Professor Harry Ballis (on behalf of Professor Brian Mackenzie), Professor David Copolov, Professor Edwina Cornish, Ms Peggy Daroesman, Mr Stephen Davey, Mr Ron Fairchild, Professor Arie Freiberg, Mr Don Gregg, Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Professor Max King, Professor Homer Le Grand, Mr Peter Marshall, Mr John Matthews, Mr Alan McMeekin, Ms Lee-ann Norris, Professor Rob Norris, Professor Gill Palmer, Professor Stephen Parker, Mr Andrew Picoleau, Mr David Pitt, Professor John Redmond, Professor Tam Sridhar, Professor Phillip Steele, Mr Clive Vernon, Professor Graham Webb, Professor Ron Weber, Professor Rob Willis, Mr Renn Wortley and Mr Peter Yates.

Professor Colin Chapman, Professor Merran Evans, Professor Richard Larkins, Mr John Levine, Professor Merilyn Liddell, Professor Brian Mackenzie, Mr Jonathon Sanders, Professor Susan Willis.

Dr Andrew Treloar, Project Manager, Strategic Information Initiatives, Information Technology Services (for item 5.2)

Ms Kathryn Dan, Manager, Records and Archives Services and University Archivist (for item 5.2)

Mr Paul Barton, Manager, Occupational Health, Safety and Environment (for item 10.1)

Mr David Pitt, Vice-President (Finance) and Chief Financial Officer

Mr Ron Fairchild, Vice-President (Advancement)

Mr Andrew Picouleau, Director, Human Resources Division

Mr Peter Yates, Director, Student, Community and Shared Services

Mr Jonathan Sanders, Chief Executive Officer, Monash Commercial

In discussion over possible options for future AWAs, Mr Marshall indicated that greater flexibility in their use was anticipated e.g. in developing ongoing employment and severance arrangements for research staff. The requirement to offer genuine choice (EB or AWA) to employees was emphasised.

Members were reminded that current priorities were the conclusion of the EB negotiations and the holding of the staff ballot. Once these were completed, SMC would hold a more focussed discussion on AWAs, including possible models and options.

Professor Webb indicated that, in relation to the issue of CEQ data integrity, a CHEQ analysis of Monash’s approach to the CEQ compliance requirements confirmed the soundness of the Monash approach to administration of the survey.

Although there appeared to be some potential for compromise in the Senate, Mr Marshall advised members that as of last week, the situation was still looking bleak. The University continued to make provision for the impact of VSU and had allocated $4 million to fund core services in 2006; advice from campus service councils regarding which services should be funded had been requested.

Mr Pitt then emphasised that the University had planned for a surplus of $25 million in 2006. The expected loss of $14 million through the introduction of VSU would therefore make for a very tight budgetary situation.

In encouraging greater compliance with the requirements of the Performance Management Scheme, the Chair advised members that anecdotal reports indicated the Scheme was not being implemented across all academic departments. In discussion, members emphasised the relevance of the Scheme to the promotion process.

The Chair extended thanks to Professor Cornish for arranging the visit by Robin Jackson (HEFCE) and Nicola Sainsbury (King’s College).

Professor Cornish reported that further information from the Department on the shape of the RQF was expected within the next fortnight.

In providing a brief background to the Information Management Strategy Project, Ms Dan emphasised that information management challenges faced by Monash included increased information; increased complexity of information; and increasing reliance on technology. Failure to manage these challenges would leave Monash exposed to unacceptable risk, including the prospect of insufficient evidence to support the University in the event of litigation, and reputational damage.

The result of the Project (carried out over two (2) years) was the development of a comprehensive strategy document, the full version of which was available at:

Members were informed that the vision for the Strategy – Managing information to better create and share knowledge - was directly derived from the University’s Statement of Purpose, and that the project had been informed by 10 Monash Information Management Principles (listed in SMC 5/05/03), which essentially defined the culture of information management, or set the ‘ground rules’ for dealing with information.

Dr Treloar and Ms Dan explained that, in addition to a Communication Plan, implementation of the Strategy would be supported by an Implementation Plan, structured around four (4) thematic areas:

Implementation of the Strategy and consequent improved information management would lead to a range of benefits for Monash. Including better informed decision-making, improved collaboration, better communication, increased productivity and reduced risk of information loss.

Members discussed a number of issues relating to development and implementation costs::

The need to avoid information overload and to ensure that the appropriate information filtered through to the decision-makers was considered crucial. Members were advised that a number of strategies had been discussed including exception reporting, executive information system, smarter filtering of email and better document version control. However, more work needed to be done in this area.

The Committee considered that, in relation to budgetary matters, greater investment in future IT development was necessary. It was recommended that it would be timely for the University to consider relatively low-cost projects that would effect change. Mr Pitt and Mr McMeekin agreed to enter into discussion over high-yield projects.

He explained that VCG (Q) was the principal strategic group dealing with AUQA, whilst MQN also functioned as the reference group. The major task at present was the Portfolio preparation, of which a complete draft was planned for the end of the year. He observed that the portfolio reporting data would extend over five (5) years, although the narrative component of the portfolio could extend over a longer period.

In responding to member requests for further information regarding likely areas of concern in the audit, Professor Webb mentioned that these might include a focus on how Monash ensured equivalence of academic standards across its multi-campus structure, the University’s Committee structure and implementation of performance management.

The Committee then agreed to endorse the draft Conflict of Interest Policy.

The Committee commended the Monash Guidelines on Research Grant Writing to the university at large.

Key features of the presentation included:

A range of comments were made is subsequent discussion:

The Chair thanked Mr Barton for his interesting and informative presentation.

He noted that the use of an external company to administer the survey would enable it to be administered at arm’s length from the University, would bring considerable skills and experience to the project and enable Monash to benchmark results against those universities which had used the same organisation to administer their staff surveys i.e. Deakin and Edith Cowan. Administration of the survey was planned for post-MEQ, and in an online environment (with paper option).

Members made a number of observations and suggestions during subsequent discussion:

Members were advised that the survey was designed to take a global view of the University – a snapshot of the results would be taken in November to feed into the Strategic Planning Retreat, from which would emerge a series of information sessions for staff.

Responding to concerns expressed over the level at which survey results would be released, Mr Marshall advised that the reporting hierarchies would be pulled from SAP. Members were also informed that post-survey follow-up would occur as soon as possible, especially if there was a particular priority for information.

The Committee then approved the conduct of a staff survey in 2005 as described in the agenda paper SMC 5/05/06, with further feedback/suggestions to be provided to Mr Marshall.

Unless proper delegations were already in place, as of 5 September the agreements would be sent direct to Deans. Sub-delegation forms would therefore be sent to those Deans who did not have appropriate delegations in place.

Meetings would be held at Clayton and Caulfield.