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

Administrative Heads Group Meeting 6-2005

Meeting 6/2005 of the Administrative Heads Group commenced at 8.30am on Thursday, 24 November 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
Professor Richard Larkins (Chair), Mr Bernd Abele, Ms Sue Brown, Dr Ian Cartwright, Mr Robin Coventry, Ms Helen Dunne, Associate Professor Graham Farr, Ms Anne Fletcher, Mr Chris Flynn, Ms Brenda Fortington, Mr Sam Funnell, Ms Kay Gardner, Mr Don Gregg, Ms Catherine Harrip, Ms Merilyn Harris, Ms Robyn Harris, Mrs Pam Herman, Ms Jane Holt, Professor Stephen Holdsworth, Ms Jane Holt, Ms Jan Houge, Mr Peter Lawford, Dr Andrea Lines, Ms Marlene Mannays, Mr Peter Marshall, Mr Terry Masocco, Dr David Murphy, Mr Geoffrey Murray, Ms Trish Panozzo, Mr Andrew Picoleau, Associate Professor Alan Pryde, Ms Bronwyn Shields, Professor Julian Teicher, Mr Nick Thorburn, Mr Gerard Toohey, Ms Marina Tseng, Mr Clive Vernon, Ms Sue Wales, Ms Sarah Wall, Ms Janet White, Mr Ian Wilson, Mr Tim Winkler, Professor Bill Young.
Apologies were received from
  Mr Jack Chorowicz, Dr Barbara Clarke, Professor Val Clulow, Mr Ron Fairchild (represented by Ms Marina Tseng), Professor Bernard Hoffert, Ms Glenda Key, Ms Lee-ann Norris (represented by Mr Tim Winkler), Professor Stephen Parker, Mr David Pitt, Mr Vladimir Prpich (represented by Ms Trish Panozzo), Mr Steven Scroggie, Mr David Secomb, Ms Jenny Vero.
In attendance
  Professor Merran Evans, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning) (for item 4.2)
  The Chair welcomed members to the last meeting of the Group for 2005.
2. Minutes of Meeting 5/2005
  The Minutes of Meeting 5/2005, held on 6 October 2005, were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to the addition of Mr Coventry to the list of members present.
3. Matters arising from the Minutes
  3.1 Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (Minutes items 4.1, 4.2)
    Professor Larkins reported that a HEWRR-compliant Enterprise Bargain had been voted on by staff and passed by an overwhelming margin (approx. 96%). However, although it had been deemed compliant by DEST, members were informed that the Minister reserved the right to deem the agreement non-compliant.

Mr Marshall then advised the Group that the Vice-Chancellor would be making a series of HEWRR certifications (which included the EB, University policies, the status of the NTEU office) during the week following the meeting, for onforwarding to the Department. Members were advised that even should the university receive its HEWRR-contingent CGS increase (7.5%), the University might still be subject to HEWRR-related DEST audit in 2006.

Mr Picouleau reported that the discussions with the NTEU regarding their office accommodation (a commercial tenancy agreement) were progressing very positively and it was anticipated that agreement could be reached quite quickly.

  3.2 Voluntary Student Unionism (Minutes item 4.1)
    Members were informed that the VSU legislation had not yet reached the Senate and was unlikely to do so for some time (not before implementation of the industrial relations legislation). It was therefore unlikely that the legislation would be operative next year although the Minister could opt for Semester 2 implementation.

Monash would be charging student amenities fees for 2006 and the budget had been cast on this basis. In the event that VSU were to be implemented in Semester 2, the charging of the amenities fee, and range of student services provided, might require modification. In any event, work would be ongoing through 2006 to develop improved services through Monyx and the student associations.

Concern was expressed at the recent negative publicity generated by the Clayton student association’s diversion of funds in support of political activities, though it was noted that these activities were not in fact funded by compulsory amenities fees.

Professor Larkins confirmed that, in the event that Monash was not permitted to charge domestic students a compulsory amenities fee, it would extend the same treatment to international students.

  3.3 AUQA Update
    Ms Robyn Harris informed members that:
  • A global email would be sent next week indicating that the next draft of the portfolio was available on the web for comment.
  • The Portfolio, which comprised three (3) volumes, could be accessed via the Monash home page.
  • Members were encouraged to look at their particular areas of expertise/responsibility, and feed comments back to the Portfolio authors.
  • Negotiations with the audit agencies were progressing well. Precise dates for the visit were yet to be confirmed, with the exception of the South African visit, which was scheduled for the last week in August. It was expected that the Australian visit would take place during either the week commencing 11 September, or the week following.
  • The Audit Director would be Ms Dorte Kristofferson.
  • AUQA had sent the Vice-Chancellor a long list of potential Panel members, for comment on possible conflicts of interest.
    •

    Professor Larkins extended congratulations to Professor Webb and Ms Harris for carriage of the AUQA process.
    4. Vice-Chancellor’s Group
      4.1 Vice-Chancellor’s Report 2005
        Members had before them the Vice-Chancellor’s Report for 2005 (which had also been presented to Academic Board).

    Professor Larkins explained that the Report represented a qualitative assessment of Monash’s progress during 2005. Particular highlights included the outstanding achievements in Research, improved management processes and commencement of improvements in teaching and learning. Whilst there was yet a long way to go, Professor Larkins re-iterated his confidence that Monash was heading in the right direction.

    Mr Marshall also advised members that the Staff Survey was due for roll-out during the next week.
        Professor Larkins then reported on a number of issues of current interest:
  • Considerable concern had been expressed over the Ministerial rejection of ARC Peer Review Grants – it was considered that the Minister’s action went to the core of the research grants and peer review process. Academic Board regarded this as a matter of such significance that it had approved the writing of an open letter to the Minister. The AVCC and Go8 had also been actively lobbying Parliamentarians and would be meeting with the Minister next week. However, it was likely that the Minister would win any public debate on the issue.
  • In relation to the release of the Melbourne University Growing Esteem document, its real significance lay in the proposed change to the proportion of graduate and undergraduate students and desire to escape the undergraduate regulatory environment. In the latter regard, it was true that funding of the sector was fragmented and it was arguable that the only logical way to escape the mess was to direct funding to the student. In terms of the Monash position, media statements regarding the need for sectoral diversity and responsiveness to student needs and preferences had been made. It was also noted that Monash would be undertaking a review of its coursework programs during 2006.
  • The draft University Budget was presented to the 23 November meeting of Resources and Finance Committee. 2006 was forecast to be a tight fiscal year, with an operating surplus pf $30 million (less than the desirable 4%). Budgeting for significant capital works included the STRIP Stage 2, Parkville redevelopment etc. It was noted that the Caulfield redevelopment would be undertaken with external funds. Professor Larkins emphasised that the introduction of VSU in Semester 2/2006 would have a negative impact on the budgetary situation. It was noted that the expected improvement in international student numbers had been built into the budget.
    •   4.2 University-wide Key Performance Indicators 2005
        Professor Larkins informed members that, to complement the qualitative nature of his Report, the Report against the KPIs had been included with the agenda papers. Members were advised that the preponderance of red dashboard indicator signals was largely due to the nature of the report i.e. reporting against medium-term targets.

    Professor Merran Evans explained that:
  • The University decided to set targets for the first time in 2004.
  • Improved alignment with 2025 was expected next year.
  • A fuller report (including internal indicators) was available on the Planning and Statistics website.
    •

    Members considered a range of issues relating to the report, including:
  • The data relating to the National Competitive Grants dated from 2003 – Monash’s own, more recent data indicated substantial improvement. The need for improvement was emphasised, given that this was the most rigorous indicator of research progress in the general sense. It was noted that improvement would begin to be seen in the 2005 figures, with substantial improvement for 2006 (this data would be included in the 2008 Report).
  • Another red indicator area was that relating to Monash’s share of the top 5% of VTAC applicants, which was considered more important than the share of the overall percentage of 1st preferences. It was noted that, in the event that Melbourne University moved towards graduate entry to professional qualifications, Monash was likely to perform much better on this indicator.
    •   4.3 Other matters from the Vice-Chancellor’s Group
        4.3.1 Medical School Placements
          Referring to recent reports regarding intense (and likely to be successful) lobbying by Deakin University for establishment of a medical school, Professor Larkins indicated that Monash was keen to establish and had been advocating solidly to Government the establishment of a medical school at Gippsland, a move that would contribute significantly to medical training in the area, using existing Monash resources and curriculum.
    5. Matters raised by Members
      5.1 Equal Opportunity Online Training
        Ms Gardner reminded members of the availability of the online training program and strongly encouraged its completion by Monash staff. She noted that this program would assist in meeting compliance requirements.

    Professor Larkins observed that the program was required as part of meeting the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace requirements, though the program itself was primarily aimed at elimination of sex-based harassment.

      5.2 Graduate Entry
        Responding to the media comparisons between the Melbourne proposal and US tertiary program structure, members asked whether a comparison had been made with other overseas institutions. Professor Larkins responded that the Bologna (European Union) process was aimed at standardising the length of time required to complete bachelor etc. degrees, rather than specifying graduate entry to particular disciplines. Observing that the Monash system was very close to the Bologna standards and very little would be required to conform, Professor Larkins also observed that the argument for global equivalence based on a graduate entry model was therefore not well-made.
      5.3 National Teaching Awards
        Dr Murphy informed members that in future 210 out of 251 awards would be open to all staff (including general staff) who contributed to student learning. It was also noted that Monash did not have a finalist in any category of the current round of awards.

    Members queried whether general staff would receive support/be identified for these awards. Dr Murphy responded that this would occur and also that the internal Monash awards would, as a consequence, need re-alignment from 2006. Endorsing this comment, Professor Larkins added that Monash needed to improve its performance in the area of teaching awards.

      5.4 Learning and Teaching Performance Fund
        Noting that Monash had been ranked 14/39, Professor Larkins advised members that the Minister would announce which universities had been funded, in conjunction with the National Teaching Awards ceremony on 29 November.

    (Secretarial note: Monash was recognised for high achievement in teaching and learning, and was allocated $4.591 million in funding from the L&TPF.)
    6. Other business
      6.1 Meeting Dates for 2006
        2 February

    6 April

    25 May

    10 August

    5 October

    14 December –this meeting was rescheduled from the date previously advised.
    7. Next meeting
      The next meeting of the Administrative Heads Group (Meeting 1/2006) is scheduled for 8.30 a.m. Thursday 2 February 2006 in the Council Room (Clayton campus).