Senior Management Committee Meeting 3-2006

Associate Professor Harry Ballis (for Professor Brian Mackenzie), Professor Ed Byrne, Mr Greg Connell, Professor David Copolov, Professor Edwina Cornish, Associate Professor Denise Cuthbert (for Professor Homer Le Grand), Ms Peggy Daroesman, Mr Stephen Davey, Mr Reynold Dias, Professor Stephanie Fahey, Mr Ron Fairchild, Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Ms Karen Haywood, Associate Professor Sally Joy (for Associate Professor John Hurst), Professor Max King, Professor Richard Larkins, Professor HP Lee (for Professor Arie Freiberg), Professor Merilyn Liddell (via teleconference), Mr Peter Marshall, Mr Alan McMeekin, Mr David McWaters, Ms Lee-ann Norris, Professor Gill Palmer, 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.

Professor Colin Chapman, Professor Merran Evans, Professor Arie Freiberg, Associate Professor John Hurst, Professor Homer Le Grand, Professor Brian Mackenzie, Professor Rob Norris, Mr Peter Yates.

Ms Jenny Vero, Ms Dearne Jackson and Ms Melissa Dibben, University Planning and Statistics (for item 5.1)

Ms Kay Gardner, Director Equity and Diversity Centre and Ms. Lynda Nicholson, Advancing Indigenous Employment Coordinator (for item 5.2)

Berwick campus

The Department of Education’s formal rejection of the Delfin proposal had been received. A more gradual development plan, focussing on the use of pathways programs (e.g. provided by Monash College) to provide access to degree programs offered by Monash Berwick, would be implemented. The Minister had expressed support for the alternative proposal.

Funding for the Sir John Monash Science School had been budgeted from the State’s share of the proceeds of the sale of the Snowy Hydro. The Government had provided interim advice that the proposed planning funding was still available, but that, as a result of the cancellation of the Snowy Hydro sale, the capital funding would be delayed. Further details were being sought.

Increase in the cap on the student loan FEE-HELP would make fee-paying courses more attractive. Given this, and whilst marketing to coursework postgraduate domestic students had improved, more thought should be given to community access programs and encouraging other demographics e.g. retirees, to undertake study at Monash.

The requirement to monitor student attendance proposed in the draft National Code raised the issue of discrimination and considerable burden of compliance (in accounting and reporting). The Go8 and AVCC had both advocated for removal of this requirement.
 

Ms Melissa Dibben then demonstrated specific features of each of the Kronos modules.

In discussion, members commented that the ability to report (on a progressive basis) on course profitability would be an extremely useful addition to the University’s monitoring tools. Professor Graham Webb advised that such development was underway as part of the course planning project and that work towards bringing together various information sources with a view towards a single system approach was ongoing.

The Chair congratulated members of the Kronos team on a successful, well-concluded, project.
 

Ms. Lynda Nicholson presented an overview of indigenous education and employment within Monash and the community at large, indicating that it was hoped that programs developed pursuant to the Monash Indigenous Employment Policy would help address the imbalance in education and employment between the indigenous and wider communities. Whilst the Monash indigenous employment program was well-regarded in comparison to other Victorian universities, there was scope for improvement e.g. it was hoped to increase mainstream (non-CAIS) opportunities for indigenous employment.

Ms Nicholson described the proposed traineeships framework, including the relationship between the employer (it was hoped to use AFL SportsReady) and host employer (Monash), noting that administrative and legal components of the traineeship would be dealt with by the employer. Detailed terms and conditions would be negotiated by Employee Relations and Consultancy Branch.

Explaining the benefits of the traineeships to trainees, Ms Nicholson indicated that they provided opportunity for on-the-job training, in addition to accredited TAFE training (to at least Certificate 3 level), future employment possibilities and academic pathways. For Monash, benefits accruing through participation in the scheme would include the redressing of indigenous disadvantage, being seen as employer of choice by the indigenous community, and acquiring Monash-ready potential employees.

Advising that the cost of a traineeship would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, Ms Gardner confirmed that there were a number of employer incentives and subsidies on offer from the Federal Government.

In discussion, members observed that, to reduce the translocational difficulties encountered by indigenous students/employees in moving from a remote to metropolitan community, maintenance of close relationships with indigenous community organisations was critical, as was the need for Monash to engage with more remote communities. It was considered that the proximity of the Gippsland campus to a number of indigenous communities was advantageous and should be utilised to develop and maintain networks.

The Chair thanked Ms Gardner and Ms Nicholson for their presentation, indicating that the Committee was very supportive of the proposal. Faculties and Divisions were encouraged to consider participation in the Indigenous Traineeships scheme.
 

Highlighting the complexity of the MMF, Professor Parker emphasised that three (3) schemes operated within the MMF framework – Student International Mobility (SIM), Intra-Monash Mobility (IMM), Professional Development programs for staff (PD). Each scheme contained constituent programs. Some Budget commitments had been made e.g. enhancement to Monash Abroad, and allocation of strategic initiative funding; however a number of initiatives could be undertaken without committing additional funds.

Referring to the cross-institutional nature of the endeavour, Professor Parker pointed to early Monash Abroad indicators of success e.g. the first student exchange between MUM and MSA.

The next steps in development of the MMF would be to obtain feedback from SMC, present the Discussion Paper to Academic Board, and continue development of, inter alia, the Steering Group and Network.

Generally endorsing the MMF as proposed in the Discussion Paper, members canvassed a range of issues in discussion, including:

• The repositioning of Monash Abroad and, in relation to student IMM, promotion of mobility on a program basis.
   
• The figures used in the MMF were largely intended to act as a spur to increase mobility, rather than as optimal indicators of success.
   
• It was expected that development of the Monash Mobility Index would facilitate measurement of the different categories of student movement.
   
• In relation to a query concerning the campus component of programs, members were advised that the working group was currently considering the notion of Monash Metro, involving loosening identification by students with a specific campus. This involved investigation of a number of complex issues, including VTAC requirements, student preferences, resourcing to facilitate free movement around campuses etc. The Faculty of Medicine’s desire to extend to all of its students the semester of study spent by MUM medical students in Australia (a requirement mandated by the AMC) might be a useful pilot study.
   
• Increasing the mobility of general staff would be beneficial for the University. This could be facilitated by staff secondment to the two (2) overseas campuses.

Members made several comments relating to the Statements, including:

• Provision of greater basic detail on the type of academic endeavours would be useful, although it was noted that campus operational planning took much of this into account.
   
• The need for the Statements to provide greater detail within the defining themes and to reflect some more advanced thinking e.g. Gippsland (energy development) and Peninsula (health sciences).
   
• It was significant that the Statements were now in place. It was emphasised that they should be read in the context of the overall planning framework and that, with the passage of time, further developments and opportunities would allow for incorporation of additional information.

The Committee endorsed the Campus Directions Statements and noted that further comments should be directed to Professor Parker.
 

She re-iterated that the draft Plan consisted of two (2) parts – a Background document exploring issues garnered from a number of sources, including the International Self-Review and a range of strategic documents, and a Matrix (which took the same shape as the Education and Research Plans). The "hub and spokes model" to underpin the structure of Monash’s international activities was confirmed.

There had been wide consultation on the draft Plan, which would be formally considered by the Committee at its July meeting.

Emphasising Monash’s overarching goal to become a world class research intensive international university, Professor Fahey described the relationship between the four (4) "R’s" - increased Research; increase Ranking; increased Reputation; and increased Recruitment – in particular, that a focus on research led to increased recruitment whereas a focus on recruitment did not lead to research excellence.

Professor Fahey also highlighted another area of the draft Plan’s focus - partnerships - and the need to make structural improvements in this area, including clear identification of those (high ranking) institutions which Monash wished to partner, and categorising the range of inter-institutional relationships.

The draft Plan canvassed a range of international activities, cutting across a number of initiatives already in development/implementation phase. A number of potential activities were also described e.g. research-focussed partnerships, establishment of research academies in China and India, and a Chinese presence at Monash.

Professor Fahey referred to several features of the Committee structure outlined in the draft Plan, including changes to VCG (I) membership, devolution of increased responsibility to ADI’s, development of regional networks, and task forces. Additional Committees would include the International Campus, Centre and College Collaboration Committee and Prato Centre Advisory Committee.

In discussion, members:

• Endorsed the strategic view of partnerships taken by the draft Plan.
   
• Commented that it would be important to maintain lines of responsibility once the matrix arrangement was operationalised. In response, it was noted that the international dimension of Monash’s operations cut across portfolios, and that lines between domestic and international students were very blurred.
   
• Observed that there might be a 5^th category of partnership, where relationships were developed by researchers in a strategically important area, but where the inter-institutional relationship was not of the status of a Category 1 partnership.
   
• Suggested that it would be useful to distinguish between research and educational issues (programs), as program brand management had particular needs.

The Committee endorsed the Vice-Chancellor’s Awards for Excellence in Research by Early Career Researchers for introduction in 2006.
 

• The University needed to ensure that its core business was sound and viable. It would therefore be necessary to economise in non-core areas to adequately resource core business.
   
• Based on information up to April, the operating result and margin were down on budget.
   
• Most faculties were on track to meet their 2006 budgeted operating result, though the Faculty of IT faced another difficult period. The Faculty of Medicine was also tracking below its budget, although it was difficult to work out the linkage between research grants and expenditure – improvements to project management systems were necessary.
   
• Impacts compared to budget included increase in Commonwealth revenue, slight increase in student fee revenue, and downturn in commercial revenue. Investment revenue was tracking above budget. Staff costs were above budget, as were other operating expenses.

Although the indicators were at an early stage, Mr Pitt emphasised that

• Second semester student numbers were yet to be confirmed.
   
• Non-core windfalls could not be relied upon to redress budget shortfalls.
   
• There may be a negative impact from other financial pressures.

Mr Pitt advised members that the Capital Works Program was tracking very slightly under budget, but that development relating to the Menzies Building might impact on the Capital Works Budget.

Members considered a range of issues in discussion, including:

• Rather than distinguish between core and non-core business, it was important to be able to understand times of cashflow, and map trends over the past few years.
   
• In budget forecasting, normal cashflow from (for example) NHMRC, was taken into account.
   
• $21 million extra had been injected into the forthcoming NHMRC round, from which Monash would expect to receive some of the additional funds.

• Semester 2 invoices had been brought forward to mid-late June.
   
• Phillips KPA had been engaged to review student-provided services, with a view to their prioritising.
   
• Results of the survey of student service preferences were imminent.
   
• Mr Yates was co-ordinating establishment of a Monash Card, which, in return for payment of a voluntary fee, would enable access to discounts on a range of services.
   
• Monyx/Campus Life would be restructured, bringing a number of services back to the University (Campus Life Division) and leaving Monyx to run commercial activities.

Mr Marshall also reported that a discussion paper on the Federal Government’s transitional funding indicated that such funding would be targeted to sporting facilities in rural/regional areas. The Monash position was that funding should be provided pro rata on the basis of Commonwealth funding. If it finally transpired that the transitional funding was allocated to rural/regional areas, Monash would need to ensure that the Gippsland campus was not disadvantaged.

Further details would be made available in the next short while.