Hornet's Nest | Vol. 1 | Issue 2 | May 2, 2016

HORNET’S NEST Proctor Academy | May 2, 2016 | Issue 2

COPE MAKECHNIE ‘17 AND NICK HO ‘17 ANNOUNCE THE 2016-17 SCHOOL LEADERS

School Leader Elections By Toby Bannister-Parker This year, the faculty, in concert with Student Leadership, decided to make a change to the student leader voting system. The goal was to try to give the Proctor community a better picture of the candidates for whom they are voting. The electoral system used until now consisted of each candidate giving a four minute speech during assembly to the entire school, after which each student and teacher was able to vote for their top two candidates. The new system required the candidates to prepare for a series of randomly selected questions put forward by students, which the candidates answered during assembly. The questions covered a wide range of topics over two assemblies. The candidates also gave a two minute speech on the core values of the school. Another edition to the election was the

way in which the students and faculty voted; a survey was sent out to every teacher and student. The survey evaluated every candidate according to four specific qualities: responsibility, communication, trustworthiness, and enthusiasm. The survey required surveyees to give every candidate a score from one to five. I had an extensive interview with our current school leader Max Kaesshaefer about the change in the election process to understand the reasoning behind the change and discover how it benefited the school. I started by asking Max about the involvement the student government had in the election change since they have been referred to as a “party planning committee” by many students. “Not much, really,” was his response. I learned that all three of the school leaders this year had direct involvement in the change, and it came from “a compromise between what the administration [wanted] and we wanted”. Max’s

opinion of the new system of voting was that he didn’t “think the new system was perfect but I [didn’t think] it took as long as some students made it out to be.” Many students complained that the survey took too long to fill out and would rather be able to vote for an individual. “I feel some people were discouraged from voting because the system of voting was overly complicated,” said Ryan Methven, ‘19. Many students didn’t vote because of the time it took. “It wasn’t exactly an election,” said Nicole Kimtis, ‘18. The percentages of student voters were as follows: 76% freshman, 75% sophomore, 80% juniors, and 52% seniors voted. On behalf of the school, I would like to congratulate Nick Ho and Cope Makechnie for winning this year’s election. I look forward to having them represent the student body next year and wish them the best.