I wish to inform you that Dean of Engineering Robert O. Warrington has recommended the following administrative changes within the College of Engineering.

• The Department of Mining and Materials Processing Engineering is to be eliminated.
• The Mining Engineering degree programs will be merged with the Department of Geological Engineering and Sciences.
• The Department of Biomedical Engineering is to be eliminated.
• The Biomedical Engineering degree program will be merged with the Department of Chemical Engineering.
• A new department name will be selected for the department administering the Mining Engineering and the Geological Engineering and Sciences degree programs.
• A new department name will be selected for the department administering the Biomedical and Chemical Engineering degree programs.

The principal reasons for these recommended changes are low enrollment in some degree programs (mining/geo programs), the desire to develop nationally known programs in biomedical/biotechnology/biochemical engineering, and directed budget reductions by the Board of Control.

Dean Warrington has provided additional information in Attachment 1.

In addition to the above actions regarding academic organization, Director of Athletics Rick Yeo has recommended elimination of four varsity athletic programs:

• Men's Varsity Tennis
• Women's Varsity Tennis
• Men's Nordic Ski
• Women's Nordic Ski

Director Yeo has provided additional information in Attachment 2.

This information is being provided to University Senate by President Tompkins in accordance with Senate Constitution Article III.F.1.b(1).

ATTACHMENT 1

DEPARTMENTAL REALIGNMENTS

In any organization change is difficult and, in a university, the situation is even more difficult because of the large number of constituencies involved. In the case of departmental mergers, there are the departmental chairs, faculty, staff, and students who rightly protect their interests and territory. Alumni and industrial representatives from one or both disciplines will argue that their discipline must stand alone, above all others. Finally, there is the upper administration trying (plotting?) to build critical mass and develop synergy while at the same time trying to save resources and improve efficiency by merging areas, reducing a unit's administration, and by sharing courses and laboratories. The arguments against changes of this nature are normally the same we will lose our identity and quality students won't come, we can't hire quality faculty, there is presently no common ground between our disciplines for either research and/or education, why can't we just stay the way we are, we can share labs, courses, space, and develop coordinated research programs without being combined. There are many examples inside the College and external to Michigan Tech that contradict these arguments.

The College of Engineering proposes to realign several departments within the College. We propose to merge the departments of Chemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering, and the mining programs from the Department of Mining and Materials Processing Engineering with the Department of Geological Engineering and Sciences. The proposed mergers will save money in the short and long term by sharing leadership, staff, and facilities, but, more importantly, will create a critical mass of faculty that will be better able to synergistically develop curricula and research programs. The key is to envision things not as they are but as what they could become.

In the merger of the mining programs with Geological Engineering and Sciences, 3.5 FTE faculty and one secretary will join the 11.5 FTE faculty in the Geological Engineering and Sciences Department. In addition, 42 undergraduates and 10 graduate students in mining will join the 77 undergraduate and 29 graduate students in geology. The degree programs will be unaffected, however, the combined department will take advantage of the common areas for courses, laboratories, and research. The savings from this merger are estimated to be $71,000. The savings are generated from replacing the chair with an associate chair and eliminating the CAMMP general fund secretarial position (moving to soft money funds). The secretary supports the IMP and the mining program. The name of the combined unit could be the Department of Geological Sciences, and, Geological and Mining Engineering, however, the naming of the newly formed department should be the prerogative of the faculty and staff.

The merger of the departments of Chemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering will join 15 FTE faculty in Chemical Engineering (assuming the mineral processing faculty join the department) with 4 FTE faculty in Biomedical engineering. However, there are presently 3 faculty openings in the two departments with an additional 2 faculty openings expected in the near future. Furthermore, both programs have initiated searches for the chair of the programs. The merger would allow these searches to be combined. There is no better time than the present to shape the future direction of both programs. As in the case of merging of Geological/Geology and Mining Engineering, the degree programs will be unaffected, however, the combined department will take advantage of the common areas for courses, laboratories, and research. The savings from this merger are estimated at $92,000. The savings are generated from replacing the chair with an associate chair, and not filling the open chair's position (hiring instead an associate professor). The name of the combined units could be the Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, however, the naming of the newly formed department should be the prerogative of the faculty and staff.

The Dean of the College of Engineering has met with the faculty and staff of all four departments and will meet with the students in the mining and biomedical engineering programs. While the faculty in the Mining and Materials Processing Engineering and the Biomedical Engineering Departments are not in favor of the merger, the faculty in Geological Engineering and Sciences and Chemical Engineering were receptive to varying degrees.

The Chair of the Department of Geological Engineering and Sciences wrote:

"By merging with the Department of Geological Engineering and Sciences there should be increased stability of undergraduate mining engineering program and simultaneous benefits to the geological engineering program. The Department of Geological Engineering and Sciences has already successfully integrated and coordinated four different and distinct degree programs. The integrated sum of these programs leads to much higher quality than the sum of the individual programs. The mining engineering program will remain as a distinct degree program, but through coordination and integration into the department it can be stronger.

" A larger number of undergraduate students in the department as a result of the merger will provide a stronger network for the mining engineering students and the geology, geological engineering, and geophysics students, too. Graduate education of mining engineers should benefit through a larger total number of graduate students in the department as mentors and colleagues. The merger will facilitate common courses taken by geological and mining engineering students and the coordination of course offerings. Space should be able to be used more efficiently through sharing of undergraduate teaching laboratories.

"There are significant examples of geological engineering and mining programs in the same department. A good example is the University of Arizona. Both engineering programs are in the same department, and Arizona is well known for both mining and geological engineering. The merger of the mining engineering program into the Department of Geological Engineering and Sciences has the potential to strengthen the mining engineering program and at the same time provide benefits to the geological engineering program. In summary: The Department of Geological Engineering was asked and is willing to accept merging of the mining engineering program into the department. Our department is resolved to do everything it must to make the addition of mining into the department both a win for mining and a win for the department."

The Chair of the Department of Chemical Engineering wrote that:

"Overall we believe that the structure and resource allocation discussed fall directly in line with the University's strategy . . . to grow areas of opportunity, especially in the bioengineering area. With the expansion of the Michigan Life Science corridor, the health care and medical sectors, and increased federal funding, we will be well poised to take advantage of these growth areas and work towards national prominence for both programs."

ATTACHMENT 2

BASIS FOR DECISION REGARDING ATHLETIC PROGRAMS

SS&E cannot be cut since the general fund allocation does not even cover the department's cost of travel. This narrows the decision to cutting either personnel or programs.

In eliminating programs, NCAA and GLIAC rules and regulations dictate how many programs must be carried. We chose the programs with the smallest enrollments: men's nordic ski (8), women's nordic ski (4), men's tennis (10 ), women's tennis (10). In addition, nordic ski is not a GLIAC member and the reduction of men's and women's tennis brings us to the minimum GLIAC membership of eight.

Elimination of personnel was kept to a minimum and we tried to protect our most visible sports (hockey, football, men's and women's basketball, volleyball) to maintain the ability to be competitive and bring recognition to the University.