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

Administrative Heads Group Meeting 5-2005

Meeting 5/2005 of the Administrative Heads Group commenced at 8.30am on Thursday, 6 October 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, Professor Gary Bouma, Ms Sue Brown, Professor Barbara Caine, Dr Ian Cartwright, Mr Jack Chorowicz, Dr Barbara Clarke, Mr Robin Drury, Mr Jeremy Du Ve, Ms Judy Duffy, Ms Helen Dunne, Ms Kay Gardner, Ms Robyn Harris, Mrs Pam Herman, Professor Bernard Hoffert, Ms Jane Holt, Ms Jan Houge, Ms Eliana Hruby, Ms Glenda Key, Mr Peter Lawford, Ms Amanda Lazar, Dr Andrea Lines, Mr Peter Marshall, Mr Terry Masocco, Mr Geoffrey Murray, Professor Stephen Parker (Chair), Mr David Pitt, Mr Vladimir Prpich, Associate Professor Alan Pryde, Mr Steven Scroggie, Mr David Secomb, Ms Bronwyn Shields, Professor Julian Teicher, Mr Nick Thorburn, Mr Gerard Toohey, Ms Marina Tseng, Mr Clive Vernon, Ms Jenny Vero, Ms Sue Wales, Ms Janet White
Apologies were received from
  Professor Richard Larkins, Dr Ian Cartwright, Professor Graham Coleman, Mr Reynold Dias, Professor Merran Evans, Mr Ron Fairchild (represented by Ms Marina Tseng), Associate Professor Graham Farr, Mr Chris Flynn, Mr Sam Funnell, Ms Brenda Fortington, Mr Don Gregg (represented by Ms Eliana Hruby), Ms Merilyn Harris (represented by Ms Judy Duffy), Professor Stephen Holdsworth, Ms Marlene Mannays, Mr Andrew Picoleau, Professor Martin Rhodes, Professor Phillip Steele, Professor Napier Thomson, Professor Bill Young
In attendance
Mr Harry Bracegirdle, Manager, Procurement Services (for item 3.1)

Ms Amanda Birmingham, Manager, Policy and Consultancy, Student and Staff Services Division (for item 4.4.3)
2. Minutes of Meeting 4/2005
  Members confirmed the Minutes of Meeting 4/2005, held on 11 August 2005, as an accurate record of the meeting.
3. Matters arising from the Minutes
  3.1 University Travel Provider (Minutes item 4.3)
    3.1.1 Mr Harry Bracegirdle presented an overview of the process and outcomes of the tender for the University’s travel management company.

Mr Bracegirdle explained that the process had included thorough examination analysis and scoring of responses to the RFT, booking system testing, site inspections, interviews, development of provisional MOUs, and final selection and recommendation to VCG. An expert, independent consultant was engaged to assist the tender panel during the process.

Mr Bracegirdle discussed the comparison between management and transaction fees and analysis of the net benefit (i.e. estimate of commissions less fees) to the University. He emphasised that those features of the bid from BTI which won the Monash contract included its audit willingness, bid professionalism, best financial offer and lower risk.

Engagement of BTI as the University’s travel management company would result in a number of benefits to the University, including:
  • 2% saving on management fees.
  • Availability of a self-booking facility, to be rolled out in the first instance for domestic travel, with extension to straightforward international travel bookings in approximately 12 months. .
  • Access to QANTAS discounts, which could be quite substantial.
  • Automatic link to Flightlock.
    •

    In acknowledging that there had been some "teething" issues in the early days of the BTI relationship, Mr Pitt advised members that attention was being paid to resolving process complexity e.g. for hosting of short-term international visitors. He also emphasised that the contract with BTI represented the most cost effective overall solution for the University.

    A number of issues were canvassed in subsequent discussion, including:
  • BTI’s commitment to offering the best available fare, which would be subject to periodic audit. Failure to meet this commitment would result in the loss of Monash business.
  • BTI had the opportunity to match or better any cheaper fare that could be sourced by Monash staff.
  • In comparing fare prices, it was important to note that there were a number of volatile issues e.g. seat/class availability.
    •

    Members were also advised that:
  • Relevant information would be published on the Travel website.
  • BTI was to meet with representatives of the Associate Deans (Research) to discuss specific issues relating to the research community, following which a meeting with all AD(R)’s would occur.
  • Further information would also be communicated via Monash Memo/global email.
    •
        3.1.2 Members noted the paper AHG 5/05/02, which addressed issues raised in relation to the University’s travel management company.
    4. Vice-Chancellor’s Group
      4.1 Vice-Chancellor
        On behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stephen Parker reported to members on the following issues:

    HEWWR’s

    Noting that Mr Marshall would report further, Professor Parker advised members that the Vice-Chancellor had appeared before the Senate Committee Inquiry on 23 September.

    AV-CC/Go8 relationship

    The Go8 had submitted to the AV-CC a proposal for adoption of a federated system, representing more specific interests. The proposal also recommended that the position of Chair not be held by a serving Vice-Chancellor.

    VSU

    Mr Marshall reported that Parliament was unlikely to reconsider VSU before November and that it was therefore unlikely to be implemented in 2006. It had been informally suggested that implementation would be delayed until 2007.
      4.2 Vice-President (Administration)
      4.2.1 Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) Funding
          Commencing his report to members, Mr Marshall emphasised that failure to produce a compliant Enterprise Bargain (EB) would result in a loss to the University of $8 million. In such a situation, Monash could not guarantee previously advertised salary increases, as expenditure on salaries would have to be reduced by $8 million.

    He highlighted the following:
  • Monash had worked co-operatively with the NTEU to reach agreement on a compliant document.
  • Despite some sectoral criticism, 16 out of 17 universities in a similar position had adopted the Monash approach to concluding a compliant EB. It was noted that a non-union agreement was being voted on at the University of Ballarat and that, if this ballot were successful, pressure would be placed on other institutions to adopt a similar approach.
  • The Monash agreement had been sent to DEST for advice regarding compliance status. Given the tight timelines that applied to the entire process (i.e. a compliant agreement was required to be in place by 30 November), the DEST delays in responding were of considerable concern.
  • When the DEST comments were received, discussions would be held with the NTEU, and the agreement then submitted to the staff ballot.
    •

    Professor Parker observed that Monash was taking a reasonable leadership role to achieve a compliant agreement, which included dialogue with the NTEU. In all of the circumstances, loss of funding through failure to achieve a compliant EB by the due date would most likely result in a robust response to the Department.

    A number of issues were raised in discussion, including:
  • Referring to job losses at ANU and Newcastle, the prospect of staff cuts in the event of a loss of funding. Members were advised that as both of those institutions were Category 2 universities, any reduction in staff numbers would be for reasons different from funding loss consequent upon failure to achieve a compliant EB.
  • Members were also advised that Monash was experiencing some staff reductions in, for example CeLTS, but that the Monash practice was to offer voluntary departure packages.
  • The estimated level of NTEU membership was 35-38%, though in some Faculties this level rose to 80-90%.
  • 12 attempts had been made to reach non-union agreements in the sector, but in each case the process had failed.
    • 4.2.2 Callista Student Systems
          Mr Marshall advised members that the final version of the contract with Callista was being drafted and that sign off was expected within a few weeks. Callista was, therefore, stable in the contractual sense, and Monash would continue to use the Callista student information system for the remainder of this year and for the next four (4) years.

    Ms Gardner advised the Group that Ms Pam Guy had created a new process in Callista for use by students with disabilities.

    Mr Marshall observed that the quality of the Monash information technology and systems staff was widely acknowledged as being the best in the sector.

      4.2.3 Visiting Academics
          In introducing this item, Mr Marshall noted that work on streamlining overly bureaucratic processes was ongoing, involving also Corporate Finance and Audit offices.

    Ms Amanda Birmingham reported on consultations undertaken to redevelop the policy and procedures. She advised members that Reference Groups had been established at the beginning of the year, through which:
  • Representatives had been encouraged to source Faculty input on relevant issues.
  • Revised materials had been developed, which were in the "checking phase." Having been examined by an accountant, an immigration agent and a lawyer, they would be subject to examination by the ATO next year.
  • The resultant, comprehensive document would be web-based. This document would be submitted through the usual approval processes, and it was hoped that the new policy would be implemented from 2006.
    •

    Ms Birmingham emphasised the need to work through the process for hosting guests and visitors sequentially, in which case the system would work well– failure to do so, however, would result in continued difficulties. She advised members that an education program would accompany the launch of the new policy.

    Issues raised during discussion included:
  • Whilst it was assumed that normal Faculty approval processes for visits by guests would include a risk assessment, and that it was an immigration requirement in the case of visitors that letters of offer be issued by central HR, it was suggested that a reminder regarding risk assessment be included in the revised policy.
  • Consideration would be given to extension of the policy to encompass "self-invited/licensee" visitors (i.e. those who might remain at the University for some time, but be funded from their home country).
  • Academics and other visitors from Monash’s international campuses would be subject to the same procedures as applied to other overseas visitors and guests.
    •
      4.2.4 University Club at Clayton campus
          Emphasising the integral part played by the Club in University life, especially at Clayton, Mr Marshall reported that:
  • The Club was operating in a very tight financial situation.
  • Approximately $400,000 of University expenditure was channelled through the Club annually, resulting in significant FBT savings for the University.
  • Discussions had been held with the Committee regarding future development. Consideration would be given to re-locating the club to an improved site at Clayton (as part of campus planning).
  • Salary packaging of Club fees would be introduced.
  • A Steering Committee to look after future developments would be established.

    • Members suggested that improved promotion of the Club, especially to new members of Monash staff, would be beneficial – Ms Brown advised the group that the Club was a very positive promotional presence at the Introducing Monash sessions.

      4.3 Vice-President (Finance)
        Mr Pitt reminded members of the anticipated tight budgetary situation for 2006, emphasising that funding relating to HEWRRs and impact of VSU represented approximately $12 million, or half the projected surplus. He also observed that, whilst there were some positive signs for international recruitment, it was too early to be certain.

    A new sub-committee of VCG - VCG (Property) - was being established, with the brief to closely examine the University’s property and capital works from an overall perspective.

    5. Matters raised by Members
      5.1 Scheduling of major events
        Concern was expressed at the scheduling of major events which failed to take account of religious/cultural sensibilities – the case in point being the scheduling of Arts graduations on the Day of Atonement.

    Members endorsed the need to take account of significant religious and other days in the scheduling of such events. Ms Gardner advised members that Equity and Diversity published a Cultural Calendar, which included days of strict religious observance.

    (Secretarial note: the calendar is available at: http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/sss/equity-diversity/calendar/)

      5.2 Health cover for international students
        Members were advised of a Government decision that visa-length medical insurance would no longer be available for international students, and recommending that listed Universities facilitate program-length cover. Monash was the only G08 member not on the list. This would be followed-up by senior management.
    6. Other business
      6.1 Meeting Dates for 2005
        24 November
      6.2 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 6/2005) is scheduled for 8.30a.m. Thursday 24 November 2005 in the Council Room (Clayton campus).