As Haverford students prepare to reconvene in the Douglas B. Gardner ’83 Integrated Athletic Center (GIAC) for the upcoming Plenary on Sunday, March 29, this semester’s session will feature a wide-ranging set of resolutions addressing matters of student governance, institutional structures, campus climate, and community values.
Unlike last semester’s Plenary, which was centered on a single, comprehensive initiative driven by the Committee for Student Community, Agency, and Responsibility (CSCAR), this session brings together a diverse slate of proposals, from technical constitutional updates to broader questions of institutional affiliation and symbolic recognition. Each of these proposals reflects ongoing efforts to adapt Haverford’s systems of self-governance to evolving student needs while maintaining the College’s stated commitment to transparency, accountability, and community engagement.
Two resolutions drafted for the Spring 2026 session failed to receive the 200 signatures required to be brought to Plenary. One proposed creating a Bi-College Student Government Liaison to better coordinate Haverford’s Students’ Council and Bryn Mawr’s Self-Government Association by improving communication, attending meetings and Plenary on both campuses, and supporting cross-campus collaboration. The other addressed concerns about Fizz, an anonymous social media platform used on college campuses nationwide, including Haverford, arguing that its lack of accountability enables harmful content and calling on the administration to request its removal and avoid similar platforms.
Although some of the resolutions address weighty and potentially sensitive topics, the Students’ Council has made an effort to maintain some of the more light-hearted aspects of Plenary. This year, the Co-Treasurers are reviving Plenary Bingo, in which participants fill out cards with the names of students they anticipate will speak during the session. Plenary Bingo hasn’t been part of the event since it was discontinued following the Spring 2017 Plenary. At varying points in campus history, both students and members of Students’ Council have referenced Plenary Bingo as exposing the fact that a limited number of students engage with the Plenary process. One student remarked in 1989 that the activity was not as enjoyable because “the same people speak time after time and say the same thing again and again.” At the same time, other students shortly after the activity’s discontinuation reminisced about it as being “fun.”
Once the rules of order are ratified and quorum is achieved, students will hear presentations on each resolution, engage in a session of question-and-answer and pro-con debates, and vote accordingly.
RESOLUTION #1: Efficient Election Procedures & Additional Constitutional Updates
Presented by Ian Trask ’28, Zoe Hartmann ’28, Leo Ni ’29, and Ellison King ’29
The first resolution proposes a sweeping set of amendments to the Students’ Association Constitution aimed at addressing longstanding inefficiencies and ambiguities in election procedures.
The resolution seeks to resolve structural gaps in how elections are conducted, disputed, and, when necessary, rerun. Current policy requires a special Plenary with 75% student participation to resolve election disputes; such a threshold is often logistically difficult to meet and can leave Students’ Council positions vacant for extended periods. The proposed changes introduce a more flexible system in which Elections Coordinators and Students’ Council Librarians can review disputes and determine next steps, including initiating the recall process under modified quorum requirements.
Another objective is to establish, for the first time, a formal process for handling disputes in ongoing elections, addressing a gap that has previously led to confusion and delays. In addition, the resolution introduces safeguards against conflicts of interest by requiring Elections Coordinators to recuse themselves if they are candidates and barring them from holding other elected positions. It also restructures the timeline to rerun elections, aiming to reduce overlapping election cycles as a means of improving clarity for voters.
Beyond elections, the resolution expands eligibility for participation in student governance by recognizing students who live off campus but are still enrolled in the college full time as part of the Students’ Association (e.g., students who live off campus, not students studying abroad or students on leave). It also clarifies that students who are studying abroad or on leave may run for office, provided that they intend to return during the term for which they are running. It also significantly revises the role of the Students’ Council Librarians by formalizing their responsibilities in constitutional interpretation, archival maintenance, and financial oversight, while also introducing a clear process for dismissal of those appointed to the position.
RESOLUTION #2: Transitioning the COML Role to a Student Worker Position
Presented by Eliana Kim ’28, Esme Dorsey ’28, Isaac Kemokai ’28, Amelia Spielman ’28
The second resolution proposes moving the role of Community Outreach Multicultural Liaisons (COMLs) out of the electoral system and into a student worker model housed under the Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Access (IDEA) office.
Citing repeated election failures due to a lack of interested candidates, as well as challenges in training timelines, the resolution argues that the current structure has limited the effectiveness of the COML role and instead reframes COMLs as primarily community-building figures who would be better supported through institutional oversight rather than electoral turnover. Under the proposed changes, COMLs would be recruited, trained, and mentored collaboratively by current COMLs as well as IDEA staff leadership, with the ultimate goal of ensuring continuity and sustained engagement with the position. While they would no longer be elected positions, the COMLs would continue to maintain connections with Students’ Council and Honor Council through regular meetings, which would allow them to preserve their role in helping address conduct related concerns affiliated with the Social Code.
RESOLUTION #3: Updated Alcohol Policy
Presented by Isabela Azumatan Aceituno ’27 and Jackson Cannon ’28
This resolution, presented by the Co-Chairs of the Joint Student-Administration Alcohol Policy Panel (JSAAPP), with contributions from Dean of Student Life Scott Wojciechowski, Director of Health and Wellbeing Education Sabrina Glass-Kershaw, and the Peer Educators from the Office of Health and Wellbeing Education, proposes a comprehensive revision of Haverford’s Alcohol Policy.
The resolution asserts that the current policy is outdated, overly lengthy, and misaligned with existing practices, as it fails to properly reflect current social event procedures, post-infraction processes, and the present structure and responsibilities of JSAAPP, which only became a formal member of the Students’ Council at the last Plenary.
The proposed update seeks to condense and clarify the policy while explicitly adopting a harm-reduction framework. Key changes include streamlined goals emphasizing moderation of consumption, as well as the practice of consent and bystander intervention; clearly defined guidelines for social events and designated spaces; expanded expectations and training requirements for party hosts; and a more transparent, tiered process for handling policy infractions. The revision also updates JSAAPP’s composition and role to reflect current practices, and strengthens its coordination with Student Life and the Office of Health and Wellbeing Education.
RESOLUTION #4: More Effective Budgeting Committee
Presented by Sophia Goss ’28 and Ben Perez-Flesler ’27
Authored by the current Students’ Council Co-Treasurers, this resolution focuses on redistributing the workload associated with student budgeting and increasing transparency in financial decision-making. Currently, much of the responsibility for reviewing funding requests falls on the Co-Treasurers and a budgeting committee composed largely of members of the Students’ Council Executive Board, many of whom already hold very demanding positions in terms of time.
The resolution proposes replacing this structure with a committee composed primarily of Students’ Council Officers, including those representing academics, athletics, campus life, the arts, and multiculturalism.
In broadening participation in the budgeting process, the resolution aims to distribute labor more equitably while incorporating a wider range of perspectives into funding decisions. It also formalizes expectations around record-keeping, public accessibility of funding guidelines, and conflict-of-interest procedures.
RESOLUTION #5: Readable & Procedurally Improved Honor Council Charter
Presented by Sofie Quirk ’28, Ben Perez-Flesler ’27, Jonah Paterson ’26, and Ian Trask ’28
This resolution proposes a comprehensive revision of the Honor Council Charter, focusing on clarity, efficiency, and workload distribution. The current charter, which spans over 30 pages, contains redundancies and separate sections for academic and social procedures despite the structural similarities between the two.
The revised version aims to streamline this content, making it both more accessible and easier to navigate for the student body and council members alike. One of the most significant changes involves restructuring the role of Honor Council Co-Secretaries. Rather than being elected in a standalone election, which, like many elections at Haverford, is often a low-participation process that risks delaying subsequent elections, the Co-Secretaries would be internally selected from among existing Honor Council members. The resolution authors argue this ensures that those in the role are already trained and reduces potential disruptions to the election cycle.
The resolution also introduces greater flexibility within case management, allowing experienced council members to take on leadership roles in their proceedings, thereby alleviating the workload placed on the Co-Chairs. Additionally, it reintroduces the possibility of joint student-administrative panels for particularly serious cases, which expands the potential for community involvement in and education on council proceedings.
RESOLUTION #6: Rename the Library
Presented by Jay Huennekens ’28 and Ian Trask ’28
The final resolution calls for the college to initiate a formal review process regarding the naming of the Allison and Howard Lutnick ’83 Library. Citing recently surfaced allegations and reported associations between Lutnick and Jeffrey Epstein, the resolution raises concerns about whether the continued use of the name aligns with the college’s values. It emphasizes that naming a central campus building after an individual constitutes a form of institutional endorsement, and thus reputational considerations must be taken into account.
Framed as an “extreme case,” the resolution explicitly states that it does not seek to establish a general precedent for renaming campus buildings but simply wishes to prompt careful consideration in light of significant concerns.
Rather than the Plenary resolution being intended to have the college convene a review committee, including student, faculty, and staff representation, to evaluate the matter and make a recommendation to the Board of Managers, the resolution serves as a formal request that such actions be taken.
In an email sent to the student body on Monday, March 23, containing the Plenary packet, Students’ Council Co-Presidents Ben Fligelman ’26 and Sarah Weill-Jones ’26 acknowledged that the topics discussed during the presentation of a resolution concerning the potential renaming of the library due to Lutnick’s association with Jeffrey Epstein may be especially difficult for members of the student body. The Co-Presidents emphasized the importance of approaching both the subject matter and one another “with trust, concern, respect, and care,” emphasizing the broader challenge of balancing open discussion with community well-being.
In recognition of the sensitive nature of this discussion, additional structures have been developed to support student participation and self-care. The Haverford Survivor Collective, a student- and survivor-led organization, and the Office of Health and Wellbeing Education created an anonymous Google Form through which students can submit comments to be read aloud during the question-and-answer and pro-con debate portions of that particular Plenary resolution, allowing those who may not feel comfortable speaking publicly to still contribute. Students are also able to submit comments in advance of the session. In addition to these measures, a QR code linking to a document outlining campus- and community-based support resources for individuals impacted by sexual violence was included in the Plenary packet.
Support will also be available in person throughout the event. Outside advocates from the Delaware County Victim Assistance Center and the Victim Services Center of Montgomery County (note: the Co-President’s email to the student body mistakenly referenced the advocates as being from Laurel House, a local domestic violence shelter) will be present alongside the Director of Health and Wellbeing Education. Spaces in and around the GIAC will be designated for students who need to step away or seek assistance from a confidential advocate.
Spring Plenary 2026 will begin at 2:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 29, in the GIAC, with doors opening at 1:00 p.m. Satellite rooms will be available in Sharpless Auditorium and the GIAC conference room for a quieter, more relaxed experience. The event will also be accessible via Zoom by submitting an accommodation request no later than 12:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Editor’s Note: The author of this piece is the co-founder and co-head of the Haverford Survivor Collective and currently serves as a Senior Peer Educator and Sexual Violence Prevention Program Lead within the Office of Health and Wellbeing Education. Both organizations are referenced in this article in relation to Plenary support resources.
Editor’s Note: The misspelling of “JSAAP” was amended from “JSAAP” to “JSAAPP.” Additionally, the paragraph regarding the Plenary Bingo has been adjusted in order to fit the intended vision of the writer.
Discover more from The Clerk
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Be First to Comment