Faculty Update Quorum Number

On Monday, Nov. 12, the College hosted its monthly faculty meeting in McCullough Social Space. Prior to the meeting concerns were high regarding attendance after last month’s quorum of over 50 percent of faculty was challenged. The quorum was met, however, and the meeting proceeded as scheduled, with the first item on the agenda being to redefine the quorum.

During last month’s meeting on Oct. 1, Associate Professor of Mathematics John Schmitt objected to the quorum that was declared as present. It is guessed that the number of attendees at the meeting was about 70. The quorum required that the majority of faculty be present, or at least 169 people.

Schmitt has been at the College for seven and a half years, and he said that the reason he had waited until October to contest the quorum was due to job stability. It was only on July 1 of this year that Schmitt was officially granted tenure.

“Now that I have tenure … I can stick my neck out and say some things that may not be popular without fear of losing my position at the College,” said Schmitt.

The McCullough Social Space filled every seat at Monday’s meeting, and once the quorum was called, the Faculty Council immediately set as its first point of agenda to redefine what constitutes a quorum at faculty meetings.

In order to redefine the quorum, the faculty first needed to have a two-thirds majority vote in order to suspend the rules. This was met without opposition.

The faculty council then presented its motion to change the quorum to read: “A quorum in faculty meetings will consist of 100 voting members of the faculty for the 2012-13 academic year. The secretary will inform the moderator of the presence of a quorum.”

Motions were then put in place to change the wording of the proposal. Faculty voted to remove the year limitation, so that the motion would not need to be discussed again at the end of the academic year, and also to change the number 100 to one-third of faculty, except those on leave.

Each of these two motions needed a majority two-thirds vote to be passed. Both were met with only a few objections.

When it came time to discuss passing the revised motion of the new quorum, a discussion broke out between multiple members of the faculty in favor of the change and Schmitt, who was the only faculty member to speak to the room in favor of keeping the old quorum.

Schmitt spoke to his belief that all faculty members should be required to attend faculty meetings.

“I think the faculty need to know each other,” said Schmitt. “I think that they need to be aware of the issues regarding the curriculum, regarding the direction of the College and I think that they need to participate in the discussion and the decisions.”

While Schmitt argued that faculty members should all be capable to devote time to these meetings once a month, other professors, such as Gamaliel Painter Bicentennial Professor of Physics Frank Winkler, spoke of the other obligations of faculty on this campus.

“I think it’s good to have as many people as possible at meetings of the faculty,” said Winkler at the meeting on Monday. “On the other hand, it’s not the only responsibility that we have here at this institution. I would venture to say that many of the people who cannot attend faculty meetings are doing other good and worthwhile things.”

Winkler cited coaches who hold practices, professors who have labs that run late and others that do independent work with students as examples.

“I would say that all of these are valuable activities that advance the mission of Middlebury College, and that we should respect all of them,” said Winkler. “And therefore I support this motion [to revise the quorum downward].”

After about 30 minutes of debate over the language of the motion and its implications, the faculty members in attendance voted and passed the new definition of the quorum with a vast majority. Only a few attendees opposed the motion, Schmitt among them.

Once the motion to change the definition of the quorum was passed, a number of faculty members got up and left the meeting.

Schmitt later spoke of his disappointment in the Faculty Council for lowering their expectations for faculty members.

“I was disappointed that the motion was brought to the floor of the faculty meeting in the first place,” said Schmitt.

He also hopes that his message from the meeting was taken as encouragement for faculty to come to meetings in the future and that the new standard will be strictly enforced.

“My hope is that the culture of the faculty meetings is a more positive one going forward,” said Schmitt.

President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz expressed agreement with the points of both Schmitt and Winkler, and said he believes there is a medium between the two.

“I’m happy we came to a resolution and we’ll be able to conduct business,” said Liebowitz.

Member of the Faculty Council and Associate Professor of Political Science Bert Johnson said he was extremely pleased to see many of his colleagues at the faculty meeting.

“It was one of those things that warmed my heart,” said Johnson. “It was great to see people come out when they needed to, and hopefully we will have higher attendance going forward.”

Johnson explained that he understands Schmitt’s point of view, but sees the new quorum as less of a downgrade and more of a compromise.

“I certainly understand where [Schmitt is] coming from, and I too wish that people would more regularly appear at faculty meetings,” said Johnson. “However, considering the practicalities of the matter, I think it’s just not feasible to get that many people there regularly. So I think one-third is a reasonable compromise and it still requires more of the faculty than has typically attended. We’re not letting ourselves totally off the hook.”

Professor of Political Science Matthew Dickinson, who does not regularly attend faculty meetings and did not attend the meeting on Monday, cited the work he does as a professor, researcher, political scientist and departmental chair as his reasons for not being able to attend the faculty meetings.

“My primary role, the mission that drives this college, is educating undergraduates,” said Dickinson. “That’s what drives everything I do, and everything flows from that.

“I have to make choices about how to spend my time,” Dickinson continued. “Some people prioritize by working through faculty administrative bodies to contribute to the College. Somebody should do that. I cannot do that and fulfill my other obligations. […] I am deeply appreciative of what [Schmitt] is saying and the passion he brings to college governance, and I’m glad he’s out there, but I can’t be.”