Committee of Deans Meeting 13-1991

Meeting No. 13/91 of the Committee of Deans was held on Wednesday, 18 September 1991, in the James McNeill Room, University Offices, at the Clayton campus, at 4.00 pm.

There were present:

Professor M.I. Logan, Vice-Chancellor, in the Chair

Professor G.N. Vaughan, Deputy Vice-Chancellor

Professor T. Kennedy, Pro-Vice-Chancellor

Professor R.J. Pargetter, Dean, Faculty of Arts

Professor C.J. Bellamy, Dean, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology

Professor W.A. Sinclair, Dean, Faculty of Economics Commerce and Management

Professor D.N. Aspin, Dean, Faculty of Education

Professor C.R. Williams, Dean, Faculty of Law

Professor R. Porter, Dean, Faculty of Medicine

Professor I.D. Rae, Dean, Faculty of Science

Professor P.C. Chandler, Dean, David Syme Faculty of Business

Professor J. Zimmer, Head of School, Faculty of Professional Studies

Professor W.A. Brown, Associate Dean, Faculty of Engineering

In attendance were:

Mr A.L. Pritchard, Registrar

Mr P.B. Wade, Comptroller

Ms E. Anderson, Executive Assistant to the Vice-Chancellor

Mr I.C. Gregory, Secretary

Mr J. White, Associate Comptroller

Apologies were received from:

Professor J.A. Hay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor

Professor R. Snedden, Dean, Faculty of Professional Studies

Professor P.LeP. Darvall, Dean, Faculty of Engineering

M I N U T E S

117. Minutes

The minutes of Meeting No. 12/91, held on 27 August, copies of which had previously been circulated, were confirmed and signed.

ICG

118. Matters Arising from the Minutes

118.1 Work of the Committee of Deans

Consideration of this matter was deferred on the suggestion of the Vice-Chancellor pending the completion of the Budget analyses.

118.2 Appointment of Language Instructors

At the previous meeting of the Committee, a paper was received from Professor Pargetter (D69/91). Professor Pargetter informed the meeting that the recent changes to award structures had resolved the matter.

118.3 Allocation of Equipment Funds

A report was received from an ad hoc sub-committee comprising Professors Bellamy, Darvall and Sinclair (D73/91). In speaking to his paper, Professor Bellamy informed the Committee that it would be difficult to find a formula for allocating equipment to faculties that would be better than the relative funding model being developed for the Budget. Therefore, the sub-committee recommended that equipment should be included in faculty budgets except for large common items of equipment, in excess of $100,000, and these should be dealt with separately, such as through the Development Fund which may, in turn, affect the size of that Fund. The Deans would need to give consideration as to how such large items of equipment should be dealt with. The Committee noted that the Fund would include two sums of $200,000, a sum of $100,000 allowed for infrastructure A and a further $200,000 was made available to the Fund as a contingency in the event that estimates of funding to be provided by DEET proved to be too high.

It was noted that at a previous meeting of the Committee, it had been agreed to allocate $M1.5 from the Development Fund for research purposes and that such allocations were committed for a two year period. A sum also needed to be retained in the Fund in the event of the University being successful with any CRC submissions and these involved a commitment for a seven year period. The Vice-Chancellor also informed the Committee that there were currently twenty Chairs being filled at the University and a number of expenses would be involved as a result. Furthermore, a central fund was required for developing new initiatives in the University.

Professor Porter referred to discussion at the previous meeting of a proposal for two types of funds, one for teaching initiatives, cross-faculty activities and major equipment, and another for research support, independent of Deans, primarily to encourage new members of staff who may benefit from central sponsorship of research work.

The Deans noted that the suggestions would be further considered during discussion of the Budget.

119. Report of the Vice-Chancellor

119.1 Letter from Mr M. Deeley, ICI Australia

The letter from Mr Deeley was noted (D78/91).

119.2 Development Fund - Principles for Distribution

At the previous meeting of the Committee, the Vice-Chancellor's paper on the distribution of funds from the Development Fund had been endorsed and it was noted that application forms and guidelines for allocations from the Fund would be distributed in the near future.

At the meeting in hand, it was noted that the application forms and guidelines had been distributed with a closing date of 24 September. It was further noted that Dr Grant McBurnie, Planning and Analysis Branch, was the person to whom applications should be directed. The Deans discussed the closing date of 24 September for applications and it was noted that the bids would need to be considered by the Research Advisory Committee prior to recommendations being made to the Committee of Deans. After considering the administrative procedures involved, and the tight deadline, the Deans agreed not to extend the closing date but that some latitude would be extended in receiving late applications for a further week.

119.3 Victorian College of Pharmacy (Monash University) Limited

The Vice-Chancellor reported on the current situation in respect of the merger with the College of Pharmacy. He indicated that the College would establish a College Board which would have similar powers, responsibilities and constitution to faculty boards at the University. There would be cross representation with relevant faculty boards at the University including Science and Medicine. It would not have an advisory council or academic board. Legislation to implement the merger was expected in 1992.

119.4 College at Berwick

The Vice-Chancellor informed the Committee that he attended a meeting held on the previous Friday of interested persons at which the local Member of Parliament, Mr Charles, was present. The meeting expressed pleasure that Monash was taking an interest in a proposal for involvement with a campus at Berwick. A working committee had been established to look at the issues, especially the acquisition of land. The TAFE College currently owned approximately 30 acres but it was considered that a total of about 100 acres would be needed. The proposal being considered would include a Monash campus sharing some resources with the TAFE College and consideration needed to be given to including a building at the campus in Monash's capital bid. It was noted that a paper to this effect was currently being prepared. The Vice-Chancellor also informed the meeting that resulting from the Finn Report, the University needed to address its relationship with the TAFE sector. The proposed development at Berwick provided a sensible way for Monash to become involved with TAFE. The Deans also noted that the Eastern Corridor between Monash and MUCG was developing very quickly, provided a natural catchment area for the University, had a large and growing population of tertiary education age and currently had the lowest participation rate in higher education in the State.

The Committee noted the information.

119.5 Swinburne College of Technology

The Vice-Chancellor informed the Committee that he had written a letter to the Director of the College following the discussion at the last Academic Board meeting. The letter contained an expression of interest on behalf of the University to work with Swinburne, especially in the higher degree area. It was noted that the Minister of Education had referred to such a development in a recent press release.

MIL

119.6 Letter from the Australian Embassy in the USA

A letter from the Australia Embassy in the United States addressed to the Chairman of the AVCC was tabled at the meeting (D76/91). The letter referred to a number of developments in the USA which would be of interest to universities in Australia. The Committee noted that Professor Pargetter would be visiting the USA and it was agreed to defer further consideration of the matter until his return.

RJP

120. Urgent Matters

120.1 1992 Renovations Grant Submission

A paper had been circulated to members of the Committee prior to the meeting containing recommendations for refurbishment of buildings in 1992 (D74/91). The proposals had been prepared in accordance with the conditions for submissions specified by DEET.

It was noted that the conditions involved a contribution from the University and, for this reason, the College of Pharmacy had been included as it had indicated it was prepared to contribution $250,000 and laboratories at Clayton campus would involve a contribution of $500,000. Refurbishment of the Halls was included in the submission with the aim of bringing the Halls up to a standard of accommodation which would facilitate their becoming self supporting in the future. Professor Zimmer mentioned that health and safety issues were being experienced by the Faculty of Professional Studies and the Vice-Chancellor agreed that these issues could be looked at in the context of the proposal for refurbishment of a building at Caulfield.

The Committee agreed to endorse the proposals contained in the paper.

PBW

120.2 Student Safety and Security Matters

The Committee was informed of a recent assault of a student in a Monash carpark. It was also reported that a number of rare books had recently been stolen from the Library. The Committee noted that $130,000 had been spent on additional lighting at the campus this year but agreed that further expenditure was needed. Professor Kennedy informed the meeting that a survival kit for students was being prepared at MUCG and this may be of interest to the other campuses of the University. The Committee noted that additional security staff had been employed, including some former policewomen, and that training schemes for security staff were being implemented. The Committee also noted the recent student demonstration concerning safety on campus and agreed that the University Solicitor should be asked his opinion on the possible legal liability of the University.

ICG

The Committee noted the information.

120.3 Academic Appointments

The Committee received a paper from Professor Hay which had been circulated prior to the meeting entitled Academic Appointments - Salary Classifications (D75/91). The Committee agreed to approve the change of terminology for Tutors to Assistant Lecturer on an interim basis noting that the decision might need to be reviewed should a national determination be made in the future.

JAH

120.4 Industrial Relations Issues

The Committee noted that the 2.5% salary flow-on to academic staff had been approved by the Industrial Relations Commission. The Committee also noted that a stopwork meeting of general staff had been organised by ACUSA to consider a number of issues relating to alleged unfair dismissal and redundancy. The Deans expressed the hope that the issues would be settled amicably.

121. Budget for 1992

A document was tabled by the Comptroller (D77/91) entitled 1992 Operating Budget Model - Further Development. The Vice-Chancellor informed the meeting of the continual interaction he had with the Comptroller and that the Comptroller and Associate Comptroller had been discussing the analyses with the Deans. He reemphasised that a relative funding model was desirable and that at a recent AVCC meeting all other Vice-Chancellors (except Griffith University) had mentioned that some type of relative funding model was being developed.

The Vice-Chancellor conveyed the view that the Budget should be driven by academic principles such as by having higher weights for graduate students. In regard to the research quantum, very few universities included a publication measure but related the allocation of research funds to the amount of outside funding attracted. The current model in the Comptroller's paper contained a proposal for 55% of research funds to be allocated on the basis of outside funding and 45% for publications. Monash had lost a considerable sum through the claw back arrangements and whilst substantial funds were being attracted to the University, it was still not attracting as much as it lost. Continued encouragement of staff to make applications should be pursued.

In discussing the model, a number of matters were raised including the allocation of small research grants and whether these should follow large grants, support for the Library and a number of related issues. One suggestion was that research funds should be made available to those faculties which had not been able to establish a record of research. A base amount related to EFTSU and other parameters was required. On the other hand, it was noted that such seed money could be handled outside the normal budget allocation model.

The Committee discussed the question of off-the-top deductions from the Budget and noted that it had already been agreed that equipment should be included in the modified relative funding model. It was noted that funds for scholarships could be taken off the top of the Budget or the funds could be distributed to faculties and a pay back system could be introduced. It was agreed that the view of the PhD and Scholarships Committee should be sought on this matter.

The Vice-Chancellor reminded the meeting that the special funding from the 1991 contingency fund would be used as a way to cushion those faculties disadvantaged by the adoption of a relative funding model.

In regard to the effect of the revised model on the Faculty of Economics Commerce and Management, Professor Sinclair reminded the Committee of the large reduction in the DEET target for the Faculty, the continuation of which into 1992 he had previously objected to and he also considered that the inclusion of funds for faculties who had overenrolled was inappropriate. He further considered that undergraduate teaching in the Faculty of Economics Commerce and Management should not be given a lower weight than the DEET model and he was at a loss to understand why the EFTSU target for the faculty was lowered or the reason for differing weights for undergraduate teaching in the Faculties of Arts, Law and Economics Commerce and Management. He further expressed the view that giving a lower weight to Accounting could involve the professional associations threatening the removal of accreditation.

The Comptroller referred to a number of studies that had taken place around Australia which formed the basis of the DEET parameters. He also noted there were a number of apparent anomalies in the model such as History and Economic History having different weights and this also applied to Econometrics and Economic Statistics. If Accounting was to be given a higher weight which would affect both the Faculties of Economics Commerce and Management and the David Syme Faculty of Business, then Arts and Law would need to receive lower weights to compensate. Professor Chandler expressed the view that other parts of Business could establish equal arguments for having the same weight as Accounting.

The Committee discussed the procedure for providing funds for new or young research staff and whether this was better handled at the level of Deans or centrally. A number of Deans expressed the view that a central research fund would provide some type of appeal mechanism.

The Vice-Chancellor noted that the faculties operated in different ways and as a result it was difficult to get a common solution that would suit the entire University. Professor Vaughan pointed out that the disbursement of research funds on the formula basis would affect conference assistance grants, student conference grants, CSIRO joint initiatives and a number of other issues which although small, could create discontent in the University. Professor Aspin mentioned that whilst Deans were knowledgeable about developments in their faculties, he nevertheless considered that some across University adjudication was required in a number of matters, particularly in regard to growth areas.

The Committee noted that even if it was agreed that funding for scholarships should be from faculty funds, there would be a need to provide for the continuing costs of scholarships previously awarded.

Professor Pargetter also reminded the Committee that a number of undertakings had been given during the merger in regard to funding certain areas, for example Bioethics had been transferred to the Faculty of Arts on the understanding that separate funding would continue. As this area did not undertake any teaching or attract research funds, it was not provided for in the funding model.

The Committee discussed the provision of funds for Monash graduate scholarships and noted that the Faculty of Engineering received a disproportionate share of the funding for these due to the fact that the majority of their students were overseas students and therefore ineligible for Commonwealth awards. The view was also expressed that the best applicants should obtain scholarships and that this supported an argument for scholarships being allocated centrally.

The Comptroller informed the Committee that a number of detailed matters in the model would need to be finalised so that the model could be expressed in 1992 funding terms and to provide for salary increases, 1992 student load and so on. The Comptroller also informed the Committee that the previous process whereby Deans would get a total indicative budget and then have interviews with the Central Budgets Committee would continue. He also mentioned that the model was related to DEET funding and that work on other areas of funding was proceeding. The Vice-Chancellor expressed the view that it was desirable to have a single development fund and that the principles on which it would operate should be elucidated and at the next meeting of the Committee, a revised model should be produced excluding equipment and other matters agreed to by the Deans.

PBW

123. Research Matters

Professor Vaughan referred to the next meeting of the Committee of Associate Deans (Research).

124. Meeting Dates 1992

The Committee received a schedule of proposed meeting dates for 1992 (D79/91). It is intended that some of the meetings will be held at other campuses and these are yet to be specified.

ICG

Next Meeting

The next ordinary meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held on Tuesday, 8 October, commencing at 2.15 pm in the Clayfield Room, Caulfield campus.