In response to this request, two documents dated 17 July 1996, prepared by Mr J Matthews, Director, Financial Services, were received. One document provided an overview of the University's Travel Policy (D88/96) and the other the Frequent Flyer Points Policy (D89/96). Members agreed that the documents provided useful information. The University Travel Policy was noted and endorsed.

The question of adequate death cover insurance for University staff travelling on business was raised. The Committee was advised that the American Express Corporate Card had an option for this insurance offering higher cover than that offered by the current Monash travel policy at a cost in the order of $28 (per trip). The General Manager agreed to investigate the possibility of purchasing death cover through the Corporate Card.

The Vice-Chancellor stated that the document on Frequent Flyer Points reiterated the policy enunciated at the previous meeting. He acknowledged that policing would be difficult, but noted that the University had a responsibility to ensure points earned on University travel were used for University business. The document was noted as University policy and endorsed.

The question of travel funds provided by outside granting bodies and the frequent flyer points which might accrue from such travel was discussed. It was agreed that money coming to and expended by the University, should be subject to the University's frequent flyer points policy.

The documents provided information on the Education Profile submission 1997- 99 and Student load profile 1991-1996. The General Manager advised that, although the 1996 tables had been adjusted to reflect the actual situation, figures for 1997 and 1998 had not been amended since the last submission, pending the August Federal budget. Deans discussed higher degree by research numbers, noting the Vice-Chancellor's belief that numbers should represent a higher percentage of the overall load than was currently the situation. It was noted that Monash was funded for a smaller percentage of higher degrees by research than some other universities, and that DEETYA had not agreed to an increase in that funding when previously requested. The Vice-Chancellor suggested that any increase in numbers would need to come from a trade-off in undergraduate load. The Committee agreed that the capacity of each faculty to increase its postgraduate load was different, and that a target of 10% was neither achievable nor affordable. The effect of an increase in Monash Graduate Scholarship funding was discussed. It was agreed that scholarship funding was not limiting growth, but that the problem lay with the ability to attract higher degree candidates combined with a lack of government funding. The availability of suitable staff to supervise students was also seen as an important consideration. The Dean of Medicine, Professor R Porter, queried some information in the tabled document, highlighting possible omissions and incorrect data. Other Deans held similar reservations about the completeness of the information. The General Manager agreed to delay forwarding the profile document to Canberra until Deans had been able to review the information relating to their faculties and provide amendments and additional comments for inclusion in the final draft. Deans were requested to provide amendments to the General Manager by lunchtime on Thursday 25 July 1996.

3.2 Overseas Graduations

The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Logan, advised Deans that the 1996 series of graduations in Asia had just been completed. He acknowledged that they had been well received, but that he found it difficult to measure the return. He suggested that some of the Alumni functions had been worthwhile, but that others had been of little value. In his view the overseas graduations and associated Alumni functions should be kept under review; however he requested the views of others who had attended the ceremonies. Pro Vice-Chancellor Professor L H T West advised that the cost of overseas graduations were met for the most part by Monash International and in 1996 had amounted to $259,000, excluding salaries and the Vice-Chancellor's travel. He noted that Monash had been the first university to establish overseas graduations and that other universities had followed Monash's lead. He stated that the goodwill created as a result of graduation ceremonies was enormous and that to discontinue would be interpreted as a diminution of service. Pro Vice-Chancellor Professor P C Chandler supported retaining overseas graduations and the associated Alumni functions. He focussed on the chance for senior people to meet, and anticipated that in the future such affiliations might lead to financial support for the University. Deans supported the continuation of overseas graduation ceremonies, despite the high cost. There was agreement that they provided an added service which, while not affecting numbers, would be difficult to discontinue. Professor Rickard congratulated the Vice-Chancellor on his excellent Occasional Addresses, in particular at the Kuala Lumpur ceremony.

3.3 Group of 8

The Vice-Chancellor briefed Deans on the current status of the group. He advised that each university had contributed $10,000 each to a fund, although the purpose of the money had not been finalised. The group had agreed on regular meeting dates for the remainder of 1996 and for 1997, but a spokesperson had not yet been appointed.

The Dean of Law, Professor C R Williams, summarised his understanding of the Education Committee's original role as being to relieve the Academic Board of work, to provide a general forum for discussion and to initiate action if faculty boards were not doing their job. He stated that he believed the Education Committee was now more specific and that, compared with areas such as financial management and staffing which had been devolved with mechanisms put in place to reduce the amount of detail reported centrally, the Education Committee was out of kilter with its demand for detail.

Referring to Professor Pargetter's outline of the processes undertaken by the Committee (D91/96), Professor Williams suggested that the work be carried out by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Officer with faculty registrars undertaking the work of Associate Deans (Teaching), whose focus he believed, should be teaching.

As Chairman of the Education Committee, Professor R J Pargetter commented on the hard work of Associate Deans (Teaching) and the benefits to each other and to the University. He reported that in their judgement, they would be unable to advise Academic Board adequately if less information were provided by faculties. He explained that issues were resolved by two Associate Deans who worked with the Associate Dean of the relevant faculty and then made recommendations to Education Committee. He reminded Deans that the coordination of the review of the Discipline Statute had been referred to the Education Committee by the Committee of Deans and Academic Board. He also said that Academic Board had responsibility for a guarantee of quality of teaching and for maintenance of standards, which were impossible to meet if the Board itself had to deal with all the detail.

The Vice-Chancellor noted that since all new subjects had been approved by Education Committee, the information forwarded to Academic Board was far more manageable than in the past.

The Dean of Medicine, Professor R Porter, stated that he believed Academic Board required advice in regard to standards, but that more responsibility must be directed to faculty boards to ensure the information provided took into account the requirement to meet standards. He suggested a need to structure faculty boards better before Education Committee could be reduced.

The Dean of Pharmacy Professor C B Chapman made the following points:

The volume of work going to Education Committee mitigates against attention to fuller issues, eg staff development of the University's teachers;

Audits work well in other areas - more responsibility should be placed on faculty boards to filter information adequately;

The Education Committee appeared not to want to give autonomy to faculties, even if tempered by a system of checks and balances.

Responding to the Vice-Chancellor's query about what could be removed from Education Committee's responsibility, Professor Pargetter advised that nothing which was not historical was now an Education Committee responsibility. The practice of Academic Board returning course/subject proposals to faculties for further information, thus delaying the approval process, no longer occurred as a matter of course. In the case of a proposal for a Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Science (Hons) however, Professor Pargetter said the Education Committee had required further advice from the faculty because a new principle was involved with implications for other faculties.

Subject changes were discussed and the Chair of the Education Committee advised that these changes were approved by faculties and only reported to Education Committee.

The Dean of Computing and Information Technology, Professor C J Bellamy, suggested that members of Education Committee were required to make judgements on subjects about which they had no knowledge and suggested that instead, Deans or Associate Deans (Teaching) be required to certify that a subject proposal met standards. He noted that Education Committee had two years ago been requested to look at degree regulations and develop a proforma that would be computable, but that it had not reported back.

Professor Pargetter advised Deans that despite having been approved by faculty boards and signed by faculty registrars as meeting the requirements, 75% of submissions did not meet requirements and generally the omissions were not of a minor nature. He advised that submissions were not returned to faculties, but consultation was undertaken by the Executive Officer.

The Deans of Arts, Business and Economics and Education supported the work of Education Committee, citing the importance of adequately assessing submissions and maintaining quality. The Dean of Education advised that Education Committee was vital in the assessment of double degrees. While affirming the role of the Education Committee, the Vice-Chancellor suggested that the Education Committee be asked to:

• Look at ways to reduce workload;
• Take a more pro-active role in education issues and make
• recommendations to Academic Board;
• Look at its role with a view to addressing some of the concerns raised by
• Deans;
• Review its procedures with a view to removing any superfluous tasks

The Committee discussed the possibility of the Education Committee providing regular reports to the Committee of Deans.

Mr Trembath advised that the Monash Print Services was under review and that a report had been received from an outside consultant. Referring to the benchmarking statistics on page 33 of the Agenda, Mr Trembath said that, with the exception of building maintenance, Monash was doing well compared with other universities surveyed. He suggested that outsourcing tasks such as cleaning roof gutters might assist in lowering maintenance costs.

Mr Trembath reported that the Docutech machine had been installed in the Faculty of Law (Agenda page 24), with projected savings of $100,000 pa. He reported plans to extend this service to other faculties in due course.

In response to a question from the Dean of Arts, Professor Quartly, Mr Trembath gave an assurance that no decrease in maintenance service would occur as a result of outsourcing. He stated that the University's aim was to spend less money to achieve the same result. He also advised the Committee that there was funding in the current budget for maintenance/refurbishment of the Menzies Building, but pointed out that significant improvement would take time. In response to concerns about OH&S (safety lighting) and fire risks in the Education building raised by the Dean of Education, Professor White, the Vice- Chancellor and Mr Trembath assured the Committee that the University met the minimum OH&S requirements for the assessed safety risk of all buildings, and that upgrading would be carried out in an organised manner according to risk.

10.3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Career Development

Deputy Vice Chancellor Professor Lauchlan Chipman circulated a document (D99/96) for information.

10.4 Vote of thanks

The Vice-Chancellor noted that the meeting was the last Professor Chipman would attend. He thanked him for his contribution to the University and wished him well for the future.