SENIOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 2-2006

Professor Ed Byrne, Mr Greg Connell, Professor David Copolov, Professor Tony Dingle (for Professor Gill Palmer), Professor Merran Evans, Professor Stephanie Fahey, Mr Ron Fairchild, Professor Arie Freiberg, Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Ms Karen Haywood, Associate Professor Sally Joy (for Associate Professor John Hurst), Professor Richard Larkins, Professor Homer Le Grand, Professor Merilyn Liddell, Professor Brian Mackenzie, Mr Alan McMeekin, Mr David McWaters, Ms Lee-ann Norris, Professor Stephen Parker (Chair), Mr David Pitt, Professor John Redmond, Mr Jonathon Sanders, Professor Tam Sridhar, Professor Phillip Steele, Dr Cristina Varsavsky (for Professor Rob Norris), Professor Graham Webb, Professor Ron Weber, Professor Rob Willis, Professor Sue Willis, Mr Renn Wortley, Mr Peter Yates

Professor Colin Chapman, Professor Edwina Cornish, Ms Peggy Daroesman, Mr Stephen Davey, Mr Reynold Dias, Associate Professor John Hurst, Professor Max King, Professor Rob Norris, Professor Gill Palmer

(Commercial in Confidence item)

Regenerative Medicine Institute

$35 million had been allocated to Monash by the State Government to establish the Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute. This substantial grant would assist in extending stem cell research into the broader are of regenerative medicine.

The Federal Government had allocated 40 Commonwealth-supported places to the Gippsland campus and a $5 million infrastructure grant to establish the new medical school. The places would be for graduate entry students, who would enrol and study in a rural environment, thus addressing the need for more rural medical graduates.

Despite the new Minister’s announcement that the RQF would proceed with only a three (3) month delay, it did not seem likely that the agreed model and expert panels could be in place within the first three (3) months of 2007.

Members were advised that the L&TPF would proceed. Minor variations only in methodology were likely.

The celebration of the 10^th anniversary of the Berwick campus was a very positive event, marking the outstanding progress made to date.

As at the date of the meeting, the outcome of the Delfin proposal submitted to the State Government had not been confirmed.

A delegation of 51 Ambassadors and High Commissioners, hosted by the Foreign Minister, would spend tomorrow morning at Monash, visiting the Accident Research Centre, Robotics Centre, Centre for Green Chemistry and immunology/stem cell laboratories.

A constructive meeting had been held on 24 April, adding further momentum to the Protocol. Five (5) areas additional to the current collaboration had been identified – water, materials and synchrotron science, health services research, applied philosophy and administration.

Explaining that the Guidelines for Academic Review had subsequently been fully translated into policy and procedures, Professor Webb noted that this process had not occurred in the case of the Guidelines for Support Services Review, due to there being no identifiable policy owner. A policy and procedures had now been written for consideration by VCG (Q) and would be discussed at SMC later in the year.

In the case of Course Reviews, despite development of policy and procedures, the mandatory nature of the review process had become an issue, due to its alignment with unit reviews under the old Education Policy (implemented in 1993 and never formally rescinded by Academic Board).

Noting that review compliance was improving, Professor Webb indicated that there were two (2) principal issues requiring resolution:

• What Reviews were mandatory and when?
• What resources were available to support reviews?

The following propositions were then put to the Committee:

• Academic Reviews were mandatory at least every five (5) years; Faculties would decide the unit of review.
• Course Reviews were not mandatory, but were considered a useful tool for informing the academic review process.
• Unit Reviews were not mandatory (given implementation of unit evaluations).

Endorsing the above propositions, the Committee indicated that the issue of quality secretarial support was crucial, and should become an identifiable resource within the University. This might take the form of suitably trained personnel within faculties or a trained panel operating across the University. Noting that the convergence of the Information Management and Reviews Policies should be considered, a further key issue raised was the recording and availability of data, in particular recording in a way that could be continuously updated.

The Chair then indicated that the following actions would be undertaken:

• Academic Board would be requested to formally repeal the Education Policy.The matter of executive support to Reviews would be examined.
• CHEQ and UPS would meet to consider recent review experience, with a view to developing new Guidelines. Campus Reviews would be brought into this process.

Professor Sridhar explained that the Faculty had established the Engineering Quality Management Committee as a standing committee of the Faculty Board, with the remit to monitor the Faculty’s quality management systems. He then outlined the Faculty’s approach to assuring the quality of specific functions within strategic areas.

Professor Sridhar observed that one of the key challenges encountered during the development and implementation of the quality management systems was the multiplicity of surveys/evaluations and consequent manpower requirements, which impacted negatively on the ability to complete all aspects of the quality cycle. Other issues included the identification of primary and secondary data and the need to make review/evaluation information accessible. Concluding his presentation, Professor Sridhar then explained that the Faculty had taken the initiative to improve information management by establishing a Central Quality Repository.

Members canvassed a range of issues in discussion, including:

• The University’s KPIs might offer a start point for approaching the task of sifting primary and secondary data, though it was noted that some of the KPIs did not necessarily transfer easily to Faculty level. Noting that, at the Education Day (February), there had been discussion on Faculty input towards achievement of University targets, it was also suggested that further work on translating University KPIs to Faculty level be undertaken.
• Given the lack of time and resources, faculties found themselves establishing a ranking system for implementation of priorities, with primacy given to University priorities, followed by those important on a Faculty basis. Any others had to be abandoned.
• The concept of ‘sentinel’ markers (used in clinical practice) for a set of events or clustering of indicators might be a useful tool for the university to adopt when developing its priorities.
• Members were reminded that quantities of data had existed for some time, but that the University now had the systems for transmitting that data to, inter alia, the faculties. Consequently, the perception of information overload was understandable. Members were advised that one of the items on the agenda for the Academic Heads conference was data needs.

The background paper was nearing completion, and would be available on the web from 12 May. This paper was based on cross-University consultation, the International Self-Review and planning meetings held during 2005. Commencing with a future view of Monash, its markets and the sector generally, the paper had been crafted with the aim of positioning Monash to take best advantage of the future environment, with the flexibility to be opportunistic, whilst achieving an appropriate balance between the various areas of involvement in international activities.

The complete draft would be submitted to a range of stakeholders, including SMC, for consideration.

Other matters touched on by Professor Fahey included:

• A ‘hub and spokes’ model would most likely underpin the hierarchy of Monash’s international relationships, with Monash Australia the critical hub.
• The Plan would consider the role of the Monash College Group, with a view to creating better synergy between its ambitions and those of the University.
• Although the Plan would touch on some areas concerned with student recruitment, it would not make specific plans for those areas.
• The Governance structure for the University’s international operations was a significant issue. Work had been undertaken to rationalise the approach to meetings.

Responding to member questions, Professor Fahey explained that:

• The Plan would not drill down to the level of detailed administrative/support requirements. However, of the new committees to be established under the revised governance structure, one would focus at the strategic level and one at the operational level, including relationships between campuses and centres.
• The Plan would not specifically factor in predictors of student progress towards higher degrees by research, but should be capable of throwing light onto issues in this area.

Professor Fahey indicated that a more detailed presentation would be made to the next SMC meeting.

• It was the first item of business from the International Staffing Advisory Group (ISAG) to be brought before SMC, and that further work from that Group would be forthcoming.
• The ISAG included representation from the Deans, Faculty Managers, and the offshore campuses.
• The recommended Procedures reflected both the involvement of those Faculties concerned with offshore campuses and the campuses themselves, and aimed to improve the quality, timeliness and consistency of the appointment processes.

Noting that this document represented an important step forward in standardising procedures between the Australian and non-Australian campuses, the Committee approved the Academic Appointment Procedures – non Australian-based campuses.

Members generally endorsed the thrust of the Policy, commending its utility and observing that it represented a commonsense view and took a fair and reasonable approach. Members suggested that the degree of cross-university uniformity encapsulated in the Policy was necessary and would assist in implementing like policies.

A number of specific issues were raised during discussion, including:

• The meaning of ‘equity implications’ (item 7.1 of the Policy Guidelines) - members considered that the focus of the Policy should be on whether the staff member requesting the equipment was entitled to that equipment.
• Greater emphasis on the need for Heads to consider resourcing issues was suggested.
• Whilst control of resource allocation was necessary, increasing needs for staff mobility and flexibility might see a rise in requests for allocation of resources.
• Promulgation of this Policy (once formally approved) would most likely be undertaken as part of promulgation of a suite of related policy documents.

Speaking against adoption of the Policy, Professor Weber noted that given the generally compelling arguments for resources, it was difficult to differentiate between requests, a difficulty exacerbated by budgetary constraints.

Professor Parker indicated that the Policy would be returned to the Integrity Committee for some further work, including addition of a resource-based override at the beginning of the document, and emphasis that there was no automatic entitlement to resources and equipment. The amended Policy would be returned to SMC for formal approval.

In discussion, members generally commended the draft Principles, and noted that:

• They represented a commonsense and helpful approach to the operation of accounts holding funds generated through University Practice POW.
• The Principles represented both a method of demonstrating the university’s external engagement and generation of an appropriate funds audit trail (insofar as funds were being accounted for by the University and being used for University purposes).
• If the staff member chose to withdraw some or all of the money as taxable income, he or she would need to do so before the expiry of the current tax year, so that there could be no suggestion that the account was a form of tax shelter in the event that the effective tax rate went down.
• The option for Heads and Associate Dean Allowances to be donated back and deposited in Outside Earning Accounts needed confirmation.
• The Principles also applied to general staff.

Members raised several issues relating to item 6 (expenditure compliance requirements) of the draft Principles:

• One Faculty’s compromise approach was to ensure that expenditure complied with ARC Guidelines on expenditure of research funds.
• The requirement to ‘satisfy ATO requirements’ was too broad – a footnote/explanatory note would be useful to clarify what were the requirements.

In response to a member query, Professor Parker indicated that it had been assumed that funds could be carried forward from year to year.

The Committee then endorsed the Principles for the Operation of Consulting Funds/External Earnings Accounts and noted that the University Integrity Committee would develop further procedural/policy documentation for approval by the Committee.

The issue of QANTAS Club memberships (item 7.2 of the Minutes of Meeting 1/06) was highlighted as an issue of some ongoing concern for staff.

The Committee received and noted the Minutes of Meetings 1/2006 and 2/2006 of the University Integrity Committee.