Administratives Heads Group Meeting 2-2006

Professor Stephen Parker (Chair), Mr Paul Barton, Professor Barbara Caine, Mr Tony Calder, Ms Lynda Caldwell, Dr Ian Cartwright, Professor Grahame Coleman, MR Jeremy Du Ve, Ms Helen Dunne, Professor Stephanie Fahey, Ms Kay Gardner, Ms Sue Gleeson, Ms Merilyn Harris, Ms Pam Herman, Ms Glenn Johnston, Ms Janet Kemp, Mr Peter Lawford, Mr Terry Masocco, Professor Christine Mingins, Professor David Murphy, Mr Geoffrey Murray, Mr David Pitt, Associate Professor Alan Pryde, Professor Martin Rhodes, Mr Ron Sawyer, Mr Steven Scroggie, Mr David Secomb, Ms Bronwyn Shields, Mr Tim Stephens, Mr Nick Thorburn, Mr Gerard Toohey, Ms Kelly Tsagournos (for Ms Janet White), Ms Marina Tseng (for Mr Ron Fairchild), Mr Clive Vernon, Ms Jenny Vero, Ms Sue Wales, Ms Narelle Wilkins (for Mr Tim Stephens), Mr Ian Wilson, Mr Tim Winkler (for Ms Lee-ann Norris).

Apologies were received from:

Professor Richard Larkins, Mr Bernd Aberle, Ms Amanda Birmingham, Professor Gary Bouma, Mr jack Chorowicz, Dr Barbara Clarke, Mr Robin Coventry, Mr Reynold Dias, Mr Ron Fairchild, Mr Chris Flynn, Ms Robyn Harris, Professor Bernard Hoffert, Mr Peter Marshall, Ms Lee-ann Norris, Mr Andrew Picouleau, Mr Vladimir Prpich, Mr Tim Stephens, Professor Julian Teicher, Mr Nick Thorburn, Mr Gerard Toohey, Ms Janet White, Profesor Bill Young.

In attendance:

Dr Craig Blandy (Head, Health Service) for item 4.3

Members canvassed several issues in discussion, including:

1. The implications of failure to meet DEST load targets. Members were advised that, in the event of under-enrolments, one of the strategies adopted by the university was to commute some final year FFPs into HECS funded places.
2. The need for longer-term solutions to address any tendency towards permanency in enrolment shortfalls.
3. The most significant change within the post-secondary education sector was the rapid rise of private providers.

Members were then advised that a full study of trends and projections, which was especially important for a large, multi-campus institution, would be undertaken commencing mid-2006.

Monash had signed a non-binding MOU with the IITB to establish a joint research institute offering contract research services. A business plan would be developed this year for submission through the appropriate processes for final approval by Council in December.

The RQF would go ahead, notwithstanding the cessation of the UK RAE. However, it was possible that the timelines might be relaxed.

The DVC (Research) and PVC (Research and Research Training) were engaged in planning for the mock RQF, for which assistance would also be forthcoming from Monash’s UK partners.

Referring to the symposia to be held at the end of the month, the Chair reported that the State Government was apparently keen to endorse the Protocol.

The Chair reported on the following developments:

1. Despatch of a global email.
2. Menzies Building Forum on 23 March.
3. Establishment of the Menzies Building Committee.
4. Commissioning of an independent Building Assessment Condition Report, the consultants to report to the Menzies Building Committee.

5 Target of October 2006 for a decision at management level, and thence to Council for approval by December 2006.

In discussion on the Annual Priorities, some members indicated that the year to year variance could be confusing, and that the annual planning focus should be on the core business of Teaching – Research - Engagement. In response, the Chair informed the meeting that the process of establishing the Annual Priorities was being reviewed. He added that in theory, the Priorities should be drawn from existing plans and to that end, the ‘actions’ column of existing plans was being examined with a view to assigning specific years to individual actions. This would then constitute the process of establishing the annual priorities. Such change to the annual priorities process would also provide better synergy with the process of allocating Strategic Initiatives Funding.

Dr Blandy then briefed members on the state of preparations, noting that:

1. The key documents were the Monash University Contingency Plan and the Planning Checklist.
2. Monash had established its Avian Flu Working Group last year, and was considered to lead the sector in preparations for a possible pandemic.
3. The Contingency Plan had three (3) objectives – to assist staff and students in understanding and preparing for a pandemic; to assist the University in reducing the negative impact of a pandemic; and to assist in maintaining essential services if containment was not possible.
4. The current World Health Organisation stage of avian flu alertness was phase 3 - it was now necessary to plan for phases 4-6.

In discussion, the meeting observed that:

1. Communication to the Monash community and planning to deal with matters such as the fear factor was critical.
2. Knowledge management (identified as an essential service) included impact on the teaching and learning environment.
3. The Working Group was preparing for the possibility of closure of educational institutions.
4. Information was being gathered from a range of sources, including regular monitoring of media outlets, WHO and Federal Government advisories. Medical advice was updated on a weekly basis, and cross-referencing from Flightlock to the Avian Flu website (http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/ohse/avian-flu.htm) had been implemented.
5. To progress planning for phases 4-6, the OHS&E team would walk units through the Planning Checklist. In this regard, some members suggested that some areas (e.g. student administration) would require a common approach which should pre-date individual checklist completion. The Woking Group would incorporate this suggestion into its preparations.
6. A university-wide plan for management (from a certification perspective) of sick leave would be required.
7. Planning in conjunction with overseas campuses was underway.
8. Review of Working Group membership was recommended, to include personnel from campuses other than Clayton.

Demonstrate continuous improvement.

Expedite research applications.

Provide a clear framework for management of health and safety at Monash.

Monash was now ready to ask the auditors to conduct a pre-audit visit (1-2 May), followed by the full certification audit (between 3-12 months following the first stage). All being well, the certification audit would commence in July, and would take up to 8 days, spread over the Australian campuses. To this end, Health and Safety representatives had been requested to assemble evidence portfolios.

The importance of certification for the AUQA process was also emphasised, as it would provide evidence of a cycle of continuous improvement in the University’s support services.

Faculties would also be asked about performance against KPIs, as it was important to continue to focus on the Faculty input needed to achieve the targets set by Council. UPS would send the targets to Faulty Managers after the meeting.

10 August

5 October

9 November