Task Force Report
Regarding the Senior Faculty from the College of Engineering鈥檚
Proposal for the reorganization of the ME Department and the BIOE Program
December 18, 2012
Presented to: Dr. John W. Bardo, President, 萝莉社
Dr. Keith Pickus, Interim Provost, 萝莉社
Dean鈥檚 Office, College of Engineering, 萝莉社
Senior Faculty, College of Engineering
Faculty, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 萝莉社
1. Background: Early in the fall semester of 2012, a proposal was forwarded to the
Faculty Senate Executive Committee from a Senior Faculty Committee in the College
of Engineering. (Henceforward referred to as 鈥渢he Proposal.鈥� ) This proposal dealt
with the creation of a new department within the College of Engineering-a Department
of Bio-Mechanical Engineering. This proposal was a reworked version of a proposal
developed by a task force of Bio Engineering (BIOE) and Mechanical Engineering (ME)
faculty during the late spring and summer of 2012. Key aspects of this proposal included:
a. The new Department would take over all of the degree programs currently offered
by both the existing ME Department and the BIOE area.
b. This option would allow the BIOE faculty the opportunity to become involved with
graduate programs, since there are no such programs in the existing BIOE area.
c. Faculty in the ME Department and the BIOE area would have to apply for membership
in the new Department. In order to be 鈥渁ccepted鈥� they would have to meet criteria
which, at least initially, appear to bring into question the concept of tenure, and
the rights of the currently tenured members of the ME Department.
d. Faculty not accepted into the new Department would be left with no programs within
which to teach and no graduate students with whom to conduct research. This faculty
would essentially be left to teach 鈥渃ore courses鈥� in the College of Engineering and
little else.
The objective of this report is to suggest an approach to complete the intent of
the Proposal, while assuring that faculty rights inherent in any proposed reorganization
are protected.
2. The Faculty Senate鈥檚 approach to the problem: The Executive Committee of the Faculty
Senate appointed a Task Force to deal with the issues presented by the Proposal. This
Task Force consisted of the members of the Senate Executive Committee, recusing the
two members of that Committee who are from the College of Engineering. Replacing these
two Engineering Faculty are two previous Presidents of the Faculty Senate. Once formed,
the Task Force went about collecting information regarding the situation:
a. An opportunity was provided to each member of the Mechanical Engineering and the
Bio-Engineering Faculty to speak individually with the Task Force, and to share their
perceptions of the situation.
b. Although the Task Force offered the opportunity for the Dean of the College to
share her perceptions, this could not be accomplished during the time line required
for completion of the work of the Task Force.
c. The Task Force did have the opportunity to discuss the situation represented by
the Proposal with the following representatives of the Engineering College鈥檚 administration:
i. An Associate Dean of the College.
ii. A former Interim Dean of the College.
iii. The Director of Engineering Student Education
d. The faculty member who had chaired the Senior Engineering Faculty Committee, and
who had authored the cover letter accompanying the proposal also spoke with the Task
Force, and shared his concerns regarding the situation within the existing ME Department.
e. A senior emeritus faculty member was invited to speak with the Task Force regarding
his perceptions of the history surrounding the proposed ME/BIOE merger.
3. Key Issues:
a. Faculty Rights: In this area, two key issues are the rights of the ME Faculty,
and the rights of the untenured BIOE Faculty.
b. Faculty Governance: There are several issues related to shared governance within
this situation:
i. The absence of any ME representation on the 鈥淪enior Committee鈥� that drafted the
proposal.
ii. The selection of the current Chair in ME.
iii. The failed searches in the ME Department.
iv. The current governance structure for the BIOE area.
v. The relationship between the ME Department and the College
4. Parameters for Outcomes
a. An Acceptable Outcome:
i. Protects Faculty rights and shared governance.
ii. Yields a 鈥渨orkable鈥� organizational structure.
iii. Utilizes 萝莉社 Faculty Policies and Procedures in facilitating the outcome
suggested.
b. Any outcome has to take into account the existing organizational relationships
within the College of Engineering, and the relationship between the ME Department
and the rest of the College.
5. Task Force Recommendations:
a. The Task Force strongly supports a proposal that requires a strengthened existing
Mechanical Engineering Department, which incorporates and fully assimilates the current
Biological Engineering area.
b. It is critical that any new structure for the department adheres to faculty guidelines
and University Policies and Procedures to assure complete protection of existing ME
and BIOE faculty, both tenured and non-tenured. Tenured faculty shall not renegotiate
tenure or 鈥渁pply for membership鈥� in the newly formed department. Non-tenured faculty
also will not have to 鈥渁pply for membership鈥� and will have explicit tenure requirements
stipulated and guaranteed prior to the establishment of the new or revised departmental
structure.
c. It is further expected that searches currently authorized or underway in the ME
and BIOE areas will move to fruition, and that they be conducted in accordance with
University Policies and Procedures regarding the search process.
d. It is important that the newly configured department operate in a collaborative
manner, fully engaging with other Departments within the College of Engineering, as
well as with NIAR and other related entities.
e. It is also imperative that the Department be structured and governed in such a
way as to enhance professional interaction between and among Departmental faculty
members, students and staff, and to provide all involved individuals with the opportunity
for individual growth and success. To facilitate this, the newly configured department
should have the administrative and lab support necessary to accomplish the department鈥檚
teaching and research goals.
f. To accomplish the expectations regarding collaboration and interaction, annual
faculty review protocols should be revisited and high importance attached to the completion
of comprehensive annual faculty evaluations in compliance with existing University
Policies and Procedures. This emphasis on a fair and unbiased evaluation policy will
assure that the new organizational structure has the potential to be successful in
attaining the objective of an effective department.
g. To provide leadership to this newly configured department, a Chair should be selected according to University Policy, from a pool of both internal and external candidates. Expectations regarding the relationships between the Chair and the faculty of the newly configured department, as well as between the Chair and College/University administration should be clarified as a part of the hiring, appointment, and evaluatory process for this position.
Respectfully Submitted by:
University Senate Task Force
Robert H. Ross, Chair
Mehmet Barut
Christopher Brooks
Willard Klunder
Rhonda Lewis
Peer Moore-Jansen
Victoria Mosack
Deborah Soles