Meeting 4/2000 of the Committee of Deans was held between 2.15 pm and 4.25 pm on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 in the Sir George Lush Room, ground floor, University Offices Building 3a, Clayton Campus.

Professor P LeP Darvall, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research and Development)

Professor A W Lindsay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Academic and Planning)

Ms A Crook, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Resources)

Professor J K Redmond, Dean, Faculty of Art and Design

Professor H Le Grand, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Interim Dean, Faculty of Science

Professor A Russell, Acting Dean, Faculty of Business and Economics

Professor D Gunstone, Acting Dean, Faculty of Education

Professor M L Brisk, Dean, Faculty of Engineering

Professor J Rosenberg, Dean, Faculty of Information Technology

Professor S Parker, Dean, Faculty of Law

Professor N Saunders, Dean, Faculty of Medicine

Professor C Chapman, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy

 In attendance were:

Mr John Levine, Divisional Director, Budget and Statistical Services for Item 4.3.2

Mr Reynold Dias, Manager, Budget and Client Liaison, Budget and Statistical Services for Item 4.3.2

Professor Merran Evans, Director, Planning and Academic Affairs for Item 4.3.3

Mr P Siggins, Manager, University Secretariat

Professor P LeP Darvall chaired the meeting. He advised that Item 4.3 would be dealt with before Item 4.2.

Apologies were received from Professor David Robinson (Vice-Chancellor and President) and Professor John Anderson (Pro Vice-Chancellor, South Africa).

The minutes of Meeting 2/2000 held 22 February 2000 were confirmed. (Members noted that meeting 3/2000 scheduled for 28 March had been cancelled).

3. Matters arising from the minutes not dealt with elsewhere in the agenda

There were no matters arising.

A paper, Learning Subjects Exchange (LSX) was tabled.

Professor C Chapman spoke to the paper.

Professor Chapman advised that the underlying principle behind the proposed establishment and operation of the LSX was that each faculty would have special relationships with particular groups in the community. Individuals within these groups were currently inclined to enrol in postgraduate courses offered by their "friendly" faculty, and would not seriously consider courses offered by other faculties despite the fact there would be subjects, even courses, which would be highly relevant in those other faculties. Accordingly, it was proposed that all relevant postgraduate subjects offered at Monash University be pooled and made available for each faculty to offer to its own client groups. Both the originating faculty and the "marketing" faculty would retain a reasonable portion of the fees obtained from the client groups: both would get their ‘cut’, and the originating faculty would indirectly expand the use if its IP.

There was general support of the proposal. Professor Chapman agreed to bring a progress report to the next ordinary meeting of the Committee of Deans (4^th July 2000).

Professor Redmond spoke to this item.

Professor Redmond reported that the working party was in the early stages of discussion but was currently exploring a range of issues in relation to the scheme. These centred on the appropriateness and longer term future of the funding arrangements. He suggested that if funding of the scheme was to become a faculty responsibility then a smooth transition was necessary. The target for the scheme was for 10% of first year students to have study abroad experience. Professor Redmond explored the ramifications of this if it was applied to Faculty EFTSU rather than bodies. Additional points raised in discussion included credit recognition of the studies completed by students, the need to include incentives for studying in countries where the language of instruction was other than English and the need to make the scheme challenging.

Professor Redmond agreed to bring a progress report to the next ordinary meeting of the Committee of Deans (4^th July 2000).

Professor Rosenberg spoke to this item.

Professor Rosenberg advised that the working party established to consider this matter would meet on 17 May for the first time. The working party would commence to collect data on the broad spectrum of the University’s off-campus operations, provide an analysis of the current activities and then draft a directional statement for consideration in wider fora. Professor Rosenberg agreed to bring a progress report to the next ordinary meeting of the Committee of Deans (4^th July 2000).

Professor Brisk spoke to this item.

Professor Brisk reported that enrolments in Monash College had exceeded targets and that an international agreement was progressing well.

The Foundation Year Program was also progressing well overseas but the mid year intake in Australia was below expectations. Overall, these programs were achieving the goals set for them.

Professor Darvall spoke to this item.

Professor Darvall reported that a new Research and Research Training Management Plan was due to be submitted to DETYA by 16 June 2000. A working party had been established and Associate Deans (Research) had been requested to provide necessary information for incorporation in the submissions. Members commented on the collection of data for this round and suggested that it should be retained centrally on a database located in the Research Office or attached to the performance management records. It was noted that in relation to the latter suggestion, confidentiality was an issue. Professor Darvall noted that different formats for the presentation of the data had been required each time and that it was necessary to go back to the departments as the ultimate repository of information on the research activity of staff. Professor Darvall also advised that where faculty plans incorporated research training management plans, the best features of these would be incorporated in an appendix to the Research Management Plan.

Professor Darvall advised that the distributed paper comprised one page from a consultant’s report that gave vital Monash information. Professor Darvall advised that timely completions of PhDs was a central issue. He suggested that allocations of scholarships should be based more heavily on completions rather than load. He advised that he would be asking each faculty for their own strategies to advance completion rates.

Professor Darvall introduced the paper noting that it was a joint initiative of the Pro Vice-Chancellor, Malaysia and the Executive Chair of the PhD and Scholarships Committee. The endorsement of the Committee of Deans was sought. Members expressed general support for the paper but noted that staff at the Malaysia Campus had expressed concern at being categorised as external students. A member questioned whether the 20 days residency requirement was necessary in this case. Members also sought clarification of the wording in paragraph 2.2.2, page 2 of the paper, particularly the reference to the Faculty Dean. Professor Darvall advised he would take up the questions raised with Professor Max King.

Professor Lindsay spoke to this item.

Professor Lindsay advised that two topics needed to be dealt with: (i) award structures and pathways and (ii) service and value for fees paid.

In relation to award structures and pathways, Professor Lindsay commented that a more structured approach to awards was necessary. Currently, there exists within the University a wide range of awards and variations on those awards. More specifically, there was pressure from international students for direct entry to postgraduate awards without preliminary work. Masters degrees needed to be reviewed with regard to entry level, duration and exit standards.

Masters degrees were currently being reviewed with Professor Merran Evans overseeing discussions with Associate Deans (Teaching) and Associate Deans (Graduate Studies). It was envisaged that policy regarding Masters degrees would be reviewed at Education Committee in light of the extensive differentiation of these programs. The Education Committee would address the question of what would be the most suitable structure for Masters degrees at Monash. Deans would need to be aware of these issues and focus on the strategic needs of their faculty. There was comment on the need for a competitive Masters structure – especially the need for shorter Masters degrees in light of other institution’s programs.

In relation to service and value for fees paid, Professor Lindsay reported on discussion that he and Ms Crook had had with representatives of the MPA. A range of topics had been covered including library opening hours, access to computers, accommodation and the student organizations governance structure in which postgraduates were obliged to participate through undergraduate organizations. There was broad discussion of postgraduate student issues and the need to provide services and infrastructure at a suitable standard across the University.

A paper, Responses to Draft Paper – Integrated Academic and Resource Planning was tabled. Professor Lindsay reported that he had received thoughtful and detailed responses to the circulated paper. Further development of the audit process foreshadowed in the paper would await the government paper on quality assurance. The roles of Academic Board, Education Committee, CADets and the Committee of Deans would also need further consideration in the context of the proposed devolved course approval process. Professor Lindsay drew attention to the revised schedule noting that a further document would be distributed to the Committee of Deans on 4^th July.

Associate Deans (Teaching) would need to have a broad understanding of both resource and academic issues. At the next meeting of Deans, a prototype of the operating system may be ready for consideration.

A paper, Learning and Teaching Plan 2000 had been distributed. The Committee of Deans endorsed the process as outlined and confirmed the tasks proposed for 2000.

At the invitation of Ms Crook, Mr Levine spoke to the paper, Preparation for 2001 Budget. Mr Levine explained that Table 1 set out revenue targets for the years 2001 to 2003 in relation to income from non-government sources. Table 2 gave a breakdown of revenue targeted from student fees and Table 3 set out the student load for each category of students. Mr Levine highlighted the need to increase fee-paying student load over current levels by around 4,300 EFTSU by 2003.

Faculty figures were to be developed and Mr Levine indicated he would be visiting Deans to discuss indicative faculty student numbers over the next few weeks. He also advised that he would discuss with Deans individually the setting of targets for areas of income other than student fees such as consultancies, research grants and other external earning capacity.

In discussion, it was noted that the figures made provision for enterprise bargaining outcomes while noting that registration of an enterprise bargaining agreement was not yet in place.

Ms Crook explained that a new approach to financial planning would apply for 2002 with charges for space use and timetabling in place so that real costs could be ascertained.

The committee endorsed the proposal to establish two chairs in Electronic Business as detailed in the documents presented.

A paper had been distributed. Professor Brisk spoke to the paper and commented on the tables setting out OHS & E and the need for vigilance and continuing the effort to improve standards across the University.

Professor Saunders spoke to this item and expressed concern that deadline for submissions for the current Science Technology and Innovations round would not be met in a sufficiently coordinated/integrated way. Proposals were coming forward from across the University and there was a lack of oversight and adequate communication. In this context, there was considerable discussion of cross faculty course developments and the need for Professor Lindsay’s proposed devolved course approval process to address this matter.

Professor Saunders raised the general issue of intra faculty communication and cooperative endeavours in the context of this discussion.

The committee approved the revised meeting dates as proposed. Accordingly, the Committee of Deans agreed to meet on 25 July 2000 (not 18 July) and the October meeting of the Deans Discussion Group would be held on Monday, 9 October 2000 (not 10 October).

There were no additional items

8. Next meeting

The next meeting of the Deans Discussion Group will be held at 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 in the City Office.