Professor Stephen Parker: Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Presiding

Professor Edwina Cornish: Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research)

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 & Research Training

Professor Phillip Steele: Pro Vice-Chancellor, Campus Coordination and Academic Director, Berwick & Peninsula

Mr Clive Vernon: Senior Manager Business Development, Monash 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 Arie Freiberg: Dean, Faculty of Law

Professor Warwick Anderson: Acting Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences

Dr Cristina Varsavsky: Acting Dean, Faculty of Science

Mr Alan McMeekin: Executive Director, Information Technology Services

Mr Greg Connell: Director, Audit and Risk Management

Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree: University Librarian

Professor Denise Kirkpatrick: Director, Learning & Teaching

Mr John Levine: Divisional Director, Financial Resources Management

Mr John Marshall: Divisional Director, Corporate Finance

Mr Peter Marshall: Divisional Director, Student and Staff Services

Mr Stephen Davey: Divisional Director, Facilities and Services

Mr Renn Wortley: University Solicitor

Ms Peggy Daroesman: Director, Research Support

Professor David Copolov: Senior Advisor on Special Initiatives

Professor Richard Larkins, Professor Alan Lindsay, Ms Alison Crook AO, Professor Brian Mackenzie, Professor Merilyn Liddell, Professor Gill Palmer, Professor Colin Chapman, Professor Rob Norris, Professor Chris Browne and Professor Rob Willis

Ms Shirley Lee, Office of Audit and Risk Management (for agenda item 5.3)

Mr Andrew O’Brien, CEO Monyx (for agenda item 10.2)

Ms Melany Blackwell, Project Manager, Major Projects (for agenda item 10.4)

• No suggestions for amendment had been received to date.
• The Committee of Deans had discussed its role at the February meeting.
• The agenda had been restructured to align it with the revised Terms of Reference.

In discussion, members observed that:

• Whilst essentially advisory in nature, the Committee exercised decision-making responsibilities by dispensation. The nature of the contribution sought from the Committee regarding individual items should therefore be appropriately reflected on the agenda.
• The business dealt with by the Committee should be prioritised in view of Monash Directions 2025.
• Agenda headings would remain constant, to facilitate tracking of the volume of business under each heading from meeting to meeting.

Members were advised that following Meeting 8/2004 a small group had met (in January) to examine and shape issues relevant to international student recruitment. This group recommended preparation of a briefing paper on the approach to international recruitment which would be taken to a full SMC meeting. That meeting (the April meeting) would also consider Ms Jill Dixon’s report on the processes of international recruitment in detail.

In discussion, several members emphasised that the issue of international student fees was critical – faculties were under pressure to make an early call on fees, when this should be a later step in the process. The University’s planning and budget cycle would provide a key reference point for the process of setting fees for international students.

A paper from University Planning and Statistics office – Local Fee Paying Load – Actual versus Planned (as at 7 March 2005) – was then tabled.

The Chair explained that the above papers provided up-to-date data, including shortfalls and 2004 comparators. He observed that enrolment shortfalls had been offset by a higher returning load, which, for Semester 2/2004, had exceeded expectations.

Members discussed a range of issues, including:

• The relevance of attrition rates.
• The impact of fluctuations due to Monash International’s week-by-week acceptance rates.
• Load planning methodologies and variability of second semester figures.
• The importance of load planning at faculty level and cross-faculty experience of an element of the downturn in fee-paying students

Members were advised that a ‘worst case scenario’ would see a shortfall of 550 students, with a negative financial impact of $10 – 11 million.

Noting the importance of contingency planning in dealing with the impact of fluctuating figures, members considered that:

• Charting the trend was difficult, as this was the first time Monash had experienced a downturn in student numbers.
• Monash was implementing a business recovery process.
• A growth scenario included ambitions for infrastructure investment.
• The role of VCG was crucial, both in the opportunity for further dialogue at Faculty level and in developing cost control options.
• A number of expenses were fixed e.g. labour (locked into the EB), interest costs.
• Whilst unexpected fluctuations might be short-term in impact, it was necessary to develop a longer-term strategy, which could change to the way Monash conducted business. Scenario planning would be useful in developing such a strategy.

Members also discussed a range of issues relating to fiscal planning alternatives.

Applications for the position of Chief Financial Officer closed 11 March. Monash would be working with the search consultants over the next two weeks.

A half-day workshop in late April would focus on strategy, following which comments would be sought from stakeholders. Members were advised that campus-related issues would be discussed at the next meetings of SMC and the Committee of Deans.

Members discussed the relationship between the International Plan and approval processes for transnational activities, observing that whilst the latter was targeted at refinement of decision-making, a change in international strategy might prompt change at the process level.

Members discussed the criteria for application of the Risk Assessment Guidelines. The following points were made:

• The Guidelines would be applied to any venture that required Resources and Finance (R&F) Committee approval.
• The guidelines were targeted at major projects (and smaller initiatives if applicable).
• As proposals to establish CRCs were submitted to R&F, such proposals would require a risk analysis and plan.
• Given the requirement to incorporate CRCs (in the current round) and the consequent necessity for Council (on R&F Committee recommendation) to resolve that it was in the university’s interests to join the incorporated entity, the templates could be useful.
• The templates had already been used successfully in various areas e.g. offshore activities in China.

Members expressed concern that the process not be applied to lower level projects and queried the ‘major projects and ventures’ trigger for application of the risk assessment process as outlined in the agenda papers. Members also identified areas in the documentation which required further work:

• Greater reference to teaching and research.
• Inadequate reference to risks relating to research e.g. lack of research output; loss of key researchers.
• Faculty-based risks.
• Building – related issues.

It was suggested that further work be undertaken on the guidelines. In particular, the commencement of the document would be strengthened to more clearly delineate its application; other omissions identified by members would also be addressed.

Members responded that it was important to have skilled support to develop themes, recommendations and feed back issues and actions to stakeholders. The trend overall was to engage external assistance on a fee for service basis. VCG (Q) kept track of people who were efficient at providing review support.

In discussion, members highlighted several additional areas that would benefit from inclusion in the approval processes:

• Joint badged degrees.
• Support services e.g. negotiation by the Library of an agreement with the LSE.
• Inclusion of ‘capability’ for a collaboration to succeed.

It was agreed that the paper would be amended to include these areas.

Members considered a range of issues relating to the Stage 1 requirements, including:

• The requirement to include sessional in addition to full-time academic staff.
• The requirement for relevant documentation to be publicly available on the University’s website.
• The need for Monash to review its promotions guidelines, a process which was currently underway.
• The availability of comprehensive unit evaluation results post - 3 June.
• Improvement to the guidelines for candidates and committees in the professorial appointments round.

In discussion over student evaluations of teaching, the following points were made:

• The enterprise bargain did not canvass this issue – if the current unit evaluation process did not satisfy the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund criteria, then a mechanism would need to be introduced via development of an appropriate policy.
• Unit evaluations were to be distinguished from teaching evaluations (which were administered through MonQueST and whose data was sought by promotions committees).

Research Performance Indicators

In discussing research expectations from staff, members considered that:

• It was expected that Level B and C academic staff would apply for competitive grants.
• Analysis of research performance per capita was undertaken. 2004 figures had been provided to faculties.
• Monash’s poor performance could be tied to the discipline mix. A better comparison could be achieved by benchmarking on a comparable departmental basis.
• The key to improving performance was to emphasise the importance of research at Levels B and C. This message should be driven by VCG.
• Researchers should be aware of the availability of other sources of funding apart from ARC and NHMRC grants.
• In a number of cases, research was undertaken without application for external funding.
• Staff hired to drive the application process impacted positively on the number of ARC grants. It was therefore important to look at staff profiles.
• It would be a useful exercise to learn from the benchmarking process undertaken by Newcastle, Kings and Nottingham (through RAE).

Mr Connell introduced the draft Policy on Acceptance of Gifts, Benefits and Hospitality by University Staff. He explained that the policy provided for a more rigorous approach to acceptance of gifts etc. by members of staff.

Members discussed a range of issues concerning the draft policy, including:

• Its applicability to personal payments.
• Acceptance of gifts from regular suppliers.
• The need for further work on clause 7.5 (acceptance of cash/gift vouchers).

Mr Connell then introduced the draft Policy on Disclosure/Declaration of Private Interests, noting that it applied to staff with delegations exceeding $30,000 and explaining that it would impact 200 staff across the University. Forms would be completed annually and placed on the staff member’s personnel file.

Members raised issues relating to privacy and the applicability of the policy to controlled entities. It was agreed that further work be undertaken on both drafts.

Mr Marshall reported that the NTEU had expressed criticism of several features of the scheme, including its "one off" nature and return of service obligation.

• Online employment service. A range of employment opportunities could be sourced from a single database.
• Availability of new workshops for students including resume checking, leadership and other programs.
• Careers Fair.
• Bookstore and merchandising.
• Information on food and beverage services.
• Community activities.

Members commended the framework for the review, indicating that it had potential for other similar university activities e.g. budget forum, review of international recruitment.

The next meeting of the Senior Management Committee is scheduled for 2.15 p.m. Tuesday 12 April 2005 in the Clayfield Room (Caulfield campus).