this topic is very broad and encompasses a wide scope of scientific, psychological,
social, etc. ideas, be prepared for anything: you may talk about the effects of genetics and a
delegate may ask you a question about a specific gene or environmental factor that catches you
off guard. Furthermore, be flexible in your argumentation because there may be countless
different arguments for both sides.
Closing Session 3:45 PM – 4:00 PM
After a long day of workshops, trainings, and debates, our Governor Julianna Joss will end our
glorious day with some closing remarks. And to wrap up the day, we will be listing off the
name of the Best Speaker Gavel winner from our debate.
For more information, please go to: www.socal.jsa.org
Register your chapter at: www.my.jsa.org/portal
Or contact:
Tracy Thomas
SoCal JSA Program Director
tthomas@jsa.org
1-805-895-2110
12

Conference Decorum
“Respect the Speaker”
The phrase “Respect the Speaker” is all too often used during JSA debates, and as
result it has lost much of its meaning and significance. In JSA debates, all the
moderator asks of you is to remain quiet and respectful so that the audience does the
same when it’s your turn to speak.
To ensure that all of the debates create an open environment for the exchange of
ideas, remember to “Respect the Speaker” by NOT…
 Using cell phones, MP3 players, or iPods.
 Talking or carrying on side-conversations.
 Shouting or excessively cheering to the point of distraction.
 Sleeping during a speech.
 Eating or drinking to the point of distraction.
 Leaving trash or loose papers lying around the room.
 Leaving the room during the debate.
 Straying from JSA debate procedures.
 Interfering with the moderator’s job.
 Room-hopping during debates.
Also keep in mind to listen to the moderator’s instructions carefully during the
debates.
By “Respecting the Speaker” we can ensure that the debates this weekend run
smoothly and efficiently.
13

And remember the golden rule,
treat others how you wish to be treated,
and we will be in for a great day….
Debate Rules
1. Know the topic. Although experienced delegates are able to construct excellent
arguments and pontificate them eloquently on the spot, it is recommended that first-time
debaters or those who have less practice research the topic and have arguments prepared
beforehand.
2. Respect the speaker. It is crucial that every delegate in a debate respect the speaker by
refraining from making comments or asking questions during the allotted speaking period.
There will be time for questions after a particular speaker finishes.
3. Speak clearly and slowly. Presenting arguments in front of a large audience,
especially a JSA crowd, is nerve-wrecking the first few times. However, the key is to calm
down. By doing so, a speaker will be less likely to simply rush through his or her speech in
such a way that no one can comprehend it.
4. Present something new. This primarily applies to subsequent speakers. The role of a
subsequent speaker is to present a different argument than that of the main speaker that will
give a new dimension to the position and refute some of the opposing argument’s points.
5. Word your questions carefully. When the time comes for the audience to question
the speaker, it is important that any question asked is succinct and actually a question. If a
question is too long-winded, the speaker will not be able to understand the gist of it and
answer it. Also, a question can be used to support a particular argument or speaker if
worded correctly.
6. Learn the Parliamentary Procedure. Many times in a debate, there will be occasions
when there is too little time or too much time. In such instances, knowing the motions
listed in Robert’s Rules of Order, Revised will allow a particular speaker’s time to be
lengthened or a debate to be shortened overall.
14

Debate Procedures
Speaker Time
Main Proponent – Opening 6 minutes
Main Opponent – Opening 6 minutes
Subsequent Proponent 3 minutes
Subsequent Opponent 3 minutes
Main Opponent – Closing 3 minutes
Main Proponent – Closing 3 minutes
The subsequent speakers will present in an alternating order (pro, con, pro, con, etc.) until the
time allocated for subsequents has elapsed. There is no limit to the number of subsequents, as long as
there is enough time for the closing statements and there is a pair of both con and pro.
Any speaker who finishes before 3 minutes may use the remaining time to “yield the time to
questions”, “yield to another speaker” (on the same side of the issue), or “yield the time to the
chair”. If there are no more questions or speakers, the speaker has concluded.
If a speaker runs out of time to answer a question or finish his or her speech, one person from the
floor will be able to “motion to extend speaker’s time by ___ minutes” or “motion to extend
speaker’s time to answer the question”.
All speakers should identify themselves by name and high school at the beginning of the speech.
Debates should be concluded ten minutes prior to the scheduled end of the session. At that time,
the moderator will ask the original main con and pro to give a closing speech. Closing speakers may
not entertain questions or yield to another speaker.
Following closing speeches, the house moves to a vote on the resolution and the chair announces
15

the results.
Summer Programs
* Summer 2013 *
Although Summer 2012 just ended, you can already start planning for Summer 2013! JSA is a
year-round program, with other outstanding options continuing into the summer.
Junior Statesmen Summer School:
Experience the unique opportunity of living in dorms at Stanford, Princeton,
or Georgetown, where you will have the ability to take and receive credit for AP classes
taught by some of the best professors from across the nation, and befriend JSA students from all
over the world!
This program offers classes in politically enlightening subjects such as AP Government, AP
Macroeconomics, and International Relations, (just to name a few) along with an outstanding
course where you will have the opportunity to hone your skills in an Honors Speech class called
Congressional Workshop. At summer school you will also meet diverse, passionate people
from all around the globe, many of whom become your lifelong friends. Along with traveling to
places like San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf or DC’s M Street, the incredible speakers
program tops off the quality that Summer School exemplifies. Like every graduate will tell you,
Summer School is an experience and an opportunity that you just can’t find anywhere else!
Junior Statesmen Summer Institute:
Summer Institute gives students the chance to participate in local and state political affairs,
while experiencing a taste of college life. Students will meet with leaders of the state, county,
or city, who take time out of their schedule to address JSA students about the issues relevant to
our generation that they encounter in everyday political life. Summer Institute focuses on a
variety of political spectrums and allows students the chance to exercise their point of views and
test their debating skills against one another. With interactive discussions about politics,
campaign workshops, and large focus on the media, there is no time to be bored at JSA Summer
Institute. For those with a limited amount of time available over the summer, the Institutes
offer the perfect opportunity to learn about and live the process that modern politicians go
through.
16

JSA Calendar
* 2013 – 2014 *
Fall 2013
Winter 2014
Spring 2014
Spring State April 25-27 Anaheim Marriott
Event Dates Location
Summer Cabinet Meeting September 7 Loyola Marymount University
Fall Leadership Conference October 5 LAX Marriott
AR One Day Saturday, October 19 Loyola Marymount University
SER One Day Sunday, October 20 University of California, Irvine
CIR One Day Saturday, October 26 University of California, Santa
Barbara
Fall State – Los Angeles November 9-10 LAX Marriott
Fall State – Orange County November 23-24 Irvine Marriott
Winter Congress February 15-16 Torrance Marriott
17

Places to Eat
Name Location & Contact Information Walking Time
(One-Way)
Andiamo,
The Café,
The Bistro
LAX Hilton
(In the Hotel) In the Hotel
Carl’s Jr.
5625 West Century Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90045
1 (310) 642-8931
3 Minutes
Denny’s
1 (310) 410-1712
5 Minutes
Trimana
9841 Airport Blvd.
http://www.trimana.com
1 (310) 417-5057
6 Minutes
Burger King
9601 Airport Blvd.
1 (310) 670-5188
10 Minutes
Subway
1 (310) 670-2797
11 Minutes
Taco Express
9200 Aviation Blvd.
1 (310) 649-1513
13 Minutes
Daily Grill
1 (310) 665-0149
http://www.dailygrill.com Delivery
Dominos 1 (310) 677-1900
http://www.dominos.com Delivery
• Remember to calculate the amount of time it takes to commute back and forth.
• It is everyone’s responsibility to make it back in time!
18

JSA Spring Leadership Conference Agenda

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à JSA Spring Leadership Conference Agenda

Similaire à JSA Spring Leadership Conference Agenda (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

JSA Spring Leadership Conference Agenda