1.

Attendance and apologies

There were present

Mr B Aberle, Mr T Calder, Mr J Chorowicz, Professor E Cornish, Mr R Coventry, Ms A Crook, Ms P Daroesman, Mr R Dias, Ms J Dixon, Ms H Dunne, Ms A Fletcher, Mr C Flynn, Ms B Fortington, Ms K Gardner, Mr D Gregg, Ms M Harris, Ms P Herman, Ms J Houge, Ms J Kemp, Professor D Kirkpatrick, Professor R Larkins, Mr P Lawford, Professor A Lindsay,Ms J McLachlan, Mr T Masocco, Mr G Murray, Ms B Naidoo, Professor S Parker, Mr V Prpich, Mr R Sawyer, Mr D Secomb, Ms B Shields, Mr N Thorburn, Ms J Vero, Ms S Wales, Ms J White, and Mr P Yates

Apologies were received from

Ms A Lazar, Mr A Picouleau and Ms S Stafford

In attendance

Mr David Pawley (ITS) (for agenda item 4.2.1)

2.

Minutes of Meeting 5/2004

The Minutes of Meeting 5/2004, held on 25 November 2004, were confirmed.

3.

Matters arising from the Minutes

There were no matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting.

4.

Vice-Chancellor’s Group

4.1

Vice-Chancellor’s Report

Professor Richard Larkins reported on matters of current interest:

Pro Vice-Chancellor, South Africa

Appointment to the above position was in its final stages. The appointee, a current Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor of a major South African university, was well connected to the South African Quality Council and Higher Education office. The appointee would commence on 4 April and would attend the February Senior Management Planning Conference.

Professor Larkins also reported on a substantial increase in student numbers – in excess of 1000 applications had been made, with an expectation of 600-650 enrolments.

International Student Numbers

Mr Don Gregg reported on the decline in prospective enrolments for 2005, noting the:

• 12% decrease in offers compared to the same period in 2004.
• 25% decrease in acceptances (though continuing an improving trend over the past few weeks).
• Expected overall 15-20% decrease in international student enrolments.

Professor Larkins observed that the decrease in international enrolments was not consistent throughout the sector, and that Monash appeared to be impacted to a greater extent than a number of other institutions.

Sectoral Overview

i. Statutory control of universities

Pursuant to the Minister’s continuing interest in exploring transfer of statutory control to the Commonwealth, DEST had implemented a consultation process, which would include meetings with Vice-Chancellors, and release of a second DEST Paper on the issue.

The AVCC had expressed a number of concerns over potential transfer of statutory control. These were based on evidence of an inclination of the Commonwealth to interfere excessively with the affairs of universities including the extent of the Commonwealth’s role in course offerings and course cessation, influence over funding of research grants recommended by the ARC, and the potential for further extension of control in a single-tier statutory environment.

ii. Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU)

This was likely to be the focus of ongoing debate throughout 2005.

The Government’s continuing commitment to VSU was highlighted in a second meeting between Minister Nelson and the AVCC, in which imposition of amenities/services fees on a "user pays" basis was advocated.

The Monash view was that levying of a fee on the student body as a whole, so as to provide freely available facilities and services, was appropriate.

iii. "Teaching only" universities

The Minister was continuing to flag this as an issue.

The recent Guthrie review of the MCEETYA Protocols confirmed the definition of a university as an enquiry-led process of education informed by research activity. Notwithstanding the confirmation of the research basis of knowledge transfer in the university context, it was expected that there would be an increasing blurring of the boundaries between providers of higher education.

iv. National Governance Protocols

Monash Council operations generally complied with the protocols. Any changes required to achieve a higher level of compliance would require legislative amendment by the Victorian Parliament.

Industrial relations reform was still very much on the Minister’s agenda.

v. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)

A Committee chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts had been formed to establish the principles of a Research Quality Framework, which was expected to provide the basis for the RAE.

Professor Edwina Cornish encouraged members to communicate these developments to their Faculties, observing that whatever form the assessment ultimately took, presence in quality research publications would be examined.

vi. Learning & Teaching Performance Fund

Noting that this would be discussed as a separate agenda item, Professor Larkins emphasised that this represented a significant source of additional funding.

vii. National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS)

In excess of $500 million had been allocated for development of research infrastructure facilities around Australia over the next five (5) years. An Advisory Committee chaired by Rory Hume was engaged in further development of the NCRIS.

Criteria for investment would include the requirement to demonstrate research that was clearly collaborative with industry/other universities. There would be an emphasis on complete funding of a number of smaller programs, and a likely focus on investment in specific areas in different years.

4.2

Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor

4.2.1

Monash Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)

Professor Stephen Parker introduced this topic, observing that:

• All students were surveyed mid-2003 on their experience at Monash. Analysis of the survey results was ongoing.
• Monash was discussing development of a confidential benchmarking process with two (2) other Group of Eight universities.
• The survey results were brought to this Group to assist in raising awareness of the survey and its impact on development of a customer satisfaction environment at Monash.
• Another survey would be administered during 2005.
• The VCG faculty visits in April would include discussion on the faculty response to the MEQ results.

Ms Jill Dixon presented an overview of the Summary of the MEQ (Attachment 1), focussing on those sections relevant to the following presentations, and noting that:

• The RATER model had been used to measure student perception of their experience, as it was a useful customer satisfaction and planning device.
• The Reports were still available on the CHEQ website.

Mr Robin Coventry presented the use of the MEQ results by the University’s Community Services and reported that:

• The 81% of students broadly satisfied with their experience of support services included non-users of the services, and incorporated results from all campuses (he noted that there was variance in the campus-by-campus staff: student ratios).
• Responses to the survey by service users rated well into the 90% satisfaction range.
• Student comments included the need for more community life on campus, interactivity and affordable activities/services.
• The MEQ data had been used to review and improve a range of services.

Mr David Pawley reported that ITS had adopted a three (3) step response to the MEQ:

• Analysis of the results.
• Sharing of the results.
• Taking action on the results.

A further analysis of these results revealed that off-campus students reported a significantly higher level of dissatisfaction than those studying on campus.

Actions taken as a result of the MEQ included:

• Review of Wireless Services.
• Improvements to the management of student printer queues.
• Piloting of laptops in lecture theatres.
• IT training.
• Establishment of a group to review IT facilities.

In discussion, members commented that:

• A comparison of international v. domestic students indicated that the overall satisfaction level of international students was generally lower than domestic students.
• The key message for learning and teaching was on feedback – this would be pursued with the faculties during the April VCG visits.
• It would be important to establish trend data, to facilitate tracking of improvements made to the student experience.
• The "broadly satisfied" percentages were illusory to the extent that they included the neutral responses. The mean values and data from the 4/5 indicator range were more relevant – these results indicated that there was room for improvement.

4.3

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

4.3.1

Learning and Teaching Performance Fund

Professor Alan Lindsay introduced this item and noted that:

• The report would focus on Stage 1 requirements.
• During 2004 universities submitted to DEST their views on criteria for assessment of performance under Stage 2. An announcement on these criteria was expected in the near future.

Professor Denise Kirkpatrick updated members on developments:

• DEST was currently refining Stage 1 requirements – notification of their final form was expected within the month.
• DEST had contracted Access Economics to review the Stage 2 requirements. A report was due in April.
• The AVCC had proposed a more work intensive Stage 1 process, however DEST preferred a less intrusive data collection process.

Professor Kirkpatrick emphasised that Stage 1 only determined eligibility for funding. Allocation of funding (Stage 2) would be a competitive process.

Professor Larkins noted the ongoing concern over the assessment mechanisms currently proposed by DEST (e.g. CEQ, GDS data).

4.4

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources)

4.4.1

Off Campus Residential Services

Ms Alison Crook introduced this item, noting that the aim of moving to a "one stop shop" for cross-campus accommodation services was to ensure a common approach to quality service provision.

Mr Vladimir Prpich then presented the new Monash off campus residential services to the Group, observing that:

• The new service provided students with timely, accurate and relevant information and resources.
• Consumer Affairs Victoria and the Tenants Union had provided resources which were crucial in establishing the service.

Features of the service included:

• Pre-tenancy advice.
• Links to Tenants Union Fact Sheets.
• Web accessibility prior to students’ arrival at Monash, supplemented by printed information.
• Generic advice e.g. on budgeting.
• An accommodation database (monitored by Monash), which represented a useful and accessible service both to prospective tenants and landlords. Mr Prpich acknowledged the input into establishment of the database provided by the Office of the University Solicitor.

5.

Matters raised by Members

5.1

Tsunami response

Professor Larkins reported that in addition to the donation opportunities provided by Monash, a cross-University Working Group chaired by Professor Bouma had been established to source and co-ordinate ways in which Monash might contribute to the tsunami response, and to act as a repository of relevant information.

6.

Other business

6.1

Terms of Reference

Professor Larkins spoke to the memorandum from the Executive Officer proposing a review of the Group’s current Terms of Reference (Attachment 3) and observed that:

• A distinction should be drawn between the role of SMC (as a key decision-making body) and this Group (which focussed on advice and communication).
• Given the membership of SMC by Heads of Divisions, the inclusion of senior Faculty academic administrators in this Group would provide further synergy between the two bodies.
• This Group would function most effectively when there was two-way communication.

Members provided a range of comments on the proposal to expand the Group’s membership:

• Inclusion of Department Heads would enhance communication and overcome some of Monash’s diversified campus structure.
• Extension of the information base further into Faculties would be beneficial.
• Information from participants in the Senior Management Leadership Development program indicated that such a proposal would be supported.
• AHG was a very valuable group – therefore, further options to facilitate interaction between members should be considered.

A number of senior Monash personnel were members both of SMC and this group – Professor Larkins indicated that, with the exception of members of VCG, members of SMC would be generally better served by their representatives’ attendance at AHG.

Indicating that there was general endorsement of the revised Terms of Reference, Professor Larkins closed discussion by indicating that he and the Executive Officer would progress the expansion of membership by seeking nominations from the Deans.

6.2

Meeting Dates for 2005

07 April

26 May

11August

06 October

24 November

7.

Next meeting

The next meeting of the Administrative Heads Group (Meeting 2/2005) is scheduled for 8.30a.m. Thursday 7 April 2005 in the Council Room (Clayton campus).