On March 19, Student Government plenary commenced with the sound of pop music and chatter among Upper School students. Thirty minutes later, the Phaedrus committee stood on stage, trying to address the strong flow of questions and comments from the student body.
While some comments and questions produced clarifying conversation, others turned the heads of many in plenary. Committee member Nikita Mallik said, “These are the people who voted against it [the proposal] or didn’t vote at all.” “It kind of annoyed me because I was like, ‘How can you not see how this is so much better for Phaedrus?’” The published goal of the Phaedrus proposal was to “become a more effective magazine by changing the number and selection process of its editors. Responsibilities will be better divided, and incoming editors will be better equipped with the skill sets needed as well as better prepared for the workload Phaedrus requires.”
Delilah Davis, current Editor-in-Chief of Phaedrus and author of the proposal, described the dynamic of the current editorial board and the need for change. “When Ava [Lin] and I inherited the magazine from the previous editors, we already knew the current system wasn’t working because there was a long history of nothing getting done because of disagreements or one head deciding they needed to do everything.”
Currently, there are four Phaedrus heads. Davis and Lin work mostly on the production and layout of the magazine, whereas Uma Morris and JP Lazar predominantly serve as writing and art liaisons.
Though 170 out of 213 votes aimed for the proposal to pass, some had concerns, which were brought up to the microphones during plenary in an unorthodox fashion.
One of the students who made sure his voice was heard during plenary was senior Ben Graines. He made multiple comments during student government. “I think in my instance, my question is not getting an answer,” Graines said. “I understand that I wasn’t very respectful in the moment. I just got carried away. My example is not what you should do to have a good democracy.”
On March 25 at 3:50 p.m., President Ty Donath sent an Upper-School-wide email announcing the passing of the Phaedrus Proposal, only for another email to appear explaining a mistake that, in actuality, the proposal did not pass.
“This is due to Article V, Section D, 3, where it states: Proposed amendments to this Constitution or its bylaws must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Assembly,” Donath noted.
Following this was a growing email chain with rebuttals from the assembly, committee, and Cabinet members. Though the proposal got 78.3%, more than 2/3 approval, less than 2/3 of the student body voted through the electronic form, which sparked more controversy among the Upper School students on a new topic: electronic or in-person voting.
While some asked for a recount, Parliamentarian Darcy Rachel spelled out in another email the reasons the proposal did not pass and reasons why a re-vote would not be constitutional under these circumstances. “A revote can be ordered if there is significant justification, but in this case, there is none.”
Next year, Phaedrus will work in the same way as this year keeping four Editors in Chief. The student body will elect the editors.
