Skip to content | Change text size
Assets | Includes | header.shtml
 

Administrative Heads Group Meeting 4-2005

Meeting 4/2005 of the Administrative Heads Group commenced at 8.30am Thursday, 11 August 2005 in the Council Room, 1st Floor, University Offices Building 3a, Clayton campus.

Rhonda Hinds, Executive Officer

MINUTES
1. Attendance and apologies
There were present
Mr Bernd Abele, Mr Paul Barton, Professor Gary Bouma, Professor Barbara Caine, Dr Ian Cartwright, Dr Barbara Clarke, Professor Val Clulow, Professor Grahame Coleman, Mr Robin Coventry, Mr Jeremy Du Ve, Ms Helen Dunne, Ms Anne Fletcher, Mr Chris Flynn, Ms Brenda Fortington, Mr Sam Funnell, Ms Kay Gardner, Ms Sue Gleeson, Mr Don Gregg, Ms Merilyn Harris, Ms Robyn Harris, Mrs Pam Herman, Professor Bernard Hoffert, Ms Jan Houge, Professor Own Hughes, Professor Richard Larkins (Chair), Mr Peter Lawford, Dr Andrea Lines, Mr Peter Marshall, Mr Terry Masocco, Mr Geoffrey Murray, Ms Lee-ann Norris, Mr Andrew Picoleau, Mr David Pitt, Mr Vladimir Prpich, Associate Professor Alan Pryde, Professor martin Rhodes, Mr Ron Sawyer, Mr Steven Scroggie, MR David Secomb, Ms Bronwyn Shields, Mr Nick Thorburn, Mr Clive Vernon, Ms Jenny Vero, Ms Sue Wales, Ms Janet White, Mr Ian Wilson, Mr Peter Yates, Professor Bill Young
Apologies were received from
Ms Sue Brown, Mr Jack Chorowicz, Professor Merran Evans, Ms Jane Holt, Ms Glenda Key, Mr Robert Palin, Professor Stephen Parker, Professor Julian Teicher, Professor Napier Thomson
  In welcoming members to the meeting, the Chair extended a warm welcome to Mr David Pitt, Vice-President (Finance)/Chief Financial Officer, and Mr Peter Marshall, attending his first meeting as Vice-President (Administration).

Members were advised that Mr Ron Fairchild, the new Vice-President (Advancement) would commence Monday 15 August and that the search/shortlisting process for the new Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International) was well underway.

2. Minutes of Meeting 3/2005
  The Minutes of Meeting 3/2005, held on 26 May 2005, were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.
3. Matters arising from the Minutes
  There were no matters arising from the Minutes of Meeting 3/2005.
4. Vice-Chancellor’s Group
  4.1 Vice-Chancellor
  4.1.1 Vice-Chancellor’s Report
      Professor Richard Larkins reported on a range of matters of current interest:
Open Day

Despite the weather, the event was regarded as a great success – there were 4000-5000 more attendees than in 2004. Congratulations and thanks were extended to all involved in the Open Day’s organisation.
Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU)

Professor Larkins provided members with the following updates:

  • The AV-CC’s lobbying of individual Coalition MPs had contributed to a greater understanding by a growing number of Parliamentarians of the distinction between service provision to students and political activities undertaken by student associations.
  • Some predictions of a possible compromise at the highest level of Government had been made.
  • Assuming passage of the legislation in its current form, the university had implemented a process to prioritise services for funding, involving a range of funding types e.g. direct university funding for core services; services to members of a student association provided at a discounted rate.
    •
    Research Quality Framework (RQF)

    Further meetings between Sir Gareth Roberts (Chair of the Advisory Group), the AV-CC Board and the Group of Eight were scheduled for mid-August.

    A number of issues relating to the RQF were emerging:

  • The Minister was keen to set aside a component of funding to be assessed on the basis of the impact of research. However, defining and quantifying impact was very difficult, with consequent difficulties for implementation of this part of the exercise. Such difficulties would be exacerbated in the cases of the social sciences and humanities.
  • It was intended that 100% IGS and 70% RTS funding would be dependent on the RQF.
  • Differences were emerging as to what would constitute the unit of assessment. The AV-CC had advocated that individual universities decide the relevant research groupings, with assessment to be modulated according to institutional size etc., as opposed to the view that the unit of assessment should be based on the individual researcher.
    •
    Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs)

    Very positive negotiations with the NTEU were underway with a view to achieving an Employment Agreement which incorporated the already-settled Heads of Agreement, in a HEWWR-compliant form. This agreement would be submitted to the Department and a process of consultation undertaken with staff prior to voting.

    During discussion, members were advised that:

  • In the event of a staff member’s wishing to negotiate an individual AWA, a representative of Human Resources, in addition to the staff member’s supervisor, would negotiate on behalf of the university.
  • Templates for AWAs would be developed to facilitate consistency between agreements.
    •

    Professor Larkins emphasised that the university was committed to achieving the best possible outcome for staff that it could afford, within the compliance framework.

    International student numbers

    Noting that this was a key issue for Monash, members were advised that, contrary to the anticipated drop for Semester 2 of approximately 19%, the downturn in acceptances was 3.5% compared to the same period last year. This better than expected result was largely due to the hard work by Ms Lee-ann Norris and her team.

    The outlook for Semester 1/2006 was not yet clear. The working assumption at this stage was that commencing numbers would stay at this year’s levels, but the continuing impact of the downturn in IT made predictions uncertain.

    Learning and Teaching Performance Fund

    DEST had notified the university of its successful passage through Stage 1. Stage 2 would involve the competitive assessment for funding.

    Assessment would be conducted against three (3) criteria:

  • CEQ outcomes – generic skills; good teaching; overall satisfaction.
  • GDS – percentage of graduates in full-time employment or further full-time study.
  • Student progress – inverse of the commencing student attrition; commencing student progress.
    •

    Universities would have the option of writing an explanatory statement to contextualise the data provided against the indicators.

    Funding would be allocated to those institutions above a cut-off point to be imposed by the Department.

    Members were advised that there was as yet no information regarding failure of any universities to pass Stage 1 of the assessment process.

    (Secretarial note: DEST has advised that ‘All providers who participated in Stage 1 of the Fund were assessed as eligible for Stage 2’. See http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/
    policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/
    learning_teaching/ltpf/2006ltpf.htm    )

    Peninsula campus

    Referring to the planned development of the aquatic and wellness centre (a dual focus development providing both community engagement and meeting campus facilities requirements), Professor Larkins reported that a positive stakeholder meeting had taken place. Whilst Frankston City Council was co-funding the project, the university was also seeking State and Federal funding.

    University Budget

    Members were advised that the budgetary situation for 2006 would be very tight, due to a number of factors including:

  • The need to adopt a conservative position on international student numbers.
  • The reliance on the 5% CGS increase ($13 million) flowing from HEWRR compliance and compliance with the National Governance Protocols.
  • The forecast need for the university to fund some services currently provided through student amenities fees.
    •

    Council was anxious to see a healthy budget surplus next year. At the same time, expenditure was necessary to ensure the university’s continued progress.

    4.1.2 Vice-Chancellor’s Awards for Exceptional Performance by General Staff 2005
    Members noted the invitation to nominate staff for the above award.
    4.2 Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor
      4.2.1 Annual Priorities
          Members had before them the mid-year report on the University’s progress against its Annual Priorities for 2005.

    Professor Larkins provided a brief background to the university’s annual planning process, observing that the priorities had been identified as specific issues to be addressed during 2005. The report represented an important part of ‘closing the loop’ on progress to date.
      4.3 Vice-President (Administration)
        4.3.1 Staff International Travel Policy
          Noting that it had been developed after considerable consultation and collaboration across a number of work units, Ms Sue Wales provided a brief overview of the contents of the Policy.

    She also advised members that work was underway on a pro forma travel plan, and it was hoped that this would be available in September. The Policy was now available on the Student and Staff Services website.

    Mr Marshall then emphasised several key issues:

  • The importance of booking through the university’s travel provider, to activate the Flightlock system. This facilitated the university’s provision of support to staff overseas in the event of an emergency.
  • Proposed changes to the Policy e.g. university funds were not to be expended on accompanying family members (contra the penultimate paragraph, page 36 of the agenda papers).
  • There was a suggestion in the new Travel Provider’s procedures that 1st class international travel quotes would be provided. This would be amended to reflect business class’ status as the maximum class of travel funded by the university.
  • One of the major changes introduced by the Policy was the provision of guidelines to assist staff seeking, and also those approving, business class travel.
    •       Members discussed a range of issues relating to the Policy:
  • In the event of payment of a staff member’s fares by another organisation, arranging insurance via Monash’s insurance office would enable details to be captured by the Flightlock system
  • The importance of the DFAT Travel Advisories, especially as they related to Indonesia, where the university conducted significant business. The level of warning (level 5) frequently attached to Indonesia required the exercise of caution and adoption of certain protocols. Members also observed that whilst there was some risk attached to working in Indonesia, the region was well-known to many staff, and, given Monash’s contribution to the area, continuing to work there was essential.
  • If a staff member could source a fare at a lower price than that quoted by BTI, the university’s travel provider would match that fare.
    •

    It was agreed that:

  • The Travel Office provide written confirmation of the travel provider’s commitment to matching fares sourced at a price lower than their best quote.
  • A representative of Financial Resources Management be invited to address the next meeting on the tender process for the University’s travel provider.
    •
      4.4 Vice-President (Finance)
        Mr David Pitt continued the emphasis on the tight nature of the 2006 budget, explaining that it was necessary to maintain a comfortable surplus in order to facilitate the university’s capital program and other initiatives.
    5. Matters raised by Members
      5.1 Information Technology
        In response to a query regarding the extent of the decline in information technology, members were advised that although this was a global trend, it had particularly impacted Monash (the only G08 member with a Faculty of IT). It was also noted that Monash had been harder hit than other institutions by the downturn in international student commencements (especially coming off 2004, which was exceptional in terms of international student enrolments).
      5.2 Budget
        In response to a query regarding possible approaches to cost reduction, members were advised that:
  • The central support services budget plans had been received and were currently undergoing analysis. This process would then flow on to the faculties.
  • It was hoped that plans would be put in place this year to alleviate anticipated pressures in 2006. Considerable savings would be required to keep increased expenditure at the targeted 4.7%.
  • Financing of capital programs required sourcing of the most cost effective funds.
  • Failure to achieve the CGS increases flowing from HEWRR and Governance Protocols compliance would exacerbate an already tight financial situation.
    •
      5.3 Staff Survey
        In response to a query regarding the survey timing, members were advised that:
  • Preparation of the survey had been externally contracted, similarly to Deakin and Edith Cowan Universities, to facilitate benchmarking.
  • The draft survey would be sent to the next SMC meeting for endorsement.
  • The survey would be administered post-MEQ05 i.e. during September.
    •
      5.4 Travel Policy
        Members discussed a range of matters related to the Travel Policy:
  • Communication to the university community would be via global email; the policy would also be published on the web; and easy to use guidelines were being developed.
  • Whilst there was currently no student travel policy framework in place, support was provided to students overseas through, for example, the Monash Abroad Program and Occupational Health and Safety procedures.
  • Development of a formal student travel policy was ongoing in conjunction with the Monash Mobility Program.
    •   5.5 Overseas Visitors
        Members expressed frustration at the complexity of procedures required to host an overseas visitor for a short stay. Mr Marshall informed members that:
  • Investigation into process simplification was currently underway.
  • The cost of utilising an external contractor to co-ordinate visas was money well spent.
  • Synthesising information contained in taxation and immigration guides was complex, especially if payment or provision of support were extended to the visitor.
  • Investigations into simplifying the arrangements required to be put in place for the hosting of distinguished visitors from interstate were also progressing.

    • Mr Marshall undertook to report back on this issue to the next meeting.
    6. Other business
      6.1 Meeting Dates for 2005
        06 October

    24 November
      6.2 Meeting Dates for 2006
        Members noted the following meeting dates for 2006:

    2 February

    6 April

    25 May

    10 August

    5 October

    23 November
    7. Next meeting
      The next meeting of the Administrative Heads Group (Meeting 5/2005) is scheduled for 8.30a.m. Thursday 6 October 2005 in the Council Room (Clayton campus).