I. Moment of Silence at 7:31 pm – Quorum- 543
II. Welcome to Plenary
III. Rules of Order and Agenda
Scott and Will explained the alcohol policy ratification circumstances and the rules of order
Three minutes were given by Scott to look over Rules of Order and examine the Agenda
Five minutes were allotted by Will for questions concerning agenda or Rules of Order. Zach Withers – 06 What is difference between Friendly and un-friendly amendment?
Will called for a vote to determine if Alcohol policy ratification will be on agenda. It was voted through a red-paper vote, that the alcohol policy would not be added to the agenda. Scott added that the alcohol policy would be in effect until the Fall 2003.
Scott and Will called for amendments to change Agenda or Rules of Order. Dave Langlieb – 05 – Believes that Plenary is not the time of place to talk about foreign policy. Decision will not have any effect on the Bush administration. A discussion can take place outside of Plenary.
Scott and Will announced that a 10 minute pro-con debate will take place for the amendments to the Agenda or Rules of Order.
Pro – Molly Glenn 02 – understand feelings that we can’t do anything, decision shouldn’t be based on how well we will effect others. We should stand up together and take a stand, our administration does care
Con – Jesse Littlewood 02 – interested in seeing resolution presented. Students followed rules, it should be presented. Regardless if you agree or disagree, the resolution should be heard
Pro – Jeremy Amar-Dolan 03 – better form would be to have a community discussion or a petition. Plenary should only be about the community. Bad precedent will be set.
Con – Diane – 04 - It is selfish and arrogant not to discuss the resolution. Same thing happened during Vietnam
Pro – Jesse – 05 – The whole student body should not be represented by 80-90% of the people here.
Con – Christina Freeman 05 – The Haverford community can’t come to Concensus, majority rules for Plenary will be best.
Pro – Dave Langlieb – 05 – It is an important issue. We are Haverford College, it is out duty to talk about the doings of the college. This does not relate to the doings of the college.
Con - Megan Brooker – 05 – Resolution pertains to everyone in the whole world. Haverford is not a bubble. Outside world applies to us.
Option to extend the Pro-Con debate by 10 minutes. It will be extended by 10 minutes.
Pro - Morissa Falk – 03 – Not a good discussion for Plenary. Did not sign up for one Quaker ideal. Haverford is about diversity, no one decision
Con - Ginger Stevens – 03 – Hampshire College had the same debate and vote. Votes against the resolution will be included. We are connected through every and oil with Iraq.
Pro - Hal – 03 – voting to represent one decision, is same a Bush administration representing everyone.
Con - Megan – 05 – This will make a difference. If this can’t, talking with your friends will not make a difference.
Pro - Jeremy – Need to discuss. There are better places to have the discussion. Community wide discussions should be had. Entire community should not be represented by some people.
Con - JD Zipkin – 03- Given the opportunity to change the resolution. Wants to make an unfriendly amendment to add a majority of the student body.
Pro – Sarah Not going to come to concensus.
Con – Zach 06- Easy to make changes that the undersigned members of the school believe in this. People in America have the right to discuss and send their opinions to the government.
Pro- Elizabeth – If the resolution is passed, people will go home with a sense of having done something, but nothing is really being done so
Con- Emmy 06- Just because something is passed by the majority does not mean that you have to believe it.
Pro- John Wakely 05- not the place to do this
Con- Christina 05- it is already at plenary so we might as well discuss it.
Pro- Con debate will not be extended.
Vote on whether or not to take resolution off agenda. Yay – To take the vote of the agenda. Nay – To keep the agenda the same.
Amount Present at Vote – 624 Yay - 340
Only 55% Not ratified by two-thirds. The resolution will be kept on the Agenda
Will called to make any other amendments to the Rules of Order.

IV. Resolution #1 (US Military Action in Iraq
Friendly amendment was accepted. Background second paragraph, cross out “restore international peace and security to the region” Cross out “does not define the boundaries of the region” In the sixth paragraph after “international law” add (UN Chapter 2.4). In the 14th paragraph remove the quotes from the phrase – the region -.
Christina and Megan were presented with five minutes to introduce the resolution. Ginger Stevens read a statement prepared by Sarah.
Question and answer session for 10 minutes.
Larry Bomback – 04 – Why did you mention innocent people? Bush just wantes to change regime not hurt innocent people. Answer – Opinions are not being respected, and casualties occur do to war, people will be effected and killed.
Jaime Diorio – 04 – Why should this be this view represent the whole community? Word “majority” should be added. Asked for clarification on the term majority. Answer – Want to create a new format to discuss, will only be a majority.
Lauren Shah – 04 - 67% of 40% at Plenary is not majority of the students? How do you consider that a majority? Answer – Assumed the same rules as other Plenaries. Plenary is a legislative body.
JD – 05- What role do you see the resolution having, a decade now? Answer, not about an immediate effect, it is about setting a precedent for future. Are you only concerned with a precedent? Answer – ten years from now, it will be about precedent. Would you be opposed to an unfriendly amendment asking to become more specific about majority? Answer, think it is implied, but
Matt – 04 – Do we want to inform people in the community or outside of the community? Answer: There is no difference between Haverford and the real world. Same standards should be set. If this goes out across the country, how can the rules of Plenary and ideas be expressed? Answer – good point, would be willing to accept an unfriendly amendment.
Aaron Rosenburg – 05 – Why add you are against the war in Iraq, why not just add that new forums need to exist? Answer – to have impact, against war in Iraq had to be added.
By red-paper vote, the QA period was ended.

Pro-Con Debate
Pro- Diane- the world is watching and passing this resolution will allow the country to take notice.
Con- Kirk Mingles 05- The country is not watching. There is a movement in Congress to postpone the vote so we don’t necessarily have a deadline and we don’t have to discuss this now.
Pro- Megan- disagrees with this last statement because Bush can announce war anytime and we need to think about it now.
Con- Julia 06- where was mass loss of life during the gulf war?
Pro- John Johnson – Bush is trying to extend powers back to Gulf War, and use same ideas now.
Con – Keith – Not morally right to pass the resolution as Haverford. It says that if you don’t agree with the students then you don’t belong here, and silences a political minority on this campus. This is an educational institution, not a political one.
Pro – Christina – point of resolution is not to silence anyone, just want to make a statement to the outside world. If you don’t like the resolution, vote against it.
Con – Stephanie Klicpora 04 – by passing this, people who don’t agree will be silenced. People have ideas, that will be considered a minority if this is passed.
Pro – Kristos 05 – Opinions are important, all should be heard.
Con – Nick 05 – What is the future of Haverford, if this is passed? Will incoming Freshman have to agree with being against the war in Iraq.
Pro – Sharon - Would you be opposed to an unfriendly amendment that would put number of Yay votes
Con – Jeremy Pober 03 – Either you keep the resolution as it is, or it says 67% of 40%, this is wrong forum for this discussion.
Pro – Adrienne – Agrees in representation. Representational government has the same idea. It should work at Haverford.
Con – Crispin Vary 06- President Bush could do anything at anytime, well 9/11 happened at a time, when we didn’t know about them. Should we let terrorists act at anytime, or should we let the President stop the terrorists. Terrorist attack can happen at anytime.
Pro - Molly – 03 – If we pass resolution, can we put number of people who agree. Iraq is not the same as terrorism, it is a sovereign nation.
The Pro-Con debate will not be extended.

Presenters are allowed to respond to the Pro-Con debate. 3 minutes.
Important to know that there is no documentation between Iraq and Al-Quada. Different situations. No proof that Sadam will attack us. The resolution can make a difference.

Scott and Will called for Unfriendly amendments, and 7 minutes to get 75 signatures.

Moment of Silence

Unfriendly Amednments
JD Zipkin 05 & Joe Sacks 05 – Much of discussion is regarding wording of the resolution. Proposes that the resolution will show that not every student in the college agrees with this idea.
Question and Answer
Christina – 05 – Does it say .67 of 40%. Answer – this plenary says that 2/3 of the exact number of people at Plenary, supports the resolution.
Aziz – Do you think that people who aren’t here, missed their chance? Why should there be a qualification. Answer – Ammendment clarifies who and how many voted.
Charles – 05- question about percentages
Chris 03- what are the advantages of your proposal? Answer- original resolution didn’t say anything about it. This amendment will help the resolution pass because many people were upset about wording in final paragraph
Pro-Con Debate
Pro- Emily 06- agrees that amendment should be added because it is wrong to say that the entire college is in agreement with the resolution. Chose Haverford College so that she wouldn’t be in society of social coercion. Doesn’t want Haverford College to look like mindless mold.
Con-Frank 05- Haverford College decides by majority all the time, keep with Quakers and decide as a group.
Pro-Joe 05- Won’t say whether or not they are for resolution… this amendment is just for clarification.
Con-Julien 05- Not for resolution and thinks ammendement could create a misconception .
Pro- Zach - Haverford College does not feel that we should come together Getting bogged down by wording so want to get rid of this problem.
Pro-Voskin 05- 2/3 is not majority and wording is twisted. People must look at the facts
Con-Laura 04- talking a lot about wording, but thinks we should talk about content
Pro-JD- only takes one person to block consenses and he would
Con- frank- only is small part of the school. Shows that there is more distinction
Pro- Joe- for amendment
Con- Geddes- the whole point of coming together in plenary is to make decision together as a whole
Voting on unfriendly amendment
Went to Paper vote
Total Number of People Here – 597 Yay- 294
Only 49% voted Yay. Unfriendly Amendment was not passed.

2nd Unfriendly Amendment
Presentors – Shane Danaher, Becky Shuford, Harris
Additions say that “Therefore we, the students of Haverford College, do and will support unilateral U.S. military action against Iraq and the Iraqi people. Added paragraph that talks about individual thought and decision
Say we support the Bush administration.

Question and Answers
Megan – How does this keep the spirit of the resolution? Answer – wanted to create dialogue. Supporting the war creates more dialogue. Resolution takes a position of a political issue. Taking an opposite stance on the same issue, initiates the same dialogue.
Allision – 04 – Instead of writing own resolution, why did you propose the amendment? Answer – Not the correct forum, wanted to create more discussion.
Question – Why are you wasting more time? Answer – Wanted to have discussion.
Molly – 03 – Is your point to provoke discussion, or is it to present an united front? Answer – Wanted to provoke discussion
Jim Duncan – 03 – Unfriendly amendment failed, this is what will be presented?

Pro-Con Debate
Pro – Crispin – Strongly support this amendment. God Bless USA
Con – JD – All should go home tonight with our own opinions, and not have one stance for whole school.
Pro – Stephanie – How do people feel if opposite position was presented? That is what amendment was for. It is important to see the otherside.
Con – Annie Karni 03 – Some people didn’t know what they were signing.
Pro - Meredith- Opposition
Con - Emily – If we support military action, I don’t want my name associated. I would be ashamed.
Pro - Vaksen – Would not support if the same thing was true. That is what the amendment was supposed to show.
Con – Smoot – Good to question government
Pro – Shane – Don’t want my name to the other resolution. That is why amendment was added.
Con – Aziz – Original proposal should be voted on. Felt the viewpoint was share.
Pro – Morissa Falk – There is no one viewpoint of Haverford College. Diversity exists.
Con – Aziz – Multiple view-points to exist
Pro - Meredith- And silence the minority
Con – Vasken – Amendment serves the point, lets vote on original resolution.
Pro – Matt – If you vote . . .
Con – Sarah Morris – Most of international community is against the war. If you don’t agree with resolution, vote against original resolution.
Pro-Con Debate Ended
Vote with Red-Paper – Unfriendly amendment fails

Moment of Silence

Vote on Final Resolution. Two thirds vote needed.
Total number of people at Plenary – 589
Yay- 147 – 25%
Only 25% voted for the resolution. The resolution did not Pass!

V. Final Moment of Silence

These minutes reflect the views of SC Co-Secretaries Jonathan Debrich and Beth Krouse. Any questions e-mail exec@haverford.edu.