Senior Management Committee Meeting 7-2004

Meeting 7/2004 of the Senior Management Committee was held at 2.15 pm on Tuesday, 19 October, 2004 in the Council Room, 1^st Floor, University Offices Building 3a, Clayton campus.

Professor Richard Larkins AO: Vice-Chancellor and President, Presiding

Professor Stephen Parker: Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor

Professor Alan Lindsay Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

Ms Alison Crook AO Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources)

Professor Brian Mackenzie: Pro Vice-Chancellor, Gippsland

Professor John Anderson: Pro Vice-Chancellor, South Africa

Professor Merran Evans: Pro Vice-Chancellor, Planning and Director, Monash University Centre in London

Professor Graham Webb: Pro Vice-Chancellor, Quality

Professor Max King: Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research and Research Training

Professor Phillip Steele: Pro Vice-Chancellor (Melbourne) and Academic Director, Berwick & Peninsula

Mr Tony Pollock: Vice-President, International

Professor John Redmond: Dean, Faculty of Art and Design

Professor Sue Willis: Dean, Faculty of Education

Professor Tam Sridhar: Dean, Faculty of Engineering

Professor Ron Weber: Dean, Faculty of Information Technology

Professor Colin Chapman: Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy

Professor Rob Norris: Dean, Faculty of Science

Mr Alan McMeekin: Executive Director, Information Technology Services

Professor Denise Kirkpatrick: Director, Learning & Teaching

Mr John Levine: Divisional Director, Financial Resources Management

Mr Peter Marshall: Divisional Director, Student and Staff Services

Mr Stephen Davey: Divisional Director, Facilities and Services

Mr Renn Wortley: University Solicitor

Professor Rob Willis: Academic Director, Caulfield

Ms Rhonda Hinds: Executive Officer, Senior Management Committee

Professor Chris Browne, Professor Edwina Cornish, Professor Homer Le Grand, Professor Merilyn Liddell and Professor Gill Palmer

• Associate Professor David Garrioch - Acting Dean, Faculty of Arts

• Professor HP Lee – Acting Dean, Faculty of Law

• Professor Michael Berndt – Acting Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences

• Mr Tony Calder - Director, Executive Services

• Dr Jon Dellandrea – Vice-President and Chief Advancement Officer, University of Toronto for Item 4.1.1

• Ms Pru Sanderson – Chief Executive Officer, Monash Property Management for Item 4.5.1

• Ms Kate Elliott – Project Management, Monash Property Management for Item 4.5.1

• Ms Elenore Videion – Project Manager, Senior Leadership Development for Item 4.5.2

The Minutes of Meeting 6/2004 of the Senior Management Committee held on 31 August 2004 were approved as an accurate record.

Dr Dellandrea, Vice-President and Chief Advancement Officer, University of Toronto, delivered a presentation on "Building Successful Advancement Programs", in which he traced the development of the University’s successful 10-year fundraising program.

In the course of his presentation, Dr Dellandrea referred to a number of factors that had contributed to the success of the campaign, and developed these into a series of steps key to the success of an advancement strategy:

• Organisational planning – shaping the mission, determining priorities which will achieve that mission and consequent translation of those priorities to fundraising.

• Embracing of institutional aspirations and the role of advancement at the highest organisational level.

• Setting of high, but achievable, goals.

• Establishment of a stable advancement funding base.

• Recruitment, support and retention of the best possible advancement staff.

• Development and support for long-term relationships with donors and potential donors.

• Emphasis on differentiation.

• Integration of advancement into broad institutional communications.

Subsequent discussion canvassed a range of issues, including:

• Strategies to encourage donations in view of Australia’s lack of a broad philanthropic culture.

• Difficulty in recruitment of appropriate staff, given the small market for top-class development personnel.

• Emphasis in fundraising on advancement of the institution and its academic planning - development activity must be subservient to the institution’s academic priorities.

• Flexibility in campaigning needed to be flexible e.g. relationships with offshore alumni may need to be handled differently from domestic alumni; there may be campus-relevant differences.

• Academic priorities might vary over the life of an endowment. Consequently, endowments should include a "power to vary" clause exercisable in consultation with the donor/estate

On behalf of the Committee, Professor Larkins thanked Dr Dellandrea for an inspirational, informative and thought-provoking presentation.

Professor Larkins reported on his recent visit to a number of South African campuses, and in particular on the positive responses to Monash’s South African activities.

Professor Anderson noted that applications for enrolment at Monash’s South African campus for 2005 were in excess of double those for the current year.

Professor Larkins reported that work on budgets submitted by the faculties was ongoing, with an aim of achieving a surplus of at least 4% of the operating budget, meeting strategic initiatives and funding strategic priorities.

Professor Parker advised that the revised 20-year strategic directions statement would be discussed at a forthcoming meeting of the Vice-Chancellor’s Group, drafts would be sent to key groups for consideration and the framework would then be considered at the Council retreat in February 2005.

Professor Parker reported that several draft campus academic plans had been developed. The next step in the process would be to visit the Malaysian campus. It was expected that a draft for each campus would be produced by the end of the year.

Professor Parker informed the meeting that the Senior Managers’ Planning Conference had identified priorities for the following calendar year. These would be considered by Council in November/December, for implementation in the following year. Despite the "catch up" nature of the process in its initial stages, it was anticipated that over time, the planning process would start to drive the priorities.

Professor Parker reported that:

The visits component of the International Self-Review was nearing conclusion. A series of recommendations regarding international operations would be released at the end of 2004/early 2005.

The review of the Monash Abroad Scheme was underway. Preparation of the report would commence at the end of the week. Submissions should therefore be made as soon as possible.

Professor Parker reported on the increasing success of the Prato Centre and promising discussions with King’s College and the Universities of Nottingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Mr Marshall updated members on the status of enterprise bargaining negotiations, noted that little progress had been made since the last meeting and advised that certification of an agreement before mid-2005 was unlikely.

In introducing this item, Ms Crook emphasised that:

• Academic plans were the drivers for the urban plans.

• A sequence for the order of developments for each campus was required, to feed into the development of an overall sequence in line with academic plans, and which would form the basis of the rolling works plan.

Ms Sanderson then presented to the meeting an update of the development sequencing activities for Clayton and Caulfield, noting that the sequence year (though not the sequence order) may alter as campus plans were brought together.

Ms Crook introduced this item, observing that the program had reached its 4^th intake.

Ms Videion reported on the development of the program to date, noting the positive feedback received from participants. During discussion, it was indicated that a variant of the program would be offered to Deans and senior administration managers.

Ms Crook spoke briefly to the impetus for the proposal, emphasising the negative impact on the university’s surplus and liquidity ratio of the carrying forward of large leave balances, for which institutional liability continued to accrue.

Mr Marshall then spoke to the Proposal for Management of Annual Leave Balances, and indicated that a two-stage process for dealing with excess leave was proposed:

• Removal of leave in excess of 40 days in the absence of submission of an approved leave plan.

• Enforcement of the 30 day leave "cap" with effect from 31 December 2004.

Mr Marshall emphasised the importance of submission of a leave plan, and advised that staff with excess leave balances would be contacted individually.

In noting the Proposal for Management of Annual Leave Balances, the meeting observed that:

• Care was required in dealing with submitted leave plans – excess leave should not be rolled over as a matter of course. Approval in such circumstances should be a matter for the Dean.

• Accepting that leave might not be taken until later in 2005, the proposal as encapsulated in the agenda paper required clarification, insofar as it appeared to be insistent on reduction of excess leave, rather than the importance of submission of leave plans.

• The intention of the proposal must be made clear to staff, who would therefore be advised of the option to submit a leave plan (which was required to be in writing).

Mr Pollock reported on the downward trend in applications and observed that this was attributable to a range of market forces:

• Increased competition, including developments in China and Singapore and increased UK presence.

• Increase in on-line study.

• Erosion of Australian price advantage.

• Increased agency commission costs.

• Student discernment regarding offers of RPL etc.

• Confusion regarding Monash’s multi-campus nature.

There was particular concern for Monash in the following areas:

• Group of Eight performance was generally down in comparison to the Australian market; Monash had not performed as well as the Group of Eight.

• There was significant loss of ground in China and Malaysia.

• None of the growth in India had been captured.

• Enrolments in access programs had declined.

Mr Pollock indicated that there were a number of strategies which Monash should consider adopting, and undertook to source additional information and develop an action plan for consideration at the next meeting of the SMC.

Reports on the following matters would be presented to the next SMC meeting:

• Quality assurance and tuition assurance mechanisms in Singapore

• ESOS Review

• Registration of overseas agents

The meeting noted the Committee’s Terms of Reference, including the updated Membership List.

The meeting noted the proposed schedule of meeting dates for 2005 and observed that a number of meetings would be held at campuses other than Clayton.

The next meeting of the Senior Management Committee will be held at 2.15 pm on Tuesday 23 November 2004 in the Council Room.