“When it originally came to us, it was positioned to us as a mandate to move,” said one university official, who wished to remain anonymous for job security. “Now I think that has changed.”

The official said once the move was discovered by the MSU community at large, the mandated move turned into a “possibility” that needed to be discussed.

Simon and James Hillard, associate provost for human health affairs, both said this never was the case and an Olin move never was ordered.

“There was never a mandate at the beginning because there was no plan,” Simon said.

MSU administrators said moving Olin’s services would be done in part to save the university money, but couldn’t detail how much the move could save because the numbers still are being determined. Simon said all of the answers will not be immediately available.

“By doing it the way we’re doing it and including students and others at the beginning of the process, sometimes there are more questions than answers,” she said. “That’s the risk of this process, that people either like it or don’t like it right now, and they want more definitive answers right now than the process generates.”

When Provost Kim Wilcox receives an Oct. 16 recommendation from Hillard, work still will need to be done to determine exact estimates on the cost-saving benefits of the move, Simon said. Those recommendations also will be made public, she added.

“The process will generate definitive answers, just not right now and it won’t have all of the answers on Oct. 16 — you can’t expect all of the answers on Oct. 16,” she said.

With the potential for Olin employees to lose their jobs or see positions eliminated, some university officials remain very uneasy. The lack of information about the move and vague plan is frustrating, the university officials said.

“What is your expected outcome of this?” the anonymous university official said. “If (the administration doesn’t) know what the outcome of this process is, how are you supposed to make recommendations or provide options? Show us the cost savings.”

Hillard said by moving to the MSU Clinical Center, reduced facility costs might mean jobs saved for Olin’s staff, even though some at Olin fear their jobs would be cut.

“My hope is that if we can combine the services we won’t have to decrease the personnel as much,” Hillard said. “By sharing the facilities, we can lower the facility costs and save money that way.”

Another university official, who also wished to remain anonymous for job security, said Olin employees don’t understand why the move is being considered. Olin could have cut its budget and stayed in its current location, the official said, adding that the Clinical Center doesn’t have enough space for all of Olin’s employees. This could mean a decrease in services and people.

Olin Director Glynda Moorer said the staff needed to service MSU wouldn’t change its size, although it would be merging with Clinical Center services. This could mean jobs lost.

“We may need as many people,” she said. “If you’re doing the same volume you still need the same number of people to do that volume.”

Moving, although a potential cost-cutting measure for administrators, also could generate new expenses for MSU, Hillard said. An additional $100,000 per year would be needed to provide transportation to and from the proposed location on Service Road and that cost might be incurred by the university, he said.

If Olin is moved, possible uses for its building still are being discussed, Hillard said.

“My assumption, at this point, is that the University Physician’s Office stays there and that the health education stays there and the food bank stays there,” he said.