Committee of Deans Meeting 6-2004

Meeting 6/2004 of the Committee of Deans was held at 3.00pm on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 in the Sir George Lush Room, Administration Building 3a, Clayton Campus.

Professor R Larkins AO, Vice-Chancellor

Professor S Parker, Deputy Vice-Chancellor

Professor E Cornish, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)

Ms A Crook AO, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources)

Professor B Mackenzie, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Gippsland

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

Professor H Le Grand, 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 A Freiberg, Dean, Faculty of Law

Professor E Byrne, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences

Professor C Chapman, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy

Professor R Norris, Dean, Faculty of Science

Professor M King, Director, Research Graduate School

Professor Chris Browne, President, Academic Board

Professor Graham Webb, Director, Centre for Higher Education Quality

Dr Grant McBurnie, Executive Officer, Office of International Development

Ms Michelle King, Executive Officer, Office the Deputy Vice-Chancellor

Ms Jane Holt, Project Manager, Research Services, Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)

Professor Alan Lindsay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

Professor Merilyn Liddell, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Malaysia

Professor John Anderson, Pro Vice-Chancellor, South Africa

Mr T Calder, Director, Executive Services

The Minutes of meeting 5/2004 of the Committee of Deans held on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 were approved subject to the following amendment to the first dot point of item 3.2 Gippsland Campus – Roles and responsibilities:

• "referring to the role of the Dean and Pro Vice-Chancellor in the academic promotion process, it was suggested that this was a role for the Head of School and that the procedure should be combined with also remain consistent with promotion rounds managed by faculties;"

Following an outline of the background and purpose of the review, members were invited to provide comment and advice. The major themes developed during the discussion were:

• the Monash South Africa strategy needed to be better communicated;

• the international strategy in 2000 was well articulated but over time, Monash had progressed and evolved and the changes to the strategy had not been well communicated to stakeholders;

• the vision and strategy for a campus in Malaysia could be better articulated;

• the issue of quality, perception of quality and what is meant when referring to quality (in different markets) should be evident in the discourse;

• the need to clearly explain the role of off-shore campuses and centres and role of on-line learning;

• at times, the link between the vision and a "decision" was not clear;

• there appeared to be little statistical data to support the notion of the exchange of students and staff between Australia and off-shore campuses;

• in some areas, such as China, developing relationships with key universities had assumed a greater emphasis;

• no overarching governance model existed that Monash could readily adopt;

• a view existed, in some areas, that Monash could do anything it wanted so therefore, should the strategies be refined to include some "hard edges";

• international students needed "nurturing cultural support";

• some international students wanted an Australian experience and therefore, Monash needed to ensure appropriate student cohorts at its campuses and in the classroom;

• the question was raised as to whether a cap on the number of international students should be introduced;

• in discipline/faculty areas where international students had not reached a critical mass, additional language and cultural support needed to be provided; and

• noting the objective of providing students with an international experience, it was suggested that further effort was required to internationalise the curriculum.

Professor Edwina Cornish provided members with an outline of the background to the review and commented on the major themes as detailed in the agenda papers. The major themes/suggestions developed during discussion included:

• the issue of probation criteria and the need for it to be specified in an employment contract – the Vice-Chancellor noted that this matter should be explored further;

• workload models that incorporated all three facets being teaching, research and time for administrative tasks;

• that proposals for new initiatives should include a "research impact statement" along the lines of the library impact statement;

• the discourse at Monash should emphasise research and teaching;

• in relation to "time for research", a member suggested that increased compliance requirements were eroding available time for dedicated research – in response, it was suggested that the appropriate use of administrative staff would help alleviate the issue;

• during discussion of the membership and effective use of committee structures and their role in ensuring appropriate communication, members noted that a number of issues including that the "best researchers" were often the staff that would also be the best selection for membership of some working parties/committees, the purpose and delegated authority for each level of governance could be better communicated and not all faculties needed to be represented on every working party/committee;

• the University could refine its processes to reduce the amount of paper generated;

• what was the criteria for saying "no" to an initiative and do we always ask the hard questions;

• given the spectrum of views held by some academic staff relating to research activity, it may be necessary to develop a range of strategies to accommodate and encourage research activity; and

• strategic cost management and funding models still required some refinement.

The Vice-Chancellor thanked Professor Cornish and Ms Jane Holt for leading the discussion and members for their views on the review topic.

The Committee of Deans approved the following meeting dates and locations for 2005:

Committee of Deans

Senior Management Committee

*the need to hold this meeting will be reviewed closer to the meeting date

The Vice-Chancellor advised that he would like to implement an annual process whereby a spectrum of senior staff selected by each Dean and Pro Vice-Chancellor were requested to complete an evaluation questionnaire (six to eight questions) on the performance of the Dean.

Following discussion, it was agreed that similar instruments from other universities would be sought and the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) would develop a draft instrument for consideration.

The Vice-Chancellor outlined to members proposed changes to the senior management structure. The changes would be considered by Council at its meeting on Monday, 27 September 2004.

The next meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held at 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 in the City Office.

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