After over two hours of heated discussion on the first item on the agenda, last Friday’s closed-door faculty meeting ended when a quorum was called for by Professor of Politics Lorn Foster.

This marked the second consecutive faculty meeting forcibly halted due to poor faculty attendance. At the April 7 faculty meeting, discussion ended when Professor of Physics Catalin Mitescu called for a quorum. The minimum number of voters required to fulfill a quorum was 82; by the end of the meeting only 67 voting faculty were present. Both meetings ended during discussion of the controversial new proposed faculty harassment and discrimination policy.

College bylaws dictate that "any number of voting members shall constitute a quorum at the next regular [faculty] meeting" following two consecutive quorum calls.

However, the quorum calls, unprecedented in recent history, were not the only irregularities in last Friday’s meeting.

At the onset, acting chair and Dean of the College Hans Palmer announced that the meeting would be an executive session, closed to the public. In doing so, Palmer exercised his privilege as chair to close the meeting at any time, citing the sensitive nature of personnel issues which would be discussed during the meeting.

"The faculty meeting...was closed so that the faculty could discuss matters of College policy relating to the faculty," Palmer later stated. "As a result of a number of discussions with the Faculty Executive Committee as well as with individual members of the faculty, it had become clearer to me that the closed session was appropriate."

In the aftermath of this decision, many faculty members have questioned Palmer’s motives.

"Calling an executive session is very unusual. The buzz around the faculty is that it seemed odd that Dean Palmer would call [an executive session]. That action left most people scratching their heads," said Professor of Politics John Seery.

"When [Palmer] claimed the necessity of calling an Executive Session during last Friday’s special faculty meeting, [he] abused [his] powers as chair," asserted Professor of Psychology

Stanley Gaines in a letter to Palmer circulated among faculty over the weekend, who believes that "the Dean was worried that the content of the meeting would prove to be highly embarrassing for the administration."

"I do not know of a single previous instance during the past seven years in which a meeting held solely to vote on Faculty Handbook policy was declared an Executive Session," Gaines said.

President Peter Stanley, who normally acts as chair of the faculty meeting, was out of town at the time of the meeting and was not consulted by Palmer on the issue of declaring an executive session.

"It is rare [to declare an entire meeting an executive session]," stated Stanley, who admitted that this was the first time it had happened in his nine year tenure at the college. "The reason for executive session...is that sometimes the faculty may need to discuss an issue in greater candor than it wishes to share with the rest of the world...[but] it’s clearly a judgment call. There’s no question about that."

While most faculty members recognize that it was Palmer’s prerogative to declare an executive session, not all agree that he was justified in making that determination.

"I felt what transpired could have been said in public, but I understand the rationale of the Dean in saying that these matters relate to personnel and therefore we should close the door," Foster stated.

"I do think that moving into executive session was inappropriate, [however] my understanding is that the Dean thought that this was going to be a sensitive issue, and wanted faculty to be able to speak freely," stated one professor who wished to remain anonymous.

"Were I presiding, I may have come down on a different side, but it was not an unreasonable decision," stated Mitescu. "The chair has wide latitude in interpreting the rules, [and had he or she disagreed with the decision] any faculty member could have appealed the ruling," he added. Any such objection would have been ruled on by a majority vote of the present faculty.

The item of discussion was a proposed revisal of the harassment and discrimination policy that has been under works for the past year. According to Professor of Economics and member of the Faculty Executive Committee Eleanor Brown, the Faculty Executive Committee petitioned to hold the special faculty meeting because of the exigency of the issue.

"We had planned to have a [faculty] meeting on [May 5] if the discussion of the discrimination and harassment policy and the grievance policy needed the extra time. When the Faculty Executive Committee realized that date would conflict with meetings with the Board of Trustees, its members instigated a petition for a special meeting," she stated.

Some faculty members, however, feel that urgency is not the most important factor.

"My view is that this is an issue that’s too important to vote on [simply] because we want to come to a quick resolution," stated Foster. "I’d just as soon carry it on in the next year. I think this issue is way too important to just have a vote. It turns out now that there are some questions about free speech, some questions about First Amendment issues that really have to be sorted out."

Some faculty members believe that there is pressure from the administration for them to pass the policy this year. Faculty members report that Palmer repeatedly reminded them before the special faculty meeting that if a quorum were called at the meeting, then college bylaws dictate that a quorum will not be necessary to pass legislation at the next regular faculty meeting.

"Clearly the reason we had the special faculty meeting called was because the administration wanted to get this proposed policy passed before the end of this year," stated Seery. He believes there is still work that needs to be done on the policy, particularly in regards to its definition of harassment.

Other faculty members feel that the proposal has taken its natural course and is nearly ready for adoption.

"There is nothing hasty about the process, and it is taking its course in a measured and deliberate manner," Professor of Russian and member of the Faculty Executive Committee Kevin Platt stated. "If it gets passed and goes into effect next year, everyone will be much better off then they are now."

Despite the danger of a future meeting being able to operate without a quorum, one was still called for. According to Foster, the length of the meeting was a major factor in his decision to call for a quorum.

"The meeting had gone on for two hours, and I didn’t feel we were moving forward at that time. Faculty had been drifting out for the past 45 minutes or so, and I realized that we could go on ad infinitum and I don’t think there would have been a clear solution of the issues. We perhaps could have voted, but I didn’t think it was appropriate to have a vote when we had lost a quorum," Foster stated.

"We did have a quorum at the outset of the meeting, and we lost it because the meeting started to go two hours long," Seery added. According to Seery, this is more than just an incidental problem.

"There is a structural problem...behind all of these losing quora; namely, faculty meetings are held at 4 pm on Fridays. A lot of faculty have to go pick up children at childcare, a lot of them need to go home to their families for other reasons, a lot of them need to hit the road to avoid traffic. . . . So this problem with maintaining attendance has become chronic and is probably unrelated to the particular issues that were raised at the last meeting," stated Seery.

Because of the problems surrounding faculty attendance and the special policy on quorums, there is the potential that a minority of the faculty would be in a position to pass major legislation at the next faculty meeting, an eventuality which has some professors worried.

"It is somewhat daunting," stated Foster. "I hope that people will be able to sit down and reflect on this. Hopefully we can get better faculty attendance [and] people will stay."

Mitescu, who was involved with the writing of the faculty bylaws 28 years ago, has expressed concern to both Palmer and Stanley that the special policy on quorums provided for by the faculty bylaws might be misused.

"It’s only meant to be used in cases where otherwise [a majority of] the faculty couldn’t be convened," Mitescu stated. "It’s meant to be used sparingly." He explained that since some motions were voted on at the April 7 faculty meeting with the presumption of a quorum, the special rule would not apply unless the chair ruled that there had not been a quorum for the entire April 7 meeting and invalidated the votes which occurred. Mitescu expressed doubt that this decision would be made. Neither Stanley or Palmer were available for comment about the application of the special policy on quorums.

One faculty member who wished to remain anonymous expressed sentiments that the Executive Committee is in a rush to get this passed with a minimum of debate, and faculty resent this sort of approach. Lack of quorum, the source said, was not so much a reflection of apathy on the part of the faculty, but of alienation and frustration with the governance process.