I. Minutes Approval
The minutes of the February meeting were approved as written.

II. Evaluation of the Academic Programs in the Biological Sciences Department
Elizabeth Baranger presented the report and recommendations of the Subcommittee for the Evaluation of Academic Programs regarding the review of Biological Sciences. She noted that there were some difficulties in compiling this report since the External Review Committee did not list its recommendations as a separate item and since the department’s response to the review documents was longer than usual and responded to facts mentioned by the review teams rather than to their recommendations.

David Burgess, chair of the department, noted that the review process is a useful and one and that many of the recommendations from the review teams are now being implemented in the department. The criticisms have been useful in helping the department focus on its tasks. Burgess listed points of clarification in the recommendations. Overall, he noted, he is "very pleased with the process and outcomes."

There was some discussion between Burgess and Ian Reynolds, School of Medicine, about the review recommendations for increased cooperation between the department and the school. Reynolds asked what could be done to make this work better. Burgess sees the process as working rather well now; graduate students can work with both faculty, there is an MD/PhD program between Medicine and FAS, and both units participate in the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. But if the graduate programs in Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology in both schools could be merged, then the University would be eligible for certain NIH training grants; also, a merger would be attractive to high quality graduate students.

It was suggested that Neuroscience be used as a model for how a positive cooperative relationship could be worked out. UCGS accepted the SEAP report and recommendations.

III. Proposal to Establish a Department of Bioengineering
Gerald Holder and Gerald Schulz from the School of Engineering presented their proposal to establish a department of bioengineering within the school. Bioengineering is currently a program within the school; Holder argued that it should be given departmental status because it operates as a de facto department and therefore its name should match its operation. He noted, however, that many faculty in the program have joint appointments in Medicine (Surgery) and the School of Health and Rehabilitiation Sciences. The bioengineering program has developed slowly over the past ten years to guarantee that the appropriate degree of interest is present. Faculty in other schools (Medicine and SHRS) with engineering areas increased during this decade; furthermore, students signed up for the graduate and undergraduate programs at a notable clip, a rate attributable to the attractive collaborative efforts available. There is now a need for a permanent faculty to plan education, particularly for undergraduates, in this area.

Ian Reynolds asked why the department should be housed in the School of Engineering instead of the School of Medicine. Schulz noted that this is Bioengineering, not Biomedical Engineering; bioengineering includes the food industry, environmental areas, and biotechnology.

Kathleen DeWalt asked how many faculty lines would be established (8 - 10 FTE).

Chair Elizabeth Baranger clarified for Council that this proposal also goes to PACUP. Presenting this proposal to UCGS allows a discussion at a level beyond the school’s, and it offers the provost an opportunity for advice on the proposal.

Steve Hirtle (SIS) expressed surprise by how few specific details re the number of new hires, location, and budget were included in the proposal. DeWalt concurred that there doesn’t seem to be a clear sense of where the money is coming from. Holder stated that money has been set aside by the school ($1 million/year) in preparation for the establishment and ongoing operation of the department.

Council voted to support creation of department despite the lack of details in the proposal, citing the fact that the faculty are in support of the creation of the department and that the programs themselves have been successful. Council does recommend to the provost that he get more details on the budget plans.

IV. Evaluation of Graduate Programs in the Department of Psychology in Education (PIE)
Paula Baker summarized the SEAP report and its recommendations. She noted that because budgetary decisions of significant impact were being made after the report was written, it was difficult to recommend anything due to this financial uncertainty.

Anthony Nitko, chair of the department, informed UCGS that the school has recommended that the Counseling Psychology program be eliminated as a program not central to the school’s mission; therefore, the department has suspended admissions to that program. Students currently enrolled will have their accreditation protected through an administrative probation placed on the program through the accrediting agency. The masters in cross-cultural counseling has been closed, too.

The school’s new planning document reduces the number of faculty in the department from 27 to 18. The department will get new hiring lines after the retirement of some faculty and will hire on basis of scholarly potential.

Donald McBurney, chair of the Internal Review Committee, added that while the review team sees that the counseling psychology program is not central to the School of Education’s mission, it is concerned because this is the only such program in Western Pennsylvania and there is a high demand for graduates of the program.

Council expressed much consternation about the loss of the program and the difficulties presented to the department through this cutback. Y.H. Ismail (Dental Medicine) added, however, that from his experience in a downsized school and department, change is necessary and can be good.

V. Reports from the Committees
Due to lack of time, no subcommittees made reports. Baranger noted, however, that SEAP discussed changes in the review process at its last meeting. There is a general consensus that the reviews could be done effectively in other ways, particularly through attaching them more closely to schools’ planning processes.