Skip to content | Change text size
Assets | Includes | header.shtml
 

Senior Management Committee Meeting 3-2005

Meeting 3/2005 of the Senior Management Committee was held at 2.15 pm on Tuesday 7 June 2005 in the Council Room, Clayton campus.

Rhonda Hinds, Executive Officer

MINUTES
1. Attendance and apologies
There were present:

Associate Professor Harry Ballis (for Professor Brian Mackenzie), Professor Chris Browne, Professor Edward Byrne, Professor Margaret Clayton (for Professor Rob Norris), Ms Rosemary Clerehan (for Professor Denis Kirkpatrick), Professor David Copolov, Professor Edwina Cornish, Associate Professor Denise Cuthbert (for Professor Homer Le Grand), Ms Peggy Daroesman, Mr Stephen Davey, Professor Richard Fox (for Professor Arie Freiberg), Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Professor Max King, Professor Richard Larkins, Mr John Levine, Professor Merilyn Liddell, Professor Alan Lindsay, Mr Peter Marshall, Mr John Matthews, Mr Alan McMeekin, Professor Gill Palmer, Professor Stephen Parker, Professor John Redmond, Professor Tam Sridhar, Mr Clive Vernon, Ms Jenny Vero (for Professor Merran Evans), Professor Graham Webb, Professor Rob Willis and Professor Sue Willis.
  Apologies:

Professor Colin Chapman, Ms Alison Crook, Professor Merran Evans, Professor Arie Freiberg, Professor Denise Kirkpatrick, Professor Homer Le Grand, Professor Brian Mackenzie, Professor Rob Norris, Professor Tyrone Pretorius, Professor Phillip Steele, and Mr Renn Wortley.
  In attendance:

Ms Lee-ann Norris, Director Student Recruitment & Acting Director, Marketing (for item 8)

Mr Don Gregg, General Manager, Monash International (for item 8)

Dr Grant McBurnie, Executive Officer, Office of International Development (for item 8)
  The Chair welcomed members to the meeting, and in so doing, indicated that Ms Norris and Mr Gregg would be joining the Committee as members.
2. Minutes of Meeting 2/2005
  The Minutes of Meeting 2/2005, held on 12 April 2005, were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.
3. Matters arising from the Minutes
  3.1 Quality Matters (Minutes item 6)
   

Professor Graham Webb updated members on the following developments:
  • All senior managers had been contacted with a request to provide a review status report.
  • All service divisions had responded, as had five (5) of the faculties.
  • An MEQ consultation document was being prepared and would be brought to the next SMC meeting, together with recommendations for the Committee’s endorsement.
  3.2 International Plan (Minutes item 7.2)
    Since the last SMC meeting, Mr Tony Pollock had resigned from Monash to take up the position of CEO of IDP. The University was now seeking a DVC (International) and, as a consequence, development of the International Plan had been put on hold pending his/her arrival.
4. Committee Matters – Meeting Feedback Form
  The Chair reported that a further one or two surveys were planned. Much useful information had been received from the first survey (administered after Meeting 2/2005) and as a consequence, the following areas of the Committee’s operations would receive attention:
  • Introduction of a starring system.

  • A focus on one or two "showpiece" items per meeting.

  • A rigorous approach to the use of PowerPoint presentations.

  • Possible imposition of time limits on agenda items.

  • Review of venues.

    •

    The overlap of business with that of some other groups would also be examined.

    5. Vice-Chancellor’s Report
      5.1 Professor Richard Larkins reported on a range of matters of current interest:
        New Senior Staff Appointments

    An outstanding applicant had been appointed to this position of Vice-President (Finance)/Chief Finance Officer. An official announcement would be made on 1 July.

    Mr Ron Fairchild would commence as Vice-President (Advancement) in mid-August.

    Mr Tony Pollock had been confirmed in the position of CEO of IDP. The vacancy consequent on his departure would become a DVC appointment.

        HEWRRs

    Monash and the NTEU had entered into negotiations to achieve a certified agreement that would comply with government requirements. The deadline to achieve a compliant agreement had been extended to 30 November.

        VSU

    Discussions were continuing with some members of Government who had expressed reservation about introduction of the legislation in its current form.

        UK linkages

    Meetings with Kings College regarding the ongoing relationship with Monash had been held in London and a number of issues resolved. A successful combined alumni event and conferral of an honorary degree on Lord Desai had also taken place.

    Members noted the ongoing consideration by the Europe Steering Group of the formation of a second strategic partnership with a UK university, and that several visits by Monash staff had been made to the University of Newcastle, which was the partner of first choice. A Memorandum of Understanding had now been signed, with a particular focus on collaborative research in medicine, especially healthy ageing and stem cell research.

    Visits had also been made to Nottingham, which was keen to form a relationship with Monash. This was likely to be a productive partnership possibly in the Pharmacy field, though with potential to be further-reaching.

    Professor Larkins emphasised that there was much Monash could learn from its UK partners, especially in preparing for the RAE.

     

     

    		   South Africa

    Professor Tyrone Pretorius was inaugurated as Pro Vice-Chancellor of Monash South Africa at a ceremony held in Johannesburg. Among the guests was the South African official in charge of higher education. The occasion provided an excellent opportunity to show the campus and undertake very positive discussions on Monash’s South African operations.

    220 offers had been made to students to commence in Semester 2/2005 – total enrolments will therefore be in excess of 800.
        Media

    The "Four Corners" television show was producing a series of programs on universities and their international programs. Monash had decided to take part in the program, and a number of staff had been interviewed.

    Concern was expressed at several articles published in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding international students, and which were considered to be pejorative in nature.

      5.2 Members noted the paper outlining the Vice-Chancellor’s Equity and Diversity Awards. Professor Larkins encouraged nominations for the awards.
    6. Strategic Planning and Initiatives
      6.1 Annual Priorities
        The Chair reported that, due to the size of the agenda and forthcoming review of the Annual Plan by VCG, this item would be carried over to the next meeting.

    Mr Peter Marshall reported on two matters relevant to managment of staff at Monash.

        Choice of Superannuation Funds legislation

    Referring to his memorandum (distributed with the agenda), Mr Marshall advised the Committee that:
  • Due to the delay in reaching a final EB, Monash was now required to offer choice of funds to certain of its staff.
  • The major impact of the choice of funds legislation was likely to be on casual employees.
  • A high take up of the choice of an alternate fund/s was not expected, given the contents of the UniSuper Trust Deed, and the comparatively strong performance by UniSuper.
  • UniSuper had been pro-active in encouraging members to remain with it, planning to offer greater flexibility in member contributions, and flexibility to those members close to RBL limits.
    •
        Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs)

    Mr Marshall referred to the Government announcement that eligibility for CGS increases would be tied to the following workplace requirements:
  • Offer of AWAs to all new employees employed after 29 April 2005 and to all other employees by 31 August 2006
  • Direct consultation between employees and the HEP on workplace relations and human resources matters
  • Workplace agreements, policies and practices must facilitate and promote fair and flexible arrangements.
  • Workplace agreements, policies and practices must support organisational productivity and performance.
  • Workplace agreements, policies and practices must be consistent with freedom of association principles contained in the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
    •

    The University had taken the decision to attempt to reach a compliant agreement with the NTEU and to that end a Memorandum of Intent had been signed that morning. It was hoped that agreement on the EB could be reached within 4-6 weeks, whereupon it would be submitted to DEST for compliance checking. All procedures needed to be completed by 30 November, in order to retain the current and qualify for the next CGS increase. (In response to a member question regarding the possible financial impact on the University of failure to gain anticipated CGS increases, Mr Levine replied that the anticipated financial impact on Monash would be $8 million in 2006 and $12 million in 2007.)

    Noting that a number of staff had nominated the NTEU as their bargaining agent, Mr Marshall indicated that the University would also develop an AWA, on which it would consult with the NTEU. Additional consultation mechanisms would be developed for staff who did not nominate the NTEU as their bargaining agent.

        Professor Larkins observed that, whilst there was concern over the lack of timely information from DEST and the detailed meaning of "workplace flexibility", there were some advantages in Monash’s being one of that group of universities required to have in place a compliant agreement by 30 November:
  • The early establishment of a co-operative working relationship with the NETU in a compliance environment.
  • Preservation of as much as possible of the original Heads of Agreement and continued net beneficial effect for staff.
    •

    Noting that it was intended to reach agreement, and then analyse the results with a view to compliance, Professor Larkins indicated that a high-level group consisting of himself, Professor Parker and Professor Cornish would examine the processes for moving forward on HEWRRs. Staff fora would also be held.

        During discussion, members were informed that:
  • The Federal Government intended to legislate to prevent, inter alia, the threat to withhold exam results as part of industrial action during EB negotiations.
  • A plan would be put in place to be activated in the event that there was a breakdown in the bargaining relationship between the University and NTEU.
  • In the AWA negotiation process, should staff nominate the NTEU as their bargaining agent, agreement would be negotiated centrally. Otherwise, negotiation would be on an individual basis. To this end, the University was moving to develop a core AWA, but with provision for flexibility.
    •   6.2 Learning and Teaching Plan
        The Chair reported on the Schedule for development of the University Learning and Teaching Plan. He indicated that a retreat would be held at the end of June with Associate Deans Teaching, with a view to finalising the draft.
    7. Quality Matters
      See item 3.1 above.
    8. International
    Members had before them a range of relevant documents:
    • ‘International Students and Monash’ (summary paper).
      • The compendium ‘International Students and Monash - Choosing Our Future Direction’ (‘Commercial in Confidence’ document.)
      • A paper from Ms Norris, ‘Recruitment and Marketing to International and Domestic Students’
    • Report of the International Self-Review.
    • Recommendations of the International Self-Review.

    The Chair introduced this item by observing that it represented the culmination of two (2) processes – the review of international student recruitment and marketing strategies (whose origins lay in the Committee’s December 2004 meeting), and the International Self-Review. He emphasised the importance of achieving concrete outcomes from the discussion, including decision on proposed strategies and priorities, and confirmation of the recommended process changes.
      8.1 International Students and Monash – Choosing our Future
        Members were advised that this item would be presented in two parts – the first, a status report, the second, a raft of suggested strategies and actions to move the way forward for Monash. A copy of the presentation was also distributed to members present. (Secretarial note: a copy is also attached to the Minutes, restricted to SMC members only.)

    Mr Gregg commenced the presentation by reporting on:
  • Recapping market information on commencing international students for 2004 and Semester 1/2005. He noted that, whilst Australia had experienced some growth in 2004, there had been an overall flattening of demand in Semester 1/2005. It was notable that some lower-tier institutions universities had recorded particularly strong growth during 2004, especially CQU and Ballarat (CBD campuses).
  • Referring to the results of several market research exercises undertaken since 2003 (the most recent of which was the first stage of the Rob Lawrence research on how Monash and its competitors were perceived by international students in Victoria). Findings from this research included:
  • Employment expectations and university status were drivers of student choice.
  • The emergence of a "Group of Three" (Sydney, Melbourne and ANU), perceived by international students to be the top Australian universities.
  • Monash was considered slow to issue offers and a poor communicator to prospective students. (Mr Gregg noted that actions to improve performance in this regard had, however, been implemented.)
  • Evidence of institutional success (rankings) had considerable bearing on student choice.
  • The trend towards greater discrimination by students – they had access to greater information resources, and were seeking data on a range of relevant issues to assist them in making their choice e.g. price, migration status.
  • Good Universities Guide rankings in the areas of Prestige, Graduate Starting Salary, Getting a Job, Positive Graduate Outcomes and The Educational Experience. Mr Gregg reminded members that these rankings were based on data sourced from the CEQ, GDS, and research grants data from DEST and the ARC. He also noted that the current rankings were based largely on 2001/2002 data.
    •

    Ms Norris then continued by presenting to the Committee, for its consideration and endorsement:

  • A set of Proposed Guiding Statements (section 4 of the presentation).
  • A set of Proposed Priority Actions (section 5 of the presentation).
  • Recommendations on process issues arising from the Review of International Recruitment (December 2004) (section 6 of the presentation), noting that many of the recommended improvements had already been implemented.

    • The Chair reminded members that:
  • The 20th June had been set aside for the holding of the International Summit. In the event of endorsement by the Committee of the Proposed Guiding statements, Priority Actions and process recommendations, the summit could be devoted to more detailed planning.
  • Further development of the International Plan had been deferred pending appointment of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International).
    •     General Discussion
        Members considered a range of issues and made a number of suggestions in subsequent discussion, including:
  • Acknowledging that immediate action was required in some areas, it was essential to focus on long-term (5 years+) strategies and avoid "quick fixes."
  • Critical to a discussion of international student recruitment was the value to students of the Monash education product. If that product could be improved, revenues could be increased.
  • It was also important that the key features of the preferred Monash student experience be resolved, and then reviewed for their consistency with market needs. Members noted that a University priority for 2006 was to improve the student experience, and were informed that planning had already commenced, with a discussion paper to be brought to the Committee before the end of 2005.
  • Although research to date had focused on reasons for not choosing Monash, it was also important to ask why students did choose Monash. Members were advised that research on this issue would be undertaken next year. Members noted that faculty level surveys which addressed this question could also be amalgamated to provide a useful information source.
  • In response to a question regarding perceived different entry standards at Monash campuses, members were informed that students perceived Clayton as the most difficult to get into, then Caulfield.
  • The need for a seamless approach to the admissions process was emphasised, with a recommendation that it be considered in conjunction with the International Self-Review recommendation regarding orientation.
  • Members agreed that it was extremely important to improve Monash’s credit arrangements, which were currently providing mixed messages to students. Members noted the credit project underway in the Faculty of Business and Economics and the desirability of implementing a credit database.
  • The research findings regarding drivers of student choice did not appear to be consistent with CQU’s achievements in taking top place for 2004 international commencements. Members were informed that the CQU growth could largely be attributed to cheap fees and lower quality students.
  • Members queried data relating to the University of Melbourne, which, for almost the same revenue from international student fees as Monash required only 50% of the student enrolments. It was suggested that further examination of the comparative data would be useful.
    •

    The Good Universities Guide data referred to during the presentation prompted a number of observations by members:
  • In relation to concern over the survey methods adopted by the Guide, members were advised that the latest figures indicated no improvement in Monash’s position.
  • Members were reminded that the responses were from all students i.e. there was no differentiation between domestic and international student responses.
  • Given reliance by the Guide on, inter alia, CEQ data, there was concern over Monash’s poor CEQ response rate. Members noted that this was influenced to a large degree by the traditionally low rate of return from its high percentage of international students. Efforts were being made to improve response rates from international students e.g. development of an improved contact database. (It was noted that the CEQ also played a key role in determining eligibility for funding from the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund.)
  • Members were advised that, although distribution of the CEQ embraced offshore students, data extracted for the Good Universities Guide did not include responses from this group.
  • Members were also informed that students at the Malaysian campus had the same general issues relating to poor application turnaround times and status perceptions and that the rate of response to the MEQ from overseas campuses was also poor.
  • Members noted the consistently high results achieved by Wollongong and suggested that it would be useful to examine that institution more closely (e.g. its Student Satisfaction Survey), given its long tradition (with Monash) in education of international students. Members were advised that Wollongong had undertaken improvements such as making more sophisticated use of the internet in, inter alia, enrolment processes, establishing an online credit database, and offering a high quality student experience.
  • Members also suggested that efforts be made to drill down further into the labour market results at, for example, Deakin.
  • In order to achieve high results in, for example, the Good Universities Guide, it was noted that some universities had adopted the practice of establishing professional teams to focus on rankings.
    •
        Vice-Chancellor
        Professor Larkins observed that Monash was at a cross-roads in its approach to recruitment of international students - a number of issues were emerging, some of a short term-nature, others requiring longer-term consideration. The issues could be grouped as follows:
    1. Co-ordination and efficiency of recruitment must be improved. The enrolment process must be enhanced and brought online. Improved co-ordination between the centre and the faculties was required. A small action group should be established to direct improvements and implement actions.
    2. The student experience must be further developed – this would include such areas as transition and accommodation assistance, and would build on initiatives already implemented e.g. careers counselling, leadership programs.
    3. Greater attention must be paid to advancing the Monash brand. Monash had many advantages – on the one hand, it was innovative, exciting, internationally-focussed, modern and responsive, whilst at the same time was part of the Go8. It had achieved a significant ranking by The Times Higher Education Supplement and ten of its departments were ranked first in research. Thus, there were many good things that could be said about Monash, but which merited greater promotion.
    4. In the long-term, Monash had to keep improving the educational experience. This would include responsiveness to the MEQ, unit evaluations etc. It was important to emphasise that Monash was listening to students.

    Monash was committed to acting on the signals it was receiving, and to improving in each of the above areas. Therefore, it would be useful to ensure that there were staff working to advance each of these areas.
        Proposed Guiding Statements

    Acknowledging that it was important to take care with the messages released by Monash into the marketplace, members offered a range of comments and suggested several amendments relevant to the Proposed Guiding Statements:
  • Should Monash focus on increasing numbers or increasing quality? It was noted that it was possible to both increase volume and improve quality, but that more intensive marketing with higher quality students in mind would also be effective. However, it was suggested that a preferable option might be to increase the contribution from each international student in conjunction with a selective increase in numbers i.e. to focus on growing the margin.
  • Rather than tie the financial contribution from international students to supporting other demonstrable goals such as improved research funding, it may be preferable to make the more generalised statement that international fee income supported the University’s mission.
  • Monash should aim to control the rate of growth of the international student cohort to a targeted level, rather than leave the level to be set by market forces.
  • Improvement to the student experience was crucial - considerable negative input on the student experience had been received from students at Caulfield during International Self-Review consultations.
  • Marketing material needed to be nuanced on a faculty basis.
  • The first statement – "Monash needs to endeavour to maintain and grow the financial contribution from international students to support other goals such as improved research funding" – should be amended by removal of "financial" and "funding."
  • The third statement - "The contribution (revenue minus costs) from each international student should continue to be grown rather than seeking more students at lower margin" - needed to be grounded in good market information. Failure to do so ran the risk of losing students.
  • The strategy included in the fifth statement of increasing fees to "reflect prestige and value proposition" was correct, but should also encapsulate a policy to increase bursaries.
    •

    It was also suggested that the statements be contextualised in the event that they were to be released publicly. Members were advised that at this stage, the statements should be regarded as an internal guidance document and that the next step in this process would be the development of a profile document.

    Subject to the suggested amendments, the Committee endorsed the Proposed Guiding Statements.

        Proposed Priority Actions

    In discussion, members considered the need for a further entity with oversight of matters international (the final priority action refers). It was suggested that VCG (I) might be appropriate, however, members were reminded that the issues raised were also relevant to domestic students.

    The Chair indicated that this matter would be revisited.

    The Committee endorsed the Proposed Priority Actions.

        Review of International Recruitment (Dec 2004) Recommendations

    In relation to the first recommendation "Develop a strategy for prioritising, growing and coordinating low commission and non-commissionable pathways for international students", members commented that care must be taken in prioritising down the relationship with agents, as they were still viewed by students as an important part of the recruitment process. Ms Norris indicated that this recommendation would be recast to ensure insertion of a proviso that relationships with agents would not be adversely affected.

    It was also recommended that a further point between recommendations 5 and 6 be inserted to reflect the importance of the internet in provision of online tools for enrolment, establishment of a credit database etc. Mr McMeekin observed that underpinning IT redevelopment would be the provision of infrastructure support for these processes.

    Subject to the above suggestions, the Committee endorsed the recommendations arising from the December 2004 Review of International Recruitment.

    Members commented that, underlying these recommendations was the need for timely discussion on how the centre works with the faculties, something that transcended student issues. It was suggested that this be made a short-term operational objective, with oversight by the Committee.

    Members were also reminded that, whilst it was important to have the generic overview that the recommendations encompassed, it was also necessary to pay heed to nuances which included contacts, individual courses etc.
      8.2 International Self-Review
        The Chair spoke briefly to the Report of the International Self-Review and Table of Recommendations. He emphasised that the review had undertaken a thorough consultation process and covered a range of topics - international strategy, governance and management of international matters, quality assurance, supporting international students and internationalising Monash. A number of recommendations were already being actioned e.g. conflation of domestic and international recruitment/marketing.

    In discussion, members commented that:
  • In relation to students at risk of failure, there was need for a broader intervention strategy, which encompassed students at risk of failure because of problems which included but were not limited to language difficulties. Such problems embraced learning difficulties, lack of socialisation, transition issues. Members emphasised that such students should be regarded as disadvantaged, thus deserving greater assistance from universities. It was recognised that this posed problems for institutions with large student numbers and that in Monash’s case, the review of Language and Learning Support needed to be prioritised.
  • There appeared to be disarticulation between internationalisation and research, prompting the question of the relationship between international students and research generally. Professor Cornish responded that there had been discussions around the approach to attracting international HDR students. Referring to the growth in international HDR student numbers over the period 2000-2004, she commented that Monash was becoming more attractive to well-credentialled PhD candidates.
  • The Review made little reference to Monash’s successes. In this regard, members were reminded that, for a university which prioritised matters international to the extent Monash had, there was much work to do. In discussion over the utility of good practice examples, members were informed that there would be scope to include these in the AUQA Portfolio.
    •

    The Committee endorsed the recommendations of the International Self-Review.

    In closing this item, the Chair thanked members of the Panel and Dr McBurnie for their work during the Review process.
    9. Education
    10. Research and Research Training
      10.1 Research and Research Management Review
    Members noted the draft Action Plan deriving from the Report of the Research and Research Management Review. Professor Cornish noted that the Action Plan was an accountabilities-oriented document.
      10.2

    Research Quality Framework (carried over from Meeting 2/2005)

        Professor King advised members that:
  • The proposed RQF models expected to be released at the Canberra forum of 2 June had not been forthcoming, and that a number of issues remained under consideration (e.g. which staff were to be assessed).
  • Stakeholders had suggested a delay of 6 months in the RQF process to allow for trialling of models, however it was unclear whether the Minister would agree.
  • The Expert Committee was scheduled to meet on 9 June.
    •

    In consequent discussion, members noted that the Minister was prepared to consider submissions for funding for third stream research and that there was an overall sense that the impact of the RAE would be felt not so much in financial, but rather reputational, terms.
    11. Management
    12. Other business
      The Chair advised members that this would be Professor Alan Lindsay’s last meeting as a member of the Committee and, on behalf of members, expressed gratitude for Professor Lindsay’s many years of dedicated service and significant contribution to the management and academic leadership of the University.

    Members were advised that Professor Lindsay would be taking a period of leave, and then returning to the Faculty of Education as an Emeritus Professor.

    Members supported the Chair’s vote of thanks by acclamation.
    13. Next meeting

    The next meeting of the Senior Management Committee is scheduled for 2.15 p.m. Tuesday 12 July 2005 at Berwick campus.