Spring Plenary 2026: The Train that Kept Six Resolutions on Track

By: Nick D’Antonio, Alex Ellison-Drum, Cade Fanning, Sofia Malaspina, Pae Smith-Hiebert

Photos by Siena Solis ’28

Content Warning: This article discusses sexual violence, including information related to Jeffrey Epstein. Reader discretion is advised.

On Sunday, March 29, students gathered in the Gardner Integrated Athletic Center (GIAC), nearby satellite rooms, and over Zoom to participate in the SEPTA-themed Spring Plenary. The GIAC doors opened at 1:00 p.m., and students filed in to collect SEPTA-inspired t-shirts, stickers, and snacks. While waiting for attendance to meet quorum (66% of the student body), attendees watched a performance by the student dance group Bounce. Quorum was then reached at 2:27 p.m. 

At 2:28 p.m., Director of Health and Wellbeing Education Sabrina Glass-Kershaw announced that the portion of Plenary during which Resolution #6: Rename the Library would be presented, was designated as a confidential event. This allowed students to speak openly without fear that what they said would be reported to Title IX under traditional mandated reporting guidelines. They added that crisis counselors wearing red lanyards were available to support any students who experienced difficulty dealing with the sensitive nature of the resolution. Glass-Kershaw requested that student media (and any other students who might be documenting the proceedings) refrain from taking photographs, documenting direct quotes from student speakers, or otherwise engaging in behavior that might violate the confidentiality of the space. They also brought attention to an anonymous comment form that was linked via QR code in the Plenary packet, as well as sent out in the Co-President’s email on the Monday prior to Plenary. This allowed students to submit anonymous questions or statements to be read during the pro-con debate by volunteers from the Haverford Survivor Collective (HSC) Executive Board so that they would not have to speak publicly during the resolution presentation. 

After a moment of silence, the Students’ Council opened the Community Comment section. The first speaker, Anjali Agarwal ’27, introduced herself as a member of the Presidential Search Committee, tasked with selecting a new President of the College in anticipation of the 2027 departure of President Wendy Raymond. Agarwal encouraged students to fill out a survey to express opinions about the presidential search. Some students noted that, despite President Raymond’s constant presence at past Plenaries, she was absent from the GIAC.

Next, Pae Smith-Hiebert ’26, co-founder and co-head of HSC, announced the upcoming events calendar for Sexual Assault Awareness Month in April. The last comment was made by Sam Cosma ’26, a representative from the Center for Gender Resources and Sexuality Education (GRASE), who announced that a hoedown-themed Drag Ball will be held on May 1st, the first night of Haverfest. 

Students’ Council Co-President Ben Fligelman ’26 then introduced the Plenary agenda and proposed rules of order. Fligelman explained that 898 students would need to attend to reach quorum, which caused some confusion, as the number was erroneously listed as “889” in the Plenary packet and previous communications with the student body. After students voted to approve the agenda, rules of order, and community guidelines, Co-Presidents Fligelman and Sarah Weill-Jones ’26 introduced themselves and commented on the recent rewriting of the Honor Code and the upcoming changes to administrative leadership. Fligelman reminded students not to take the Haverford community for granted, and to “continue to commit ourselves to it.”

Resolution #1: Election Procedures & Constitutional Updates

Presented by Ian Trask ’28, Zoe Hartmann ’28, Leo Ni ’29, and Ellison King ’29

At 2:49 p.m., despite the absence of resolution author Leo Ni ’29, Ian Trask ’28, Zoe Hartmann ’28, and Ellison King ’29 presented Resolution #1: Efficient Election Procedures & Additional Constitutional Updates. Notably, the resolution aimed to establish a formal process for handling election disputes and expand voting eligibility to students who live off-campus but are still enrolled as full-time students. Three students asked questions during the Q&A segment. Cristian Latorre ’27 asked whether the change in off-campus voting status would impact quorum count, to which one Students’ Council member clarified that off-campus students are already counted towards quorum. Kabir Hinduja-Obregon ’26 asked two questions: the first requested details on the process of election disputes under the resolution, and the second was a clarifying question about the new role of Students’ Council Librarians in helping to oversee disputes. King responded that past disputes included students studying abroad applying for Students’ Council positions. Trask added that 99% of elections would still be overseen by the Election Coordinators. Deven Abrams ’26 asked the final question about election disputes. Currently, he explained, in the event of an election dispute, the policy is to hold a Special Plenary with a quorum of 75% of the student body, which the resolution aimed to change. He asked how the resolution planned to replace that process. Hartmann responded that, should an election dispute occur, they would try to avoid a Special Plenary, instead holding a town hall to discuss the matter and then a recall vote. 

No students participated in the pro-con section, and the resolution was quickly passed.

Resolution #2: Transitioning the COML Role to a Student Worker Position 

Presented by Eliana Kim ’28, Esme Dorsey ’28, Isaac Kemokai ’28, and Amelia Spielman ’28

Next, at 3:03 p.m., Eliana Kim ’28, Esme Dorsey ’28, Isaac Kemokai ’28, and Amelia Spielman ’28 presented Resolution #2: Transitioning the COML Role to a Student Worker Position. The presenters argued that because the function of the COML role has changed since its establishment, and because the last two COML elections have failed due to an absence of candidates, COMLs should become a Student Worker position under the Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Access (IDEA) Division. After the resolution was introduced, quorum was lost for two minutes. A Zoom participant asked a question about the application process, to which Kim responded that previous COMLs would be part of the interview process to carry on the tradition. Despite warnings from the Co-Presidents that attendance was only at 898 and the departure of even one attendee would trigger a loss of quorum, quorum was maintained, and the resolution was passed a few minutes later at 3:13 p.m.

Rseolution #3: Updated Alcohol Policy 

Presented by Isabela Azumatan ’27 & Jackson Cannon ’28, other contributors: Scott Wojciechowski, Sabrina Glass-Kershaw, and the Peer Educators

After another loss of quorum, JSAAPP co-heads Isabela Azumatan ’27 and Jackson Cannon ’28 presented Resolution #3: Updated Alcohol Policy, which addressed redundancies and outlined requirements for social events and infractions to the policy. In the middle of their presentation, quorum was lost again. In the Q&A, Charles Harris ’28 argued that part of the Alcohol Policy regarding the legal drinking age and the illegality of selling alcohol at social events does not reflect current campus values. Fligelman stopped the presenters before they could respond to announce that quorum had been lost. Once it was regained two minutes later, Azutmatan replied that these details are included in the policy in accordance with Pennsylvania law. Quentin Cooper ’29 asked for clarification about part of the policy describing JSAAPP’s role in overseeing non-alcohol-related events. Azutmatan replied that these procedures have been moved to the new Alcohol Policy to make them clearer and more accessible to the student body.

With no students speaking in favor of or against the resolution, Fligelman closed the pro-con section and moved to amendments. Cannon presented what would be the only amendment of the night: the addition of two sentences intended to emphasize student togetherness, inspired by feedback from students who felt the policy’s new language had lost some of its focus on campus camaraderie. Opening Q&A and pro-con sections for the amendment attracted no student discussion, so presenters were given another opportunity to speak on the amendment. Cannon approached the microphone and said simply, “uh…two sentences,” eliciting laughter from the attendees.

Moving to the voting portion, students first voted on whether or not to add the amendment to the resolution, which passed overwhelmingly. Next, students voted on the now-amended resolution, which also passed by a large majority but did attract approximately 15-20 votes against it and several abstentions.

Resolution #4: More Effective Budgeting Committee

Presented by Sophia Goss ’28 and Ben Perez-Flesler ’27

Plenary then moved to the fourth resolution, which proposed changes to internal budgeting policy. The resolution outlined the overhaul of the Budgeting Committee, a group that reviews club budget requests when “extraordinary.” If passed, the Budgeting Committee, currently composed of existing Students’ Council executives, would instead be filled with various officers from different areas of student life, with the Co-Treasurers as chairs.

At 3:34 p.m., the presenters, Co-Treasurers Sophia Goss ’28 and Ben Perez-Flesler ’27, began their introduction by noting administrative issues with the current Budgeting Committee, highlighting time constraints and excessive workload for existing Students’ Council members. They raised concerns about lack of oversight due to the current concentration of power within Students’ Council members who serve additional roles. They claimed that replacing Students’ Council members with the officers would balance the workload and allow for a fairer, more efficient budgeting process. 

Before questions could begin, Co-President Weill-Jones stepped in to remind students in the GIAC to limit the volume of side conversations out of respect for the speakers; students quieted down somewhat in response. Isabella Otterbein ’26 then stepped up to ask why the resolution featured a full overhaul of the Budgeting Committee members as opposed to expanding the group to include both Students’ Council executives and administrative officers. Otterbein said that expansion would improve efficiency, and was concerned that limiting the size would make it harder to deal with conflicts of interest, stating “less people in the room could cause the same issues that it solves.”

Perez-Flesler responded by re-emphasizing the time constraint on Students’ Council members, explaining that Co-Treasurers work for 10+ hours a week and expressing hope that the change would prompt more interest in the officer positions. Goss reiterated this sentiment, saying with respect to Budgeting Committee commitments, “shifting that onto people who have fewer responsibilities” is a good thing. This support extended in the pro-con discussion, with Jonah Paterson ’26 saying that the overhaul “would do wonders for increasing student engagement” and Victoria Haber ’26 asserting that this change has solid precedent. No cons were raised for the resolution.

With no amendments, Weill-Jones began the voting process. Quorum was briefly lost after votes in favor of the resolution were collected. After quorum was regained, voting continued for those against and abstaining. With limited votes against and a more noticeable minority of abstentions, the resolution passed.

Resolution #5: Readable & Procedurally Improved Honor Council Charter

Presented by Sofie Quirk ’28, Ben Perez-Flesler ’27, Jonah Paterson ’26, and Ian Trask ’28

Quorum was briefly lost, regained, lost, and regained again when the presentation of Resolution #5: Readable & Procedurally Improved Honor Council Charter began at 3:47 p.m., as Fligelman said attendance was “teetering” on the edge of quorum. The resolution focused on condensing the Honor Code charter. Jonah Paterson, one of the presenters, claimed that Honor Council procedures in their current form are too complicated. He acknowledged he was part of the group that wrote those procedures two years ago, saying that “we had reasons” for designing them that way, and explained that they now require updating. Honor Council Co-Chair Sofie Quirk ’28 and Trask claimed that the current policy is inconsistent and messy, and this resolution would make it easier to “read and understand.”

When nobody asked a question during the Q&A section, the Co-Presidents moved to the pro-con discussion. Deven Abrams ’26 spoke against the resolution, arguing that the length of the current Honor Code is due to its specificity in delineating transparency of Honor Council procedures. He expressed concern that drastically shortening the Honor Code risked stripping away the details that outline and protect transparency. Jack Feinstein ’26, speaking in favor of the resolution, countered that “length does not equate to transparency.” He asked everyone in attendance to raise their hand if they had read and understood the current Honor Code in full, then claimed that cutting down the length makes it more accessible and easier to understand.

Responding to the pro-con discussion, Paterson claimed that “no information is being lost.” He said that the current Honor Code features two procedures written by two past Honor Councils, so condensing them into one would make it more efficient. Quirk and Perez-Flesler also emphasized that no information would be lost, and this resolution would facilitate student comprehension of the Honor Code.

With no amendments offered, voting commenced. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, with only a few students voting against it or abstaining.

Resolution #6: Rename The Library

Presented by Jay Huennekens ’28 and Ian Trask ’28 

At 4:00 p.m., plenary then moved to the last resolution, described at the start of the session by Co-President Fligelman as the “final and most-awaited resolution.” The resolution was to request that President Raymond and the Haverford administration begin the process of renaming the Allison and Howard Lutnick Library. Attendees were reminded of the rules guiding confidentiality that had been shared by Glass-Kershaw earlier in the session, as well as the presence of crisis counselors in the GIAC.

The presenters, sophomores Jay Huennekens and Ian Trask, highlighted emails written by Haverford alum Howard Lutnick making plans to visit Little St. James, the private island of convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. They highlighted Lutnick’s numerous previous denials—as recently as October 2025—that he had visited “Epstein Island” or maintained a relationship with the disgraced financier following Epstein’s 2008 criminal conviction for soliciting an underage prostitute. Following the exposure of his friendship with Epstein in the Department of Justice’s recent release of millions of documents relating to Epstein’s personal and business dealings, Lutnick admitted that he had visited the island multiple times.

Trask and Huennekens also pointed out federal fraud and money laundering charges against Cantor Fitzgerald for actions undertaken during Lutnick’s leadership. They argued that Haverford’s featuring of his name on the library is antithetical to its values, and its removal would send a message of support to survivors of sexual violence. With the resolution presentation concluded, the Co-Presidents moved to open the Q&A section.

The first question came from a student who asked if the resolution applied to every space on campus bearing a name related to Howard Lutnick—such as the Jane Lutnick Fine Arts Center, the Gary Lutnick Tennis & Track Center, and the Cantor Fitzgerald Gallery—or the library alone. The presenters answered that the resolution only applies to the library due to its prominence on campus and in student life, but a review committee would have the power to expand its scope to include other buildings. 

Next, a student asked about the potential repercussions that changing the library’s name could incite, asking if the presenters had a plan for responding to potential unwanted attention from the current presidential administration, of which Lutnick is a part. The presenters responded that President Raymond has already stood against this administration’s overreach in the past, citing her Congressional testimony and her signature of an open letter against “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” alongside 665 other college presidents and senior staff members. They also added that Haverford’s administration, and how it reacts to government pressure, is not within the resolution’s purview. 

One student asked if renaming the library would affect alumni donations or support, to which the presenters responded that Lutnick has not donated to or had direct involvement with the school in over a decade. 

The final question came from a student who expressed concern that the school administration would either ignore the resolution or do little to accomplish it, asking how the presenters would address administrative inaction. In their response, Huennekens and Trask explained that they had discussed a plan for implementation with President Raymond and would be meeting with her again to discuss how to proceed regarding the outcome of the resolution.

Beginning the pro-con discussion was a student who read out two statements in support of the resolution, written anonymously by others. The first argued that the library’s name reminds students of the crimes committed by Lutnick and others and that its removal would send a message to survivors of sexual violence that associates of Epstein’s would not be put on a pedestal. The second explained that Lutnick and Epstein’s relationship is undeniable and that Haverford should not associate itself with them. Another student spoke in favor of the resolution, claiming that Lutnick’s name serves as a constant reminder of the crimes of Epstein and his inner circle and has the potential to retraumatize survivors of abuse.

Only one student spoke in opposition to the amendment. They asserted that the resolution’s passage had the potential to jeopardize Haverford’s protection of its students by incurring retaliation from the Trump administration. They acknowledged the moral convictions behind the resolution, but expressed fear that its passage could incur consequences, especially for more vulnerable students. The final student to speak in favor of the resolution argued against this point, claiming that trying to appease the Trump administration would not work.

After the closing of the pro-con discussion, the presenters were given a chance to respond. Their brief statement highlighted Haverford’s history of critiquing the Trump administration and emphasized that the resolution was not rooted in political disagreement but in moral standards. With no amendments proposed, voting began. About 15-20 students voted against the resolution, and around the same number voted to abstain, but the resolution, which only needed a simple majority to pass, received overwhelming approval from attendees. The announcement of its passage received a particularly enthusiastic and lengthy round of applause.

Ratification of the Honor Code & the Alcohol Policy

With votes completed for all six resolutions at 4:20 p.m., Plenary moved on to the opening of the ratification of the Honor Code and the Alcohol Policy. At this point, Fligelman reminded the student body that it was now returning to an open reporting style, since the end of Resolution #6 marked the end of the confidential reporting. 

Beginning the ratification process, speakers Sofie Quirk and Michael Pyo began re-introducing themselves when they were interrupted by Fligelman alerting them that quorum had been lost. Unfortunately, the presenters and Fligelman went back and forth, with Quirk and Pyo squeezing in words about the ratification process between Fligelman’s frequent interruptions to announce the loss of quorum. At one point, Quirk stated that “the Honor Code is hollow without the student body behind it—” before being cut off by Fligelman’s ironic announcement that “we just lost quorum again.” After roughly two minutes, quorum was reestablished, and the presenters continued. Pyo discussed how there was a “38% increase in the number of cases from last year,” followed by Quirk emphasizing that the Honor Code “is something we must work to keep.” In their closing remarks, Pyo urged the student body to read the new Honor Code: “Read the code, it’s probably shorter than most of your assigned class readings.”

In combination with the ratification of the Honor Code, JSAAPP representatives returned to the microphone to deliver their opening remarks regarding the ratification of the Alcohol Policy. Following a brief presentation by Cannon, which was interrupted by another loss of quorum, the Q&A section began for both ratifications.

While there were no questions presented at this time, there was a pro and a con that followed. One student on Zoom expressed a con regarding the usage of AI, claiming that some international students might use it in order to better articulate their thoughts in English for some assignments. They expressed that although the OAR can help bridge this gap, it’s also important to note that other tools can additionally help students further. Quirk responded, saying that it would depend on a case-by-case basis, and the opportunity to have personalized hearings would relieve concerns. A pro came from another student on Zoom, explaining that the Honor Code provision of take-home exams makes assignments more accessible, especially for disabled students.

With no further pros or cons, the vote to open ratification began. With few votes against or abstentions, the ratification of the Honor Code and Alcohol Policy was successfully opened, allowing students to scan a QR code to vote on the ratifications. With the final voting complete, Plenary concluded at 4:45 p.m.

Discussion with Students’ Council Co-Presidents Sarah Weill-Jones ’26 and Ben Fligelman ’26

With the conclusion of the Spring 2026 Plenary, Weill-Jones and Fligelman reflected on their last Plenary at Haverford. Weill-Jones exclaimed that they never thought that they “would ever be running Plenary” and that it has not “fully set in yet that this is my last Plenary.”

Fligelman expressed “a real gratitude and a sense of relief,” mentioning the failed Spring Plenary his freshman year and the subsequent Special Plenary. “The fact that we were able to, [as seniors] host two successful Plenaries, it makes me feel like we’re part of something bigger.”

Weill-Jones also added that they are proud that all resolutions were ratified this Plenary. “I’m especially proud of the student body for passing Resolution 6, renaming the Lutnick Library,” they said. “I think that was a really powerful and important stance for the students at Haverford to take. And, I’m glad that we did.”

With both Students’ Council Presidents graduating in May, Fligelman advised the future Students’ Council Presidents and beyond: “Plenary is a labor of love. You don’t do it because it’s easy. 
You don’t do it because it’s gonna make people like you. You don’t do it because it’s the sort of thing that looks good on a résumé. You do Plenary because you really give a damn. You do Plenary because it’s something you really, really care about. 
And… I think if you really care about it, it’s not only one of the most fulfilling experiences of your life, but also one of the most fun.”