Senior Management Committee Meeting 1-2006

Professor Ed Byrne, Mr Jack Chorowicz (for Mr Alan McMeekin), Professor David Copolov, Ms Peggy Daroesman, Mr Stephen Davey, Professor Merran Evans, Professor Stephanie Fahey, Mr Ron Fairchild, Professor Arie Freiberg, Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Ms Karen Haywood, Professor Owen Hughes (for Professor Gill Palmer), Associate Professor John Hurst, Professor Max King, Professor Richard Larkins, Professor Homer Le Grand, Mr John Levine, Professor Brian Mackenzie, Mr David McWaters, Professor Rob Norris, Professor Stephen Parker (Chair), Mr David Pitt, Professor John Redmond, Mr Jonathon Sanders, Professor Tam Sridhar, Professor Phillip Steele, Mr Nick Thorburn (for Mr Greg Connell), Mr Clive Vernon, Professor Graham Webb, Professor Ron Weber, Professor Rob Willis, Professor Sue Willis, Mr Renn Wortley

Professor Colin Chapman, Mr Greg Connell, Professor Edwina Cornish, Mr Peter Marshall, Mr Alan McMeekin, Mr Jack Chorowicz, Ms Lee-ann Norris, Professor Gill Palmer

Associate Professor Brett Inder (Chair, Workplace Equity Committee) (for item 4.2)

Ms Barbara Dalton (Secretary, Vice-Chancellor's Taskforce for the Advancement of Women at Monash) (for item 4.2)

Mr Paul Barton, Manager, Occupational Health, Safety and Environment (for items 10.2)

Mr Robin Coventry, Director, University Community Services (for agenda item 10.4)

Research Quality Framework

Notwithstanding that the 2008 UK RAE would be the last in that form (a replacement metrics-based system was to be implemented), Minister Bishop had announced that the RQF would proceed, albeit 3 months later than originally indicated. It would be overseen by an RQF Development Advisory Group, chaired by the Chief Scientist.

A forum chaired by Professor Parker had been held, and a Menzies Building Committee developed to consider and recommend on options for the future of the building. An independent condition report would also be commissioned, with consultants chosen by competitive tender. The consultants would report to the Menzies Building Committee. Recommendations were to be made to VCG (Property) no later than October, for subsequent consideration by Council.

Members were reminded that a matrix management arrangement for Gippsland had been approved in 2004. Members were also advised that phase-in of some matters could occur over the current year, but that an orderly transition to the new management arrangement was necessary. Professor Parker and Mr Peter Marshall would oversee this process, with a view to full implementation in 2007.

1100 students were enrolled at the South African campus, with an additional 100 expected to enrol mid-year. Consequently, better than anticipated budget outcomes had been achieved.

Malaysian enrolments were also very strong, reversing the trend of Semester 1/2005. Construction of the new campus was proceeding rapidly.

A non-binding MOU had been signed with the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay – a detailed business plan would be developed and submitted through the normal approval processes.

Members were informed of the Minister’s decision to loosen regulations relating to the enrolment of domestic full fee paying students, proposing that the requirement to fill government funded places prior to admitting FFP students now apply on a discipline cluster basis. Professor Evans advised that whether the proposal would advantage Monash would not be clear until post-31 March.

International student numbers had increased by 13% over the same period in 2005.

A final decision by the Department on the Delfin proposal was expected at the end of the month.

The program was well underway and good progress was being made, including successful completion of the residential component.

A concurrent series of five (5) symposia to re-launch the Melbourne-Monash protocol would be held on 24 April, with speakers including The Hon. John Brumby and The Hon. Lynne Kosky.

Ms Dalton then spoke briefly to the six (6) key results areas, noting that these were broadly based on the Federal Government agency guidelines for organisations.

Members canvassed a range of issues in subsequent discussion, including:

• The significance of the EOWA Award and need to show continuing commitment to addressing issues of equal opportunity in the workplace.
• The lack of a strong "campus" emphasis in contrast to disability access matters, where the local physical environment was more significant.
• Accounting for interrupted career paths by selection committees – members were advised that "achievement measured in relation to the opportunities available" was embedded in the promotion process. Staff were also encouraged to undertake selection committee training, which included equal opportunity training.

The Committee endorsed the draft Inclusive Practices: Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Plan 2005-2010, and suggested that it also be transmitted to Academic Board as a means of raising awareness amongst the academic community at Monash.

The Chair welcomed further feedback on the Summit.

A workshop scheduled for 11 April would commence work on detailed timelines for implementing actions identified in the Plan.

The Committee received and noted the final version of the Education Plan (2006-2010).

Professor Evans reminded members that the Admissions Committee would soon need to decide on this year’s process for deriving the eligibility score so that they could be finalised in time for the annual submission to DEST. The matter was brought to SMC for provision of feedback on the preferred option/s.

Members were reminded that an eligibility score was intended to represent the minimum level of performance required to complete a course.

Subsequent discussion elicited a range of suggestions and raised a number of issues, including:

• The cut-off should reflect an applicant’s chances of success in a particular course, but market/reputational factors were also relevant.
• Preference of some members for Option 3; in the alternative, Option 3 plus Option 1.
• Option 3 as a minimum, with a preference for a realistic estimate.
• A bending of Options 1 and 3.
• Concern at implications for Gippsland in the event of setting a uniform eligibility score of, for example, 70.
• The impact of consideration of disadvantage.
• The need for further work on the definition of "eligibility."

Members were advised that, in addition to the eligibility scores, information on actual ENTER scores was available to students.

The Committee then endorsed Option 1’scores based on a judgment of what students were likely to need for each course’ but indicated more work was required on the definition of "eligibility" as it applied to Monash.

Ms Daroesman reported that:

• There was a huge increase in the number of applications for Federation Fellowships, for which a new process of announcement had been implemented.
• Amounts being sought in applications were increasing.
• Increased success in applications would require increased space allocations.

In relation to a question concerning the cessation of cash contributions to CRCs in this round, members were advised that all Go8 institutions were adopting a more stringent approach to their cash and ‘in kind’ involvement. However, the DVC (Research) would give consideration to business cases, especially where there was a prospect of significant return to Monash (in the order of 5:1), and some assistance "in kind" would be available to faculties.

The Committee noted the Research Grants-2006 Applications Report.

• Space allocation was handled on a campus level by space co-ordinators; however, this channel was being bypassed in some cases.
• There were issues over space entitlements.
• Space allocation should be managed at the University level, especially where movement of staff etc. was involved. Leasing of outside space was to be handled carefully, and from the centre.
• No detailed studies on space utilisation had been undertaken for some time. Audits would be undertaken in the second half of 2006, in which space would be examined in light of strategic and operational plans.
• The proposal to review the Space Management Policy did not extend to a review of space charging.

Members fed back a number of issues, including:

• The need to improve academic management of research/laboratory space, given that needs would grow with expansion in research.
• Space charging could influence behaviour, but not in the case of small research groups, where there was no control over budget.
• Cost forced Faculties to look at space management.
• This was an opportunity to planning for the space needs of large research groups.
• Space management for HDR students also needed review.
• The new policy should take a strategic view, include all academic issues, consider inter-campus matters and map decision-making processes.

In receiving the advice of the Divisional Director, Facilities and Services, the Committee indicated that a review of the Space Management Policy was timely.

Mr Barton reported that:

• Preparations for certification, including submission of the necessary documentation, was not unlike the AUQA audit process.
• A positive outcome was anticipated – sampling was likely to give a good impression.
• Achieving certification would be beneficial in, for example, research applications.
• It was hoped that full certification would be achieved by July.

In discussion, it was noted that:

• AUQA would be likely to pick up on OH&S certification.
• Certification to a certain level was a pre-requisite for application for self-insurance.
• Certification would apply, in the first instance, to campuses only – expansion to hospitals etc. was planned for the second year of certification.

The Committee noted Mr Barton’s advice on the status of preparations for certification of the University’s OHS management system under AS 4801.

Members were advised that:

• The current stage of avian flu alertness was phase 3, and that planning for phases 4-6 should commence.
• WHO and Federal Government information sources were being monitored on a daily basis.
• There had not yet been any human-to-human transmission of the virus.
• The probability of a pandemic had been assessed at 10%.
• Work units would be contacted and, using the checklist as a guide, asked to consider planning for phases 4-6.

Members suggested that further links with the travel warning system should be investigated.

The Committee noted Mr Coventry’s advice.

• OSA (survey consultants) had undertaken a round of presentations (34 in total), which would conclude on1 2 April
• A detailed report would shortly be forwarded to each Faculty/Divisional Head. Appended to the Report would be a list of qualitative comments, which were provided on an ‘in confidence’ basis.
• The response strategy included development of an Action Plan, likely to focus on one or two key items.
• Feedback regarding the Survey process and methodology was welcome.

A number of issues were considered in subsequent conversation, including:

• Whether statistical analysis of differences between campuses had been undertaken.
• There was concern at the gap in ‘buy-in’ to the University’s strategic directions at different levels amongst respondents. In response, Professor Larkins indicated that another staff forum, presented by the Deputy Vice-Chancellors and himself, would be implemented. Members were also informed that part of the review of the Performance Management System would be to ensure that an awareness of the University’s strategies filtered down to all staff levels.
• Proposed discussion at VCG of the corporate response strategy which would consider, inter alia, ‘cross-entity’ issues.
• Concern was expressed at the release of qualitative comments to supervisors (as staff members might be identifiable). In response, Ms Haywood noted that advice on this matter had been sought, and that a conservative approach to managing this information was being taken.

There was discussion over the importance of ensuring widespread staff ‘buy in’ to the University’s strategies. Some members suggested that it was necessary to focus on what staff cared about in their daily work lives, rather than investing overmuch in strategies to raise awareness of higher-level issues. However, it was also suggested that it was important to care about whether staff were allied to the University’s directions, which required better communication of the University strategies and goals.

The Committee noted Ms Haywood’s advice.

Members generally endorsed the overarching committee review, anticipating clarification of the nature of business to be dealt with by each committee, and rationalisation of membership issues.

The Committee approved the revised Terms of Reference.

The Committee noted the Summary of Activities for 2005.

Noting that it would be progressively augmented with items of a recurrent nature, the Committee endorsed the Schedule of Business for 2006.

The Committee noted the University Scholarships Review: Summary of Recommendations.