II. Review of Proposal for Post-Master's Certificate Program in Employee Assistance Programs
Mike Patchner and Tracy Sosska provided a history and rationale for the creation of a post-masters certificate program within the School of Social Work in Employee Assistance Programs. Carolyn Maue outlined the support for such a program in the EAP community.

Discussion followed, exploring questions about the program as an official certificate program involving detailed curricula and evaluations; the point was made that this was not simply a "continuing education" program, but an academic program.

The motion was made to accept this proposal. The motion passed unanimously.

IV. GSPH Proposes a Masters Equivalent to FTDS
Mary Derkach requested consideration of a course that would be the masters-level equivalent of full-time dissertation study.

Elizabeth Baranger noted her concerns:

• approval difficult now since less money coming in - Kathleen DeWalt points out that students would be paying $500 rather than $0 in many cases
• do other schools do this? (Sam Conte will survey AAU; Kathleen DeWalt will survey CGS)
• different credit requirements at masters level even within a school

V. Relationship of Evaluation of Academic Programs to the Planning Process
How should these two processes be linked? The memo to the External Review Committee members from the Provost on the Evaluation of Academic Programs specifically mentions its relationship to the University's Planning Process. The ERC, however, is considering only one program, no an overall school; comments regarding plans and budgets, then, have to take into consideration a certain level of isolation from the larger picture. Jim Knapp pointed out that providing the ERC with the school's planning documents might obviate the committee's independent point of view.

Some discussion followed on the timing of the reviews. Ed Sussna argued that once every ten years is really not enough; the Provost should have more frequent reviews for programs with problems. Elizabeth Baranger pointed out that this would be a quite different sort of evaluation. In that case, noted Sussna, there is no need to tie planning documents to the External Review team's academic program evaluation.

Baranger noted that action plans are not used effectively, in any case. The decision was made to move this issue to the subcommittee level for further discussion and possible action.

VI. Relationship of Approval of Undergraduate Programs to UCGS
Wynne Korr asked about the connection between PACUP (the Provost's Advisory Council on Undergraduate Programs) and UCGS. When PACUP reviews proposals for new undergraduate programs, does PACUP consider the impression graduate admissions officers might have of such programs?

Council decided to send a letter to PACUP advising them to consider graduate admissions when approving new undergraduate majors.