plenary meeting of the haverford college students’...

Fall 2010 PLENARY MINUTES

I) Introductions

II) Moment of Silence

III) Welcome to Plenary!

IV) Rules of Order and Agendaa. Three minutes to look over Rules of Order and examine Agenda.

i. 8 Rules of Order, new “Friendly Amendments”b. Five minutes for questions concerning Agenda or Rules of Order.c. Call for amendments to change Agenda or Rules of Order.d. A vote to accept any amendments to the Agenda must have 2/3 majority

vote.

V) Presidential Announcements

VI) Resolution #1 (Plenary Signatures Resolution) – 2/3 majority votea. Presenters have five minutes to introduce resolution.

i. Presented by Garrett Vanacore and Jacob Horn1. What can we do to expedite and improve the Plenary process

(based on the failure of last semester’s Plenary?). Realized a lot of the improvements we wanted to make were already in the constitution so would like to raise the signature number from 75 to 200. 75 signatures are easy to get without leaving your ‘inner circle.’ As a result, you don’t necessarily encounter a lot of opposition, usually can say ‘just sign this.’ By raising it, encourage people to branch out and encounter opposition, enhance the resolution, come to Plenary with a more refined argument and better able to deal with presenting. Requiring a greater commitment to the resolution, makes the stakes a little higher. Didn’t want to go higher, 200 is around 1/3 of quorum, didn’t want the signature process to become a ‘prevote’- signatures aren’t promising a vote but saying ‘this is something worthy of discussion.’ Student Council polled students last spring and many people suggested raising the signatures and the common numbers were 150-250 so 200 was in the middle. They actually got 200 signatures for this resolution.

b. Question and Answer session: ten minutes to be extended no more than once by 1/2.

i. Andy Ross ’12: how long did it take to collect 200 signatures? How many people were helping you?

ii. Answer: 2 of them collected signatures, Garrett collected 100 in one night, Jacob did over 2 nights an hour and an hour and half in total explaining the resolution

c. Pro-Con presentations: fifteen minutes with motion to extend by fifteen minutes no more than twice by 1/2.

i. Anna Brockway ’12 Con: A more complex resolution, say changing the wording in the constitution, could require a lot of time to get 200 signatures

2ii. Maya ’11 Pro: It is very clear that we need to have somehow to have

less inane resolutions, this is a very good solution and proved that it’s possible to get 200

iii. Ben ’13 Con: Takes a certain ‘capital’ to get 200 signatures and not everyone can and what ends up happening is you get a less democratic signature where some people’s ideas don’t get presented because they don’t have the time or organization skills. We should be able to trust people not to throw out petty resolutions

iv. Andrew Thompson ’12 Con: Sacrificing democratic process for efficiency- maybe something we need to do but something to think about before voting

v. Oliver ’11 Pro: Remember Jake Ralston’s resolution to actually scoot forward in their chairs in the DC- so think about that.

vi. ’14 Con: I really like this idea but maybe 200 might be too muchvii. ’13 Pro: More people get to think about it before Plenary and allows

the presenters to think about their resolutions and be prepared viii. Noah Lavine ’11 Con: There are parts of the constitution that should

regulate this that just haven’t been enforced. Harder for the better resolutions that are debatable- the problem with Jake Ralston’s resolution is that people shouldn’t have been signing that.

d. Response to Pro-Con debate by resolution presenters: three minutes. i. Garrett: rather set a higher bar and realize that the process is too

difficult rather than starting too easy and moving upward, rather go higher, have it work, keep it there. Want people who want to demand change to present their resolutions and part of presenting your resolution should be going out there and exposing yourself to people you don’t know .

ii. Jacob: In response to harming the democratic process, this is as democratic as the system we have now. This is just asking them commit a little more- in terms of how Plenary’s accessible this shouldn’t be a problem.

iii. Garrett: Anna raised a good concern saying that more extensive changes could be more difficult and I think that’s a legitimate concern and something you should think about but more people who make changes like that have more people to help (ex: SC)

e. Call for Friendly Amendments: support of all presenters and approval of chairs needed – five minutes allowed to turn in

i. Presentations of recognized Friendly Amendmentsii. Question and Answer: five minutes

iii. Pro-Con debate: ten minutesiv. Vote on Friendly Amendment – majority vote

f. Call for Unfriendly Amendments: 75 signatures needed – seven minutes allowed to turn in Unfriendly Amendments with a motion to extend by seven minutes no more than once.

i. Presentations of recognized Unfriendly Amendmentsii. Question and Answer: five minutes

iii. Pro-Con debate: ten minutesiv. Vote on Unfriendly Amendment – majority vote

g. Moment of Silenceh. Vote on Final Resolution

i. Passes

VII) Resolution #2 (Addition to the Alcohol Policy) – 2/3 majority votea. Presenters have five minutes to introduce resolution.

FALL PLENARY – SEPTEMBER 26th, 2010

3i. Jen Zelnick and AJ McGahran JSAAPP Co-Heads: Only one change this

year, what it states implicitly but not explicitly not only in public spaces (anything that isn’t a dorm and a green adjacent)- not only is it alcohol policy but it’s the law. Right now the policy implies this but its not understood, want to add a line to make it explicit and reduce confusion, promotes TCR and responsibility and encourages people to think about their actions when they’re drinking. Lloyd incident- with the change in the police reaction it’s better to be more cautious.


i. Oliver ’11: Not a change in the policy but a change to the wording?ii. AJ: Not explicitly, just a clarification.

iii. Ben ’11: Do you know the legal status of carrying around the general campus if you’re still 21 since it’s private property?

iv. Jen: Illegal.v. JP ’12: What is an open container?

vi. Jen: An open container is up for interpretation- one way of looking at it an alcohol container that is obvious (beer can, bottle of Jack…) or another is a Solo cup, which in the past has been cool but police aren’t cool with

vii. Greg ’14: What is the status of enforcement?viii. Jen: Confrontation

ix. Abby Moskowitz ’11: What are the implications for Haverfest?x. AJ: Basically the same as it is.

xi. Marcelo ’13: What if you already drank some of it but the cap is on it?xii. Jen: I think the idea is visibility so I would say don’t carry it around

out in the open, this is to protect you and others- so yeah, I guess it’s not an open container but you’re still taking a risk.

xiii. Andrew Ross ’11: the wording is ambiguous, what is the legal merit and leaving it ambiguous?

xiv. AJ: By making the policy explicit but using ambiguous terms like open container and confrontation- it leaves the way we deal more up for interpretation

xv. Alex ’14: If someone’s mixing a drink and put it in say a waterbottle but the cover is on, would that still be an open container?

xvi. AJ: wouldn’t recommend carrying it in the open, if it’s closed, carry it in a bag, but no, its not technically an open container.


i. Maya ’11 Con: 2 Points: 1. A problem to be making it unambiguously more ambiguous. 2. The bigger issue is that one of the problems is that when people are forced to drink in private people then binge drink

ii. Dan ’11 Con: This resolution is redundant, the alcohol policy already stipulates that we follow Pennsylvania’s laws. If we start doubling up, have to reinforce all the policies like you can’t serve alcohol to minors and such

iii. Harris ’11 Pro: Doesn’t change the code just makes it clear, disagreeing with the resolution is disagreeing with the policy. If voted down, will only do harm.

d. Response to Pro-Con debate by resolution presenters: three minutes.i. Jen: First, we want to clarify two things. 1. For some reason it didn’t

get printed, but if this passes, it would go into effect immediately provided we ratify the alc. Policy. In no way does this concern binge FALL PLENARY – SEPTEMBER 26th, 2010

4drinking, could potentially increase with this, but needs to be addressed culturally and not through the policy.

ii. AJ: The idea of binge drinking has a lot to do with education.e. Call for Friendly Amendments: support of all presenters and approval of

chairs needed – five minutes allowed to turn ini. Presentations of recognized Friendly Amendments

ii. Question and Answer: five minutesiii. Pro-Con debate: ten minutesiv. Vote on Friendly Amendment – majority vote





i. Paper ballot1. 374 yes. 217 no. 24 abstentions. Resolution fails

VIII) Alcohol Policy Ratificationa. JSAAPP Co-Chairs Present Alcohol Policy.

i. Jen Zelnick and AJ McGahran JSAAPP Co-Heads: Alcohol policy is a big deal and works pretty well. There are still issues that pertain to education but as a policy it works pretty well. We have a unique policy because it’s so liberal and puts responsibility on students. We have few alcohol related incidents compared to other schools and we do need to still work on education but we’re pretty proud of it.

b. Question and Answer session: ten minutes to be extended no more than twice.

i. Matt ’13: At the end of last year the college made a study to revise the policy, what conclusions have been drawn from the study to change the policy?

ii. Jen: We haven’t been made aware of the findings of the study. Would have to bring changes before plenary As far as she’s concerned we’re ok on that.

c. Pro-Con presentations: fifteen minutes with motion to extend by ten minutes no more than three times.

i. Abby Moskowitz ’11: She thinks that it works pretty well. It encourages people to work with the policy and with educations and not necessarily work around the rules.

ii. Rebecca ’12: She doesn’t spend much time thinking about the policy. When she gets emails about students having issues at parties she’s not convinced that people are actually following the policy. She wants to ask the question to make sure that epoepl are actually taking care of the people around us

iii. Eleanor Huber ’12: Wonders whether people actually follow the policy but she thinks the policy itself is really well worded and in the right spirit

d. Response to Pro-Con debate by JSAAPP Co-Chairs: three minutes.i. AJ: the alcohol policy isn’t perfect but for what it is and how it

operates it gets the job done pretty efficiently.e. Vote on ratification of Alcohol Policy – 2/3 majority vote


5i. Pass

IX) Resolution #3 (Restructuring Procedures for Dean’s Panels) – 2/3 majority votea. Presenters have five minutes to introduce resolution.

i. Emily Dix ’12 and Anna Brockway ’11 HC-Cochairs: This resolution ahs been approved by the dean of the ocllege, marilou allen, steve water, and steve emerson. This resolution does not represent the power of Honor Council, they want to outline guidelines. There’s only one sentience explaining dean’s panels, however, the constitution does say that a recond of proceedings will be made after Dean’s panels. These guidelines better protect confidentiality and they hope that this will help students come forward more often. Esures abstracts are written and given to the dean of the college and that Honor Council will not see the content of the abstracts until right before they are realase. This way conftoning and confronted parties will have time to see the abstract before it is released. We think it’s appropriate that students are not involved in Dean’s panels but we think that we need to know what happns in dean’s panels so that they’re not just black holes.


i. Jonathan ’14: Impossibly similar to what passed last spring but not by the administration. Thought it could lead to fewer people coming forward. What was in the earlier resolution and isn’t in this resolution that will get it passed by the administration?

ii. Anna: This resolution stipulates that no one in honor council will see the abstract immediately after the dean’s panel but that the cochairs will be told of it’s existence. Also all parties will have ability to look at and consent to the abstracts before they are released.

iii. Juliana ’12: Question about terminotlogy about “sexual misconduct” “reape and sexual assault and serious sexual misconduct” and she knows it’s a deliberate term.

iv. Anna: Changed last plenary and she deon’st see anything wrong with it regardless.

v. Emily: Talked with Martah Denney about the terminology. Helps clarify what it means. Sexual misconduct is such a broad term

vi. Female ’14: 7.04a Questions about abstract releasevii. Anna: Technical change: Everytime honor council releases an abstract

it’s released by apper release and an email is sent but thos guidelines are in constitution and not in the honor code itself

viii. Female ’12: Why does only confronting party only get a say in the abstract?

ix. Emily: Both parties actually get input in abstract but technically only confronting party gets to consent. This is to help make it easier for the confronting party to come forward.

x. Anna: Because of the seriousness of issues dealt with by Dean’s Panels both parties do get a say but the confronted party doesn’t have as much say as confronting.


i. Anastasia Nikolis ’11: Her heart goes out to them. She has couple of problems because she generally finds that anything that creates more specificity creates more problems in the future. Strict process creates more problems then actually helps. More space to maneuver is better FALL PLENARY – SEPTEMBER 26th, 2010

6for honor council. Helps them figure out intricacies of the problem. Maybe not consistent but everyone’s sides are considered. Additionally, “serious sexual misconduct or serious sexual violence” we eliminated the word “gross” and it took HC 7 hours to understand what “gross plagiarism” was. Transfer that to “serious” means. Do we want to have the conversation about what “serious means”? Easy way to put it in perspective is that if you feel uncomfortable talking about it then it probably should go to deans panel

ii. Ariel Harris ’13: She thinks this gives a lot more freedom to the confronting party. Gives more freedom.

iii. Jacob Horn ’13: The policy that stands right now doesn’t even say what can or cannot happen. It’s just vague. Policies that don’t make things clear are problematic because you don’t know what could happen. The leaders could change and change how things are. Things are too untethered as they are now. He doesn’t know if this is the best way to solve it but as it stands now it is too unclear. He will encourage other people to give this a chance and then rework it to make it better rather than to just turn it down.

iv. Jonathan ’14: He shares concerns. Basically every paragraph has a sentence in the end that qualifies it to be flexible. Only parts that are specific are the parts that say when honor council sees the abstract.

d. Response to Pro-Con debate by resolution presenters: three minutes.i. Emily and Anna: The constitution was vague enough that no one

knew how to interpret it. This resolution makes it clear. The specificity isn’t going to be a problem because there isn’t enough specificity right now. It leaves things open enough and makes it easier for people to come forward without as much fear. Qualifying it as “serious”, the bulk of the resolution isn’t about HC deciding whether it goes to Dean’s panel but is actually about abstract release timeline and confidentiality. This is for when it comes to HC first rather than straight to Dean’s office. This is about the exchange of information. There are two big things is accountability with regards to timeline and that there’s some sort of community education. The other thing is confidentiality. This resolution accomplishes this much better than it does in the constitution right now.

e. Call for Friendly Amendments: support of all presenters and approval of chairs needed – five minutes allowed to turn in






g. Moment of Silence – Franklyn shushes crowd.h. Vote on Final Resolution

i. Pass

X) Resolution #4 (Clarifying Constitutional Language Pertaining to Honor Council Procedures) – 2/3 majority vote


7a. Presenters have five minutes to introduce resolution

i. Emily Dix, Anna Brockway, Florencia Foxley ‘13ii. mediations are already listed as an option in the code, abstracts

sometimes releasediii. Third paragraph on page 28, changing role of HCOsiv. 2nd paragraph page 29, never entirely use precedent and don’t think it

should bev. 3rd page 31 give faculty a summary of the proceedings

vi. 1st paragraph p. 36 changed number of jurors to be consistentvii. p. 38 restrictions on when jurors can talk about cases, so allowing HC

Co-Chairs to talk about it, individual jurors can talk to Trial Chairs about potential problems, Trial Chair can talk

viii. p. 39-40 streamlining paragraphs about social trials that contradict each other

ix. sexual crimes section: allow the confronted party to send someone else in order to protect their confidentiality

x. every few years the procedures need to be updated, but they don’t feel any of the changes are truly substantive

xi. many sentences contradict each other or are redundant, introducing the substantive ones


i. Ryan notes that there are no questions and moves on to Pro-Conc. Pro-Con presentations: fifteen minutes with motion to extend by fifteen

minutes no more than twice by 1/2.i. Josh Mussa ’13: these pages represent hours of hard work by Honor

Council Chairs, so trusts that they did a thorough and excellent jobii. Ryan makes final call for Pro-Con, move onto response

d. Response to Pro-Con debate by resolution presenters: three minutes.i. Anna: since there are no questions, thanks Josh for support

ii. Emily: reiterates that these changes will make e. Call for Friendly Amendments: support of all presenters and approval of

chairs needed – five minutes allowed to turn ini. Ryan: no Friendly Amendments

ii. Presentations of recognized Friendly Amendmentsiii. Question and Answer: five minutesiv. Pro-Con debate: ten minutesv. Vote on Friendly Amendment – majority vote


i. Ryan: No Unfriendly Amendmentsii. Presentations of recognized Unfriendly Amendments

iii. Question and Answer: five minutesiv. Pro-Con debate: ten minutesv. Vote on Unfriendly Amendment – majority vote


i. 2/3 Vote: Passes

XI) Resolution #5 (Blue Bus Stop Near HCA) – majority votea. Presenters have five minutes to introduce resolution.

i. Matt Mazewski ’13: got idea from survey conducted in spring semester about bryn mawr classes and Blue Bus uses, considering the FALL PLENARY – SEPTEMBER 26th, 2010

8possibility of a Blue Bus stop at HCA. Responses to signatures either overwhelmingly positive or wondering if it is really such a struggle to make it to the upcampus stop. Yet since the administration has not taken action in about 6 months, so requesting a tangible step. Willing to take questions/suggestions about how to implement.


i. Jonathan ’14: Is idea to move the stop to HCA? 1. Matt: Not planning on eliminating Stokes stop, but adding an

additional stop. There is nothing in the resolution about changing the schedule, simply about adding another stop

ii. Sam Rodriques ‘13: What has the Transportation’s response been?1. Matt: Their concern was about the cost of adding another bus

to the system, but something that has come up in student discussion is the possibility of moving the Sweeper to the apartments

iii. ’13:1. If there’s a bus being moved from Stokes to HCA, there will be

no need to add two buses to both stops, there is also the bus that comes to the apts on the weekend

iv. Jacob Lowy ’14: In Bi-Co discussions with administration, they said that there would be issues with adding more buses and getting them over the speed bumps

1. Agreed that he’d heard concerns about not being able to afford another driver, but wouldn’t necessarily need one

v. Would stop be at HCA or more by campus center?1. Doesn’t have specific answer for that question because the

details haven’t been worked outvi. Ann Wolsky ’13: wondering about gas consumption of buses driving

the extra distance to HCA1. Can’t answer because doesn’t have specific information on gas

prices, needs to be worked out, but the cost of driving an existing bus to HCA is much less that adding another bus to the system = good compromise

vii. Camilla ’14: would this change the schedule of buses coming to Bryn Mawr, notes that the ending times of Bryn Mawr classes often necessitate taking the Sweeper

1. Issue of where buses stop is different from issue of when classes let out and buses leave, reminds us that there is already a plan in the works to change class times

viii. Ryan: vote to extend Q&A session passesix. Karl Moll ’14: Would the schedule change to every hour rather than

every 20 minutes?1. Repeats that this is separate issue

c. Jonathan ’14: Is Bryn Mawr transportation aware that there is a concern about serving both up and down campus?

i. Purpose of the resolution is to remind administration that they said they were “seriously considering” this and they should

d. Oona ’13: What about the Swat van?i. Doesn’t think that there’s enough flexibility/demand to move the Swat

vane. Pro-Con presentations: fifteen minutes with motion to extend by fifteen

minutes no more than twice by 1/2.


9i. Daniel Giovannelli ’13: Pro Lives in HCA and spends a lot of time at

Bryn Mawr, it’s rough to walk to the upcampus stop in rain and snow, adding the stop wouldn’t really affect anyone else but would help

ii. Ann Wolsky ’13: Con Doesn’t think 12 minute walk is a big deal, so wasting all that gas is not environmentally responsible

iii. Eli Blood-Patterson ’13: Pro - Not everyone is automatically taking the bus or not, so if there’s no stop at HCA some people take cars and that is far more environmentally irresponsible

iv. Mickey McCauley ’11: 99% in favor, wants to paint HCA bus a different color to avoid drunken mistakes

v. ’14: By sending a bus to the apts, will reduce the number of trips to HCA

vi. Maggie Cronin ’11: likes the idea, but doesn’t think that having a resolution at plenary that is not fully researched is not efficient

vii. ’13: Good amendment because it’s not the student’s ability to force administration to make a stop exactly the way we want, but we do have power to remind them that they need to take steps

viii. Anna Brockway ’12: what about the Bryn Mawr people who will get on the Blue Bus and accidentally end up at HCA?

ix. Andrew Thompson ’12: about the “not well researched” part, as he saw when trying to get a resolution passed last year, Matt has researched, but can’t get specifics yet from administration

f. Response to Pro-Con debate by resolution presenters: three minutes.i. Unfair to Bryn Mawr students coming to Haverford: the way the bus

runs now, it is unfair that students in the apartments have to walk across campus everyday

ii. If the plan is too specific that the administration does not have room to make changes, they are less likely to accept it. Therefore, should not account for a specific amount of gas used and etc.

g. Call for Friendly Amendments: support of all presenters and approval of chairs needed – five minutes allowed to turn in



h. Call for Unfriendly Amendments: 75 signatures needed – seven minutes allowed to turn in Unfriendly Amendments with a motion to extend by seven minutes no more than once.



i. Moment of Silencej. Vote on Final Resolution

i. Resolution passes.

XII) Final Moment of Silence


10Plenary Resolution #1 – Raising the Number of Signatures Required for the Presentation of a Resolution at Plenary

Presented by Garrett Vanacore ’11 and Jacob Horn ‘13

Whereas Section 4.02(g) of the Students’ Constitution currently requires the collection of 75 signatures supporting the presentation of a Plenary resolution,

Whereas 75 students is only a very small sample of Students’ Association and hardly representative of the number of students necessary for quorum,

Whereas requiring a higher number of signatures supporting a resolution’s presentation would help ensure discussion of relevant issues at Plenary, encourage the combining of related resolutions, and offer more opportunities for productive discussion of a resolution before Plenary,

Be it resolved that the Section 4.02(g) of the Students’ Constitution will be revised as follows:

“In order to bring a resolution to Plenary, the person(s) submitting the resolution must collect seventy-five (75) two hundred (200) signatures of the members of the Students' Association. Students' signatures will represent their support of the value of discussion of issues contained in the resolution, but may not necessarily represent a vote for the resolution. Resolution presenters are responsible for collecting signatures before a deadline specified in advance by the Students' Council Co-Presidents.”

This resolution will go into effect immediately following the end of the current Plenary session.

Plenary Resolution #2 – Addition to the Alcohol PolicyPresented by: Jen Zelnick ’12 and AJ McGahran ‘11

Whereas it is currently against both Pennsylvania state law and the Alcohol Policy to transport open containers of alcohol across public spaces, yet a significant number of students remain unaware or choose not to follow this rule, we feel making this explicit within the Alcohol Policy would be beneficial to the entire Haverford community. We propose amending the Alcohol Policy to specifically state this rule in order to remove any ambiguity surrounding the issue.

Therefore, we propose to amend Article III, Section B to read: (addition in bold)

B. Private Parties: Outside of approved special events, alcoholic beverages may be consumed only in private spaces. A private space is defined as a student residence or an outdoor area, such as a stoop, porch, or yard, that is immediately adjacent to a student residence. The College recommends students not consume alcoholic beverages outdoors on College grounds, hallways or stairwells. Furthermore, alcoholic beverages may only be served in indoor private spaces or adjacent


11areas. Accordingly, the transportation of alcohol in an open container across any public space is a violation of the Policy. Serving or consuming alcohol on athletic fields used by any College team or outside group is prohibited, in compliance with NCAA regulations.

Alcohol Policy RatificationPresented by Jen Zelnick ’12 and AJ McGahran, JSAAPP Co-Chairs

The Alcohol Policy Questions about this policy may be directed to: The Joint Student-Administration Alcohol Policy Panel Introduction: There are numerous sections of the Crime Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-vania that deal with intoxicating liquor. An increasing public concern about alco-hol abuse and alcohol-related injuries has been followed by a developing body of case law that has extended the liabilities of vendors to non-commercial or “social” hosts on whose premises alcohol is served to minors or intoxicated persons of any age. The Haverford College Policy of Drug-Free Schools, adopted in compliance with federal requirements, forbids the unlawful possession, use of, or distribution of illicit drugs or alcohol. Goals of the Alcohol Policy: The Alcohol Policy is designed to achieve the following goals: 1. To remind students of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and of the Honor Code, all of which should govern their behavior with respect to alcohol; 2. To stress moderation, safety, and individual accountability for those who choose to drink; 3. To maintain a social atmosphere that is free of coercion for those who choose not to drink and a climate in which alcohol is not the center of parties or other so-cial events; 4. To maintain a community in which alcohol abuse and its effects are minimal; 5. To provide confidential and effective guidance for those with specific needs re-lated to alcohol use and alcoholism; and 6. To provide information and education about the effects of alcohol for all its stu-dents. All members of the community are expected to be familiar with and abide by the Alcohol Policy. It is the duty of all students to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Honor Code, in addition to helping others to do the same. With regard to the consumption of alcohol, it is recognized that students are re-sponsible for their own wellbeing, as well as the well-being of others. Thus, be-havior that puts lives at risk, in terms of mental and physical health and legal lia-bility, cannot be condoned. THE POLICY:

Article I Students have the responsibility to confront others whose behavior under the in-fluence of alcohol is inconsistent with the welfare of themselves and others in the community. When community members lose their ability to reason and control


12their actions due to excessive alcohol consumption, it is threatening to them, to those around them, and ultimately to the community as a whole. Students are re-sponsible for preventing themselves and others from ever reaching that point. Inebriation shall not be seen as an acceptable or justifiable excuse for disruptive behavior and confrontation for such behavior shall be dealt with as prescribed by the Honor Code. Article II Any infractions of Article II will fall under the jurisdiction of Honor Council and JSAAPP. Students have the responsibility to preserve the natural integrity of the campus and therefore to maintain the good condition of the College by preventing any instances of destruction, defacement, littering, and other offenses that can oc-cur as results of alcohol consumption. Events that involve the consumption of al-cohol can often lead to the scattering of cups, broken glass, and other waste that affects the condition of the grounds and the safety of the students. In addition, ex-cessive consumption of alcohol can lead to the defacement and vandalism of cam-pus buildings by community members. Students have the responsibility for pre-venting and resolving these issues in the interest of student safety and the Col-lege‘s ecological and aesthetic environment. Article III A. Events: Since the majority of the students are under twenty-one, the legal drinking age in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, alcoholic beverages are not to be served or consumed at student events open to and/or advertised in the col-lege, bi-college, or tri-college communities with the exemption of special events that have been approved by the Joint Student-Administration Alcohol Policy Panel (JSAAPP). In order to receive permission for an aforementioned “special event,” the event coordinators must first submit in writing a proposal for the event to JSAAPP. These events must meet the following criteria in order to be considered: 1. The event may only take place in Lunt Basement or in James House. 2. The event must be aimed towards promoting the fine or performing arts. 3. The event organizers plan the event with the aim of promoting the goals of the Alcohol Policy in mind—stressing moderation, safety, and individual accountabil-ity for those who choose to drink, and providing a positive drinking atmosphere in which alcohol is not the center of the event. 4. i. The event organizers must make all off-campus guests or performance groups aware that the event is a closed show. ii. The intended audience of the show must be limited to the tri-college commu-nity, family members, prospective students, and students' invited guests only. iii. Students assume full responsibility for the actions and well being of any guest while they are on Haverford's campus. 5. It is the responsibility of special event hosts to ask any uninvited person to leave the event. If a student is not comfortable with this responsibility, they are expected to ask for help from Safety & Security, Quaker Bounces, or another stu-dent. 6. The event must not be advertised outside of the tri-college community. 7. If alcohol is to be served at an event, then the alcohol may not be advertised for or depicted in any way in advertisements for the event. Advertisement includes, but is not limited to, mass emails and flyers. Additionally, online discussions relat-ing to the presence of alcohol at an event are highly discouraged.


138. Alcohol may not be served at the event if the event coincides with Prospective Student Weekend. 9. If the event organizers wish to organize a series of events, they can apply once at the beginning of the semester for all the events that semester, given JSAAPP approval. B. Private Parties: Outside of approved special events, alcoholic beverages may be consumed only in private spaces. A private space is defined as a student resi-dence or an outdoor area, such as a stoop, porch, or yard, that is immediately ad-jacent to a student residence. The College recommends students not consume al-coholic beverages outdoors on College grounds, hallways or stairwells. Further-more, alcoholic beverages may only be served in indoor private spaces or adja-cent areas. [If Resolution #2 passes, this will contain: Accordingly, the transportation of alcohol in an open container across any public space is a violation of the Policy.] Serving or consuming alcohol on athletic fields used by any College team or outside group is prohibited, in compliance with NCAA regula-tions. C. Alcoholic beverages may neither be served nor consumed in public spaces such as, but not limited to, Founders Great Hall and Common Room, the Dining Center, all classroom and laboratory buildings, all libraries, any athletic fields used by any College team or outside group, and any space not defined as a private space with-out the express written permission of the President of the College. D. The guidelines apply to all students, including those twenty-one years of age or older. E. While the distribution of alcohol to all individuals under the age of 21 is illegal, the distribution of alcohol to those under the age of 18 is especially troublesome and will not be condoned. F. If drinking, students should work to curtail behaviors that may pose a hazard to the comfort and safety of party or event guests, other occupants of the dormitory, and themselves, including, but not limited to, creating excessive noise and/or blocking corridors, stairwells, or doorways. G. As is the case with JSAAPP approved special events, all private parties must not advertise the presence of alcohol. Article IV A. Students who consume alcohol in a manner incompatible with the goals of the Alcohol Policy should be asked to refrain from the offending action by the host or other party guests. In incidents where the students feel that a violation of the Al-cohol Policy has occurred and where the confronting party and confronted indi-vidual fail to reach a resolution, they should follow the procedure of the campus on which the incident occurred. For this reason, students choosing to attend par-ties or events at Bryn Mawr College should first familiarize themselves with Bryn Mawr's Alcohol and Party Policies and Honor Code. At Haverford, disregard for these and other party policies should be brought to the attention of JSAAPP. This panel will address strictly procedural violations of the Policy, and will present resolutions aimed at repairing the breach of trust caused by the violation. These resolutions will be presented orally and in writing to both the confronting and confronted parties, as well as to the Dean of the Col-lege. Referrals can be made by Honor Council. A student has a period of seven days after the completion of a JSAAPP Inquiry in which to appeal to the Dean of the College or his/her designate to change the resolution(s). If the Dean in ques-


14tion wishes to offer alternative resolutions, he/she must consult with JSAAPP prior to the notification of the change in resolutions. The appeal must be presented orally and in writing, and may be made on either substantive or procedural grounds. B. When confronting an individual does not or cannot lead to the satisfactory res-olution of a problem, the individual whose behavior allegedly violates the Honor Code shall ultimately be brought to the attention of Honor Council. Honor Council will bring a case to the attention of the Office of the Dean if there is a threat to the life or safety of individuals or of damage to College or private property result-ing from inebriation or a violation of the Alcohol Policy. Flagrant or repeated vio-lations of the Party Guidelines could constitute such a case. Such behavior may result in separation or exclusion of the confronted person(s) from the College. C. In some cases, Honor Council, JSAAPP, or the Office of the Dean will consult counselors with expertise in alcohol abuse and alcoholism if such expertise is deemed relevant. D. JSAAPP is composed of two members of Students‘ Council and two members of Honor Council, who are appointed by their respective bodies at the beginning of each semester; one representative from each of the freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior classes, two representatives from the Office of the Dean of the College, and a chair or two co-chairs. The Chair(s) and elected positions for class repre-sentatives will be year-long positions. Honor Council or Students' Council mem-bers, if elected and then appointed for consecutive semesters, may remain on JSAAPP for the entire year if desired. The election of the JSAAPP Chair(s) will fol-low the procedures set forth in Section 5.08 of the constitution of the Haverford College Students' Association (entitled "Nomination and Election of the Students' Council"). The election of JSAAPP class representatives will follow the procedures for Fall Honor Council elections, except that all positions are yearlong terms. If there is ever a vacancy in any class representative position, JSAAPP will ask the Appointments Committee of Students' Council to appoint a member of the appro-priate class to fill the vacancy. Article V A. Coordinators of parties and other social events must abide by the party policy of the host campus. B. It is expected that hosts will inform their guests of relevant provisions of the Honor Code and the Alcohol Policy. Should the provisions of the Alcohol Policy be violated by non-College members, their continued access to this campus may be restricted. C. Faculty and staff members who entertain students should be aware of the re-sponsibilities and risks to the College and to themselves as individual social hosts under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. D. If the Party Guidelines are not followed either by guests or hosts, it is the obli-gation of students aware of the violation to approach those in violation and seek a resolution. Article VI As with the Honor Code, the students of the community need to reaffirm their commitment to the Alcohol Policy to demonstrate that they accept both the free-dom and privileges regarding alcohol consumption and the responsibilities that it entails. The Policy shall be re-ratified every year, and it may be amended at any Plenary. Amendments to the Policy may be proposed by any member of the Stu-


15dents‘ Association. Amendments will be passed by a two-thirds vote of the total at-tendance at Plenary. A two-thirds majority vote of those at Plenary shall be neces-sary for final ratification of the entire Policy. The final text of the Policy shall be immediately forwarded to the President and Dean of the College for presentation to and approval by the Board of Managers. Revised and Ratified 10/4/09

Plenary Resolution #3 – Restructuring Procedures for Dean's Panels

Presented by: Anna Brockway '12 and Emily Dix '12

At Haverford, students are given a great deal of input in the governing of the College and are trusted to engage in important decisions. Student self-governance is the backbone of this campus, and open dialogue is critical to maintaining the standards to which we as a community have always ascribed. However, we also recognize that there are situations in which it is not appropriate for students to be involved in cases concerning their peers. We wish to clarify and expand on the procedures already in place to ensure that confidentiality and accountability are preserved. In this spirit, we would like to clarify guidelines by which information can be shared between Honor Council and the administration, allowing us to balance safety and confidentiality with community education.

Dean's Panels are convened in cases of rape, sexual assault, and/or serious physical violence. They consist of three deans chosen by the Dean of the College and follow a procedure similar to Universal Trial Procedures. This is the only judicial avenue at Haverford in which students are not on the jury.

Currently, the ambiguous language in the Constitution leads to inconsistency in the amount of information Honor Council receives regarding Dean's Panels. In the past, it has been difficult for Honor Council to get abstracts for Dean's Panels due to differing interpretations of procedure. These issues impede Honor Council's ability to work with the Dean's Office on important community matters, and ultimately to grapple with trends on campus and to communicate those trends in a broad sense to the student body.

This is a follow-up resolution to the one we presented last spring with last year's Honor Council Co-Chairs. While that resolution was not approved by the President following Spring Plenary, the resolution in its new form reflects more conversations with the administration and a mutually agreeable set of guidelines.

The following is the current text of §7.01.f of the Constitution of the Students' Association, which concerns Dean's Panels:

“A confrontation regarding sexual misconduct and/or physical violence may be brought to Honor Council and will subsequently be sent to a Dean’s Panel.”


16This existing text will be eliminated and replaced with the following:

“A confrontation regarding rape, sexual assault, serious sexual misconduct, and/or serious physical violence will normally be brought directly to the Dean of the College. In the event that the confronting party instead chooses to first bring the case to Honor Council, Honor Council will request and review statements from the parties involved and will normally consent to send the case to a Dean's Panel. If it is unclear whether a confrontation brought to the Dean's Office merits a Dean's Panel, the Dean of the College may opt to forward to the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) statements from the parties involved so that Honor Council may consent on an appropriate course of action. The Dean of the College may opt to submit statements which lack identifying information.

Around the time that a Dean's Panel is convened, the Dean of the College shall notify the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) that such a proceeding is underway. The Dean of the College will also tell the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) the general nature of the potential offense (e.g. a panel convened to deal with a potential case of sexual assault or physical violence). Once the panel has finished, the Dean of the College shall notify the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) of its completion.

Because of the sensitive nature of the issues discussed in Dean's Panels, special precautions will be taken to protect the confidentiality of all parties involved, and different procedures will be followed regarding abstracts. The parties involved will have a great deal of control in the abstract process. Before an abstract may be released, the confronting party must consent to the amount of information contained in the abstract and the abstract as a whole, as well as a date for release. Input from the confronted party on these matters will also be considered. Less information may be included.

The abstract will be written by the Chair of the Dean's Panel or one of the other deans serving on the panel, and will be completed and presented to the Dean of the College within six weeks of the completion of the panel. The abstract will normally include an account of the general circumstances that merited confrontation, a brief account of each phase of the trial and the direction of the discussions, and a summary of the final resolutions. It will typically be released one year after the confronted and confronting parties have graduated or permanently left campus. If the parties involved are concerned about this release date, a mutually agreeable release date will be found.

When the Dean of the College receives this abstract, s/he will give it to the confronting and confronted parties for them to review the final version of the abstract and final release date. The Dean of the College shall also notify the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) that the abstract has been received, and later when it has been reviewed by the confronted and confronting parties. The Dean of the College shall also inform the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) of the final release date. However, to protect confidentiality, the (Co-)Chair(s) will not have access to the content of the abstract until the beginning of the semester specified for its release. The Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) will make note of the release date for future (Co-)Chair(s). When Honor Council is given the abstract, it will be reviewed


17by Abstract Committee and Honor Council will subsequently consent to its release, as per standard abstract guidelines.”

Furthermore, §7.04.a of the Constitution currently reads:

“Abstracts will be written for all academic trials, Student Panel, summer trials, Student Facilitated Panel and Joint Panel hearings. These will be distributed to the community in accordance with current Honor Code guidelines. In addition, Dean's Panels will release a record of their proceedings. This record will be released one year after the confronting and confronted parties have both permanently left campus, through graduation, permanent separation, or permanent withdrawal.”

The following shall be the revised version of this section of the Constitution, rewritten and rearranged for clarity:

“Abstracts will be written for all academic trials, social trials, and summer trials, and Student Panel, Student Facilitated Panel, and Joint Panel hearings. These will be distributed to the community in accordance with current constitutional guidelines. The procedures for abstracts released from Dean's Panels will follow different guidelines due to the sensitive nature of the issues covered. These guidelines are outlined in section 7.01.f.”

Effective immediately.

Plenary Resolution #4 – Clarifying Constitutional Language Pertaining to Honor Council Procedures

Presented by Emily Dix ’12, Anna Brockway ’12, and Florencia Foxley ‘13

The Constitution of the Students' Association is a document that outlines the procedures for a number of student processes, and, as a dynamic document, changes to reflect the needs of the community. Periodically, this document needs to be updated to reflect the current best practices followed at Haverford. Additionally, through the course of previous changes, some inconsistencies and repetitions have been introduced into the text of the Constitution. It has come to our attention that some details need to be fixed in the portion of the Constitution specifically relating to Honor Council procedures.

Notes: page numbers refer to the pages in the 2010-2011 Students' Guide which can be found online at http://www.haverford.edu/studentlife/guide.php. Paragraphs to be changed are presented either in part or in full to give a sense of the context of the change. […] may be used to delineate skipped unchanged language. Further notes may also be added in brackets: these notes are meant to explain changes or give structural changes, not add more text to the Constitution. Bolded words are added, italicized words are deleted.

Substantive Changes

p. 27FALL PLENARY – SEPTEMBER 26th, 2010

18Duties of the Honor Council of the Students' AssociationThe Honor Council of the Students' Association will administer all aspects of the Honor Code and be responsible for interpretation of specific matters pertaining to the Honor Code. The Honor Council will also be responsible for those aspects of the Code of Student Responsibility brought to its attention by the Honor Council Chair. Each year, the Honor Council will work in conjunction with the Honor Code Orienteer (HCO) Committee as both groups see fit to present the Honor Code to the First-year Class.

Abstract Release: In the interest of keeping the community informed, Honor Council will release abstracts with pertinent information about completed trials, Joint Student/Administrative Panels joint panels, and SFPs, and potentially mediations. […] The co-authors will complete the abstract within two weeks of receiving the Chairperson’s report (See section e. v. Responsibilities of the Chairperson), unless they request an extension by the last Council meeting before the original deadline. The Honor Council (Co-)Chairs Council may grant consent to a one-week extension or assign an additional Council member who served on the jury to assist them. […]

p. 28Abstract Delay: If an individual(s) involved in a trial requests that the abstract be delayed, Honor Council will weigh the importance of keeping the community informed with the effects of immediate release on the confidentiality of the involved individual(s). Honor Council will then reach consensus on whether or not to withhold the abstract. Abstracts may will typically be withheld for no longer than one year. Alternate procedures are followed for Dean's Panel abstracts. Abstracts are detailed enough to outline the issues, but vague enough to protect the confidentiality of the people involved. No names or revealing information such as specific dates, classes, instructors, or, in social cases, any detailed information which would identify any individual, are included. Abstracts may be withheld for no longer than one year. In cases where essential trial details threaten the confidentiality of the participants, the jury or the parties may request an additional delay from Honor Council. The delay will typically may not exceed one semester beyond the participants’ graduation or permanent departure. A decision to delay beyond one year may not be made without the request of the jury and may not be altered by subsequent Honor Councils.

DistributionHonor Council is responsible for making sure that an up-to-date and complete copy of the Honor Code and its guidelines are available to the community Students' Council has distributed to the entire community an accurate and complete unabridged copy of the Honor Code and its guidelines. Council is also required to address such issues as inconsistencies between written procedure and those physically enacted.

Customs WeekDuring Customs Week, the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) and Honor Code Orienteers Honor Council should spend a substantial amount of time discussing the Honor Code with first-year students and transfers. There should be an


19introduction about the Honor Code made to the entire group of incoming students, including an introduction by the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) made by the chairperson(s), and a historical perspective of the Code given by an appropriate community figure. Each Customs group should have at least one discussion with its Honor Code Orienteer(s). The introduction should be followed by at least two meetings involving each Customs group and its Honor Code Orienteer. Honor Code Orienteers will be members of the community who have undergone at least one training sessions with the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s). It is recommended that the introduction and the first of these meetings take place on the same day, and the second meeting on the next day.

p. 29ConfidenceAll matters involving individual students which are brought to Honor Council's attention must remain in strict confidence. No Council member shall discuss cases in progress with other students who are not members of Council. After an abstract has been released a matter has been resolved, Council members may discuss the case in abstract, but should be extremely careful not to reveal the identity of anyone involved.

ConsiderationWhile precedent may is to be used as a guide in handling concerns, each case is still to be considered on its own merits.

p. 31Faculty MeetingAt the first faculty meeting of every semester, the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) chairperson(s) will report to the faculty a summary of the past semester's academic concerns, and social concerns if they so choose Honor Council activities, trials, and concerns. At the beginning of every year, an orientation for new faculty members will be held before classes start. All new faculty, and those who have been away for a year or more, will be expected to attend.

p. 33Academic TrialIf a resolution cannot be reached, Honor Council will decide if an the academic situation needs to be resolved in a trial. A trial is necessary if a student is suspected of having violated our community academic standards and must, therefore, answer to the community for his/her actions. Almost all cases of suspected academic dishonesty are resolved in a trial. The Honor Council will designate a non-involved Council member to explain to the confronted individual the alleged charges, to explicitly inform the person of his or her rights, to familiarize the individual with the trial procedure, and to describe the implications and purpose of each step of the trial process. […]

p. 34-35Social TrialIf a resolution cannot be reached through confrontation, Honor Council will decide if the social situation needs to be resolved in a trial. A trial is necessary if a


20student is suspected of having violated our community social standards and must, therefore, answer to the community for his/her actions. The Honor Council will designate a non-involved Council member to explain to the confronted individual the alleged charges, to explicitly inform the person of his or her rights, to familiarize the individual with the trial procedure, and to describe the implications and purpose of each step of the trial process. […]

Student Facilitation PanelOften the initial discussion during a confrontation or a mediation discussion mediated by Student Mediation Panel or Honor Council Members is sufficient to resolve a problem between students. In cases when it is not, or in cases when this dialogue is not possible, Honor Council may will call a Student Facilitation Panel. The Panel's primary goals are facilitating respectful communication with the intent of reaching some common understanding, and encouraging individuals to take responsibility and accountability for past actions.This Panel will consist of […].[The following section, entitled “Structure of Panel:” will be appended to the end of this section and its heading deleted.]

OrientationHonor Council will designate a non-involved Council member to meet separately with each party in order to explain the purpose and implications of the Facilitation Panel process. At this time the confronted and confronting parties party will be informed of who will serve on the Student Facilitation Panel and may remove up to two members each if they feel they cannot be objective. The confronted party may remove up to two members if he/she feels they cannot be objective. […]

Facilitated DialogueAfter this preparatory meeting, the Panel and the disputing parties will meet. The parties will each tell their account without interruption. Following the opening narratives, the Honor Council Chair will guide a discussion of the relevant issues and concerns. The discussion and the questions asked will attempt to encourage self-examination and the understanding of the opposing perspectives. This discussion will continue until one of the following occurs:

The parties have reached an agreement upon tentative resolutions to their dispute. In this case, the FacilitatedDialogue will be followed by the procedure outlined in d. [Text from section d appended, section d itself should be deleted with its heading] The meeting will adjourn for at least 24 hours. During this time all parties, including members of the Panel, will reflect on whether or not the tentative resolutions are comprehensive and sufficient. The Panel and the parties will meet afterward to discuss any possible additions or revisions to the tentative resolutions, and to come to final consensus on the resolutions.

The parties and the Panel reach consensus that further dialogue will not be productive. In this case, the Facilitated Dialogue will be followed by the procedure outlined in e. [Text from section e appended, section e itself should be


21deleted with its heading] The Panel will meet separately in order to […]. At the conclusion of this portion of the process the Panel will reach consensus on any statement of violation, if they deem such a statement necessary, as well as possible resolutions. If the jury comes to a statement of violation, proceeding will then follow Universal Trial Procedures starting from the end of the Circumstantial portion when resolutions are proposed by the confronting and confronted parties.

p. 35Joint Student/Administrative Panel[…]When selecting a jury, Honor Council will make sure that there are at least two self-identified students of color on a panel and at least two students who do not identify as a student of color. In addition, there will be no fewer than two students who identify as male and no fewer than two who identify as female, and in the jury as a whole (including the deans), at least three jurors must self-identify as male, and at least three jurors must self-identify as female. Thus, there will be a total of eight members on the panel. Examples of situations where such a committee will be used are drug dealing and cases where legal authorities are active on campus. If either the confronting or confronted parties wish a student wishes to appeal a decision made by this committee, the appeal must be made to the President of the College within five business days of the completion of the Panel. The Panel will typically be co-chaired by an Honor Council (Co-)Chair and a dean.

p. 36Summer Trial[…] If a violation is reported after the beginning of summer break, the newly-elected Chairperson of Honor Council will contact members of the previous semester's Honor Council and invite four five of them to the College where they will decide whether a trial is necessary. If such a trial is called five six additional jurors will be selected randomly from the list of available students and join those council members. […]

Pre-Trial[…] Both the confronted and confronting parties must be informed of who will be on the jury. They may remove up to four members total The confronted and confronting parties may remove a maximum of two jurors each if they feel they cannot be objective. If the confronted and confronting parties choose to, they are allowed to question the originally selected jury in the presence of the Chair(s) under the discretion of the Chair(s), prior to their decision to remove any members. The confronted and confronting parties may remove a maximum of two jurors each.

p. 37For the Confronted and Confronting PartiesThe confronted party may bring another community member to the proceedings for support. If the confronting party is a student, s/he may bring another student to act as a support person. It is strongly recommended that a support person for a confronting party have no direct connection to the issue involved in the trial. At


22any given time during the trial, the confronted or confronting party may request time to meet with their support person. However, this opportunity is under the discretion of the Chair.

p. 38Jury Deliberation[…] During a recess, jury members may not discuss cases in progress with anyone, except other jurors and for support purposes. Additionally, the chair of the trial may discuss the cases in progress with the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) and the Dean of the College at their discretion. All individual discussions will be brought to the entire jury's attention at the next jury meeting. If it is decided that the student's actions were not in violation of the Code, the matter is dropped, and both parties are so informed. However, the jury still has the option of recommending resolutions to the parties.

CircumstantialIf it is decided that the actions were in violation of the Code, then the confronted party student will return. It is normally an option for the confronting party to be present. All points made in the confronted party's person's absence will be repeated to him/her by the chairperson. The jury will ask him/her about the circumstances surrounding the event in question. After this discussion, the confronted party student will be asked what he/she feels are fair resolutions is a fair resolution of the problem and why. The jury will then discuss various resolutions with the student. The confronting party is also given the opportunity to propose resolutions and to discuss them with the jury if they so choose.

Continuation of Jury DeliberationWhen the chairperson feels it appropriate, the party(ies) student will leave the room, and the jury will continue discussing resolutions and will reach consensus on the resolutions that it feels are just one that it feels is just. Resolution(s)s should address such goals as educating the confronted party and the community, repairing the breach of trust between them and the community and holding the person accountable for their actions. After this initial consensus, the jury will adjourn for at least 24 and no more than 48 hours one, but no more than two business days to think privately about the issues involved in the trial, and to rest. In the event that this timeline poses scheduling difficulties, the jury may consent to only count business days toward the timeline. A juror will inform the confronted and confronting parties of the jury's tentative resolution. At this point, jury members will not discuss cases in progress with anyone, including other jurors. However, jurors may talk with the trial chair and the trial chair may talk with the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) and the Dean of the College regarding procedural concerns. The jury will then reconvene and either reaffirm its position or reach consensus on another action.

Presentation of the Resolutions[…] The jury will then reach a final consensus on a recommendation which the chairperson will present both orally and in writing to the parties involved confronting party, the student, and the Dean of the College. Before the trial is


23adjourned, the jury will choose one of its members to act as a liaison between the jury and the President in the event of an appeal or administrative offering of alternative resolutions. The liaison's function will be to speak with the President to explain the jury's position and answer any questions. At that point members of the jury will also be chosen to write the abstract.

Post Trial[…] The involved parties have A student has a period of five business days from the time of the trial's completion in which to appeal to the President to change the resolution(s). The appeal must be presented orally and in writing, and may be made on either substantive or procedural grounds.

p. 38-40[A new structure will be implemented for the paragraphs in the section titled “Special Concerns.” The section titled “Clarification of Judicial Procedures” will come first, followed by other sections as bullet points (or in a similar indentation structure) underneath. The order of the sections will be: “Administrative Concerns,” “Harassment,” “Sexual Crimes,” “Violence of Threat of Violence,” “Special Cases,” “EEOC Panel” (which will be renamed “Confrontation of Staff or Faculty”), “Situations Where Formal Adjudication Does Not Appear Necessary,” “Interests of Fairness,” and “Recommendations.” The section titled “Non-Academic Honor Code Violations” will be deleted in its entirety, as it contradicts earlier and more well-established procedures. The section titled “Particular Cases” will also be deleted, and a sentence (written below) appended to the end of “Violence or Threat of Violence” to summarize the intent of this section. The text of this section is reproduced below. The section entitled “Abstracts” will be moved to immediately after the “Post-Trial” section on page 38. Some language within these sections will be modified as well: the sections to be edited further are displayed below in the order they will appear following the changes described in this paragraph.]

Clarification of Judicial ProceduresThese clarifications were drafted by the Dean's Office, EEOC officer, and Honor Council in order to better inform the community about avenues for hearing cases of alleged violations of community standards. The points elaborated are not meant to supplant or replace the Constitution Honor Code. Rather they are an attempt to make clear how cases may be adjudicated in the context of our current internal judicial structure.

Harassment[…] Should the EEOC Officer decide that EEOC grievance procedures would not be appropriate, then the Chairperson of Honor Council, the Dean of the College, and the EEOC Officer will decide on an appropriate course of action consult with each other. Honor Council will serve as the coordinating body for this decision making process.

Sexual CrimesIn the event that a party separated for a sexual crime returns to campus, thus violating the resolutions of their separation, the confronting party may


24permanently break the separated party's confidentiality without penalty, or ask someone else to do so in order to maintain their own confidentiality.

Non-Academic Honor Code Violations [to be deleted in its entirety]When a case involving a student confronted for a non-academic Honor Code violation comes forward for adjudication, there will be a meeting of the Chair of Honor Council, an EEOC officer, and the Dean of the College, to discuss the appropriate judicial avenue, i.e., Joint Administration/Honor Council Panel hearing or Student Facilitation Panel. Following this meeting, the Chair will inform Honor Council of the suspected violation and the recommended judicial response. At this time the Council will either reach consensus on the recommendation or request another meeting of the Chair, EEOC officer, and the Dean of the College.

Violence or Threat of ViolenceIn the case of violence or threat of violence, where there is a concern for the safety of the community, the Dean of the College may separate a student immediately. After such action, the Chair of Honor Council, an EEOC officer, and the Dean of the College will meet to review the case and determine if further action through internal judicial processes is indicated. This may be a Dean's Panel.

Particular Cases [to be deleted in its entirety]In particular cases (e.g. in a case of violence or threat of violence), The Chair of Honor Council, EEOC officer, and Dean of the College may elect to have a case heard in a Dean's Panel.

Situations Where Formal Adjudication Does Not Appear NecessaryIn situations where formal adjudication does not appear necessary, Communications Outreach or the Deans Office may be asked to facilitate/mediate a conflict. […]

RecommendationsIn cases requiring particular expertise, the Chair of Honor Council, the EEOC officer, and the Dean of the College may recommend that a member of the community (faculty, staff, administrator, or friend of the College) make their expertise available by serving as a consultant to the Honor Council jury or panel Joint Administration/Honor Council Panel.

Non-Substantive Changes

Throughout document:I) Change any instance of “chairperson” as it refers to the Honor Council Co-

Chair to “Honor Council (Co-)Chair,” with an additional plural “(s)” added where grammatically appropriate.

II) Change any instance of “Honor Council Chair” or “Chair” with reference to Honor Council Co-Chairs to “Honor Council (Co-)Chair” or “(Co-)Chair,” respectively, with an additional plural “(s)” added where grammatically appropriate.


25III) Change any instance of “chairperson” as it refers to a trial chair to

“chair,” plural where grammatically appropriate.IV) Slight variations on the above changes should be made where

appropriate.V) Change any instance of “Student's Council” to “Students' Council” (notably

on p. 30)p. 27Composition of Honor Council[…] Honor Council is charged with interpreting the sections of the Code that leave room for flexibility, are vague or have contradictory readings in the Code. […]Abstract Release:[capitalize “council” in the last sentence]p. 30[Heading should be changed:] Dean of college → Dean of the Collegep. 36Student PanelIf Honor Council is found to be (by a community member or member of Council) or suspects itself as a body to be in violation of the Honor Code, it is the responsibility of Council to confront itself themselves and organize the convening of a student panel that will decide whether or not Council is in suspicion of violation. […]Role of the Honor Council Chair in a Trial[…] In cases where the Honor Council Chair will not be leading the procedure, Honor Council will appoint an experienced Honor Council member best suited to chair the trial, Student Facilitation Panel or Joint Student/Administrative Panel Joint Student Administration Committee. […]p. 37Role of the Jury in a TrialEvery member selected for a jury, including Honor Council members, is expected to have thoroughly read and reviewed the current version of the Honor Code in its entirety prior to serving on a trial. […]p. 38Continuation of Jury Deliberation[…] Resolution(s)s should address such goals as educating the confronted party and the community, […]p. 40VacanciesIn the event of the resignation or removal of an officer or co-officer of the Students' Association, the Association will fill immediately fill the vacancy,

Plenary Resolution #5 – Blue Bus Stop Near HCAPresented by Matt Mazewski ‘13

Whereas a significant portion of the student body of Haverford College resides in the Haverford College Apartments (HCA), and


26Whereas a large number of Haverford students are enrolled in courses at Bryn Mawr College and make use of the Bi-College Blue Bus for transportation, and

Whereas the only Blue Bus stop at Haverford is presently located near Stokes Hall, at the opposite end of campus from the apartments, and

Whereas a survey of the student body of Haverford was conducted in the spring semester of the 2009-2010 academic year as part of “the process of gathering information regarding the possibility of bringing a Blue Bus stop down closer to the apartments,” and

Whereas it is unclear what the next step is in said process or when the plans it refers to will come to fruition,

Be it resolved that we, the students of Haverford College, ask that the administration of the College, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation of Bryn Mawr College, take tangible steps toward establishing a stop for the Bi-College Blue Bus near the Haverford College Apartments (HCA).


27

FALL PLENARY – SEPT.28th, 2008 2

plenary meeting of the haverford college students’...

Documents