Faculty Strive for Meeting Quorum

On Monday, Oct. 1, Associate Professor of Mathematics John Schmitt objected to the quorum that was called during the monthly faculty meetings. When the moderator deemed the quorum was in fact not met, the meeting was adjourned until the following month.

The quorum for the monthly faculty meetings requires that a majority of faculty members be in attendance in order for any business to be taken care of. This number includes all professors that are on academic leave.

Associate Professor of Political Science and member of the Faculty Council Bert Johnson said that the quorum has not been met in the past, but no problems have arisen up until now.

“In the past, there has rarely, if ever, been an actual quorum at faculty meetings, so the chair of the meeting […] would declare a quorum present, no one would object and we would move on,” wrote Johnson in an email.

The Faculty Council has calculated that a majority of the faculty would amount to 169 faculty members.

Johnson said that he guesses about 80 members of the faculty attend the meetings now.

Schmitt, the faculty member who contested the declaration of the quorum, had a familial obligation and was not available for comment.

The faculty’s agenda for the year has now been pushed back one month, and the cancellation of these meetings could have an effect on students.

Johnson explained that the faculty uses these meetings to vote on the administration committee’s grade changes, as well as the approval of fall and spring graduates.

“If we don’t solve this problem somehow, it will affect everybody, not just the faculty,” he said.

Professor of Mathematics and Faculty Meeting Parliamentarian Mike Olinick said that only in emergencies could the faculty vote without a quorum, such as the approval of students for graduation.

Members of the Faculty Council are now working to get faculty members to commit to the November faculty meeting this Monday, Nov. 12. Multiple emails have been sent out in the past week reminding faculty of the upcoming meeting.

While in the past, a quorum was technically necessary but not strictly enforced, Johnson believes that the attendance of the meetings will now be more regulated.

“Now that the cat is out of the bag, I anticipate an objection if there is not a quorum [this Monday],” said Johnson. “Now we’ve moved into a different situation where we really do need a quorum, or we need to redefine what a quorum is.”

In order to redefine the quorum for the meetings, there will need to be a majority of faculty at the meeting on Monday. They will then need a two-thirds majority vote to suspend the present rules — thus suspending the current quorum rule — and then a two-thirds majority vote in order to approve the new quorum rule.

The Faculty Council is in charge of proposing the amendment. Johnson said they will attempt to lower the number of faculty members required at the meetings, and they are leaning towards specifying a specific number of people rather than a percentage.

Olinick believes that an amendment to the definition of a quorum will be beneficial, particularly considering the circumstances under which the quorum was originally defined.

“The current rule that half the entire faculty must be present for a  quorum has been in place for more than 40 years,” wrote Olinick in an email. “It dates from an era when the faculty was much smaller in number than it is now, and so a higher percentage of those in attendance had an opportunity to speak.

“Also, only six or seven professors were on leave during an academic year then,” Olinick continued. “Now close to 20 percent of the faculty may be away from campus on academic leave during the year. Our quorum rule now includes those people in the count even though it's impossible for them to attend.”

Johnson explained that in addition to professors on academic leave, other professors have obligations to their families or have classes that interfere with getting to the meetings.

Professor of Religion Burke Rochford is one of those professors who cannot attend due to familial obligations. He believes that redefining the quorum makes sense in light of who attends the meetings.

“I assume the people who don’t go to faculty meetings choose not to participate in faculty governance, so who needs a vote from those people?” said Rochford. “The people who are involved, who know the issues, they’re the ones who should be voting anyway. I think making something out of this quorum is basically a false issue.”

Even though Rochford does not attend the meetings due to other obligations, he also does not believe that he has a duty as a faculty member to attend.

“My expectations about being a faculty member are that I teach and I teach well, I contribute to my department and I contribute in every way I can and that I do the research that I do,” said Rochford. “Whether I go to the faculty meeting doesn’t mean that much to me.”

Johnson, however, does not know what to make of the lack of attendance at the meetings.

“We have a system in which the faculty is supposed to run most of what happens here at the College,” said Johnson. “It is concerning when not as many people as perhaps should want to take part in that governance. I don’t know if that’s a signal whether things are all okay or whether things are bad.”

Professor of Physics and Faculty Moderator Susan Watson, who’s in charge of leading the faculty meetings, declined to comment.

This is Watson’s first year as moderator. In the past, President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz, and the presidents before him, always ran the faculty meetings.

Last May, the faculty voted to suspend the rules regarding the Faculty Moderator and chose to instead use an elected faculty member.

Olinick explained that a faculty member moderator was tried around 1990, but then the president resumed the position after one semester. He said they are attempting to use a faculty moderator again for two reasons.

“One [reason is] that [the meetings] will be perceived more as a faculty run meeting rather than an administrative run meeting, and faculty members might feel freer to engage in the debate,” said Olinick. “It was also felt that [Liebowitz], given the nature of the position that he has, would have a strong opinion about a lot of the issues that come before the faculty for decision. When you’re moderating a meeting you’re not really free to express your own opinion on these issues.”

Liebowitz continues to attend the faculty meetings as a participant.

The meeting on Nov. 12 will take place in McCullough Social Space, a change from Kirk Alumni Center, where the meetings are usually held. This is to account for the higher number of faculty members that the Faculty Council hopes will attend the meeting.