Committee of Deans Meeting 3-2004
Meeting 3/2004 of the Committee of Deans was held at
3.00 pm on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 in the Monash City Office, Level 11, 30
Collins Street, Melbourne.
MINUTES
1 Attendance and apologies
There were present:
Professor R
Larkins AO, Vice-Chancellor
Professor S
Parker, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Professor A
Lindsay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
Professor E
Cornish, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
Ms A Crook AO,
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources)
Professor B
Mackenzie, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Gippsland Campus
Professor M
Liddell, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Malaysia (by teleconference)
Professor J K
Redmond, Dean, Faculty of Art and Design
Associate
Professor D Cuthbert, Acting Dean, Faculty of Arts
Professor G
Palmer, Dean, Faculty of Business and Economics
Professor S
Willis, Dean, Faculty of Education
Professor T
Sridhar, Dean, Faculty of Engineering
Professor R
Weber, Dean, Faculty of Information Technology
Professor H P
Lee, Acting Dean, Faculty of Law
Professor E
Byrne, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences
Professor C
Chapman, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy
Professor M
Clayton, Acting Dean, Faculty of Science
Professor M
King, Director, Research Graduate School
Ms M Jackson,
Executive Director, Marketing and Public Affairs (for item 11)
Mr P Marshall,
Divisional Director, Student and Staff Services (for item 4)
Mr N Pope,
Employee Relations Consultant, Employee Relations and Consultancy Branch
(for item 4) Apologies:
Professor J
Anderson, Pro Vice-Chancellor, South Africa
Professor H Le
Grand, Dean, Faculty of Arts
Professor A
Freiberg, Dean, Faculty of Law
Professor R
Norris, Dean, Faculty of Science Secretary: Mr T Calder, Director, Executive Services 2. Notes Notes of meeting 2/2004 of the Committee of Deans held
on 23 March 2004 were approved.
3. Matters arising from the
Minutes (not dealt with elsewhere in the Agenda)
4. Update on Enterprise
Bargaining Mr Peter Marshall and Mr Neil Pope were in attendance. A
document was tabled and returned at the end of the discussion.
Mr Marshall commented on aspects of the enterprise
bargaining negotiations including parental leave, academic workloads,
performance management, grievance procedures, Australian Workplace
Agreement clause, local and national issues raised by the NTEU and the
level of salary increases being discussed. 5 Backing Australia’s Future Implementation Professor Parker introduced the item noting that further
information was still required on some matters from DEST and that the
timing of some decisions in relation to fees may be impacted by
deadlines such as the production of the VTAC Guide.
Professor Larkins informed members that following
discussions with staff from regional campuses, few units had been
identified for exemption from the 25% fee increase. Further, advice had
been received that it might be counterproductive to exempt research
honours programs.
During discussion, the following matters were raised:
-
while two units of the Diploma of Foundation Studies
had been identified as possibly being appropriate for exemption from
fee increases, some concerns had been raised that to exempt only two
units might appear tokenistic;
-
as the next meeting of Council was scheduled for 12
July, there was still time for fresh ideas to be discussed;
-
it was noted that the redistribution of income from
increased fees would be an issue as some programs in education and
nursing were proscribed from the introduction of increased fee levels
and any exempt units would affect the revenue stream of
schools/faculties;
-
members were informed that a paper on the equity and
access components of the initiative would most likely be presented at
a meeting of the Senior Management Committee; and
-
a member suggested that the administration of
scholarships may have to be addressed.
Concluding the discussion, members were advised that the
issue of exemption of the two units in the Diploma of Foundation Studies
may be worth reconsidering as it may also provide an overall benefit to
the Gippsland Campus. 6 Overview of Pricing Policy During discussion of this item, members noted the
desirability of being able to:
-
calculate the income and expenditure of individual
courses rather than groups of courses;
-
develop a fully costed business case for new courses
and major variations to existing courses; and
-
Monash should critically evaluate non-profitable
courses.
7 Admission Scores Professor Merilyn Liddell introduced the discussion
noting that the primary issues of concern were:
Professor Liddell proposed that MUM have delegated
approval to set entry standards where the set standard would not fall
below a floor set by the faculty.
Members discussed the various admission policies set by
faculties, the needs of MUM and the issue of students transferring
between campuses.
Noting the advice of Professor Lindsay that Admissions
Committee was progressing the issue, Professor Larkins noted that there
was general support for the proposal and that Admissions Committee would
be requested to progress procedural aspects of the proposal. 8 Campus Planning – The Future
of Multi-Campus Monash: vision, governance and management
Re-thinking Campus Planning Methodology
The Future of Multi-Campus Monash: vision, governance
and management Following Professor Larkins’ comments on the need for
Monash to maximise the benefits of its multi-campus structure, Professor
Parker reminded members that a clear and coherent approach to campus
planning was critical to the future of Monash, however, it was an area
that Monash had yet to agree on an appropriate methodology.
Professor Parker outlined to members the proposed
approach as detailed in the document, The Future of Multi-Campus
Monash: vision, governance and management and advised that
multi-disciplinary collaboration and the level of collaboration were two
areas of the document that should have added emphasis.
Concluding the introductory statements, Professors
Larkins and Mackenzie commented that the issue of greater autonomy for
the Gippsland Campus would require consideration of issues such as load
distribution and reallocation, international marketing, faculty
relationships and planning and the current governance structures of the
University.
Members were invited to comment on the methodology and
the following range of comments and observations (focussing mainly on
the faculty-campus category) were made:
-
noting that two of the major areas of responsibility
were academic and administrative decision-making, it was suggested
that the input of Deans to academic decision-making was integral to
the operation of a campus whereas administration models might vary by
campus;
-
a concern was expressed that any division of academic
areas between faculties and a faculty campus may have negative
outcomes as established disciplines and academics enriched the
environment of new disciplines – particularly in the area of research;
-
noting that the faculty structure at Monash was one of
its greatest strengths, a member advised that the appointment of
academic staff was an academic not administrative issue that also
affected quality at Monash;
-
linkages across campuses were important for those
programs requiring accreditation;
-
the role of campus-based Pro Vice-Chancellors was
compared to that of a Deputy Vice-Chancellor insofar as the Deputy
Vice-Chancellors were required to work with faculties to develop a
vision and implement strategies to achieve that vision;
-
while it is a requirement to achieve research
excellence on all campuses, initially, it would be necessary to build
a critical mass of researchers on each campus, however, until then
researchers on a less research-intensive campus must be able to seek
help/assistance from colleagues based on other campuses;
-
it was suggested that a "solid" reporting line be
retained between academic staff and the Dean but that the authority of
the Pro Vice-Chancellor be strengthened;
-
PhD supervision may be an issue in the case of a
faculty/campus;
-
more explicit identification of the accountabilities
of Deans, Pro Vice-Chancellors and Heads of Schools was necessary
particularly in the areas of staffing responsibilities and budgets;
-
Pro Vice-Chancellors in Malaysia and South Africa
already had some staffing and budgetary control;
-
the Faculty of Business and Economics was developing
policies that incorporated primary and secondary supervisors; and
-
comparing the Malaysia and South Africa Campuses with
Gippsland Campus may be inappropriate given the different environments
they operated in and the different risk factors each encountered.
Concluding the discussion, Professor Larkins thanked
members for their contributions and advised that he would consider the
comments provided during the discussion particularly in the areas of
budget responsibility, staffing, academic and research activities and
academic quality and bring the matter back for further discussion. Re-thinking Campus Planning Methodology Professor Parker outlined the proposed devolved campus
planning methodology.
Noting support for the suggestion of planning for
Caulfield and Clayton as a single campus, the proposed methodology for
campus planning was approved. 9 Management structure and reporting relationships at Monash
University Malaysia Members discussed a range of issues relating to the
reporting relationships and responsibilities of the positions of Pro
Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Schools in Malaysia and Deans (domiciled in
Australia).
Professor Larkins summarised the outcomes of the
discussion and, noting the need for defined structures, recommended that
Mr Peter Marshall be requested to consult with relevant stakeholders and
develop position descriptions for Pro Vice-Chancellors, Heads of Schools
and Deans that clearly identified reporting lines (in both directions)
and responsibilities. 10 Fees for Government Supported Students in
Non-standard Semesters Members noted the advice of Professor Lindsay in
relation to the new provisions relating to Fees for Government Supported
Students in Non-standard Semesters. 11 The Age-Monash University Institute Proposal Following discussion, members gave in-principle support
for the proposal noting that the formal agreement could also include a
time period for review of the Institute’s initial period of operation
and a dispute resolution process. 12 Vice-Chancellor’s Scholarships This item was removed from the agenda at the request of
Professor Larkins. 13 Internet Quota Management System Members discussed the appropriateness of introducing a
less rigid quota management system, the imposition of an additional fee
on students who exceeded their quota, the use of the web for
non-academic purposes and the need for any new system to be as automatic
as possible.
Summarising the discussion, Professor Larkins indicated
that the approach presented by Ms Alison Crook be introduced noting that
warning letters should be supportive of academic use of the web and the
introduced system should not be overly bureaucratic. 14 India Professor Tam Sridhar distributed three documents,
Indo-Australian Conference on Biotechnology in Medicine, Striking
Rich (Extract from India Today) and Winter Academy 2002 and
outlined to members recent activities undertaken during his visit to
India.
Members noted that some strategies/initiatives
considered in relation to India included recruitment of PhD students,
improved partnership linkages and establishment of programs for
exceptional children and early childhood development.
Professor Larkins, noting that Monash was not fully
engaged with India, requested that Professor Parker establish a South
Asia Steering Group to be chaired by Professor Tam Sridhar. 15 Other business
16 Next meeting The next meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held
at 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 in the City Office. Distribution Vice-Chancellor
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources)
Pro Vice-Chancellors
Deans
Director, Research Graduate School
Executive Director, Marketing and Public Affairs
Divisional Director, Student and Staff Services
|
