Addition on October 18, 2013: Loyolka Email to AAUP list with Attachments
Attachment #1: SomeSelectedemailsreNSEI_2010_2012_1.0.pdf
Attachment #2: loyalka_Ameren-Westinghouse.pdf

Dear Colleagues:

I am attaching a selection of emails from the information we have received under the sunshine law (some of the 2010-11 emails came only last week, but excepting those, others have been posted on the AAUP website). Very briefly, my views are:

1. In the first email (Dec 2010) from Dean George Justice one cannot find any mention of a discussion with faculty and deans. The target date was July 1, 2011. Also there is no mention of any CRR etc,. The sentence regarding faculty, deans etc was inserted by Provost Brian Foster in his modification following. There was never any discussion with the NSEI faculty at least regarding the review and our response to it.

2. The conversations involved from almost the very beginning, five levels above us - George Justice (ambiguous, NSEI's acting or interim director), George Justice (Dean of Grad School), Ken Dean (Deputy Provost), Brian Foster (Provost) and Brady Deaton (Chancellor). It is also clear that positive information towards NSEI was disregarded or made light of.

3. The conversations were stopped in Feb 2011, I believe because of Medical Physics-CAMPEP -accreditation process and slated visits to NSEI/MU by the accreditation team and perhaps other matters. We got accredited on July 18, 2011 with not only MS but also PhD (for which we had not initially applied). George Justice was ticked off by a "realtiger" blog in October 2011, with confirmation by Ken Dean of his thoughts that "realtiger" is Loyalka.

4. The document re NSEI was resurrected in December 2011, and the entire matter was kept under lid until the announcement of March 12, 2012. There is an email from George Justice that the action was to be moved to an earlier date (from July 1, 2012) following a meeting on Jan 20, 2012 among the Provost, him and the Chancellor.

5. Information regarding our external grants and funding and those of others should have been readily available and indeed should have been compared thoughtfully before action of March 12. Instead there was just speculation. Factual information would have shown that our funding was very good, that we were committed to supporting the economic initiatives.

6. Yes, NSEI has done some really impressive things, as the Provost noted. The facts are also that we have engaged very broadly, and information regarding our grants, collaborations, affiliate faculty, etc is easily available. Much misinformation has been spread by some parties though that we have not engaged others or excluded others. We could not have brought about the CAMPEP success if we were excluding others. My own 2011-2015 NEUP/DOE ~1.2M grant alone involves 8 faculty (from NSEI and other disciplines). We have just also receive a substantial grant (~800K/3 years) where Dr. Robert Tompson is the lead investigator, and where a top university is partnering with us. We have also received three other major grants since March 2012, two of which involve about 1 dozen faculty each from across the campus.

7. I have included some emails from the College of Engineering. The nature of these is self-evident. I had hoped that when we engaged with Engineering, we will get an offer we could not refuse. I hope you will see the true nature of circumstances prevailing there- and why we had no choice but to disengage. Actions regarding the Faculty Driven Process were intentional, and should be viewed with some seriousness.

I have also attached a copy of a presentation I had given to a visiting Ameren/Westinghouse team on June 06, 2012. Our funding was very good then, and it is still very good. I particularly draw your attention to number of MS and PhDs we graduated. We had a very good year, and I believe these numbers match very well with those of the largest science/engineering departments on the campus.

Please let me know if you have any questions, or need more information.

Sudarshan

Sudarshan K. Loyalka
Curators' Professor of Nuclear Engineering, NSEI, MU


A Case Study in Faculty Shared Governance and Academic Freedom-what went wrong?

The e-mails below follow the decision making process used by the MU administration in the surprise closing of the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute on March 12, 2012. The institute, formed in 2002, had achieved the number one ranking from Academic Analytics in 2007 and had maintained high rankings despite the administration refusing to appoint an Institute director after the retirement of the interim director in 2006 and the administration consistently taking away significant resources in an apparent effort to weaken the institute and its ranking. The Institute had four faculty, 65 graduate students, a newly accredited medical physics emphasis degree, significant research funding and significant interdisciplinary interactions on campus, throughout the nation and the world. It offered a nuclear engineering degree with three emphasis areas: power, health physics and medical physics.

The faculty found out about the administration's plan to close the institute when then Graduate Dean George Justice called for a 9 am faculty meeting on March 12, 2012. Meanwhile at 9 am on March 12, Provost Foster sent an e-mail to deans, chairs and other administrators announcing the closing of the institute. The two events, telling the faculty that the institute would be closed at the meeting and the provost's e-mail, were supposed to have occurred simultaneously, however, one of the NSEI faculty members was 15 minutes late. Dean Justice waited impatiently for the late faculty member while nervously looking at his watch. The announcement stated that the institute would be shut down on March 15. It stated that the nuclear engineering degree would be given to the college of engineering and that the students seeking an emphasis in power engineering would get their nuclear engineering degrees from the college of engineering. It stated that the students in the health physics and medical physics emphasis would get a nuclear science degree from the graduate school.

The students were understandably upset. For those in health physics and medical physics, a nuclear engineering degree has a significantly larger economic value than a nuclear science degree over a lifetime. To them, their years of hard work and dedication and their choice of and trust in the University of Missouri to nurture them as students was completely shattered.

Today, little has changed. The administration has suspended admissions of students to the accredited medical physics emphasis area despite the fact that it is only one of twenty four accredited programs in the US and the only accredited program in the region. The administration has shut down admissions to the institute and opened admissions to a newly formed and competing nuclear engineering program in the college of engineering. Some students who applied for fall semester 2013 based their decisions to apply at the University of Missouri because of the institute's reputation and national rating. These students were instead admitted to the competing college of engineering program.

The decision-making processes in closing the institute is covered in the e-mails dating from June of 2011 to September 2012 and they are eye-opening. Due to the volume of emails, the detailed analysis is time-consuming. AAUP seeks help and welcomes your comments and/or analysis of specific e-mails or sequences of e-mails and how they impact faculty shared governance and academic freedom on the MU campus. Your analysis will be posted, anonymously if you desire, with the hope of discovering what went wrong and how to improve the situation.

AAUP MU Chapter

Selected Emails
Some selected emails regarding NSEI (revised)
Selected emails regarding NSEI from June 2011 to August 2012 (long form)

June - December 2011
June-Dec 2011

January 2012
01-09-12.pdf
Emails_2.pdf
Emails_3.pdf
00001.pdf
00002.pdf
00003.pdf
00004.pdf
00005.pdf
00006.pdf
00007.pdf
00008.pdf
00009.pdf
00009_copy.pdf
00011.pdf
00012.pdf
00013.pdf
00014.pdf
00015.pdf
00016.pdf
00017.pdf
00018.pdf
00019.pdf
00020.pdf
00021.pdf
00022.pdf
00023.pdf
00024_revised.pdf
00025.pdf
00026.pdf
00027.pdf
00028.pdf
00029_Revised.pdf
00030.pdf
00031.pdf
00032.pdf
00033_Revised.pdf
00034.pdf
00035.pdf
00036.pdf
00037.pdf
00038.pdf
00039.pdf
00040.pdf
00041.pdf
00042.pdf
00043.pdf
00044.pdf
00045.pdf
00046.pdf
00047.pdf
00048.pdf
00049.pdf
00050.pdf
00051.pdf
00052.pdf
00053.pdf
00054.pdf
00055.pdf
00056.pdf
00056_copy.pdf
00057.pdf
00057_copy.pdf
00058.pdf
00059.pdf
00060.pdf
00060_partial_scan.pdf
00061.pdf
00062.pdf
00063.pdf
00064.pdf
00065.pdf

February 2012
February_2012_NSEI_Request.pdf

March 2012
March_2012_Emails.pdf

April 2012
April_3715.pdf
April_leftovers_released_with_May.pdf

May 2012
May_1.pdf
May_2.pdf
May_3.pdf
May_4.pdf
May_5.pdf
May_6.pdf
May_7.pdf
May_8.pdf
May_9.pdf
May_10.pdf
May_11.pdf
May_12.pdf
May_13.pdf
May_14.pdf
May_15.pdf
May_16.pdf
May_17.pdf
May_18.pdf
May_19.pdf
May_20.pdf
May_21.pdf
May_22.pdf
May_23.pdf
May_24.pdf
May_25.pdf
May_26.pdf
May_27.pdf
May_28.pdf
May_29.pdf
May_30.pdf
May_31.pdf

June 2012
June-Dec_2011.pdf
June_1-7.pdf
June_8-15.pdf
June_16-26.pdf
June_27.pdf
June_28-30.pdf

July 2012
July_1-2.pdf
July_3-5.pdf
July_6.pdf
July_7-8.pdf
July_9-15.pdf
July_16-17.pdf
July_18-19.pdf
July_20-23.pdf
July_24-26.pdf
July_27.pdf
July_28-31.pdf

August 2012
August_3715.pdf

September 2012
September.pdf

October 2012
October 1 to Date of Request 2012