Meeting 3/97 of the Education Committee was held on Wednesday 7 May 1997 at 10:00 am in the Sir George Lush Room, University Offices, Clayton Campus.
There were present:
Professor PLeP Darvall, Chair
Associate Professor R Alfredson, Engineering
Mr M Cabrie, MSA
Associate Professor N Cameron, Science
Associate Professor M Evans, Business and Economics
Mr P Hawman, MPA (Graduate Diploma)
Associate Professor J Hurst, Computing and Information Technology
Professor M King, PhD and Scholarships
Ms H Morgan (for Mr J Welikala), MPA (Masters)
Ms B Presutto, MUBSU
Professor J Redmond, Art and Design
Associate Professor L Roller, Pharmacy
Mr P Strickland (for Ms K McGillivray), MUGSU
Professor G Taylor, Medicine
Mr G Tickell, Education
Associate Professor N White, Arts
Professor CR Williams, Law
In Attendance were:
Ms ER Brooks, Secretariat
Mr R Burnet, Student Services
Associate Professor A Farley (for Professor A Sohal), Business and Economics
Professor L Johnson, Monash Mt Eliza
Mr G Nagtzaam, Student Rights Officer
Ms J Newham, Secretariat
Professor T Threadgold, Arts
Dr J Wallace, Monash Mt Eliza
Apologies were received from:
Ms O Cornelius, Academic Registrar
Mr J Poussard, MUSU Inc, Peninsula
Ms B Presutto, MUBSU
Mr B Ruck, Faculty Registrar, Medicine
Mr M Williams, MUSU, Inc (Caulfield)
Professor W Young, Co-Opted
MINUTES
* 1. STARRED ITEMS
The Committee nominated items 13.2 and 14.1 to be starred, and then endorsed the recommendations for items other than those starred.
* 2. MINUTES
The Committee approved the minutes of meeting 2/97 held on Wednesday 19 March 1997 as circulated.
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
3.1 Matters requiring Resolution from Meeting 2/97
The Committee noted that the matters raised in items 14.1.2 and 14.2 of meeting 2/97 as requiring response from the Faculty of Education continued to require resolution.
3.2 Faculty Certificates Working Party
The Committee noted that Professor A Sohal would be replaced on the Faculty Certificates Working Party by Associate Professor J Hurst, and that the working party met on 1 May 1997.
3.3 Microcomputer Access Requirements for Distance Education Courses
The Committee noted that a document prepared by Ms K McGillivray regarding this matter would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee.
4. ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MEETING 3/97 OF THE ACADEMIC BOARD
The Committee noted the items of interest from Meeting 3/97 of the Academic Board, held on 16 April 1997.
* 4.1 Review of the Academic Board
This item was removed from the Agenda prior to the meeting.
* 4.2 Master of Business Administration
The Chair noted the presence of two members of staff from Monash Mt Eliza Graduate School of Business and Government Ltd (MME), Dr J Wallace and Professor L Johnson, at the meeting. He advised the Committee that since the University intended for MME to be bound by the same processes as the rest of the University, it was considered timely for MME to be represented fully on the Education Committee. Professor Johnson was then welcomed to full membership of the Committee.
In order to resolve the situation identified at Meeting 3/97 of the Academic Board, a paper had been prepared, and was presented to the meeting (pp 371 of the Agenda). It contained a summary of available options for the University in relation to a paper presented by MME.
The issue involved the current cohort of students enrolled in the Master of Business Administration (External) in Shanghai. These students are senior managers who are fully capable of meeting the discipline requirements of the course but have been unable to attain the usual standards of English language competency.
Members agreed that a solution to the current situation needed to be found quickly, and ratified the decision of the Vice-Chancellor's Group to accept the recommendations contained in Item A of the document presented, with the addition of the following two requirements:
The Committee noted that this solution applied only to the current cohort of students in the program and noted further that MME would not be making an intake into this course until the issue of teaching and assessment in languages other than English had been resolved.
With relation to section B of the document presented, the Committee endorsed option six, that the Education Committee would consider the issue of teaching and assessment in languages other than English, and agreed that this item should be placed on the Agenda for the next meeting of the Committee. It was noted that a significant part of the future development of the University might well lie in regions where English was not the first language, and that this was a serious matter which required a swift resolution. A working party was established, comprising Associate Professor M Evans (B&E), Professor L Johnson (MME), Professor B Jacobs (Arts), and other members to be co-opted by the Chair of the Education Committee. This working party would be chaired by Professor Jacobs. The Faculty of Education was also asked to nominate a staff member to join the working party.
The Committee noted that a proposal would be developed by MME for future intakes of students to the MBA(Ext), either specifying the required alternate standards in English or different language arrangements if the decision of the Education Committee is favourable to teaching and assessment in languages other than English.
Action / Information: Associate Professor M Evans, Professor L Johnson, Professor B Jacobs, Mr G Tickell, Mr R Burnet, Ms J Allen
5. INFORMATION FROM THE COMMITTEE OF DEANS
The Committee noted the information from Meetings 3/97, 4/97 and Special Meeting 1/97 of the Committee of Deans, held on 18 March, 15 April and 24 April 1997 respectively. The Committee further noted the availability of the Agendas and Minutes of the meetings of the Committee of Deans on the www.
* 6. STUDENT ACADEMIC GRIEVANCE POLICY
The Committee noted that Council had referred the Student Academic Grievance Policy to the Education Committee for reconsideration after questions were raised at Council Meeting 8/96 regarding the timeframe for the process and the order of hearings in cases when grievance and other (eg exclusion) hearings were both scheduled. The Committee further noted that submissions had been received from the University Solicitor's Office and from student representatives and Student Rights Officers, each of which had also been taken into consideration in the latest revision of the draft document. The drafting process had been overseen by a small working party, comprising Ms K McGillivray, Associate Professor R Alfredson, and Associate Professor J Hurst.
The Chair invited comment from members regarding the latest draft of the Student Academic Grievance Policy.
The Committee entertained discussion regarding the appropriateness of having an appeals process for student academic grievance matters which was separate from the faculty in which the matter had first been raised, but agreed after considerable debate that this could be accomplished by a change to the composition of the Grievance Appeals Panel. This change has been incorporated in the revised document (dated 9 May 1997) attached to these Minutes as Attachment 1. The debate encompassed such varying points as the desire for the perception of total independence of the appeals panel and a preference to resolve disputes as close to the relevant organisational area as possible.
Student members also expressed concern that without an appropriate timeframe for steps one and two of the proposed policy, the mediation process could be artificially drawn out by faculty staff. Members agreed that this would not be beneficial to the student or the staff involved, and agreed to change the word "yet" to "still" in step three of the proposal. The difficulty with setting a time limit on steps one and two lay largely in the fact that the matter had not at that stage been deemed a grievance, and most parties agreed that placing a time limit on these stages could potentially force students into making a formal allegation when they were not yet ready to do so. It was agreed that the intention of the policy was for mediation to continue for as long as was productive, and that the policy was intended to promote justice, expedition and efficiency in matters where a student wished to make a complaint.
The question was raised regarding whether the structure of a course would be subject to the processes described, and the Committee determined that the regulations for a course were the responsibility of the Faculty Board, and as such any disputes regarding regulations, including permissible combinations and credit to be granted for subjects, would be better resolved through the mechanism of the appropriate Faculty Board.
The draft policy was further revised by the inclusion of a statement that the policy would be reviewed at the end of 1998, after experience with its implementation.
Action / Information: Mr G Nagtzaam
* 7. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PII GRADE
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board
As a result of this endorsement, the Faculty of Arts was requested to revisit a decision taken recently at Faculty Board since it would be in contravention of the new policy, and the Faculty of Law was asked to note that decisions regarding the use of the NP grade could be made only in relation to the course in which a student was enrolled rather than the subjects in which the student was enrolled.
Action / Information: Mr R Burnet, Associate Professor N White, Professor R Williams
8. POLICY ON CANCELLATION OF SUBJECTS
This policy will be presented to the next meeting of the Committee, following consultation with Faculties. Each member of the Committee will receive a copy of the recommended policy at the time at which it is circulated to Faculty Registrars.
The Committee noted that this policy would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee, following consultation with Faculties.
* 9. STATUTE 4.1 - DISCIPLINE
The Committee received a further document from the University Solicitor and considered a number of questions in relation to this document.
The Committee determined to make the following responses (responses in italics):
Cases of cheating in formal examinations should be heard in the first instance by FDCs and any appeal would be to the CDC, as for all other cases of academic misconduct. The role of the Examinations Office would remain as it has been for cases heard by the Discipline Committee under the current legislation.
Fines are not acceptable penalties in matters of academic misconduct. The offence of not surrendering materials in a formal examination would be treated as a matter of general misconduct, so long as there was no question of cheating having taken place, and would under those circumstances remain an offence for which a fine might be levied.
Exclusion should remain a penalty for serious discipline cases, in addition to the new penalty of suspension.
The Committee debated this point at some length, eventually agreeing that there could be no such offence introduced, because serial warnings regarding plagiarism gave rise to a sense that the student was aware of the offence and therefore was acting with dishonest intent. It was noted that the recording of warnings regarding academic misconduct was integral to appropriate discipline in faculties, and must be made available to staff when conducting a discipline hearing, rather than simply at the stage of determining a penalty.
Responsibility for the hearing (FDC level) should be granted to overseas campuses, but appeals should be conducted by teleconference by the CDC to ensure fairness and some degree of uniformity.
The Committee agreed that while this question was relevant, it was not required for the process of drafting amendments to the Discipline Statute, since the membership of FDCs and the CDC would not be included in the Statute. However, it was agreed that when the revisions to the Discipline Statute were sent to the Academic Board and Council, they would need to be accompanied by a procedural document which would include such matters as the composition of FDCs and the CDC. Members were asked to canvass opinion in their faculties and constituent groups regarding the matter, bearing in mind the opposing arguments:
A) Students should not be included on discipline committees for reasons of confidentiality, fairness to the student accused, pressures placed on students on such committees, and the feeling of many students on such committees that they 'represented' the student accused and should 'defend' their rights
B) Students should be on discipline committees because of the principle of trial by one's peers, the ability of students in positions of such responsibility to be impartial and to keep matters confidential and the possibility that students on discipline committees may be more strict than other members of the committee
The Committee agreed generally but noted that if authority was to be devolved to the Halls of Residence, then there were other areas which also should be mentioned in a statement about such devolution, including the Libraries, the Computer Centre and the Sports and Recreation Association.
The Committee agreed that the FDCs should continue to be able to seek counsel on process, but agreed that the Solicitor's Office should no longer represent the Faculty at the CDC, so long as the student also had no advocate.
The Committee agreed that responsibility for general misconduct should be devolved to halls of residence, but also should be devolved to other areas of the University, including the Examinations and Certifications Branch, for the offence of not surrendering materials in a formal examination. (See also the response to question 7 above)
The Committee noted that there were still concerns over the exclusion of Monash Mt Eliza students, and agreed to advise the Vice-Chancellor that the status of MME students (not currently students of the University, and therefore not able to avail themselves of the attendant rights nor be bound by the same responsibilities as Monash students) was a matter of some importance and should be revisited as soon as possible. However, the Committee agreed that it had no other concerns over matters contained in the document. The Committee noted that the status of Casey TAFE/Berwick campus students was defined in the agreement between the college and the university.
Action / Information: Professor D Robinson, Members, University Solicitor, Mr G Nagtzaam
10. REPORT OF THE DISTANCE EDUCATION AND OPEN LEARNING COMMITTEE
The Committee noted that Meeting 3/97 of the Distance Education and Open Learning Committee had been cancelled.
11. FACULTY OF ARTS
The Committee received the Report of Meeting 2/97 of the Board of the Faculty of Arts held on Wednesday 9 April 1997, noted the proceedings and considered each item requiring action separately for submission to the Academic Board.
Action / Information: Ms C Jordon, Mr P Yates
11.1 New Course Proposal
11.1.1 Bachelor of Music / Bachelor of Education
This course was approved for introduction from Semester One 1998 by the Education Committee at Meeting 2/97 (item 17.1.1), with the authorisation of the Committee of Undergraduate Studies of the Faculty of Arts.
The Committee noted the ratification by the Board of the Faculty of Arts of the approval at Education Committee Meeting 2/97 of a new double degree program to be titled Bachelor of Music / Bachelor of Education.
* 11.2 Wording on Testamur for Dean's Scholars Program
The Committee received a document detailing the design of the proposed amended testamur. The Committee considered the idea that the amendment should be recommended for all students enrolled in a Dean's Scholars Program, regardless of their faculty (with the exception of those enrolled in the Faculty of Science).
The Director, Student Services, Mr R Burnet, expressed his concern that the proposal would require an alteration to the design of the testamur and queried whether it would be sufficient to include the proposed statement on the student's transcript rather than on both the transcript and the testamur. It was acknowledged that other information of equal importance to a student's future career was not included on the testamur, and it was suggested that the student could receive an additional certificate rather than an amended testamur. Mr Burnet stated that it had not been his intention to have administrative concerns drive academic issues, but asked that the Committee consider the matter at greater length and defer a decision until its next meeting.
The Committee agreed that the information must be included on the transcripts of all students enrolled in a Dean's Scholars Program (with the exception of those enrolled in the Faculty of Science), and any necessary amendments to make this possible must proceed, but agreed to defer the question of whether to include the additional wording on the testamur until the next meeting of the Committee.
Action / Information: Mr R Burnet, Faculty Registrars
11.3 Minor Amendment to Existing Courses and Amendments to Existing Subjects
The Faculty of Arts had agreed to recommend the following minor amendments to existing courses and amendments to existing subjects:
The Committee noted the minor amendments to existing courses and amendment to existing subjects of the Faculty of Arts as listed above.
11.4 Disestablishment of subject
The Faculty of Arts had agreed to recommend the disestablishment of the following subject:
The Committee noted the disestablishment of the subject listed above by the Faculty of Arts.
11.5 Policy on Cancellation of Subjects
The Committee noted that the Faculty of Arts had submitted for endorsement and transmission to the Academic Board a policy for the cancellation of subjects. Since this matter would become the subject of University Policy at the next meeting of the Education Committee, it was deferred until the next meeting.
* 12. AMENDMENT TO REGULATIONS FOR THE FACULTY OF ARTS
At meeting 2/97, the Committee had agreed to defer action regarding this matter until further consultation had been undertaken with the Faculty of Arts. This consultation had taken place immediately after Meeting 2/97 of the Committee and the amendment to the regulations were therefore re-submitted for the Committee's approval. The representative of the Faculty of Arts agreed that although a final decision had not been taken regarding the inclusion of wording on the degree testamur, she would not oppose the amendment.
The Education Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposed amendment deleting reference to a Bachelor of Arts (Arts Scholars Program) in the Faculty of Arts (Undergraduate Degree) Regulations and Statute 6.1.2 - Courses and Degrees.
Action / Information: University Solicitor
13. FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
The Committee received the Report of Meeting 2/97 of the Board of the Faculty of Business and Economics held on Wednesday 2 April 1997, noted the proceedings and considered each item requiring action separately for submission to the Academic Board.
Action / Information: Ms A Pilgrim, Mr K Hobbs
* 13.1 Amendments to Existing Courses
13.1.1 Graduate Certificate in Management - change to admission criteria
This amendment was proposed for introduction from Semester Two 1997 to allow for a minimum period of experience in a relevant industry prior to admission to the course.
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposal of the Faculty of Business and Economics to amend the admission requirements for the existing Graduate Certificate in Management by requiring a minimum of two years relevant experience prior to admission to the course.
13.1.2 Bachelor of Business / Bachelor of Computing - amendments to structure
The Committee noted the ratification by the Board of the Faculty of Business and Economics of the amendment to the structure of the existing Bachelor of Business / Bachelor of Computing approved by the Education Committee at Meeting 2/97 (Item 16.1.1).
13.1.3 Diploma of Business - amendment to compulsory subject and changes to subject prerequisites
These amendments were proposed for introduction from Semester One 1998.
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposal of the Faculty of Business and Economics to amend the existing Diploma of Business by making GBU7015 Business Applications a compulsory subject and amending the subject prerequisites for a number of subjects in the course as detailed in the document presented.
13.1.4 Bachelor of Business - addition of Professional Accounting major (Berwick campus)
This amendment was proposed for introduction from Semester One 1998, and would affect all Bachelor of Business combined courses available at the Berwick campus.
This major would be in addition to the sequence in Accounting made available at the Berwick campus from Semester One 1997 (Education Committee 8/96, item 11.2.5).
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposal of the Faculty of Business and Economics that the Bachelor of Business available at the Berwick campus be amended by the establishment of a new major sequence in Professional Accounting.
* 13.2 New Subject Proposals
The Committee agreed to defer this item until the next meeting of the Committee.
13.3 Minor Amendments to Existing Courses and Amendments to Existing
Subjects
The Faculty of Business and Economics had agreed to recommend the following minor amendments to existing courses and amendments to existing subjects (this information differs from that presented in the Agenda):
The Committee noted the minor amendments to existing courses and amendments to existing subjects of the Faculty of Business and Economics as listed above.
14. FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
The Committee received the Report of Meeting 2/97 of the Board of the Faculty of Engineering held on 23 April 1997 and considered each item requiring action separately for submission to the Academic Board.
Action / Information: Mr D Secomb
* 14.1 New Subject Proposals
14.1.1 ECS5350 Electrical Power Project
A question was raised regarding the proposed word length of the project for the subject, and the Faculty provided that information after the meeting (25 000 words).
Therefore, the Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the subject proposal listed in item 14.1.1 above.
14.2 Minor Amendment to Existing Course and Amendments to Existing Subjects
The Faculty of Engineering had agreed to recommend the following minor amendment to an existing course and amendments to existing subjects:
The Committee noted the minor amendment to an existing course and amendments to existing subjects of the Faculty of Engineering as listed above.
15. FACULTY OF LAW
The Committee received the Report of Meeting 1/97 of the Board of the Faculty of Law held on 23 April 1997 and noted the proceedings.
Action / Information: Ms E Wilson
15.1 Recommendations regarding the Graduate Program of the Faculty of Law
The Committee noted the recommendations approved by the Board of the Faculty of Law regarding the future directions for the graduate program in that Faculty.
16. FACULTY OF SCIENCE
The Committee received the Report of Meeting 1/97 of the Board of the Faculty of Science held on 5 March 1997 and considered each item requiring action separately for submission to the Academic Board.
Action / Information: Dr P Rodan
* 16.1 Amendments to Existing Courses
16.1.1 Bachelor of Science - amendment to structure and schedules of subjects
This amendment was proposed for introduction from Semester One 1998.
Members discussed the proposed amendment, noting that it would require greater focus from students enrolled in what had been one of the few remaining generalist degrees of the University. It was agreed that the proposal restricted students to concentrating on those areas traditionally considered science disciplines even when they were technically part of the subjects of another faculty. This was of concern to members.
However, it was noted that courses which might be recommended as part of campus or regional strategies could be developed specifically to permit generalisation, and that the Faculty of Science had amended the proposal to make it less restrictive than had originally been the intention. It should also be noted that this proposal reflects the pathways proposed for a student wishing to accomplish his or her degree in the recommended minimum time, and that an overload is often permitted by the Faculty.
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposal of the Faculty of Science to amend the Schedule of Approved Science Subjects as detailed in the document presented.
16.2 No Further Intake to Course
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the advice of the Faculty of Science that there would be no further intake to the Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics and Computing) after Semester One 1997.
17. FACULTY OF SCIENCE - HONOURS YEARS
At Meeting 5/96 of the Board of the Faculty of Science (14 August 1996), the Faculty approved the submission of a request to establish honours years for the tagged Bachelor of Science courses on the Clayton campus. A request was made to the Faculty that a more fully developed proposal be presented before the submission was presented to the Education Committee. This more detailed proposal was presented for approval.
Action / Information: Dr P Rodan
* 17.1 New Course Proposals
17.1.1 The honours degree of Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics and Computing)
This course was proposed for introduction from Semester One 1998 on the Clayton campus.
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposal of the Faculty of Science to establish a new course, to be titled the honours degree of Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics and Computing).
17.1.2 The honours degree of Bachelor of Science (Behavioural)
This course was proposed for introduction from Semester One 1998 on the Clayton campus.
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposal of the Faculty of Science to establish a new course, to be titled the honours degree of Bachelor of Science (Behavioural).
17.1.3 The honours degree of Bachelor of Science (Biomedical)
This course was proposed for introduction from Semester One 1998 on the Clayton campus.
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposal of the Faculty of Science to establish a new course, to be titled the honours degree of Bachelor of Science (Biomedical).
17.1.4 The honours degree of Bachelor of Science (Environmental)
This course was proposed for introduction from Semester One 1998 on the Clayton campus.
The Committee endorsed for submission to the Academic Board the proposal of the Faculty of Science to establish a new course, to be titled the honours degree of Bachelor of Science (Environmental).
18. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
18.1 Diploma Courses
The Committee noted that the policy of the University regarding the offering of Diploma courses would be considered at its next meeting.
18.2 New Member
The Committee welcomed Mr Peter Hawman to the Committee as the representative of Graduate Diploma students.
19. NEXT MEETING
The Committee noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Education Committee would be held at 10:00am on Wednesday 2 July 1997 and that course and subject proposal submissions for that meeting would be due on or before TUESDAY 3 JUNE; full reports would be due on or before Friday 20 June.
The Committee noted the information above.
Membership
Professor P LeP Darvall (Interim Chair)
Associate Professor R Alfredson, Engineering
Mr M Cabrie, MSA, Clayton
Associate Professor N Cameron, Science
Associate Professor M Evans, Business and Economics
Mr P Hawman, MPA, Graduate Diploma
Associate Professor J Hurst, Computing and Information Technology
Professor M King, PhD and Scholarships Committee
Ms K McGillivray, MUGSU, Gippsland
Mr J Poussard, MUSU Inc, Peninsula
Ms B Presutto, MUBSU, Berwick
Professor J Redmond, Art and Design
Professor L Roller, Pharmacy
Associate Professor G Taylor, Medicine
Mr G Tickell, Education
Mr J Welikala, MPA, Masters
Associate Professor N White, Arts
Mr M Williams, MUSU, Inc, Caulfield
Professor R Williams, Law
Professor B Young, Co-Opted
Vacant, MUPSA
In Attendance
Mr R Burnet, Student Services
Professor A Sohal, Business and Economics
Professor T Threadgold, Arts
Professor PJ Stewart, Pharmacy
Faculty Registrar/Manager (in rotation)
Executive Officer
Ms ER Brooks, Secretariat
The Monash University Student Academic Grievance Policy has been under development since late in 1995, when all faculty academic grievance policy statements were collected and examined. It was immediately obvious that the policy statements and processes in use for considering academic grievances were virtually identical.
Grievances relating to administrative matters have always been considered by either the Faculty Registrar/Manager or the Manager for Student Relations and Enquiries (located in the Student Services Division).
It is recognised that academic grievance matters are best considered within a Faculty and must be initially resolved at that point. An appeals process could involve either the establishment of a second faculty based panel, with external membership, or reference to a University Committee, much like the Discipline Committee. The student submission requested the establishment of a centralised appeal procedure, while the University Solicitor's Office advised that these processes were best considered within the faculty of origin, and even recommended against external membership of the second panel. The suggestions below are a compromise between the two positions.
It is intended that the Student Academic Grievance Policy would cover complaints about aspects of courses, assessment, or other matters which are the responsibility of the academic staff of the faculty. Academic Grievances are separate from university discipline or sexual harassment policies and processes, each of which is covered by a separate piece of policy or legislation (Statute 4.1 Discipline; Section 7.4 'Discrimination and sexual harassment grievance procedures' of the Staff handbook).
It is recommended that the following policy and procedures be endorsed by the University Council as the University policy on Student Academic Grievance, and that it be included in the Student Information Handbook (along with the University's Administrative Grievance procedures and the discrimination and sexual harassment procedures) for the convenience of students. This would require the approval by Council of a unified set of University Administrative Grievance procedures. Academic Grievance procedures for students enrolled for awards of the University not managed by a Faculty (eg Doctor of Philosophy) would be covered by the procedure recently developed by the PhD and Scholarships Committee, which should also be published widely. Faculties should also incorporate policies and procedures for academic and administrative grievances into any documentation for the Faculty-administered Higher Doctorates.
On the advice of the University Solicitor's Office, it is not recommended at this time that legislation be drafted for this policy, or for a University administrative grievance policy.
As is the case with all procedures of the University, a student or staff member may raise the matter with the State Ombudsman, should internal procedures not resolve the complaint.
This policy should be reviewed at the end of 1998.
Monash University Policy on Student Academic Grievances:
Procedures for Resolution of Grievances:
Faculty where grievance is to be lodged
A student should lodge a complaint with the Faculty which manages the degree in which he or she is enrolled. In the case of double degrees, the student should lodge their complaint with the managing faculty (eg for BA/BE, the Faculty of Engineering) even when the complaint relates to a subject taken in another faculty. The senior member of staff nominated by the Dean may request that academics from another faculty take part in any hearings which might be required. Students who enrolled on a non-award or single subject basis should lodge any complaint with the faculty managing the subject in which they were enrolled.
Advocacy:
The student is to be advised at the time of the initiation of academic grievance procedures that they may bring with them to any hearings into the matter a support person (as in the Discipline hearings, this may be any person whether legally qualified or not, although this person is not to act as an advocate for the student.) Similarly, the staff member would not be represented by an advocate, although would be equally entitled to bring a person to the hearing as a support person. Should the matter proceed to an appeal, both the student and the staff member would be entitled to an advocate, should they so desire.
Senior Member of Staff nominated by the Dean:
It is recommended that Faculties determine in advance and publish in student handbooks the name of the person or persons able to be approached regarding matters of this kind. Normally, the senior member of staff would be one of the Associate Deans or the Faculty Registrar / Manager. The senior member of staff MUST NOT have been involved in the dispute or decision which is the subject of the complaint, in order that there is no conflict of interest or perceived bias. In such a case, the Dean would need to appoint another member of staff to conduct the procedure.
Membership of Faculty Grievance Committee:
Senior Member of staff nominated by the Dean (Chair)
Two members of academic staff at the level of lecturer or above
One student from the courses managed by the Faculty nominated by the appropriate student body
It may be necessary to appoint to the panel staff from the department in which the complaint originated, in order to provide expertise (for example when the complainant is claiming unfair assessment practices). Provided that no member of the panel has had any involvement in the matter which is being enquired into or any other particular connection with the complainant, there will be no conflict of interest or perceived bias. Although it would be usual to appoint academic staff from within the managing Faculty, it may be necessary to appoint academic staff from another Faculty to the Panel, particularly if the matter relates to a subject studied in another Faculty. The Chair would appoint the staff members to the Faculty Grievance Committee.
Membership of Grievance Appeal Panel:
Dean of the Faculty (Chair)
Two Associate Deans (Teaching) of other Faculties
One member of academic staff at the level of Associate Professor or above
Two students from the courses managed by the Faculty nominated by the appropriate student body
Such a panel would include none of the members of the Faculty Grievance Committee (although the Chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee may be invited to address the appeal proceedings) and would include the Dean of another Faculty (or nominee). The academic staff member would usually be appointed from within the managing Faculty, but may be appointed from another Faculty if it is considered necessary. The Chair would appoint the staff members to the Grievance Appeal Panel.
Persons who may bring a complaint:
The only person who may initiate a complaint regarding matters of academic grievance is the person who has been aggrieved (ie the student). The Student Rights Officer may act on behalf of the student in initiating the investigation, at the request of the student.
Frivolous and/or vexatious complaints:
The senior member of staff nominated by the Dean may determine that the complaint in question is frivolous and/or vexatious, and determine that no enquiry is necessary. As for all other decisions related to the grievance process, the complainant must be advised of this determination in writing, and may make appeal to the Dean, if they so desire. The Dean may determine that an appeal of a determination of a Faculty Grievance Committee is similarly frivolous and/or vexatious and dismiss the complaint. This decision of the Dean must also be communicated to the complainant in writing.
Records of proceedings:
Written records of any grievance proceedings/complaints must be kept in a secure location in the office of the Dean of the Faculty for a minimum of five years after the last action date regarding the complaint (in accordance with University policy on disposal of records), although individual circumstances may require the retention of records after that time. These matters are considered to be absolutely confidential and any records must be destroyed in the same way as for all confidential records when no longer required to be kept.. A report regarding the operation of the grievance policy should be prepared for submission to the Faculty Board no less than once each year, omitting all details which could identify those people who were involved in the processes.
Timelines for Proceedings:
There is a specified maximum time period for each of the steps described above. They are as follows:
Order of hearings:
Normally, the proceeding first raised should be the first settled, if more than one hearing has been proposed (eg Unsatisfactory Progress, Discipline, Exclusion Appeal). Each hearing should be advised that other hearings are proposed, however. If a student is faced with an Unsatisfactory Progress Committee hearing, and subsequently files a complaint of academic grievance, the decision regarding the student's unsatisfactory progress should be taken prior to commencement of hearings regarding the alleged academic grievance.
No two proceedings as identified above might run concurrently.
The Dean of the Faculty may determine the order in which hearings should proceed.
These procedures are designed to prevent a student who is scheduled for an exclusion appeal hearing from making a complaint of academic grievance in order to delay the exclusion hearing until the commencement of the following semester, in the hope that the exclusion appeal committee would be more likely to permit continued enrolment after the commencement of the semester.