Spring Plenary 2011 Minutes - 2/13/2011
●Franklyn Cantor ‘12: Swat Sucks Shirts for sale. CQC meeting in the far corner at 7:15. Plenary Bingo is available.
●7:22 - SPRING PLENARY 2011 HAS BEGUN!We reach quorum. Franklyn starts with a Moment of Silence
○Intros
○3 Minutes to look over the Rules of Order and the Agenda
○No questions
○Presidential Announcements
●Resolution #1 (Emily Dix and Alex Tonsing)
○Introduction of Resolution
■Emily Dix and Alex Tonsing: Streamline proceedings, would only be able to replace before the fact-finding portion
○Questions:
■Abby Moskowitz ‘11 - At what point are names given to alternate jurors?
○Emily - We send all 13 jurors names to the parties at the beginning. We would only tell the alternates if we end up needing them to serve on the trialNo more questions
●Fifteen minutes for pro and con
○Sarina Schwartz ‘11: (Pro) As former HC Co-Chair, I want to talk about how many barriers there are to starting a trial. A resolution like this could speed up that process while preserving confidentiality
○Joseph Ramirez ‘13: (Pro) I agree with everything she just said
○Ryan Fackler ‘11: Another 30 seconds or so, and then we need to move on
○Matt Mazewski ‘13: (Con) I agree with the intent of the resolution, it would be good to streamline the process. The only thing I take issue with is that the stipulation that one of the alt. jurors be a person of color. I disagree with the idea that any Haverford student would be unfit to serve on a juror would be unfit to serve on a trial because of his or her race.
○Aubree Penney ‘13: (Pro) I know there was an issue a few years ago about multi-cultural jurors and I don’t want to go back to that right now
○Abby Moskowitz ‘11: (Pro) I want to reiterate that the student of color thing is for a plenary down the road, this one is important for the making of trials and that’s it
●Ryan: 3 minutes for response
○Alex Tonsing ‘13: In response to the multicultural requirement, we want to keep it to a reasonable number that wouldn’t halt the process but would maintain what the Constitution is saying
○Emily Dix ‘12: Trying to keep the ratio expressed in the constitution. In summary, we think this is important to streamline procedure and it would be really helpful.
●Ryan: Friendly amendments, anyone?
●Move on to the vote. This is a change to the Constitution and requires ⅔ majority
○It passes by a visual ballot
●Franklyn: We are temporarily resigning the chair position to present our resolution
●Resolution #2 (Franklyn and Ryan)
○Combining two bodies of SC into one
○Essentially there are two bodies talking about the exact same issues and we want to make things more efficient. Want to take 1 rep from each class year and they’ll meet with everyone else and it will be just Students’ Council
●Q&A Session
○Aaron Maddow ‘14: Why reduce from 3 to 1
■Franklyn: We have extraordinary problems getting people to C12
○Matthew DaSilva ‘14: What will the role of the reps. be?
■Franklyn: Their specific task is to voice perspectives and concerns relating to people in their class year. Also assisting SC projects
○Andrew Ross ‘11: What are the drawbacks?
■Franklyn: There will be fewer people involved technically, but since those people want to be part of it. Other drawback is that there would be fewer SC meetings per week for people to attend
●Pro-Con debate
○Sam Rodriques ‘13 (Con) - wonders if both bodies are discussing the same things and if it’s because it’s not possible for them to talk about different things or if it’s because they are not being creative enough
○Jacob Horn ‘13 (Pro) - Council of 12 doesn’t work. This resolution makes the positions more effective since the current positions, though more of them, don’t do anything. Time to try something new and see where it takes us.
○Dan Havester (Con) - Talks about the Dark Lord Sauron. Would like to point out that battles are down 20% the last four years, leadership is unstable. It’s a dangerous job and these people are heros and we need to respect them.
○Lowell West (Pro) - C12 is clearly redundant and needs to go.
○Lord of the Rings sidetrack. Gandalf died and was reborn as Gandalf the White. Madness at Plenary. Sam Permutt is jumping and swinging Swat Sucks shirts everywhere.
●Response to Pro/Con
○Franklyn - thanks to everyone who made points and uh, had comments.
●Friendly Amendments
○None
●Unfriendly Amendments
○None
●Vote
○The resolution passes by visual ballot! Death toll of C12
●Resolution Number 3
○Presented by Rob Williams ‘12 - Assign Blackboard reading during shopping week so we don’t have to buy/borrow textbooks for classes we may or may not be taking. Just scan the relevant reading onto Blackboard until shopping week is over.
○Questions
■Jonathan Laks ‘14 - What are you hoping to change? How are you going to make professors follow this? Or are you saying they should just consider this
●Rob - Can’t force professors to do anything, but to make them aware of the issue
■Andy Jenness ‘12 - What happens when Blackboard is phased out?
●Rob - just be Moodle reasons, it’s the same deal
■Michael Rushmore ‘14 - How does this work legally?
●Rob - That’s what happens now, so it’s not an issue
■Elliott Koch ‘11 - Why don’t you just not do the reading?
■Jonathan Laks ‘14 - If I’m a professor teaching a course, do you want me to change the syllabus, do you want me to buy the books and loan them to students?
■Franklyn - Just to be clear, this is question and answer session, not an extensive debate between two parties
■Paul ‘13 - So this is just a simple request to professors?
●Rob - yes
○Pro/Con Debate
■Daniel Gordon ‘14 (Pro) - There is no con to this resolution
■Ian Burnette ‘12 (Pro) - Something in favor
■Aaron Maddow ‘14 (Con) - Shopping week is actually 2.5 weeks, so it’s more of a burden on professors
■Josh Mussa ‘13 (Pro) - Think this is a great resolution, maybe also ask Julie to extend the book return date to the end of shopping week
■Noah Levine ‘11 (Pro) - Professors are allowed to give 15% of a copyrighted book to their students on Blackboard, so this is fine
■Connor Bralla ‘14 (Pro) - This is a good idea
■Jonathan Laks ‘14 - Says something about tuition and professors. Doesn’t want professors to spend the time thinking about how they can save students money
■Alex Tonsing ‘13 (Pro) - All this is doing is asking professors to try to do this, really not a big deal.
○Response
■Rob - The important thing to remember is that there is no negative to this, it is just a simple request for professors to consider. Also, shopping week is 1.5 weeks, not 2.5, so it’s not a big deal.
○Friendly Amendments
■None
○Unfriendly Amendments
■None
○Moment of Silence
○Resolution Passes by visual ballot
●Resolution Number 4
○Presenters: Emily Dix ‘12, Abby Moskowitz ‘11, Florencia Foxley ‘13, Ian Gavigan ‘14, Noah Lavine ‘11, Phil Drexler ‘14
■Emily Dix: Clarifying differences between academic and social confrontations. Confrontations between professors and students allows us to have the academic privileges we have such as unproctored exams.
■Abby Moskowitz: Academic confrontations have more steps than social confrontations
■Ian Gavigan: This is already how Honor Council and professors understand the honor code, so this is just to clarify
■Florencia Foxley: Professors need to understand that we know how academic confrontation functions to trust us with the Honor Code, especially in test/quiz settings
■Noah Lavine: recent example is the Peter Pan trial, when there wasn’t clarity on when there had been sufficient confrontation
■Phil Drexler: This makes the Honor Code a better document
○Q&A:
■Lucian Grand ‘12: How much of this resolution is a response to the Peter Pan trial, and not a perceived distrust? Is this an internal Honor Council issue?
●Emily: Can’t directly talk about the trial, but this is being presented because it has been an issue in the past that has never been clarified
■Lowell West ‘13: What if the confronting party is the professor and it can be resolved by professor without the need for trial?
●Professors are contractually obligated to bring concerns to Honor Council
●Honor Council has final word - gives consistency in procedures
■Angelique Bradford ‘13: Does the faculty member always need to be involved? e.g. student to student confrontation
●Florencia: No, but there was confusion in Peter Pan case.
■Jacob Lowy ‘14: Does this give students more of a vigilante role?
●Abby: this isn’t meant to be vigilante, but to address something that affects the whole community
○Pro/Con Debate:
■Anastasia Nikolis ‘11 (Con): Concern is about the professors: she understands the thought process behind this resolution, but the way it was written, it makes it more confusing about how the professor is active in the process. Honor Council knows what it’s doing more than the rest of the school anyway, and everyone who’s on it now knows what’s going on, but a future Honor Council may not.
■Lucian Grand ‘12 (Con): Not every suspected violation is actually a violation. Initially, it may be appropriate for students to meet individually before
■Anna Brockway ‘12 (Pro): We’re not necessarily saying that there are now confrontations like this, but that this is how confrontations are anyways and it needs to be clarified. This is much more about making sure that everyone is on the same page. If something makes it to Honor Council it is not a simple misunderstanding and needs to be treated procedurally.
○Response from Presenters:
■Emily Dix: regarding Anastasia’s point, this resolution is not about professors, there’s no mention about how professors should handle trials now. This is particularly about student to student confrontation.
■Phil Drexler: In the case of a misunderstanding, then it would be clear that an academic violation did not occur. It doesn’t say an issue should go straight to trial but it should be sent to Honor Council to figure out whether a trial needs to happen.
■Emily Dix: Just that if any sort of violation occurred it needs to go to Honor Council to be discussed.
○Ryan: Moment of Silence, needs a ⅔ vote
■Visual Ballot: unclear
■Paper Ballot: waiting....
■This resolution passes
●Honor Code Ratification
○Presenters: Emily Dix ‘12 and Anna Brockway ‘12
■Emily: The fact that we re-ratify the code every year says something powerful about the community
■Anna: Ratification process gives us the opportunity to reflect on how well the Honor Code functions
○Emily: Started as purely academic -->
■A document for us to debate, discuss, and reflect upon social as well
■Anna: Honor Code seeks to articulate values that are essential to our community, sets Haverford apart
■Emily: Honor Code is unique in the way it functions when there is a breach of trust
○Q&A session
■No questions
○Pro/Con Debate
■No pro/con debate
○Ryan & Franklyn
■This vote is to open ratification period for the Code, not to ratify the code itself
○Vote preceded by moment of silence
■And the ratification period for the code SHALL BE OPENED on Wednesday at midnight!
●Reolution #5
○Presenters: Danny Bedrossian ‘13, Anna Brockway ‘12, Sam Rodriques ‘13, Mary Clare O’Donnell ‘14 (representing Clearness Committeee)
■Danny B: proposal to help improve Quaker consortium (Penn / Trico)
■Anna: People were having trouble finding information about how to take classes of Swarthmore and Penn (people want to take advantage but there are barriers. Could not create FAQ about trico / Quaker consortium because could not find information. Need more leadership across campus
■Mary Clare: Other consortia (5-college, Claremont) have offices of consortium that help students navigate consortium
■Sam: Have talked to the Deans’ Office - they are on board - interested in findings, want to get a task force together to implement items proposed. Important that student body affirms findings.
○Pro/Con
■Ben Wohl ‘14: How many students are interested in these kinds of proposals? I’m not entirely sure the demand exists for this.
■Sam Rodriques ‘13: The second survey of the Clearness Committee showed almost 300 responses and a large portion thereof reported a lot of interested in taking classes in the Quaker Consortium.
■Ben Wohl ‘14 : How many of the things on page 13 exist in the Bi-Co? Is this a distraction from the problems with the Bi-Co?
●Anna: It’s harder to get info on classes at Penn
■Catherine: I have a question about the Tri-Co van schedule. Could this result in some changes with events at Swat?
●Suggestions are not binding
■Corey Downing ‘14: I don’t think this stuff can be implemented. Where’s the money coming from?
●Sam Rodrigues ‘13: That is somewhat up in the air
●Mary Clare ‘14 - To some degree this is showing that Tri-Co stuff is an issue the students would like to be addressed
●Anna ‘12 - would like to point out that we have an administrator on our committee, and have talked to the Deans’ Office extensively
■Chris Tyson ‘13 - Is this issue with transportation given the problems with Haverford’s resources
●Anna - That’s not really what this resolution is dealing with, though that issue is being examined, this is more asking that communication between the offices improves
■Andrew Ross ‘11 - The Office of Tri-College Affairs - what would that be, exactly?
●Danny - Taking the first steps to have the registrars, etc. work together at all three schools
●Sam - It would be involved in coordinating the different policies at the schools
■Daniel Gordon ‘13 - Have you talked to the other schools?
●Mary - Sort of. This would begin that interaction and facilitate it
●Danny - This is just a resolution to make someone at Haverford responsible for Tri-Co issues.
■Visual Ballot to extend Q and A
●Failed
■Pro/Con
●Jonathan Laks ‘14 (Pro?) - This is vague enough to leave the details of the position up to the people involved
●Catherine (Pro) - Doesn’t think the schools have thought about the logistics of the consortium enough, this will make us focus on it more
●Matt Mazewski ‘13 (Con) - Have to assign this responsibilities to a specific person, and thinks adding this to someone who already works here’s responsibilities is not considerate.
●Ben Wohl ‘14 (Con) - Does not think this resolution addresses the real issues because it doesn’t make the other schools cooperate with us more. The suggested measures on page 13 are costly and don’t actually solve the bigger issue. Thinks it hits the issue of trying to fix the issue of the consortium, but doesn’t do it effectively.
●Andy Jenness ‘12 (Pro) - I take a lot of classes at Swat and appreciate the idea behind this resolution
●Connor Bralla ‘14 (Pro) - This sounds similar to last semesters’ resolution about the Blue Bus. I think this is better than not trying to do anything to fix the situation
■Response
●Anna: Thanks for the comments. Biggest comment that we received was about transportation issues. All of this is non-binding, we want this stuff to be considered but it is not binding. In the future, priorities can be reconsidered. What we’re really trying to pass is the first part of the resolution showing student support for taking part in the Quaker Consortium
■Amendments
●None
■Voting
●Requires majority vote
○Moment of silence
●Passes by visual ballot
●Resolution 6 “Investigating Scheduling of Classes”
○Jeremy Zoll ‘12: Scheduling makes it difficult when all humanities classes are available T-TH afternoons. It would be helpful were they available MWF mornings
○Q&A
■Jonathan Laks ‘14: Is the idea that all the classes … [inaudible] Is the idea behind this resolution so that the classes in a particular time slot are of different types?
●Jeremy: Most of those morning classes on nat. sciences and intro languages. We just want to spread humanities/social sciences throughout the day to make them more accessible
■Ben Safran ‘13: Curious if you’ve talked about the proposal to the Provost or other admins
●Maura Schiefer ‘11: We have spoken to Dean Denney and Provost and the admin. seems to like the proposal. One of the things they asked is that we go through plenary. Lots of profs. have no problem with spreading out classes more
■Matt Mazewski ‘13: Was there a specific conflict that inspired the resolution and could you share it?
●Jeremy: Right now, faculty go to the registrar to say when they want/can teach a class. Our understanding is that some profs. aren’t aware that students face this issue and that if they were aware of this problem they would change it.
●Maura: There are teaching times of only an hour on MWF mornings, we ask that it be extended to an hour an a half
○Pro-Con Debate
■Jonathan Laks ‘14 (Pro): Not sure which side to stand on for this, but I think that there are a lot of issues here and the main reason why this came up in the first place is that certain depts. teach a certain way... [inaudible] this is a significant improvement to the current situation [inaudible] this will help those students...
■Alexandra John ‘13 (Con): This means there is a likely chance that more classes are going to be offered on Fridays. Who wants that?