Comments on Senate Report on Centers 3-18-10

As the former Director of EQI, I have some comments concerning the report on Centers but I have a class at this time and am unable to be here.

I believe that the report makes clear the important contributions that EQI was making to UNCA students’ educational experience. In particular, please note that there were approximately 2,600 student hours working at EQI in 08-09, which I believe were among the most, if not the most, of all the centers. Also please note that EQI has had 4 of its students as co-authors of articles published in peer-reviewed journals in the past 3 years. It is impossible to compare this record of student publications with that of other centers because that information is not provided for the other centers but it clearly contradicts statements made previously that EQI was “just doing water testing ”. The fact that EQI faculty and staff were able to bring that many of its student researchers to that level of achievement clearly indicates that mentoring students was a primary focus.

Two of the numbers provided on the EQI line of the Table at the end of Report are incorrect. Under “State Funds” (for my release time) a figure of $34,000 is given. I assume that figure is given because one third of my total salary and benefits is approximately $34,000. That neglects the fact that EQI paid all of the $7,200 annual expense for the adjuncts that taught the one course released per semester. It also neglects the fact that there was no reduction in service responsibilities, scholarship expectations or any other university responsibilities associated with the release time from teaching. The $34,000 figure also does not give any credit for the 2-3 students per year that took the 499 (Undergraduate Research) with me. I believe that the loss in educational quality to the students by replacing me with an adjunct for one class per semester, if any, was compensated for by the wealth of examples and experiences from EQI that I could use to enrich my other classes. Therefore the most appropriate figure to put in that box is $0.

Under Facilities and Administrative (F&A) amounts “returned” to UNCA a figure of $30,000 is given. The Banner figures for total F&A taken from EQI grant accounts the totals are approximately $56,000 for 08-09, $49,000 for 07-08, and $39,000 for 06-07. The Banner numbers do not take into account the fact that one of the grants in the last two years had an EQI staff as Principal Investigator but also involved collaboration with other units of the university. If instead of attributing F&A contributions to the university by unit of Principal Investigator, they were attributed by the unit of the personnel responsible for each part of the project, it would reduce the EQI total F&A contributions in 08-09 by approximately $12,000 to $44,000, and in 07-08 by approximately $9,000 to $40,000. EQI paid for all of its staffs’ computers and phones and did almost all of its invoicing, which reduced the amount of F&A expenses the university was incurring as a result of EQI. EQI also has paid for most of the computers, phones and travel for its faculty members, thereby actually saving the university from expenses that it has with other faculty members. I strongly believe that if a careful, unbiased analysis of all the extra costs that the university has incurred as a result of EQI were compared to the F&A contributions from EQI throughout its lifetime, that the total amount of overall contributions would be found to be significantly greater than the total amount of costs.

I believe the errors in the data provided by the administration for the purposes of the report are symptomatic of the underestimation of EQI’s contributions to the university’s educational mission and financial contributions to the university that led to the unfortunate decision to close EQI and subsequent inaccurate statements in the media. It is too late to bring EQI back to life at UNCA but I believe that the UNCA administration should make an effort to correct the inaccurate statements they have made about EQI that have unfairly hurt the reputations of former EQI faculty and staff.

I apologize that I am not here in person to answer any questions that my comments may have raised, but I would be happy to answer any questions later. Thank you for your consideration.

Steve Patch