MU College of Engineering Fiasco III. Comedy or tragedy- you decide!

Here is a followup article in the Columbia Daily Tribune regarding the College of Engineering scandal described in the previous two installments of this blog. The response by MU is outright hilarious! It seems that they did not even bother to make the story internally consistent. Enjoy!

MU’s side of the Engel story

By JANESE HEAVIN

Posted June 9, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.

The AAUP letter I posted on this blog earlier today obviously supports Greg Engel, the associate professor of engineering whose research led to a federal earmark. So obviously, it told one side of the story.

MU administrators tell their side in this four-page statement emailed to me:

A $2 million appropriation from Congress has been awarded to the Office of Naval Research to fund research by University of Missouri (MU) in collaboration with The Boeing Company to “develop and advance electromagnetic launcher technology.” The appropriation was based on an initial “white paper,” which was originally prepared by Dr. Greg Engle, associate professor in the University of Missouri College of Engineering. Other personnel in the University of Missouri’s Government Relations Office, The Boeing Company and other faculty members in the College of Engineering assisted with the preparation and submittal of the white paper to Congress.

The next step in the process is to submit a formal proposal to the Office of Naval Research (ONR). This is where we are currently in the process. When finalized, the proposal will be approved by the Dept. Chair of the Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, the Dean of the College of Engineering, and the university’s Office of Sponsored Programs Administration (OSPA). The proposal will then be submitted on behalf of the university to the Office of Naval Research. If and when the Navy accepts the proposal and a formal contract is signed, a principal investigator (PI) for the project will be named.

When MU received notification that $2 million had been earmarked for this project, the Dean of the College of Engineering and the Chair of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering asked Dr. Engel to begin preparing the proposal. However, Dr. Engel delayed satisfying ONR’s requests, creating administrative difficulties. Therefore, in order to satisfy these requests and to move the process forward, MU’s Dean of Engineering appointed Dr. Annette Sobel, adjunct professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, to serve as the administrative liaison to the Office of Naval Research and Boeing in order to finalize the proposal. Dr. Sobel’s credentials to serve in this capacity include: she holds a graduate engineering degree and she has extensive military and project management experience in national and federal agencies.

Early in the process the term, “principal investigator,” was used in a confusing way to indicate Dr. Engel’s role in applying for the earmark. Technically, however, a principal investigator will not be named until a contract is complete. It should be noted that the College of Engineering Dean and the Chair of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering assumed that Dr. Engel would be named principal investigator of the project and only asked Dr. Sobel to serve as administrative lead of the project because Dr. Engel was not fulfilling that role effectively. When the Dean of Engineering asked Prof. Sobel to serve as administrative liaison, the Dean also asked Professor Engel to serve as the technical lead in this project. At that time, Professor Engel declined to serve in this position. However, they remain hopeful that once a contract has been finalized, Dr. Engel will re-consider his position and agree to serve as technical lead on the project since Dr. Engel has considerable talents in this area.

It is MU’s intent to accept these funds in a manner that respects and complies with the intent of the federal government’s trust in the university to provide knowledge and expertise in the field of electromagnetic launcher technology.

Deputy Chancellor Mike Middleton looked into Engels concerns, as well, and sent him the following decision via email.

Dear Dr. Engel –

This is to inform you of the results of my review of the circumstances surrounding your dispute with your department in connection with your involvement in the Naval Advanced Electric Launcher System project. Based on documents that I have reviewed and conversations with many of the parties involved, the conclusion that I have communicated to the Chancellor is that the leadership in the College of Engineering made a justified and appropriate decision in including Dr. Annette Sobel on the project in an administrative capacity. That decision was not intended to convey to you that you were being removed from the project. In fact, I believe that it was made clear to you that Dr. Sobel was being added to the team as an administrative liaison to the Office of Naval Research and Boeing in order the ensure that the proposal was finalized in a timely and efficient manner.

You were asked to remain on the project as the technical lead and you refused. I believe that your characterization of this incident as a “hostile takeover” is an overreaction on your part. Your overreaction is understandable in light of the fact that you were first identified as the “principle investigator” on the project and were subsequently replaced as “principle investigator” by Dr. Sobel. Use of the term “principle investigator” in this context, however, was inappropriate since, in fact, a principle investigator is officially designated on projects such as this only after a contract has been negotiated. Dean Thompson and Dr. Manring have indicated a desire to utilize your considerable talents on this project as the technical lead should you wish to continue in that capacity.

Michael A. Middleton

Deputy Chancellor

Professor of Law

University of Missouri

Columbia, Missouri

middletonm@missouri.edu

— Then Dean Jim Thompson extended an olive branch in this email:

Greg,

This communication proposes a resolution path to the disagreements regarding your participation in a potential project funded through ONR and your teaching responsibilities. The pathway is offered in the spirit of collaboration and in recognition of your previous contributions to your Department and College and your substantial teaching and research capabilities. The recommendations also consider your future career growth within your Department and nationally within your professional community.

First, it is requested that you schedule an appointment with the University Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for the purpose of discussing work-related stressors and to develop an effective communication process concerning the issues. The designee for the consultation is James Hunter, the EAP Director. Your meeting with EAP and what is discussed is completely confidential.

Next, a meeting will occur to review specific criteria for your continued teaching of internet-based circuit theory and your role in the related College program. Among the topics to be discussed will be the identification of behavioral principles for your interactions with key stakeholders such as students, parents, faculty, and staff. These principles are intended to create an environment and attitude of predictability and cooperation, for individuals in your Department, in the College, and those involved in the internet-based teaching program.

With regard to the potential Navy project, your expertise is certainly applicable and your participation invited. In the event that the Navy contract is awarded, your participation on the project team, contributions to the national effort, collaboration with external stakeholders and technical community, and resources required need to be determined. These topics will be discussed at the proposed meeting and as part of the proposed resolution path.

Greg, as an alternative, or in addition to you meeting first with James Hunter, James and I can meet with you to discuss the situation, including Mike Middleton’s communication, teaching, etc. Please let me know your preference.

Sincerely, Jim

—

Engel responded with this:

Dean Thompson,

This proposal completely neglects the issue and is unacceptable. The issue is the improper reassignment of PI on my 2009 Congressional award “Naval Advanced Electromagnetic Launcher.” I have documented proof that I wrote the Congressional proposal, it is based on my own unique research results and achievements, and it was officially awarded to me, the PI, by Congress in 2009. The Administration’s seemingly new position on the issue (from Middleton’s communication) is that research awards are made to “PI to be determined later.” This position is beyond belief since the Congressional proposal clearly indicates I am PI and because awards are not made in this manner! I further maintain that I am the only faculty involved in electromagnetic launcher research in this entire state, let alone this campus, and I am the only faculty qualified to be PI on this award. The sooner the issue can be properly addressed, the sooner it can be resolved.

Regards,

Greg