I. Minutes Approval and Announcements
The minutes of the May 13th meeting were approved after noting Sam Conte’s correction to the item on his survey of institutions’ practice of offering full-time masters’ study credits. The minutes should read: "The purpose behind the practice is to allow students to be certified as full-time students for financial aid purposes. The majority of the AAU schools which do make this available to masters students are private institutions."

II. Review of the Academic Programs in the Department of Neuroscience, FAS
Ian Reynolds, SEAP liaison for the Internal and External Reviews of the Department of Neuroscience, noted that both review teams had very positive reports concerning the department. He pointed to several overlapping recommendations from the IRC and ERC:

• molecular biology and cognitive neuroscience faculty are needed; this could be done by adding faculty or making arrangements to share faculty with other units on campus
• junior faculty should establish independent research
• postdoc fellows’ role and future are a concern here as well as across the University
• representation of minorities in the faculty needs to be increased
• the animal facility should be maintained
• because the field is evolving so rapidly, the department should be reviewed again in five years

Reynolds then read through the proposed seven recommendations of the Council. After discussion by Council and input from Department Chair Ed Stricker, these were clarified as follows:

(1) There is a compelling need to augment the Department expertise in molecular neurobiology and, to a lesser extent, cognitive neuroscience. This could readily be addressed by the hiring of two new faculty in the former discipline. A non-exclusive alternative could include establishing more formal relationships with researchers in these other programs.

(6) The University should continue to provide a high level of support, including appropriate space, to the Department in view of its excellent accomplishments and teaching.

Stricker thanked the Council for its praise and recommendations, noting the usefulness of the review to the department. He asked that the SEAP Report document’s section on the department response (IV) be modified as follows:
(6) delete reference to uncertainty about efficacy of tutorials and cooperation with Biological Sciences so that the response now reads: "The Department acknowledges the need to provide effective education in both biochemistry and molecular neurobiology. The recent loss of faculty expertise in these areas has had a negative impact on their ability to provide classes in this area. Tutorials with individual faculty are advocated to make up any deficiencies in biochemistry."

Stricker asked for clarification on how UCGS recommendations will affect the department: what happens next? He noted that the department needs more space and more faculty lines; will these be forthcoming in the year following the report’s submission? Chair Elizabeth Baranger explained that the report will be submitted to the provost after approval from UCGS; the recommendations are considered seriously by the dean, provost, and other administrators, but they are considered in light of the larger needs of the school. The recommendations of UCGS, in other words, are not guarantees of action.

After Stricker left the room, Council addressed questions about the number of neuroscience programs available at the University, agreed upon the revised recommendations, and discussed the need for nontenured and junior faculty to develop independent reputations. The SEAP Report was then approved.

III. Review of GSPH Proposals to Establish:

• Certificate Program in Environmental and Occupational Health Risk Assessment
• Master of Public Health in Environmental and Occupational Health

Gregg Claycamp from the Graduate School of Public Health explained to Council that the certificate program being proposed in Environmental and Occupational Health Risk Assessment is in response to a stream of public health professionals coming to Pitt for help in continued training; the program will consist of core courses paired with a one-credit journal "club." The curriculum is already entirely in place.

The proposed MPH program in Environmental and Occupational Health would offer the same curriculum as the current MS degree program, but would lead to an alternative degree: the MPH. The written masters document would differ in that the MS thesis requires original research while the MPH text would be an essay. Another key difference would be in career goals of degree recipients: the MS recipient would most likely have an academic career in mind while the MPH recipient would be intent on entering practice after graduation. Claycamp pointed out, however, that the MPH students would be just as prepared for a PhD program as the MS students.

Baranger noted that the Internal and External Review Committees of GSPH had encouraged an increase in programs for professionals; the two proposals before Council are in response to that suggestion.

Discussion on the proposals centered around two key issues: the potentially confusing distinctions between the certificate, MPH and MS degree tracks; and the need to work on connections and collaborations between related programs across school boundaries.

In response to the discussion, the following points were made:

• admission/entrance requirements to the certificate program and the degree program are the same, and the courses taken are the same, but there will be a limit to the credits that can be transferred from the certificate program into the degree program; courses earned toward the certificate would count toward the MPH degree
• the MS track should be retained even with a parallel MPH track for students who are thinking in terms of a PhD and because some advisors want a research emphasis for their students
• adding these two programs (certificate and MPH) could increase the student population of GSPH
• GSPH historically focused on environmental health, then shifted to a medical emphasis; these proposals mark a shift back to that historical focus and the connections to Pitt’s current Environmental Engineering program should be recognized, perhaps through formal collaboration – Baranger will discuss this with Vice Provost George Klinzing
• the school needs to clarify for prospective students that admission to the certificate program does not guarantee admission to a degree program; students should be clearly informed upfront that while they might meet the minimal requirements of the degree program, admission cannot be guaranteed since the students may not meet competitive requirements

Council agreed that the Graduate Procedures Committee should consider this question of certificate/degree admission in its study of the University’s certificate programs next year.

Council then voted to approve the two GSPH proposals contingent upon the school’s addressing the two key issues of the new programs’ connections to Engineering and the need to clarify the relationship between admissions to the certificate and degree programs.

IV. Report of Chair
Chair Elizabeth Baranger reported on the approval for the health insurance program for TA/TFs and other eligible funded grad students. There was a 20% increase in cost of the program this year; Baranger noted that this large increase is worrisome in that if the cost of the program continues to increase, the University may be put in the position of having to ask students to contribute toward the cost of the premiums at an 80/20 split. Kathleen DeWalt and Wynne Korr expressed concern for those students in the fellowship pool who have to pay the complete cost of individual premiums. On a positive note, dental and dental/vision options will now be offered; costs of these options will not be underwritten by the University.

At the time of the meeting, Highmark and the University’s Risk Management Office had not yet informed students subscribing to the unfunded student insurance program that that program has been discontinued. Baranger noted that an analysis of 50 of the students currently enrolled in the program indicates that approximately one-third of these students have graduated or applied for graduation; about half of the students on the plan are graduate students and half are undergraduates, with the population distributed across schools.

Baranger then addressed the tax issue. The US House of Representatives has passed a revision of the tax code that would delete section 117d, the section which protects tuition waivers from taxation. The Senate’s version of the tax revision let section 117d as is. Because the University has been careful to stress and argue, since the 1980s, that TA/TF tuition is covered under merit scholarships, Baranger is hopeful that the risk of taxing grad students can be minimized.

V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.