Meeting No. 4/96 of the Committee of Deans will be held at 2.15 pm on Tuesday 26 March 1996 in the Sir George Lush Room, Ground Floor, University Offices 3.1, Clayton Campus.
Janice H Newham
Secretary
A G E N D A
1. Minutes
The Minutes of Meeting No. 3/96 have been circulated.
For confirmation.
2. Matters arising from the Minutes not dealt with elsewhere in the
Agenda
2.1 Open Learning Funding
A Memorandum from the Chair of the Distance Education and Open D30/96
Learning Committee, Professor R J Pargetter, is attached. This p5-6
relates to the matter raised by the Dean of Arts at the previous 96/0409
meeting (Item 10.3.1).
For noting.
2.2 1995 Annual Reports of Deans and Senior Officers to the
Academic Board and Council - Revised Schedule
A new Schedule has been prepared by the Secretary and circulated for 96/0076
confirmation by each Dean. The final Schedule will be tabled.
For noting.
2.3 Disability Discrimination Act - Action Plan Survey Responses
At Meeting 15/95 of the Committee of Deans a question was raised D31/96
about responses received to the Survey conducted by the Disability p7-16
Liaison Office. A document prepared by Ms G Bruce, Executive 88/1522
Officer, Monash University Advisory Committee for People with
Disabilities, is attached.
For information.
2.4 Quality Round 3 Funds
At previous Meeting (Item 3.3) Deans' views were sought on the 95/1616
distribution of Q3 funding.
Item for discussion.
3. Vice-Chancellor's Report
3.1 Co-opted Decanal Members of Council
A document prepared by the Secretary is attached, prepared as a D32/96
result of the discussion at Meeting 3/96. p17-20
87/0836
The Committee is required to nominate two Deans for co-option to
Council membership in time for consideration at Council Meeting 3/96
on 6 May 1996. The Committee is also asked to approve either Option
A or Option B as a procedure for determining the order of appointment
of decanal members of Council in future.
3.2 Timing of Meetings of Faculty Boards
The Chair, Professor R J Pargetter, will speak to this item.
4. Urgent Matters
5. Research Matters
6. International Matters
7. Special Items
7.1 Monash University Staff Development Policy
At Meeting 2/96 a draft Staff Development Policy was received and 94/1012
noted and members were invited to comment.
The draft Policy is now to be submitted to the Academic Board and
Council.
Professor P LeP Darvall will speak to this item.
7.2 1996 Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme
A document prepared by Mr P Marshall, Director, Personnel Services, D33/96
is attached. p21-26
96/0428
For approval.
8. Matters Raised by Deans
8.1 Rhodes Scholarship
A document presented by Professor C R Williams, Dean of Law, is D34/96
attached. p27-28
96/0439
Professor Williams will speak to this item.
9. Reports of Administrative Divisions / Departments
9.1 Report of the Communications Computing & Multimedia
Advisory Board
A document dated 18 March 1996 is attached. D35/96
p29-32
Professor G K Egan, Chair of the Communications Computing & 95/0954
Multimedia Advisory Board, has been invited to the Meeting to speak
to his report.
9.2 Report of the Computer Centre
A document dated 14 March 1996 is attached.
Mr P R Annal, Director, Computer Centre, has been invited to the D36/96
Meeting to speak to his report. p33-50
89/0875
10. General Business
10.1 Language and Learning Policy
At Meeting 8/95 of the Academic Board, a number of matters were 95/0700
referred to various staff and bodies for advice as input to a
University Language Policy. The Committee of Deans was asked to
consider the development of a Policy in the light of the various
responses, by 23 April 1996. The responses have been requested for
presentation at this meeting of the Committee, in order that the
Policy discussion might take place at Meeting 5/96 on 23 April 1996.
In addition to the previous Reports prepared by Ms R Clerehan, Head,
Language and Learning Services Unit, the following responses have
been received and are attached:
Memorandum dated 8 February 1996 from the Manager, Occupational D37/96
Health, Safety & Environment; p51-52
Faculty of Education Response; and D38/96
Memorandum dated 20 March 1996 from the Head, Language and Learning p53-54
Services Unit. D39/96
p55-58
For consideration in preparation for the Policy discussion at Meeting
5/96.
10.2 Meeting at Berwick Campus
The Committee is asked to note that Meeting 7/96 of the Committee of 87/0410
Deans will be held in the School Board Room, Level 3 of the Berwick
Campus on Tuesday, 4 June 1996.
11. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held at 2.15 pm on
Tuesday, 23 April 1996 in The Sir George Lush Room, Ground Floor,
University Offices 3.1, Clayton Campus.
Distribution
Vice-Chancellor
Deputy Vice-Chancellors
Pro Vice-Chancellors
Deans
Head, Sub-faculty of Nursing
Head, Sub-faculty of Art and Design
General Manager
Executive Director, Marketing & Communications
Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor
Deputy General Manager General Manager, Monash International
Directors, Administrative Divisions General Manager, Open Learning
University Librarian Academic Projects Office
Policy and Legal Counsel Managers, Administrative Branches
Policy and Planning Officer Faculty Registrars
Director, Computer Centre Personnel Services
Director, Professional Development Centre SWAS 1994
SWAS 1995
SWAS 1996
a:(Deans96)Agenda\4agda96.doc
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 2.1
D30/96
TO: Committee of Deans
FROM: Professor RJ Pargetter
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
SUBJECT: Open Learning Funding
DATE: 21 March 1996
Further to the matter of funding for Open Learning subjects, raised by Professor Quartly, I should like to inform the Committee that this matter was raised at the meeting of the Distance Education and Open Learning Committee held on Tuesday 19 March.
There are still a number of concerns about the budget analysis of funding for Open Learning subjects produced at the end of 1995. Some of these concerns were discussed by the Committee and were noted by the representative of Budget and Statistical Services present at the meeting (Ms D Lampard). The Committee then noted Ms Lampard's advice that Mr J Harris of Budgets and Statistical Services was in the process of meeting with each of the Open Learning providers to discuss their concerns in greater detail.
Once this process is complete, the matter will be discussed further with the Central Budgets Committee. All interested parties will be kept informed of progress in this matter.
RJ Pargetter
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 2.3
D31/96
MONASH UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Professor Peter Darvall
Deputy Vice Chancellor
FROM: Gillian Bruce
Executive Officer
Monash University Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities
SUBJECT: ACTION PLAN under the Disability Discrimination Act
DATE: 19 February 1993
___________________________________________________________________________
I understand that Professor Colin Chapman enquired at a recent meeting of the Committee of Deans about progress in the development of the University's Action Plan. Mr Peter Marshall has asked me to provide you with a short report.
This project has been undertaken by the Monash University Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities (formerly the Vice Chancellor's Advisory Committee) not the Equal Opportunity Unit. I am happy to respond to Professor Chapman's enquiry in my capacity of Executive Officer of that Committee.
In early November 1995 interviews were conducted with all Deans and Directors of Divisions regarding the recommendation that the University should prepare an Action Plan under the Act. Those interviewed were provided with detailed printed background information and questionnaires (200 in total) with a request that these be distributed to each department within the Faculty or Division. In most cases a person was nominated to co-ordinate the responses from each section. A deadline of 8 December was set but some latitude was offered because it was understood that, at that time of the year, some sections may have found this timeline difficult to meet. Information about the project was also distributed to the Executive and Senior Administration (copy attached).
The simple questionnaire was designed to elicit only a broad picture of university operations and to highlight any initiatives which may have been taken to accommodate people with disabilities. It requested identification of:
Upon my return from leave 2 weeks ago I found that the response to the questionnaire has been very limited - less that 20% overall. As I reported to the Advisory Committee last week, only a few respondents had provided thoughtful and detailed information. The response rates from the various sections are as follows:
RESPONSES TO THE ACTION PLAN SURVEY
SECTION % of questionnaires returned to date
FACULTIES:
ARTS FACULTY 36%
BUSINESS & ECONOMICS 20%
COMPUTING & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 36%
EDUCATION 0%
ENGINEERING 0%
MEDICINE 0%
SCIENCE 5% (remainder this week)
PHARMACY 100%
DIVISIONS & CENTRES:
ACADEMIC SERVICES 100%
CAMPUS BASED SERVICES 0%
COMPUTER CENTRE 0%
FACILITIES SERVICES 14%
FINANCIAL SERVICES 0%
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER 0%
LIBRARIES 0%
PERSONNEL SERVICES 0%
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE 100%
RESEARCH SERVICES 0%
STUDENT SERVICES 83%
Other sections not included in the original survey:
COURSE & CAREERS CENTRE
FACULTY OF LAW
PERFORMING ARTS PRECINCT
This response is disappointing and it will necessitate both changes to the data gathering strategy and modification of the timelines for completion of the project. I hope to have a draft Plan available for comment from respondents by mid March. The final draft will be distributed for consideration by the relevant Committees before submission to Council. It is doubtful that this final step can be achieved before May 1996.
Gillian Bruce
cc Professor Lauchlan Chipman, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Mr Hugh Grayson, Chairman Monash University Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities
Mr Peter Marshall, Director Personnel Services Division
MEMORANDUM TO: Executive and Senior Administration
Monash University
FROM: Professor Lauchlan Chipman
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Monash University Action Plan under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Monash University has an exemplary record in considering the needs of, and provision of support for, people with disabilities. However, as in all spheres of endeavour, there are perhaps areas in which this institution may be able to enhance its performance.
The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) provides for the preparation and implementation of an Action Plan. Such a Plan would have the effect of removing, over time, indirect or unintentional discrimination against people with disabilities and reducing the likelihood of complaints.
An outline of the University's responsibilities under the DDA is attached for your information. You will note that the Act aims to eliminate discrimination, as far as possible, in the areas of work, accommodation, education, access to premises, clubs and sport and the provision of goods, facilities, services and regulations. In relation to 'unjustifiable hardship', it should be acknowledged that Monash University must set and maintain its own standards regarding 'reasonable' accommodations in teaching, learning support and assessment of some disciplines and advise the Humans Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) accordingly.
The Monash University Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities (MUACPD) has recommended that the University should develop an Action Plan. I have agreed to support a project to do this and the General Manager has provided funding.
The MUACPD, in conjunction with the Disability Liaison Office, will be responsible for the development of the Action Plan. Preliminary interviews for the project and a survey of most sections of the University have been set in train. This phase should be followed by a series of interviews and focus group discussions during February next year. After consideration by the Council in March, it is proposed that the Monash University Action Plan will be publicly launched in April and forwarded to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in May, 1996.
If more information is required about any aspect of the Monash University Action Plan project or if members of the Executive wish to contribute to the project, their interest and participation would be most welcome. Please contact or Ms Gillian Bruce in the Disability Liaison Office, Gallery Building, Clayton Campus on extension 55704, by facsimile on 55517 or e-mail on Gillian.Bruce@adm.monash.edu.au.
I commend the Monash University Action Plan project to you and seek your co-operation and support.
Lauchlan Chipman
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
30 November, 1995
Distribution:
Vice-Chancellor, Professor Mal Logan
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Darvall
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Robert Pargetter
Pro Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Chandler
Pro Vice-Chancellor, Professor Leo West
Pro Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Rickard
General Manager, Mr Peter Wade
Deputy General Manager, Mr John White
University Librarian, Mr Edward Lim
Director, Computer Centre, Mr Peter Annal
MONASH UNIVERSITY RESPONSIBILITIES
TOWARDS PROSPECTIVE AND ENROLLED STUDENTS UNDER
THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992
The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) came into effect in March, 1993. It has wide application and few exemptions. Regarding responsibilities under this Act, the DDA makes in unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the ground of disability in the following areas:
DISCRIMINATION
In general terms, discrimination is any practice that makes distinctions between individuals or groups so as to disadvantage some and advantage others. Discrimination can be 'direct' or 'indirect'.
Direct Discrimination
The basis of direct discrimination is generally that a person is treated "less favourably" on the basis of an attribute that that person may possess. For example, under the Act, direct discrimination occurs where a person is denied access to a service or benefit simply because that person has, or is thought to have, a disability. In such circumstances the person with a disability is treated less favourably than people without disabilities.
Indirect Discrimination
Indirect discrimination does not concern itself so much with discriminatory behaviour but more with policies and practices which may have a discriminatory effect. Indirect discrimination occurs when a rule, practice or policy which on its face appears to be neutral but in effect has a disproportionate impact on the members of a particular group. By its nature indirect discrimination may occur without any intention or motivation on the part of the discriminator to disadvantage a particular individual or group.
Disability Discrimination
Discrimination under the Act entails:
Harassment
It is unlawful for a person who is a member of the staff of an education institution to harass a prospective or enrolled student with a disability in relation to the disability.
Victimisation
It is an offence for a person to victimise another person by subjecting or threatening to subject the other person to any detriment on the ground that the other person has made or proposes to make a complaint, bring proceedings or participate in proceedings under the DDA.
PERSONS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
Persons discriminated against may include a person who has a legally defined disability or a person who is an associate of a person who has a disability. This includes: a spouse; a cohabitee; a relative; a carer; or, a person in a business, sporting or recreational relationship with a person with a disability.
Disability may be:
The DDA definition of a disability includes the following areas:
Disability also refers to a disability which a person:
COMPLAINTS TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
If a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination is taken to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), Commission staff will endeavour to conciliate between the complainant and the respondent. Matters are resolved this way in more than 90% of cases. In the few instances that have been taken to the full Commission, it has been clearly demonstrated that HREOC has considerable power to prevent or halt discrimination.
AVOIDING COMPLAINTS
Special measures
It is not unlawful to do something that is reasonably intended to ensure equal opportunities for people with disabilities or to meet their special needs.
Accommodation
In some situations where discrimination may be occurring, proper access to education and to benefits, premises, goods, services and facilities may require little more than a change in attitudes within the organisation. However, in other situations, an adjustment or "accommodation" may be necessary, unless the adjustment or accommodation imposes unjustifiable hardship on the organisation.
UNJUSTIFIABLE HARDSHIP
The DDA does not specify when any particular adjustment or accommodation may constitute "unjustifiable hardship". This depends on the circumstances. Each situation will require individual assessment. Generalised assumptions about what people with disabilities or with a particular type of disability may need will not necessarily be adequate and may also be against the law.
If a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination is made, the Disability Discrimination Commissioner is not required to consider a claim of unjustifiable hardship unless there is detailed evidence produced to support this claim. The Commissioner will expect evidence concerning each of the relevant factors listed by the DDA. Factors that are relevant to "unjustifiable hardship" include:
Other factors beside those listed may also be relevant, depending on the circumstances. These may include, for example, whether the adjustments will substantially benefit other relevant people and whether an adjustment is actually relevant to performing the inherent requirements of the job or course.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
An educational authority, or other bodies covered by the DDA, may be liable for acts of disability discrimination by an employee, whether permanent, temporary, contract or agent, unless the authority can establish that is "took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence" to prevent the discriminatory action. In order to avoid vicarious liability, educational authorities and others covered by the DDA should ensure that they have an effective policy against disability discrimination, and that the policy is made known to all relevant people and implemented in practice.
ACTION PLANS
The development and submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of an Action Plan is encouraged but not compulsory. An Action Plan would outline steps to remove discriminatory policies and practices and ensure access to educational services and accommodation provided by the University. An Action Plan should address the following:
An Action Plan commits the University to specific actions and expenditure over time. The major advantage of submitting an Action Plan is that, should a complaint be lodged against the University, the Plan will be taken into account by the Commission in reaching conciliated settlements or making formal determinations. In other words, if the University is found to be discriminating against a person with a disability, an Action Plan will have the effect of lessening the immediate impact on educational systems, budgets and planning.
Disability Liaison Office
June, 1995
Sources:
Bull, N & Rayner, M (1994) Conforming with the Disability Discrimination Act - Seminar conducted at The University of Melbourne, August 1994
CCH Australia (1991) Australian & New Zealand Equal Opportunity Law & Practice Vol I, Sydney, CCH Industrial Law Editors
Commonwealth of Australia Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (in effect March, 1993)
Hastings, E (1993) Smoothing the Pathway: The Disability Discrimination Act and Higher Education Paper presented by the Disability Discrimination Commissioner at the Pathways II Conference, Brisbane, July 1993 o O o .
Mr Phil A'Vard, Performing Arts Precinct
Mr Bryan Barwood, University Careers Service
Ms Susan Bath, Policy & Legal Counsel
Mr Barry Bilham, Campus Manager Peninsula
Mr John Campbell, Sports & Recreation Association
Mr Joe Curtis, University Union
Ms Jenepher Duncan, Gallery
Mr Barry Dunstan, Campus Manager Gippsland
Mr Michael Fuller, Campus Manager Caulfield
Mr Peter Henrys, Marketing Unit
Ms Sandy Kerr, Information Systems Centre
Ms Jill McLachlan, Office of the Vice-Chancellor
Ms Rosemary Martin, Course & Careers Centre
Dr Ann Mitchell, Records
Ms Janice Newnham, University Secretariat Branch
Mr Max Robinson, A. & M. I. S.
Mr Peter Summers, Policy & Planning Directorate
Dr Stephen Matchett, Marketing & Communications Office
Ms Kaye Quittner, Public Affairs Department
Mr Stuart Wagstaffe, Graphic Services & Publishing Department
Mr Renn Wortley, University Solicitor
Interviews to date:
Professor Cliff Bellamy, Dean, Faculty of Computing
Professor Mike Brisk, Dean Faculty of Engineering
Mr Bob Burnet, Director, Student Services
Prof Colin Chapman, Dean, College of Pharmacy
Ms Olwyn Cornelius, Academic Registrar
Professor Terry Hore, Director, Professional Development Centre
Mr Peter Marshall, Director, Personnel Services Division
Mr John Mathews, Director, Financial Services
Professor Marian Quartly, Dean, Faculty of Arts
Professor Allen Russell, Acting Dean, Business & Economics
Dr Terry Stokes, Director, Research Services
Prof Grahame Taylor, Sub-Dean, Faculty of Medicine
Mr John Trembath, Director, Facilities Services
Prof Jim Warren, Dean, Faculty of Science
Professor Richard White, Dean, Faculty of Education
Prof Bob Williams, Dean Faculty of Law
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 3.1
D32/96
COMMITTEE OF DEANS 4/96
Co-opted Decanal Members of Council
At Meeting 3/96 (Item 3.1) the Committee considered a proposal from the Academic Registrar for the nomination of two decanal members of Council to replace Professors Chapman and Quartly, whose terms expire on 30 June 1996.
The proposal was based on the procedure, agreed at Meeting 3/94, to nominate decanal members in faculty alphabetical order.
The Committee deferred consideration of the nominations until this meeting. The Secretary was asked to provide a list of the recent decanal members of Council, and propose options for the nomination of deans including one based on faculty alphabetical order by "laboratory"/non-laboratory" based faculty.
The following two options for the order of appointment of decanal members of Council are presented for consideration. Each option shows the pattern of previous decanal members from 1980 to the present time, for the Committee's information.
The Committee should note that the recommendation must reach Council Meeting 3/96 on 6 May 1996.
For consideration at Committee of Deans Meeting 4/96.
Janice H Newham
Secretary
Committee of Deans
:mg
87/0836
a:(Deans96)Decanal.doc
OPTION A Nominations based on laboratory/non-laboratory faculties in alphabetical order
Deans from Laboratory Based Faculties Deans from Non-Laboratory Based
Faculties
Jan '80-Dec '81 EDUCATION
Jan '81-Dec '82 MEDICINE
Jan '82-Dec '83 ARTS
Jan '83-Dec '84 ENGINEERING
Jan '84-Aug '85 LAW
Jan '85-Dec '86 MEDICINE
Sep '85-Dec '87 ECOPS
Jan '87-Dec '88 SCIENCE
Jan '88-Jan '89 ARTS
Feb '89-June LAW
'91
Jan '89-June ENGINEERING
'91
July '91-Dec ARTS
'91
July '91-Dec MEDICINE
'91
Jan '92-June DSFOB
'93
Jan '92-June COMPUTING & INFO TECH
'94
July '93-Aug SCIENCE
'94
Sept '94-June ARTS
'96
July '94-June VCOP
'96
July '96-June ARTS (one year only)
'97
July '96-June COMPUTING & INFO TECH
'98
July '97-June BUSINESS & ECONOMICS
'99
July '98-June ENGINEERING
2000
July '99-June EDUCATION
'01
July 2000-June MEDICINE
'02
July '01-June LAW
'03
etc
:mg
87/0836
a:(Deans96)Decanal.doc
OPTION B Nominations based on the previously agreed procedure of cooption on the basis of alphabetical order of faculties (Committee of Deans Meeting 3/94).
Jan '80-Dec '81 EDUCATION
Jan '81-Dec '82 MEDICINE
Jan '82-Dec '83 ARTS
Jan '83-Dec '84 ENGINEERING
Jan '84-Aug '85 LAW
Jan '85-Dec '86 MEDICINE
Sep '85-Dec '87 ECOPS
Jan '87-Dec '88 SCIENCE
Jan '88-Jan '89 ARTS
Feb '89-June '91 LAW
Jan '89-June '91 ENGINEERING
July '91-Dec '91 ARTS
July '91-Dec '91 MEDICINE
Jan '92-June '93 DSFOB
Jan '92-June '94 COMPUTING & INFO TECH
July '93-Aug '94 SCIENCE
Sept '94-June '96 ARTS
July '94-June '96 VCOP
July '96-June '97 ARTS
July '96-June '98 BUSINESS & ECONOMICS
July '97-June '99 COMPUTING & INFO TECH
July '98-June 2000 EDUCATION
July '99-June '01 ENGINEERING
July 2000-June '02 LAW
July '01-June '03 MEDICINE
etc
:mg
87/0836
a:(Deans96)Decanal.doc
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 7.2
D33/96
MONASH UNIVERSITY
6 May, 1997
Memorandum to: Committee of Deans
From: Peter Marshall
Director Personnel Services
Subject: 1996 Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme
The Scheme
Monash University proposes to offer a Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme in 1996. Preliminary discussions with Deans indicate that all Faculties are interested in participating in 1996.
The scheme (refer Attachment A) is similar to that offered in 1995, but in response to requests from Deans it is proposed to provide an important additional incentive to recipients, in that staff departing under the 1996 program will be eligible to receive an additional payment of up to 10% of base salary (excluding loadings) to fund retirement planning and/or career transition activities.
Eligibility
Staff eligible to apply are;
a) all academic and general staff who are eligible to access a superannuation retirement benefit and would not otherwise have retired within 3 years of their date of voluntary early retirement (ie staff generally aged in the range 55 to 62 years), and
b) who hold a continuing appointment commencing no later than 1 January 1996, and are not less than 3 years from the date of their employment concluding with the university (generally 31 December in the year they turn 65 years of age).
Retirement Benefit
1) An employee will receive a retirement benefit based on the number of years or part thereof of service with Monash University; plus
2) an allowance of 10% of the staff member's substantive classification salary (excluding loadings) current at the time of exit, for retirement planning/career transition services. This will be paid either at retirement or by reimbursement of expenses incurred in preparation for early retirement.
Funding Arrangements
The central restructuring fund will pay the staff member's retirement benefit with the faculty/division responsible for the payment of 10% of the staff member's substantive classification salary for career transition services or retirement planning.
The amount a faculty/division is required to repay to the central restructuring fund in 1997 (for 1995 and/or 1996 scheme departures) will be offset by the amount paid, to staff taking voluntary early retirement in the 1996 scheme, for career transition services or retirement planning.
A faculty/division undertaking retirement planning career transition for staff not taking a voluntary early retirement may have those costs offset on a similar basis. "Attachment B" sets out the amounts faculties/divisions are required to repay to the central restructuring fund in 1997 and 1998 for departures under the previous year's scheme.
As per arrangements for the previous year, for departures under the 1996 scheme faculties/divisions will be required to pay the central restructuring fund an amount equivalent to each departing employee's "on cost" of 26.75% based on the departing employee's substantive classification salary, over a two year period that is 1997 and 1998.
Process
1. Deputy Vice-Chancellor advises Deans of 1996 program at Committee of Deans of 26 March 1996.
2. Eligible staff will be notified of the scheme, commencing 1 April 1996.
3. Expressions of interest for voluntary early retirement will be invited and are to be forwarded to Personnel Operations by 30 April 1996.
4. Personnel Operations will calculate retirement benefits and advise staff. The staff member should then discuss voluntary early retirement with the Dean/Divisional Head and Head of Department before deciding whether to make a formal application.
5. Formal applications for voluntary early retirement are to be made to the Dean/Divisional Head, no later than 31 May 1996. The Dean/Divisional Head is to notify the Director of Personnel Services of recommended approvals/non approvals, with reasons for each approval/non approval.
6. Personnel Services will seek approval of proposals from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor P Darvall.
7. Consideration of all applications will be completed and staff will be informed of the outcome of their application by 30 June 1996.
8. Where an application has been approved, an offer in writing detailing the retirement benefit will be made to the staff member concerned. The staff member shall confirm in writing by 31 July 1996, their acceptance or rejection of the offer.
Recommendation
I seek Committee of Deans' approval to this scheme and approach.
P.S. Marshall
MONASH UNIVERSITY
1996 VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT
SCHEME
DEPARTURES FROM 1 JULY 1996 TO 31 DECEMBER 1996
___________________________________________________________________________
PREAMBLE
Monash University comprises 6 metropolitan and country Victorian campuses and a number of local, interstate and overseas offices. Monash employs approximately 8,000 staff in continuing, fixed-term and casual positions. Staff can broadly be categorised as academic and general and they perform across the range of vocational and professional areas. Monash is an organisation aimed at providing leadership in teaching, research and scholarship.
PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME
In response to declines in government funding, shifts in externally generated income and changes in the emphasis of tertiary education, Monash is undertaking concerted efforts to reorganise and revitalise its workforce. Changes in the content and structure of degree courses offered by Monash and revolutions in the fields of technology, fundamental and applied research have, in some areas, required Monash to redirect its skill base to meet the challenge.
To enable organisational restructuring and the introduction of new technologies and efficiency programs within the University, a voluntary early retirement is proposed hereunder for 1996.
Support for career transition will be an important facet of restructuring staffing to meet the future needs of the University. Information concerning and access to professional guidance in the areas of financial/lifestyle planning for retirement, and in career management are being strengthened through the Professional Development Centre and Personnel Services. Direct financial support has been added as part of the proposed retirement benefits under the 1996 scheme.
The scheme is not being offered as part of the academic award redundancy provisions outlined in clause 17 Consultation Redeployment and Related Matters of the relevant award, but is offered in line with clause 15 Voluntary Early Retirement.
TERMS OF THE SCHEME
1 The scheme is available to staff who:
(i) are eligible to access a superannuation retirement benefit and would not otherwise have retired within 3 years of their date of voluntary early retirement (ie staff generally aged in the range 55 to 62 years, inclusive, as at 31 December 1996);
(ii) Full-time or fractional staff holding a continuing appointment commencing no later than
1 January 1996. Staff employed on a fixed-term, sessional, or casual basis or who have an active workcover claim are not eligible for Voluntary Early Retirement. (The University acknowledges its obligation to seek return to work for staff on workcover.)
2 The scheme will provide for retirement dates between 1 July 1996 to 31 December 1996.
3 Acceptance of a payment under this scheme entails severance from the University. Staff who retire under the scheme shall not be re-employed by the University and staff agree to not seek reemployment with the University for a period of at least 5 years.
4 The proposed early retirement is to be clearly demonstrated to be in the interests of the efficient and effective operation of the Faculty/Division.
5 The position to be vacated shall not normally be re-established for a period of at least two years. Establishment within this time shall require the approval of the Director of Personnel Services, and will only be approved if budget savings have been met.
6 The proposed date of retirement is mutually agreed between the Dean/Divisional Director, Head of Department/Branch and the staff member with a minimum period of one (1) month's notice. Where appropriate, a shorter period of notice may be approved.
RIGHT OF VETO BY EMPLOYER
The University reserves the right, through the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor
P Darvall, to refuse voluntary early retirement, where it considers that retirement under the scheme would not be in the interests of the University. No reason or justification need be given by the employer for a decision under this clause.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
1 An employee will be paid a retirement benefit according to each year of service or part thereof to a maximum of seventy-eight (78) weeks at the employee's substantive classification salary (excluding loadings) current at the time of retirement as follows:
Years of Salary Weeks
Service
0-10 2 weeks salary
for each year of
service
11 23
12 26
13 29
14 32
15 35
16 39
17 43
18 47
19 51
20 55
21 60
22 65
23 70
24 75
25+ 78
2 In addition to the retirement benefit payable staff who accept a Voluntary Early Retirement are to receive an allowance of 10% of their substantive classification salary (excluding loadings) current at the time of exit for retirement planning/career transition services. Payment will be made either as a lump sum at the time of retirement or by reimbursement of expenses incurred in preparing for early retirement.
3 Normal entitlements on termination such as annual and long service leave are also payable.
TAXATION
Approval has been sought from the Commissioner of Taxation to have the scheme approved as an "early retirement scheme". If granted, payments made under the scheme will be taxed at the appropriate rates - the first $4,180 plus $2,090 for each year of service is tax free (rates may be indexed 1 July 1996), whilst the remainder is subject to normal tax rates for eligible termination payments.
Staff are advised to seek independent financial advice about the impact of taxation legislation and rulings on their payments. The University does not take responsibility for the provision of any taxation advice.
PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED
1. All academic and general staff who are eligible to access a superannuation retirement benefit and would not otherwise have retired within 3 years of 31 December 1996 will be notified of the existence of the scheme, commencing 1 April 1996.
2. Expressions of interest for voluntary early retirement will be invited and are to be forwarded to Personnel Operations by 30 April 1996.
3. Personnel Operations will calculate retirement benefits and advise staff. The staff member should then discuss voluntary early retirement with the Head of Department/Branch before deciding whether to make a formal application. The Head of Department/Branch is to liaise with the Dean/Divisional Director as to whether a proposal is likely to be supported.
4. Applications for Voluntary Early Retirement are to be made to the Dean/Divisional Director, by 31 May 1996. The Dean/Divisional Director will notify the Director of Personnel Services whether the applications will or will not be supported and the reasons for the decision.
5. Personnel Services will seek final approval of proposals from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor P Darvall
6. Consideration of all applications will be completed and staff will be informed of the outcome of their application by 30 June 1996.
7. Where an application has been approved, an offer in writing detailing the additional retirement benefit will be made to the staff member concerned who shall confirm in writing by 31 July 1996, his or her intention to accept or reject the offer of voluntary early retirement.
"Attachment B"
Amount Faculties are Required to Repay to Central Restructuring Fund Resulting From 1995 VER Scheme Approvals
FACULTY 1997 1998 Arts $90,845 $46,845 Business $57,402 $19,593 Education $57,976 Engineering $55,271 $14,674 Medicine $38,835 $34,716 Science $99,538 $41,396 Pharmacy $11,100 Library $25,546 Computer Centre $719 Admin Gippsland $32,900 $7,132 Facilities $12,249 $5,557 VC $27,977 $18,256 Campus Based $14,522 Finance $7,694 $3,894 Student Services $4,955
pm\mg.doc
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 8.1
D34/96
TO: The Committee of Deans
FROM Professor C R Williams, Dean of Law
DATE: 20th March, 1996
Re: Rhodes Scholarship
It is important that our students and graduates have every opportunity of competing for major scholarships, and that as an institution we be seen to be taking active steps to support them in their ambitions to pursue overseas study.
For this reason, I would like to raise on the Committee of Deans issues relating to the operation of the Rhodes Scholarship.
Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that in the operation of the Rhodes there is a substantial bias in favour of students and graduates of the University of Melbourne.
The scholarship is administered through the University of Melbourne. Interviews are held at the University of Melbourne. I understand that currently all members of the selection panel are either graduates of the University of Melbourne or staff of the University of Melbourne. Last year five candidates were selected for final interview, all five of whom were students or recent graduates of the University of Melbourne.
Assuming the above facts are correct, which I believe them to be, then in my opinion this University should consider taking steps with a view to ensuring that a more equitable set of arrangements are put in place for the future administration of this scholarship.
C R Williams
Dean of Law
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 9.1
D35/96
Monash University
Communications Computing & Multimedia Advisory Board
1. Items to be addressed
The Advisory Board to address at least the following issues:
strategic planning, policy development and approval processes;
coordination of disparate but related initiatives;
centralisation and/or decentralisation of services and functions and the rationale for such decisions;
responsiveness to users, client services and user participation in decision making processes;
relationships between broader policy issues and such initiatives and issues as CASMAC, MEMFIS, email and Internet usage, Library computer developments and Distance Education and cross-campus teaching;
the roles of the Computer Centre, Computing Committee and the Communications and Multimedia Advisory Board and other related units and committees, their inter-relationships and their relationship with faculties and other appropriate bodies (which may be best illustrated in a chart);
quality and benchmarking as measured by similar activities in other institutions;
implementation and timetables for implementation of approved policies and protocols.
The list of matters to be addressed is extensive and illustrates the difficulties Monash is facing as a large organisation. All the items could be collapsed into the single point that is "coordination of disparate but related initiatives".
It should be said at the outset that these matters are not specific to the computing and telecommunications activities of the University. There are signs that the collegiate spirit of the university is being stretched boyond its limit as people become increasingly unsure of who they talk to to get help or a decision?
2. Broad strategy
The strategy at this point is to repair the communication hierarchy within the University for activities which are seen as important by line personnel. The principal to be adopted is that as many decisions as possible should be made locally against accepted university guidelines and a policy on who may establish certain classes of policy; clearly there may be a Catch 22 in this.
Administrative staff positions within the organisational groups with similar functions should carry the same title. There are usually Associate Deans Research, Registrars etc. but this does not extend to say Records Administrators, Webmasters or Postmasters. Short form position descriptions for administrators and managers need to be accessible. Currently position descriptions are regarded as confidential, filed and not seen by anyone; why?
There are many, often out of date, tomes around the university on shelves or in filing cabinets relating to "policy" and occasionally functions of groups and duties of people. This information needs to be codified and accessible online with appropriate search mechanisms.
3. Initial course of action
Some initial proposals were considered by the Advisory Board in its meeting of 22 February 1996. The proposals are in line with the Neilson study commissioned by the General Manager and tabled in the Academic Board Meeting 1/96 and the study by Professor Bellamy relating to archives commissioned by Professor Chubb.
There have been a large number of reports produced over the last several years. The Advisory Committee will attempt to make some simple recommendations rather than further contributing to this collection.
The following sections are extracts from the minutes (not yet ratified) of the Advisory Board.
3.1 Academic Registrar
That the Academic Registrar be responsible for:
authorisation of all official Monash publications involving university policy to include in particular university handbooks detailing university courses and the various university statutes, consulting as appropriate with the University Solicitor;
liaising with and where appropriate delegating authority for publication to faculty registrars or equivalent officers in centres or other organisational groups;
placing and maintaining all public Monash policy documents on the Monash WWW and determining their style and presentation.
All official publications including WWW and other electronically delivered documents carry the expressed approval or seal of the Academic Registrar and as appropriate the faculty registrars or equivalent officers in centres or other organisational groups.
The Board generally accepted this recommendation with the following advice.
There is currently no accepted definition of what constitutes an official Monash document or publication; it is imperative that such a definition be drawn up as a matter of urgency (the definition to include computer based records). A list of current official documents and who is able to authorise them should also be drawn up and maintained as a matter of urgency; this should extend to promotional material. The Board believed it was appropriate that the University Registrar oversee this process in conjunction with the University Solicitor and others including the faculty registrars. In the interim WWW pages under various administrative groups should carry the authorisation of the head of that administrative unit.
The rules governing who may determine different classes of policy are not well defined and need to be addressed urgently.
The process of certification of documents usually has a number of steps with various officers of the university certifying documents at each step. The certification is usually carried in the minutes of meetings at each approval step; the document itself often does not carry a certification leading to possible breaks in the evidentiary trail. There should be a master document carrying all certifications in the approval trail prior to lodgement in the Central Registry. The University Solicitor in conjunction with the University Archivist should be responsible for establishing mechanisms for ensuring that evidentiary trails are maintained intact.
The Academic Registrar should be responsible after consulting with the various faculty registrars for approving all university handbooks to be published on the WWW from 1996 onwards. All handbook WWW pages should carry the authorisation of the Academic Registrar.
Promotional documents should refer to official publications rather than duplicating information. A specific example of this is that links to the University Handbook WWW pages should be used rather than duplicating course information. Promotional documents must carry the identity of the university officer authorising them and the date of that approval. The role and authority of the Office of Marketing and Communication in projecting the external corporate image of the university including graphic design standards and aesthetics needs to be re-stated.
3.2 University Archivist
That the University Archivist be responsible for developing and administering policy in consultation with the Academic Registrar for all archival activities in the University.
That all organisational groups including faculties and major centres be asked to identify a records administrator and that these administrators be responsible with the University Archivist and the Academic Registrar for securely maintaining and administering all records, including computer based records such as staff, student, financial and research records, which are required under various university and government policies.
The Board generally accepted this recommendation with the following advice and comment.
Because there is no definition of what constitutes an official university document or publication it is difficult to define what should or should not be maintained in the Central Registry and/or University Archives or whether it should be held at faculty or departmental levels. Clearly some documents are better held at the department or faculty level in an operational sense. Master copies of all policy documents carrying the certification trail, however, should be held in the Central Registry. Online catalogues of where records may be found are urgently required (the Library has extensive experience in online WWW based catalogues and should be consulted).
It was agreed that persons filling the role of records administrators exist in many administrative groups and that it was not intended that new staff be appointed. It is necessary to formally identify them and name them consistently "Records Administrators" being suggested. Common practices should be readily identifiable leading to a common position description.
The University Archivist has produced a draft document disposal policy statement. This identities certain classes of documents and guidelines for their retention/disposal. It is currently being distributed across the University for comment. The document should be revised as necessary and approved as soon as possible.
3.3 Webmaster
That a University Webmaster be formally appointed, who will initially report to the Office of the Special Adviser and with whom all webmasters will liaise. The University Webmaster will carry overall responsibility for administering policy, the primary WWW servers currently located in the Computer Centre and their support software.
That all organisational groups including faculties and major centres with a presence on the WWW be asked to identify webmasters who will be responsible for:
ensuring that the WWW pages originating within their group meet the requirements of various copyright and communication acts, and the publication guidelines promulgated from time to time by the University;
liaising with the University Webmaster, faculty registrars and records administrators to ensure that appropriate authorisations and records are maintained.
The Board generally accepted this recommendation with the following advice and comment.
Ms S. Steele who has been acting as Monash Webmaster for some time should, for the time being, remain in that role although her Library commitments may require the position to be advertised in due course. The Board noted the Library's offer to assist Ms Steele in this role. The possibility of the Webmaster ultimately being located in the Academic Registrar's Office was mooted.
The Computer Centre sought clarification of the statement that the Monash Webmaster be responsible for "the primary WWW servers currently located in the Computer Centre and their support software". The University Webmaster must be consulted and approve all matters affecting clients using the primary WWW servers.
There were two views regarding webmasters (and postmasters) for administrative units:
that there were persons filling these roles in an unofficial manner already and that their positions needed to be recognised now with position descriptions modified accordingly by agreement ;
that staff not be appointed or formally given these roles until position descriptions are drawn up.
The first view was supported by the majority of the Board. It seems clear that heads will need to establish a point of contact for the WWW pages already being posted by their administrative groups. In the interim as with other forms of publication the heads of those groups are responsible.
3. Items to be considered next
It is my intention to have the Advisory Board consider whether the University's current telecommunications and computing structure may be better considered as a telecommunications infrastructure with attached computing services of one form or another. It may then be somewhat easier to consider which computing facilities and associated functions should be managed centrally and which are better managed locally. It is anticipated that external consultants will need to be engaged to assist in this process.
G.K. Egan May 6, 1997
26 March 1996
Item 9.2
D36/96
P. R. Annal
Director
14 March, 1996
This report, so early in the year, and following closely on the last report to the Committee in October 1995, presents a welcome opportunity to describe the Centre's plans and expectations for 1996. The Centre's plans are in concert with its contribution to Directions for the Future (Vol 2) although more than one year is required for its realisation. Significant progress has, and is, being made on developments since the last report with the more strategic ones reported here for information. It would be remiss to avoid advising the Committee also of issues that warrant attention this year by appropriate bodies.
The Centre's goals for the year emphasise an ambition:
The means of achieving the goals rely upon:
Monash's daily operation relies upon its communications infrastructure. A characteristic of organisations everywhere is rapid growth in use of communications with a growing load imposed on network facilities both internal and external to the organisation. The chart illustrates the sustained growth of Internet traffic which necessitates the developments described later. Traffic leaving Monash more than doubled over the last year, while traffic brought into Monash (which the university pays for) dropped markedly around October 1995 when the new web proxy server commenced operation. Cumulative traffic, solely within the university, follows a similar pattern to the Internet traffic chart however the volume is approximately ten times greater.
Communications facilities and services form the base platform from which developments can happen. Evolving trends in the educational sphere only reinforce the view that the university is an information organisation concerned with channelling information to where it is needed.
Sufficient capacity exists in much of the network backbone to last up to two years although some sections of the distribution network are approaching overload. The Centre's Communications & Network Team employs two solutions depending upon the circumstances. It splits portions of the network experiencing high load into several smaller sections reducing the load on each section, and it installs much faster links in critical areas (100 Mbit/s links to replace standard 10 Mbit/s links).
The Clayton campus forms the hub of the University's communications network. With increased communications traffic the links interconnecting Clayton to the Caulfield and Gippsland campuses were upgraded to prevent overload. To date all inter-campus communications have had speed-compatible redundant communications pathways intended to cope with failures generally without lose of service. With the new high speed primary inter-campus links recently installed, however it is not feasible presently to similarly increase the speed of the secondary (redundant) links to the same speed as the primary links. As a consequence failure of a primary link will have growing impact as traffic levels grow. Once Cable TV carriers have their cable network in place it is hoped that optical fibre circuits will become available for rental. These should become the dominant means of interconnecting the campuses in the more distant future.
The new and upgraded inter-campus links are:
A comprehensive network monitoring and management system has been installed and is being prepared to constantly monitor and report the status of network segments, components and operation. The constant monitoring of the network's operation will provide the information necessary to recognise where trouble spots may be developing so that corrective action can be taken in advance of the problem becoming serious enough to impact users.
The most visible aspect of DITS should have completed by the end of 1995 with faculties providing DITS capable client computers to staff identified as requiring them. The DITS project embodies ongoing application, network and server developments to meet evolving user expectation in functionality, performance and reliability.
During 1995 service of variable reliability resulted from a diverse set of extant server equipment. The equipment, originating from a range of sources in faculties and departments, exhibited variable performance, capacity and non-uniform functionality including backup capability. There were far more servers than desirable for ease of management, and their location within the network infrastructure was not well aligned with user load. Variability also arose in the quality of management support of the servers because they were operated by individual budget groups.
Near the end of 1995 the Centre planned the introduction of a robust DITS service. The Centre's Microcomputer Systems Team recommended a solution encompassing several essential components:
Before Christmas orders were placed for sufficient new DITS server hardware to replace existing servers. Currently they are being distributed progressively across the university.
The plan for the promised migration to Novell Netware version 4.10 from the present Netware version 3.12 was completed recently, permitting the servers to be prepared for installation. The new software was successful trialed over several months, as were the procedures for implementing the migration. The new software has proven reliable and stable while offering important new functionality. The schedule for the migration, which is finished for some faculties, is being negotiated with faculties and major budget groups.
It is important to reiterate the statement given last year that Windows 95 is not approved for use with the University's DITS strategy or for use on the university's communications network. Most businesses in Australia also recognise that caution is required. In fact the next DITS operating system for DITS clients may not be Windows95. The cost to faculties of upgrading DITS desktop computers alone could exceed $1M generally for little immediate gain for the majority of users. Pressure for a change arises especially where people have Windows95 on a home or notebook computer. The Centre will be providing information to guide users in this situation.
Beginning in 1996 the standard DITS Novell and Microsoft software licence is being paid centrally. There may be a requirement to add other software application packages to the list of standard (university-wide) software.
The university faced a quandary when DITS was in its early stages of introduction. Microsoft announced newer versions of software (especially Word for Windows 6 and Excel 5) which needed more memory than could be expected on the majority of desktop computers at the time. Consequently the DITS standard was Word for Windows 2 and Excel 4. Following the large injection of funds late in 1994 and again in 1995 most newer users of the software have used the newer versions of software and many PCs are now capable of accommodating the newer versions.
It is proposed that the official versions of the Microsoft products now be recognised as Word for Windows 6, Excel 5, Powerpoint 4 and Access 2.
Despite all delays in building hand-over, IT services at Berwick were available for the first week of semester thanks to the outstanding and conscientious efforts of Neil Clarke assisted by many staff, notably James Sargeant and Byron Kirby of the Centre, and from other areas of the university.
Phase 1 of the tele-teaching project is near completion. It was funded with $M2 from the Berwick campus DEET establishment grant, augmented by $M1.548 from the University's 1996 budget. This stage established the basic IT infrastructure for Berwick, upgraded the communications link to Gippsland, and provided PictureTel System 4000 video teaching and video conference facilities consisting of:
The Berwick IT services are under the management of Byron Kirby, manager of the Centre's Peninsula branch who is appointing several staff to deliver first line technical support at Berwick. The technical staff at Berwick will operate as a multi-skilled team, providing all first line technical services at the campus. Second-level and emergency support will be provided as necessary by staff from the Computer Centre, Educational Services Branch and Library.
Monash staff and students are entitled to dial-in to gain access to a variety of computing and Internet services. The Centre aims to design services so that wherever possible it is as easy to access the service from off-campus as it is on-campus.
Three classes of modem service exist.
Class No of Phone Number Services
modems
Low-speed (2400 40 9903 2848 Telnet, PPP (SLIP)
bit/s)
High-speed free 32 9905 9060, 9904 4104 Telnet, PPP (SLIP)
(14.4Kbit/s) 16 (Peninsula)
051 22 1166
(Gippsland)
User-pays 80 9238 4900 Telnet, PPP,
(28.8Kbit/s) 16 9239 7900 Novell IPX
(Peninsula)
1.4.1 Supported dial-in services
Telnet gives character-oriented communications to shared hosts (Sesame2, Alpha, Silas etc.) The only software needed in the PC for Telnet operation is a terminal emulator such as Kermit, or MS Terminal.
PPP. To gain access to www servers and some other services, it is necessary to have a PC capable of running Windows, and to install some additional software (Winsock). (Similar things can be done with Macintosh and with PC's running OS/2.) Once this is done Netscape or other Internet software runs just as it would on-campus. Because of the limitations of the telephone connection responses are slower than when on-campus. A set of software, instructions and a Windows-based "setup" program on floppy disk is in the final stages of development in the Computer Centre. This will simplify setting up a modem connection.
Novell IPX. Most staff and students have on a Novell server information they wish to access from off-campus, eg diary, electronic mail, and other files stored on the server. To gain full access to Novell servers over a dial-up connection requires extra PC software which is now being tested. Novell access will be available only in the Ascend-based User pays pool. It will be operating on a limited basis by Easter 1996, and widely available by end of April 1996.
A high-quality of service is an essential ingredient of the high-speed modem service. To achieve this the latest high-reliability technology is being used. But quality of service also means sizing the service so that there are free modems available at virtually all times. The only practicable way of achieving that is to recover some of the cost of running the service by charging a connection fee, and returning the revenue to expand the number of ports. The charge will be a flat rate per hour independent of the connection speed or the amount of data transferred. It will be in the range $1 to $2 per hour. This applies only to the "user pays" high-speed pool: a free modem pool will be maintained, at least at the current number of ports. A charging policy, including methods of payment, is under development. There will be a payment option for departments which will allow the allocation of "free" connect time to students enrolled in subjects which require modem access.
The User-pays service has been brought on-line before the charging procedures are ready, so for an interim period in early 1996 it will be offered without charge. However charges will be introduced this year.
The user pays service is also capable of receiving calls over ISDN basic rate services at 64 kbit/s. This dial-up service is being promoted by Telstra. Timed call charges apply to the call cost (paid to Telstra) as well as for the session (paid to the university).
During 1996 it is expected that the number of modems will be increased. The number and location of additional dial-in services will be determined by usage measurements made on the existing system. Usage patterns are being logged continuously, and summaries will be published weekly on the Monash Web server, www.monash.edu.au
Apart from developments for Berwick approximately $1M from the Centre's operating budget is destined for developments supporting teaching, mostly in infrastructure aimed at improving the performance and functionality of computer teaching laboratories.
Teaching services are more dependent on high reliability services than even staff who rely on DITS services. The somewhat unreliable servers which to date have supported computer teaching laboratories have been replaced with very reliable new servers for the same reasons that servers for DITS are being replaced. At the same time a refined plan has been implemented granting students access to required teaching software and information regardless of the campus where the student happens to be situated.
Several problems arose in the conversion with some disruption during the first week of semester. Generally the primary cause of problems was the non-standard way in which equipment in some faculties had been organised over time. The problems were dealt with on a case by case basis with most of them now fixed. The problems served only to emphasise the justification of moving to a common standard for all teaching laboratories to deliver an acceptable level of service.
Also for first semester many of the Unix-based teaching services are being offered via a new solution based on free Linux software following consultation and cooperation from the affected faculties. Preparing for Linux has been a long and difficult task which should deliver rewards in the form of:
In the short term, Linux will reduce the need for more expensive high-end Unix workstations, but not eliminate that need.
Increasingly sophisticated software combined with growing use of the teaching laboratories has increased accordingly the load on network infrastructure serving teaching laboratories leading to reports last year of unsatisfactory performance or reliability of service for some laboratories. The network facilities are being upgraded progressively as described in section 1.1.1.
The equipment in a number of existing teaching laboratories was upgraded to cope with new software or uses. Several shared servers also were upgraded to improve the Unix teaching services.
During 1996 several sites will trial network ports for students for attaching portable computers to access information, send information or print files.
The 1995 report to the Committee of Deans explained that budget and staff workload required the Centre to move away from providing client computing facilities (computer teaching laboratories, joint developments with faculties) to concentrate its efforts on university-wide infrastructure and facilities (central server systems, network, file servers, information backup facilities, information servers, standard DITS software) and its support. The Computing Committee subsequently requested the Director of the Computer Centre to assess the needs of faculties, the Post Graduate Area, the Library and the MPA for computing facilities and to
report back to the Committee on the total funding needed to meet the reasonable requirements of all sections of the University so that the Computing Committee can advise the Vice Chancellor and Academic Board of the state of computing facilities and the funding required to rectify deficiencies.
Currently a maximum of $375,000 of the Quality round 1 money is available to improve teaching and research training facilities for 1996. The Director of the Computer Centre was requested to allocate funds in an equitable manner, taking into account faculty contributions where appropriate. The outcome of the consultation is summarised in the two tables.
The following table summarises the recommended developments to proceed using the available money. Provision of the money will be subject to a number of conditions and generally the requirement of 50% contribution by the receiving group. The majority of the itemised developments require infrastructure resources which are not included in the overall cost estimates because the Centre will fund the infrastructure from its 1996 budget. The infrastructure consists of network and Novell server infrastructure and associated support.
Faculty Projected developments $'000
Art & Design 13 SGI INDY machines with Alias 80
software
Arts 12 PCs (from Edu) upgrade & with 0
audio
BusEco 20 PC286 units upgrade to Pentium 30
BusEco 16 PC386 units upgrade to Pentium 24
Education 12 PC486/33 units upgrade to 21
Pentium
Education 4 Pentium/120, 32 Mbyte, 1.6 11
Gbyte, CD-ROM
Engineering 72 Additional 8 Mb Memory/PC 10
Engineering Security devices 12
FCIT 20 PC386 units upgrade to Pentium 30
Law Expand CD-ROM servers 21.5
P/G lab in 11 Additional PCs 33
Library
Pharmacy 10 Pentiums in a new lab 15
Science Expand Psychology lab 23.4
Science Maths Learning Centre expansion 24
Total 334.9
For completeness the next table identifies requested developments for which no funding exists. Their inclusion in the list does not imply that all items warrant non-faculty funding.
Proj Estimated
F ecte $'000
a d
c deve
u lopm
l ents
t
y
Art 2 Powerful rendering machines 100
&
Des
ign
Art 13 PCs with audio capability 39
s
Bus 16 PC386 units upgrade to Pentium 50
Eco
FCI Unix server capacity for CS & 50
T SD
FCI 12 PC386 units upgrade to Pentium 36
T
Sci Additional PCs Appl'd Science 20
enc
e
Sci 5 Pentiums (Chemistry) 15
enc
e
Med All infrastructure items 0
ici
ne
310
T
o
t
a
l
1.7 Progress towards a high performance computer facility
The process of selecting a suitable high performance computer system is nearing completion. Products from three vendors have been reviewed however recently one of the vendors dropped out. The two remaining system proposals (from Silicon Graphics and Digital) have been significantly improved as a result of delaying a final decision of the Advisory group and several imminent system improvements will result.
The goal is to have a final decision before the end of April. The Advisory Group stated in December 1995 that it considers the acquisition of a high performance facility is so important that it is a clear first priority, then its second priority is the specific choice of system.
The primary goal for the facility is provision of a powerful resource capable of enhancing research. The university's recognition of the strategic importance of multi-media based electronic teaching also may create a demand for high performance facilities for teaching purposes such simulation or the enhancement of images or MPEG motion video for quality learning materials.
Presently 14 universities in Australia can claim to have shared high performance computing facilities, with Monash being included because of its massively parallel DECmpp system. Unfortunately Monash does not gain attention as a significant HPC site. Purchasing one of the systems under consideration would bring Monash into the league of the top few sites in the country. More importantly, a Monash facility can encourage new areas of research publication by applying the criterion that extensive use of the system will depend upon the publishing of papers derived from results produced by the facility.
Other Australian universities fare better in receiving grants for HPC initiatives based upon their track record and active participation in HPC based research. Presently Monash is excluded from serious and potentially large grant applications because it has not demonstrated a serious commitment to HPC. Should Monash receive notable funding in this area without demonstrating its commitment by establishing its own facility, or when it can offer little to foster shared inter-institutional collaborative efforts? At last year's invitation for submissions for ADSL grants, Monash was denied participation while both the University of Melbourne and RMIT were invited to submit proposals. Similarly those institutions are in a good position to ensure they will be the prime Victorian beneficiaries of any success in the MNRP or other high performance computing submissions lodged.
A single HPC system will never be the best research computing tool for every problem type and certainly not for the largest problems. Monash researchers would benefit from opportunities to use other types of, and possibly larger, facilities at other sites as necessary. Monash researchers requiring HPC services have relied on handouts of time from HPC facilties in other organisations in Australia or overseas. These opportunities are necessarily unpredictable, stifling incentive because the facilities might be withdrawn whenever their use interferes with the funding institution's needs. From time to time those Australian organisations request Monash contribute funds for ongoing use of the facility. To date Monash has not done so. Monash researchers cannot be serious users of another institution's facilities without contributing to the costs of using the service. Monash participation on an equal footing with other HPC facilties in Australia however can help establish suitable cooperation between interested parties in the HPC community. Offering time on a Monash facility can be traded for time on other facilities. This is important for at least two reasons:
$450k from Quality round 1 is to be held in escrow awaiting the report of the Advisory Group. The Group hopes to apply for $350k additional funding from Quality round 3 so that, apart from ensuring purchase of the facility, a small number of applications packages can be provided to aid greatly in specific research projects.
Charging for Internet traffic entering the university's network has brought to an end the artificial world in which Internet access was considered to be "free". The lower charging rates following the sale of AARNet to Telstra and the upgrade of the university's www servers last year reduced the charges to around 30% of those confronting the university earlier in the year. Traffic projections for the year suggest Monash can expect to pay around $240,000 for Internet usage. Beginning around August the cost will be passed on to the faculties and centres which incur the charges.
Investigations conducted over the last six months indicate it will be possible to compile usage information for the majority of computers in use throughout the university. Information from usage logs will be merged to produce one monthly account for each faculty with subtotals by department. Information for each machine will be available, identified by the network name of the computer. Because of several difficulties in accounting for each individual user it will not be possible in every case to provide faculties with sufficiently detailed accounts to apportion the cost to each department.
The charging model will be kept simple, but it may incorporate features designed to achieve a desired outcome by influencing or rewarding behaviour patterns. These characteristics are expected to apply in the initial model. Each of them could be varied if it becomes necessary.
Budget groups require time to adapt budget plans and policies to fit in with full cost recovery. Agreement has been reached with Budget and Statistical Services Branch for a central contribution of $150,000 in 1996 awaiting the implementation of full recording and billing facilities. The central contribution will permit time for faculties to monitor their Internet usage in anticipation of their paying for usage later in the year. Based upon information collected to date no faculty should be billed more than $20k in 1996. Full cost recovery will apply to the use of the Internet beyond 1996.
Implementing the solution is a large task requiring several months effort. It will force all external traffic to pass through one of a set of "gateway" server machines which will produce detailed usage logs and implement access policies, including controlled access to Monash from external sites. The main gateway services will be:
The Gippsland-based computer supporting the student administration system for Gippsland, also used by Open Learning and some departments on other campuses, was replaced last year with a more powerful computer. The system was supported by staff at Gippsland until difficulties arose in hiring a suitable skilled person to support the system. The Centre intends moving that system to Clayton where other systems supporting administrative functions reside and where staff are able to properly support it. The new high speed network link between Clayton and Gippsland will permit the system to provide the services required at Gippsland without impact on the student information system.
Important tasks not already mentioned are scheduled for trial late in the year. Their design, implementation and completion will require much planning, investigation and effort which will be scheduled to occur in stages possibly into 1997. They dovetail with the goals set in Directions for the Future (Vol 2), the tasks already in progress , and the developments necessary to link people with information anytime, anyplace in the pursuit of learning in a borderless university.
Over recent years, staff and students have come to rely increasingly on email services, to the extent that this service is now seen as essential in order to conduct the normal business of the University.
With the implementation of DITS, Pegasus mail was chosen as the DITS mail client as a temporary measure. Many have pointed out the shortcomings of Pegasus mail and expect a better mail client to be made available.
There are however other aspects of an email service that provide additional functionality that are either expected by users or act transparently in the background. Some examples of these are directory services, list services, gateway services, or name translation services. Some applications rely on email as a transport mechanism to provide particular functionality eg scheduling.
The Centre commenced development of a high level strategy to provide a better email service than currently exists. The goals are:
The characteristics of the system being sought include but not be restricted by:
An experienced consultant may be employed to act as project manager with a project team drawn from within the university. The project team will evaluate specific packages starting with Novell Groupwise.
Phase 2 developments of the tele-teaching project, subject to final funding approval amounting to $M 3.440 will provide the following:
Additionally it is planned to:
The concept of an information policy includes many related components. The first stage deals with the immediate need for: 1) integrity despite failures of data stored on computer systems managed by the Centre, 2) the identification of vital (electronically stored) information which is to be accessible at all times to staff or students regardless of where they reside, and 3) a solution in which that critical information always appears to be stored on-line. The information policy will define the expectations the university sets for holding on-line vital information accessible from on- or off-campus, the period of time it must be retained, the security or access rights for different categories of information, and the expectations for its integrity. For success the system requires central management of information in accordance with University policy.
Stage 1 anticipates the development of a prototype hierarchical mass store embodying data integrity capability with an automatic means of maintaining the appearance of all information being held on-line when in fact it might reside on slower lower cost media. The Hierarchical mass store will mirror information residing on most centrally managed OpenVMS, Unix and Novell server systems. The Library system, high performance computer facility, www servers and other critical systems will be considered and added as feasible.
Last year the first stage of a major upgrade of WWW facilities installed new and powerful servers at Clayton thereby reducing delays when using the web and greatly reducing the chargeable traffic entering the university (since October 1995). The improvement in service is not expected to last without further expansion of web server capacity because more use is expected of the web for teaching and information distribution. The next stage of web service expansion will involve additional interconnected www proxy servers placed either at two separate Clayton locations or at several campuses.
1996 is a transition year between the established pattern of management of teaching laboratories by the Computer Centre and a new pattern in which faculties progressively take over management and ownership. The Centre will begin negotiating the transfer to faculties of all client computer systems residing in jointly owned computing laboratories. Especially at Clayton some public computing laboratories also should be transferred to faculties which have contributed substantially to their creation and rely upon access to them for essential teaching purposes. The Centre will retain ownership of some laboratories for equity reasons.
The Centre will not cease support of teaching. It will continue to operate and retain central control over the student servers which support the client systems in the faculty computing laboratories. This task is the more difficult one causing the majority of calls upon the time of the Centre's staff. The recent conversion to central management of the servers supporting student teaching laboratories unexpectedly revealed the extent to which some faculties operated the teaching laboratories in non-standard ways resulting in poor service to students.
Faculties will be given control over their teaching laboratory client facilities to see that they are operated in accordance with the faculty's academic goals. They will be given control of "virtual servers" to manage according to their specific needs. Through this means a faculty also has the opportunity to determine the use their students will make of the resources including the Internet, and thus be able to exercise control of Internet charges arising form teaching activities.
Faculties, having control over all other aspects of course decisions, are well placed to decide on the desirability of specific client computing equipment for their teaching programs, taking account of funding issues, and are best able to see the equipment is supported in accordance with their needs. Options exist other than simply expecting the provision of additional equipment, eg academics might set assignments being more mindful of the limited resources available rather than expecting resources will meet whatever demand arises. Faculties might exercise more control over use of these expensive resources, or they might look to ways of exploiting student owned computer resources.
Student ownership of computers should be encouraged. Its success will depend upon changes in electronic infrastructure and expectations of faculties. In particular:
The University's operation faces the risk of disruption should a serious disaster such as fire or flooding in the Clayton computer room happen. The Centre has taken a number of steps over time to reduce the risk of service failure including, but not limited to, redundant inter-campus links, multiple pathways to PABX equipment for communications carriers, Uninterruptible Power Systems to protect against power disruptions, duplication of specific computing equipment, and on-call arrangements for staff to attend problems. The University's present computer rooms are separate but adjoining. Reasonable precautions have been taken to divide equipment between the two rooms, to have partly separate power and services to the rooms, and to have fire isolation between them. Nevertheless the isolation and protection is not as good as desirable.
Early in 1997 the purpose-built secure computer space in the Unisys building will be available to the Computer Centre for hosting separate unattended live computer equipment, all managed from the current Computer Centre area which is where its staff would remain. The position of the Unisys building is ideal. It is sufficiently removed from the present computer room for it to be spared from fire, water, smoke, or invasion concerns. Fibre optic links would be required for a remote but interconnected computing facility. The fibre optic links operate at a high speed sufficient to interconnect components allowing critical computer services to operate from either site with no impact on users under normal circumstances. The almost total separation of the two sites and their utilities, presents an important opportunity to reduce the risk of disruption
Initial discussions commenced last year with Telstra and Optus exploring ways of meeting the need of staff and students, initially within Australia, but beyond telephone zones adjoining the Monash campuses. The goal is to find a suitable solution whereby people remote from campuses are able to access university information systems at an affordable price through solutions provided by telecommunications carriers at low capital cost to the University.
The goal will be pursued more vigorously in the later part of the year when the approaching deregulation of the telecommunications industry hopefully will lead carriers to increase their interest in satisfying these needs.
The Victorian university Directors of IT intend exploring several joint ventures capitalising on the regional network to improve services or reduce operating costs. Among the projects being considered are the possibility of a Victorian www proxy cache for reducing Internet charges by capturing a higher fraction of incoming web information within the region; a possible remote dial-in access solution for the State with corresponding economies of scale and effectiveness; and the possibility of improved Internet service or reduced costs through a second Internet provider into the region.
The Centre expects to appoint a Quality Manager to facilitate progress towards its goal of achieving ISO 9000 style of operation.
An essential link in empowering users of information technology is giving them ready access to the information they require to carry out their activities. The Centre will try to overcome an internal weakness by appointing a person to publish information primarily via the www.
It is no surprise that the Hoare report mentioned the importance of information technology and systems in universities, it follows the established model within other large organisations intending to exploit the relationship between information technology and achievement of business goals. It also is significant that Deakin University saw information technology being so important to its future that its Council resolved that the budget for information technology should increase at the rate of 0.5% of the university's operating budget per annum presently without limit. Directions for the Future gives importance to information technology helping the university achieve its future. Monash is not alone: other Australian and overseas universities have the similar goals. In the end, the greatest competition in the learning arena could come from large commercial organisations.
Two serious factors impeding and confusing the strategic implementation of information technology are budget policy and an uncertain process for the formal approval then realisation of information technology standards and policies.
Monash has extensive information technology, however there is a lack of structure reinforcing and binding together the people, diverse groups, technology and services required for effective alignment of information technology and services with the university's direction. Realisation of a strategic direction for information technology would be assisted by a formally recognised single coordinating focus, however given the size and history of the university, its implementation should include a devolved character. Effective consultation and information processes underpin the success of such a large undertaking. The coordinating role needs the authority to determine through a consultative process university-wide standards and policies realising their uniform adoption for information technology and services.
A case in point is DITS. In some areas of the university, Microsoft Windows95 and other operating systems are in use despite advice from the Centre that problems exist, that the university-wide costs for the staff and student environments argue against their introduction at this time, and that the Centre is prepared to disconnect from the network non-standard systems that interfere with other users. The recent standardisation of the student environment unearthed situations where non-standard hardware and software installations nearly jeopardised the university-wide implementation. The Centre takes care to test new products and developments based on the standard environments taking account of possible problems which may arise in communications, network operating system, hardware and supported applications. The introduction of non-standard equipment or software creates a legacy problem for the future where new developments will be thwarted by non-conforming installations. In other words when a minority of groups disregard university-wide standards they will progressively undo the benefits for the majority arising from the university's investment in projects such as DITS.
When DITS funding was offered to faculties to complete DITS in 1995, it was on the explicit understanding that acceptance of the money indicated agreement that equipment and software would be the DITS standard. The agreement has not been honoured universally. The practice is not restricted to DITS.
Benefits derive from aligning strategic information technology with the university's strategic goals, through a budget tied to achieving those goals. Fortunately non-operating budget sources funded the capital aspect of major information technology projects in recent times. Unfortunately this funding approach can jeopardise the ongoing requirement for strategic information technology developments because they may not be recognised formally as an essential ongoing part of the university's planning.
Formal budget recognition for strategic information technology is incomplete particularly for the recurrent costs of operating facilities once they are installed. Current budget policies generally grant no additional recurrent budget covering the on-going operation of new strategic facilities, including telecommunications charges. The problem is further complicated when the operating budget for sustaining information technology facilities resides in a different group from that responsible for its design, implementation and installation.
93/0557
8th February 1996
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 10.1
D37/96
Ms. J. Newham
Secretary
Committee of Deans
University Secretariat
Clayton Campus
Language Policy Report
I write with reference to the above and wish to bring to your attention the following
extracts from the Occupational Health Act, 1985:
22. Duties of employers
(4) An employer shall so far as is practicable-
(e) provide information to the employees of the employer,
in such languages as are appropriate, with respect to
health and safety at the workplace
4. Definitions
"practicable" means practicable having regard to-
(a) the severity of the hazard or risk in question;
(b) the state of knowledge about that hazard or risk and any
ways of removing or mitigating that hazard or risk;
(c) the availability and suitability of ways to remove or
mitigate that hazard or risk; and
(d) the cost of removing or mitigating that hazard or risk;
Could you please ensure that the above extracts are considered in the development of
the language policy.
Cherilyn Tillman
Manager
Occupational Health, Safety & Environment
General: A23-96
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 10.1
D38/96
MONASH UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE
POLICY AND DISCUSSION OF THESE BY THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
AND ACADEMIC BOARD
The Education Committee suggests that the Monash Language Policy be accepted as an
independent policy of the university and that some of its recommendations be reflected in
amendments to the Education Policy. An independent policy makes a statement about the
value Monash places on languages and cultures, on the backgrounds of its students and
staff and on facilitating effective interaction between people of different language and
cultural backgrounds. The integration of some of its recommendations into the Education
Policy acknowledges the importance of effective communication in teaching and learning.
It also suggests that both the faculties and the University share responsibility for
developing students' (and staff's) communication skills, and that staff development in this
area is important.
It is hoped that a similar acknowledgement will be made through amendments to the
Research Policy.
Comments on recommendations 1-6
Recommendations 1 & 2
The suggestions made by the Education Committee are to be applauded.
It is hoped that the training of staff in cross-cultural communication skills will focus not
only on enhancing their ability to communicate with people from other cultures, but will
also focus on how to make explicit to students their expectations of these students
regarding communication skills, and on how to guide students in the development of such
skills. There may be scope for collaborative work between academic staff, the Education
Faculty and Language and Learning Services in such training. Staff mentoring could
also focus on this aspect of cross-cultural communication. It should also be emphasised,
that, to be consistent with the spirit of the Language Policy, training in cross-cultural
communication should not imply that any one culturally-based style of communication is
superior to another.
Recommendations 3 & 4
Agree
Recommendation 5
While university-wide use of a consistent set of correction symbols will be useful to staff
and students, I would caution staff about the assessment practices that such a set might
suggest. The use of a consistent correction sheet does NOT teach students the effect on
the reader of inappropriate usage, nor does it teach appropriate usage. Thus, it does not
obviate extensive staff-student contact. Such contact is necessary to explain the reasons
for judgements made. The use of a correction sheet should not prompt a change in the
focus of responses to students' work from the argument to the microlinguistic. For
students to benefit there must be a balance.
Recommendation 6
A clear explanation and a definition of plagiarism for our culture, which take account of
teaching issues and other cultural attitudes towards referencing, are important for
academics and students alike.
Comments on recommendations not considered to come in the
ambit of the Education Committee
Recommendation 13
Does this include English?
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Item 10.1
D39/96
MEMORANDUM
TO J. Newham, Secretary to the Committee of Deans
FROM Rosemary Clerehan, Head, Language and Learning Services Unit
DATE 20 March 1996
SUBJECT Response to the Report of the Working Party on Implementation of the Language Policy.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is pleasing to see Monash preparing to adopt a Language Policy in keeping with its role as a major international university.
The decision to incorporate amendments and additions relating to communication into the current Education Policy seems most appropriate (the addition to sect. 2.1, University Objectives, dot point four (p. 5) should read "both general and discipline-specific communication skills".
In the comments which follow, I shall confine myself to those areas relating to English language, in particular, those having a bearing on the activities of the Language and Learning Services Unit.
With regard to the minutes of Meeting 8/95 of Academic Board, 22 November 1995, it should be noted that the Unit has now presented to the Board reports outlining the Unit's services in 1996 as requested.
The Unit has also forwarded to the Department of Linguistics for discussion as requested the list of correction symbols currently used by the Unit as an aid for students to understand where their written expression can be improved. It is important to realise that such symbols should be regarded as a basic guide only, and only to features of sentence-level expression. They do not attempt to provide guidance as to the more complex semantic and discourse levels. It is for the Education Committee to decide whether a similar list will have value for faculty staff attempting to assist their students with their writing.
A. Recommendations requiring amendment to the Education Policy
RECOMMENDATION 1
It should be noted that the Language and Learning Services Unit and other cognate units with whom we work, for example in the Faculty of Arts and the School of Graduate Studies, possess considerable expertise and experience in the teaching of general and discipline-specific communication skills. Particularly in view of the expansion of the Unit in 1996, this should be tapped into in the process of faculty implementation of this central educational principle.
RECOMMENDATION 2
One of the Unit's objectives is:
To provide assistance to staff in the form of materials, teaching, feedback on referrals and advice on curriculum and assessment, to help them respond to the language and learning needs of students, particularly those of non-English speaking background (NESB).
We are happy to liaise with the PDC in provision of a cross-cultural component for the Monash Staff Induction program.
Workshops for faculty staff which have already been offered or developed by the Unit in light of this objective, such as Lecturing to International and NESB Students; Improving the Writing of International and NESB Students, have been discussed with the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International Programs). These could form a part of faculty or departmental programs, though with the current level of funding, on a small scale only (see Recommendation 12).
RECOMMENDATION 5
As commented above.
RECOMMENDATION 6
With regard to the teaching, as opposed to the discipline issues involved in plagiarism, based on its experience, the Unit would like to highlight the value of explicit teaching using discipline-based examples, of what constitutes plagiarism and what does not, and commends this approach to faculties (see Recommendation 12).
B. Recommendations which do not affect the Education Policy but which should be referred elsewhere for discussion and implementation
* RECOMMENDATION 4
This is a key recommendation with respect to the degree of success the Language and Learning Services Unit can expect in its effort to ensure appropriate resources are available to students on all campuses, similarly to the way they are at Caulfield.
The Working Party has proposed that this be worked out between the Librarian and the Head of the Language and Learning Services Unit. The Head would appreciate clear direction from Academic Board on this point as there will be funding implications.
RECOMMENDATION 12
The working party points out, with respect to this recommendation, that expertise within the Language and Learning Services Unit could be drawn on, not only for advice in matters relating to the implementation of the Policy, but also in matters of selection and admission of students.
The Unit regards the most useful advice it could give in this regard as involving its knowledge of, and expertise in, language testing. With current funding, some small-scale in-servicing could be provided to faculty staff on currently used English language proficiency tests, and in particular, on interpreting the different test scores.
In conclusion, I believe it is important for the University to be clear about how initiatives requiring funding for anything like complete implementation will be funded, and whether the Education Committe or some other body will be responsible for the implementation.
Rosemary Clerehan
Head
Language and Learning Services Unit
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Tabled Paper
Item 10.1
D40/96
To: Ms Janice Newham
Secretariat
cc. Dr Malcolm Eley
From: Professor Terry Hore
Date: 20 March 1996
Subject: Language Policy
The Professional Development Centre will, when the Education Policy is amended, arrange for
the Induction to Teaching and Learning Program to provide a time slot for the proposed
component on cross-cultural communication, which I assume will be staffed by the Language
and Learning Services Unit.
We will be pleased to work in conjunction with Ms Clerehan to comply with the
recommendation.
Terry Hore
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Tabled Paper
Item 2.2
D41/96
Schedule of 1995 Annual Reports
to Council through Academic Board in 1996 - Revised *
Reporting Meeting Meeting
Entity Academic Bd. Council
(Wed) (Mon)
University Librarian 28 February 18 March
Dean, Faculty of Science 17 April 6 May
Dean, Faculty of Business and
Economics
Dean, Faculty of Computing & Info. 5 June 1 July
Tech.
Director, Professional Development
Centre
Dean, Victorian College of Pharmacy
General Manager
Dean, Faculty of Education
Director, Computer Centre
Dean, Faculty of Medicine 24 July 12 August
Dean, Faculty of Engineering
Dean, Faculty of Arts
Dean, Faculty of Law
* Revised on the basis of the decision of the Committee of Deans Meeting 3/96 held on 5
March 1996.
Committee of Deans 4/96
26 March 1996
Tabled paper
Item 8.2
D42/96
Monash University
FACULTY OF MEDICINE MEETING 2/96
Report to Committee of Deans
Report to the Committee of Deans of meeting No. 2/96 of the Board of the Faculty of Medicine held on 20 March 1996.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
1. ADVERTISEMENT: CHAIR OF ANATOMY
Recommendation
That Academic Board approve for submission to Council that the position of Head of the Department of Anatomy be advertised as soon as possible.
2. REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY AND ADVERTISEMENT OF CHAIR OF SURGERY
A review of the Department of Surgery was conducted on the impending retirement of Professor V.C. Marshall at the end of 1996. The recommendations of the Review Panel are attached (Appendix 1).
Recommendation
That Academic Board and Council advertise the Chair of Surgery within the Southern Health Care Network, the incumbent also to be Head of that section of the Department.
6 May, 1997
g:\facbd\cod296.doc
Appendix 1
MONASH UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Review of Department of Surgery 1996
Recommendations of Review Panel
1. That the Chair of Surgery within the Southern Health Care Network be advertised to be filled in 1997
2. That this Chair be appointed as Head of the section of the Department located within the Southern Health Care Network
3. That the Curriculum Review Committee of the Faculty be asked to examine this report and to take up the educational issues identified in connection with surgical teaching and its integration with other disciplines
4. That the Head of Departments located within the major clinical networks consider in detail the potential for rationalization and streamlining of the organizational arrangements for administering their functions within each network
5. That the Department of Surgery give serious consideration, along with the Southern Health Care Network, to the definition of the role and responsibilities of the incoming Professor in relation to clinical services
6. That the Department of Surgery make serious efforts to deal with the financial management issues identified in this report