712 M&M Building
Phone: 487-2005 Fax: 487-2782
First, I want to apologize for not being available for the November 14 Senate Meeting, but I had travel that couldn't be rescheduled. Neil Hutzler and Mark Plichta will be available to answer questions for the Senate. There are several issues raised by the recent senate committee report that require a response before the Senate votes on the several important proposals in front of it.
We are sure that the Senate appreciates the difficulty that the College of Engineering has had in developing the proposals before it now. We have involved many people in the discussions including students, faculty and staff, and advisory boards. There were three approaches that we considered - across-the-board cuts to all our departments, using targets of opportunity such as unfilled faculty lines, and strategic cuts. In discussion with our department chairs and other constituents, we concluded that strategic cuts were in the best interest of the College of Engineering and the University. This approach had the unanimous support of the Engineering Council (department chairs and associate deans). In our efforts to be strategic, we looked at many options before selecting the ones before you now. The proposals in front of you represent what we feel are the most strategic in terms of minimizing adverse impacts. We focused on strategies that affect the lowest number of people and have the potential for benefiting the University in the long run. It should also be pointed out that the proposals under consideration by the senate represent only about one half of the cuts that the College of Engineering has proposed. For example, we are delaying faculty hires and are replacing resignations/retirements with assistant professors. The proposals have the support of all but 2 members of Engineering Council.
Relocation of Mineral Process Engineering degree option? As the alternative proposal is written, all the current courses would need to be taught and therefore little money would be saved since Chemical Engineering would then have to replace the current open lines. We support the effort to retain the current minor in minerals processing or to develop a mineral/particulate processing thrust within the BS Chemical Engineering curricula, which can be done if Proposal 4-02 passes.
Maintain current number of degree programs? This is a good goal. This should be done with programs that can attract more students and that are less expensive.
Elimination of BS mineral processing and transfer of faculty separate issues? We strongly disagree since one of the goals in this round of budget reductions was to save money without layoffs. Consequently the two issues are coupled.
Credit for open line? Yes. We had interviewed for the open line and were ready to hire. Furthermore, accreditation of B.S. engineering programs requires minimum number of faculty members and maintaining the degree program would likely mean filling the open line at an estimated costs of ~$77,000 per year.
Credit for research engineer to soft money? Yes. There will be a savings nonetheless, and B.S. program has strong lab component that requires technician support.
Loss of student tuition? No. The College has to increase its enrollment to Fall 2000 numbers. It will be easier to attract students into larger programs. If Chemical Engineering maintains the current mineral processing minor or develops a mineral/particulate processing track within the B.S. Chemical Engineering degree, there could actually be an increase in student numbers because of the higher visibility of the chemical engineering degree to prospective students. Current students have indicated that they would be okay with a transfer to chemical engineering if there were a defined minor or concentration.
Boundary only around COE general fund budget? Yes. This was the boundary condition that we were given.
Administrative costs? These exist with or without the proposed degree elimination. Time will have to be spent finding other ways to cut the budget. Across-the-board would eliminate administrative expense at the cost of decreased faculty productivity.
Not appropriate to claim in this academic year? We were allowed to use one-time savings by not filling CM lines, but we had to replace one-time savings. The COE general fund budget will be reduced this academic year no matter what the Senate decides.
Faculty not able to teach any chemical engineering? The expectation is that the mineral processing faculty will become involved in teaching the basic chemical engineering courses and that senior-level courses in mineral/particulate processing will attract enough chemical engineering majors to make them viable.
Reduction in alumni giving? Perhaps. Certainly, those in favor of maintaining a separate program will be alienated. Some alumni are likely to see benefit in the transfer to Chemical Engineering and will maintain gifts. Alumni in other programs will see that the College is able to be strategic in trimming its budget and may provide additional support. The current donations are not sufficient to support program without significant support from the General Fund.
Role for advisory board? The current Industrial Advisory Board for Mining and Materials Processing has endorsed the proposed merger as long as the mining degrees have prominence.
Proposal
6-02 Eliminate Department of Biomedical Engineering and merge
programs with Chemical Engineering
As a preface, we should note that we are following a national trend within colleges of engineering to consolidate departments in an effort to cut administrative costs and to balance the size of departments. It has been stated that the biomedical degree program will loose its identity if it is moved to Chemical Engineering. We do not believe this is true. We believe that prospective students look at individual programs and not at the name of the administrative department in which the programs reside. It is up to the program to maintain visibility on its own merits of graduating quality engineers and of doing quality research. We have evidence of the success of multiple degree programs in the same department with our own environmental engineering and computer engineering programs.
Table 1. The College made a mistake in sending the wrong budget savings worksheet to Senate Finance Committee. New projected savings is $81,142 as shown on attached worksheet.
Not necessary to fill chair position? The biomedical engineering program needs national visibility if it is to be viable in the long term. Therefore, it will be necessary to find a permanent chair if Biomedical Engineering remains as a stand-alone department.
Associate chair salary will be derived from current summer salary of current biomedical engineering chair.
GTAs? Current allocation to the College of Engineering is 64. This would not change. No savings, no cost.
Secretary savings? We recognize the need for secretarial support. We propose to fund current soft money clerical line in Chemical Engineering. This is a lower level than N5, which will save over $3000 per year.
Administrative costs? These exist with or without the proposed merger. Time will have to be spent finding other ways to cut the budget. Across-the-board would eliminate administrative expense at the cost of decreased faculty productivity. These cuts like many in the Finance Committee report are not recurring costs.
Faculty costs? These exist with or without the proposed merger. The main question is whether or not the merged faculty can work together for the betterment of both BS degree programs. New hires will be made on the basis of making the necessary bridges.
Student enrollment? Pure speculation on Finance Committee's part. Enrollments in biomedical engineering are likely to decline in any event. This year's entering class is about ½ of last year's and returning students from last year's 1st and 2nd year classes have decreased 16% and 19% respectively, whereas previous years have always shown an increase from the 1st to 2nd year enrollments. New programs in the state and region will compete with ours, and we do not want to get into a position where our students are not getting jobs.
Space credits? Current space assigned to Biomedical Engineering will be reassigned to the merged department.
Hidden cost of future grants? We will not violate the conditions of the Whitaker grant. The Whitaker Foundation has as its goal to spend itself out within the next few years. If the merged faculty put their efforts to getting NIH funding, the payoff could be large.
It should be noted that discussions about merging biomedical engineering began last year, and that biomedical engineering faculty were consulted and were told that the program would likely be a part of a merged department.
We should also note that there would be additional costs associated with leaving biomedical engineering as a standalone department. In addition to the need for a permanent full-time chair, the department is likely to require additional staff such as an administrative aide, and lab technician. Finally, it should be noted that a large majority of the chemical engineering faculty are supportive of the proposed merger as outlined in the Mike Mullins memo.
Proposal 7-02 Proposed Elimination of the Department of Mining and Materials Processing Engineering and the Merger of the Mining Engineering Degree Programs with the Department of Geological Engineering and Sciences
Maintain research laboratories? We agree that the research labs for the various researchers need to be maintained. On the other hand with a need for space, we need to make sure the space is not underutilized.
Visibility of program in a merged department? We believe that prospective students look at individual programs and not at the name of the administrative department in which the programs reside. It is up to the program to maintain visibility on its own merits of graduating quality engineers and of doing quality research.
Role for advisory board? The current Industrial Advisory Board for Mining and Materials Processing as well as the College of Engineering Industrial Advisory Board has endorsed the proposed merger as long as the mining degrees have prominence.
Reporting of the Institute of Materials Processing? The director of IMP will report directly to the Dean of Engineering.
Changes are hard to make, but we can come out of this stronger if we work together.
Projected Savings in Merging Biomedical Engineering with Chemical Engineering
Item Summary Description SS&E Student Non-student Fringes Total
S&W S&W @39.9%
1 Replace secretary II with secretary I position - - 3000 1197 4197
2 eliminate director stipend - - 5000 1995 6995
3 no outside chair but hire senior faculty instead of junior - - 50000 19950 69950
- - 58000 23142 81142
Notes:
1 We had initially proposed to eliminate the secretary II position, but have retained a clerical position
to satisfy a need within Chemical Engineering to move one staff position from soft to general fund dollars.
2 We did not eliminate the one month of summer salary that the current director gets because it is assumed
that the merged department will need a 10-month associate chair to help manage the biomed programs.
3 The Provost has promised the College of Engineering that it can search for a biomedical engineering chair
from outside the University and use half of the salary saved due to the untimely death of Barry Kunz
(~$60,000). Since we won't hire a chairperson, we propose hiring a faculty member at the associate professor
level at about $74,000, which is $10,000 above what we have budgeted for hiring a junior faculty member to
one of the current open positions. The $50,000 value comes from turning the 1/2 Kunz line back to the
Provost less $10K need to hire the more senior person. If we end up hiring a junior person, we can save
an additional $14,000 ($10,000 plus fringes) per year.