Meeting 4/2005 of the Committee of Deans will be held at 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 in the Monash City Office, Level 11, 30 Collins Street, Melbourne. Dinner will be served at 6.00 pm.

Tony Calder, Secretary

Members having a direct commercial or financial interest in any item before this meeting must declare that interest to the Chair via the Committee Secretary prior to consideration of the item, and must not take part in a vote on any matter concerning it.

Apologies have been received Professor E Cornish, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Professor M Liddell, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Malaysia, Professor T Pretorius, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Monash South Africa and Professor Homer Le Grand, Dean, Faculty of Arts.

In attendance will be Associate Professor Denise Cuthbert, Acting Dean, for Professor Le Grand and Professor John Anderson, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Business and Industry) for item 4.2.

Minutes of meeting 3/2005 of the Committee of Deans held on Tuesday, 10 May 2005 are attached. (Attachment 1) pp1-7

Following consideration of members’ comments, the matter is to return to Committee of Deans for further consideration. A document is attached. (Attachment 2) pp8-10

The Vice-Chancellor will introduce the following items:

The Vice-Chancellor will provide members with an update on a range of issues and recent events.

Professor John Anderson, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Business and Industry) will be in attendance for this item.

The following documents are attached:

Draft Position Description for Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International)

(Attachment 3) pp11-19

Draft Advertisement for position Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International) (Attachment 4) p20

A document is attached. (Attachment 5) pp21-28

The Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor will introduce the following item:

A document is attached. (Attachment 6) pp29-32

Given concerns, particularly about the downturn in enrolments in the Faculty of Information Technology and the potential impact of proposed VSU legislation, it could be helpful to start a discussion on how we would go about managing a financial crisis, if we were to have one.

I propose a number of possible ways of approaching crisis budgeting, if that is the situation we are in. It would be wise to start with an analysis of precisely how all the current 2005 budget targets are being met. If targets are not being met, or we believe that we face unexpected serious problems in 2006, then, by having an early discussion of where we are now would assist us in future discussions on University priorities and funding support. Perhaps we could begin with a preliminary discussion and follow up with more information at the next Committee of Deans on 2 August.

While it is a modest step towards the improved management of expenditure (both human and financial), I would like us to consider a process whereby, when changes are proposed or are afoot, as a ‘matter of course’ brief impact statements are prepared. I anticipate introducing such a process within my own faculty but think that it also would be helpful for any proposals with wider University impact.

For example, impact statements may include the following:

Who was doing the work and who will be doing it in future? eg new approach to credit cards

What will no longer be possible, what will become possible? eg on-line forms

What labour will it add or remove from the process? for whom? eg revision, addition or removal of form filling, membership of committees

What was the cost/quality, and what will be the cost/quality? for whom? eg novated leases for cars, Monash Brand guidelines, videoconferencing

What will be the ongoing maintenance costs after the project is complete and how will that be resourced? eg ITS initiatives, air conditioning (ask me!)

What are the opportunity costs? If we do this what will/may we have to give up? eg to fund these post docs will mean forgoing a reduction in SSR, which will enhance research more?

Impact statements should not be used in a way that inhibits change or dampens the enthusiasm of proponents of change, very often costs are warranted and/or necessary and shifts in costs sensible and ‘for the greater good’. However, we should be as fully informed as is practical about the impact of developments and about the relative impact of alternative or competing possibilities. If there were to be an overall increase in expenditure (financial or human) then we would be in a position to plan for it. If there were to be a shift in the location of the expenditure, the impact would be transparent and, if relevant, costs could be estimated and adjustments made in the starting point for budgets in following periods.

I am sure that many will look askance at the thought of more paper work and that for me to suggest it could be seen as a smidge inconsistent. I am not suggesting an elaborate form where the task becomes simply to fill in the boxes (and possibly even to mask the relevant information) and the purpose becomes to check up, but rather that we try to promote a good-will approach with an emphasis on transparency and good management.

I had thought of doing an impact statement for this proposal.

The next meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held at 2.15 pm on Tuesday, 2 August in the Sir George Lush Room, Clayton Campus.

Vice-Chancellor

Deputy Vice-Chancellor

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources)

Pro Vice-Chancellors

Deans/Acting Deans