Skip to content | Change text size
Assets | Includes | header.shtml
 

Strategy and Resources Committee Meeting 5-2009

Meeting 5/2009 of the Strategy and Resources Committee commenced at 4.00 pm on Thursday 11 June 2009 in the Sir George Lush Meeting Room, Building 3a, Clayton campus.

Rhonda Hinds
Secretary

MINUTES

1.    Attendance and apologies

There were present:
Professor Richard Larkins AO (Chair), Professor Ben Canny (representing Professor Jayne Godfrey), Professor Edwina Cornish, Professor Helen Bartlett, Professor Merran Evans, Mr Ron Fairchild, Professor Arie Freiberg AM, Professor Rod Hill, Professor Jane Kenway (representing Professor Sue Willis), Professor Stephen King, Professor Stevebn Langford (representing Professor Rob Norris), Professor Guojun Lu (representing Professor Ron Weber), Mr Peter Marshall, Professor John Sheridan (representing Professor Tam Sridhar), Professor Adam Shoemaker, Professor Phillip Steele, Professor Peter Stewart (representing Professor Bill Charman), Professor Steven Wesselingh, Professor Walter Wong (representing Professor Robin Pollard).

Apologies were received from:
Professor Bill Charman, Professor Stephanie Fahey, Professor Rae Frances, Professor Jayne Godfrey, Professor Max King, Professor Rob Norris, Mr David Pitt, Professor Robin Pollard, Professor Tyrone Pretorius, Professor Tam Sridhar, Professor Ron Weber, Professor Sue Willis.

In attendance:
Ms Loren Miller, Director Business Strategy (item 6.1), Ms Karen Haywood, Divisional Director, Human Resources, Ms Mary-Anne Gallagher, Director Organisational Policy & Development, and Mr Ian Kiddell, Workforce Information Systems (item 6.4), Mr Reynold Dias, Divisional Director, FiRM (item 7).

Welcoming members to the meeting, the Chair congratulated Professor Arie Freiberg on his award of an AM in the Queen’s Birthday Honours. Members responded by acclamation.

2.    Formal Items

Item 8.1 – OSP Procedures - was starred.

An additional item 4.3 – Swine Influenza - was added to the agenda and also starred.

The Committee agreed that all other items on the agenda not starred be adopted without discussion, and the action recommended be taken or the information therein noted.

3.    Minutes of Meeting 4/2009

The Committee confirmed the Minutes of SRC Meeting 4/2009, held on 6 May 2009.

4.    Matters arising from the Minutes of Meeting 4/2009

4.1   ICT Shared Services (item 4.1)

Members noted that the first quarterly update was scheduled for Thursday 6 August, at 3.45 pm, in the Sir George Lush Room.

4.2   2010 Senior Management Summit (Meeting 3/2009, item 4.1)

The Committee noted the 2010 Senior Management Summit update from Professor Evans.

4.3   Swine Influenza (item 6.1)

Responding to a member question, Mr Marshall advised the Committee that revision to the Pandemic Planning Template had been requested.

Members were also advised that a presentation on the University’s approach to Crisis Management and Recovery would be made to a future meeting of the Committee.

The Committee congratulated Dr Blandy and his team on steering the Monash approach to the Swine Influenza pandemic.

For information: Professor J Redmond, Mr P Marshall, Dr C Blandy, Ms S Jacob

5.    Vice-Chancellor’s Business

Professor Larkins reported on a recent meeting of the Board of Directors of Monash South Africa, which, acting on the advice of FiRM and senior management, had resolved to impose a one off significant student fee increase for 2010 (increases beyond 2010 would be tied to the CPI). It was projected that South Africa would break even by 2011, in advance of the timeline set by Council.

Members were also advised of the strategies put in place to ensure a safe environment for students in light of the recent attacks on Indian students in the community. These included the provision of personal safety briefing sessions, briefing sessions for students living in halls of residence and an increased security presence in key areas on campus.

6.    Planning and Monitoring

6.1   Financial Services Enhancement Project (FSEP)

Ms Loren Miller, accompanied by representatives of Ineum Consulting and Ms Rosemary Manning, presented an FSEP ‘work in progress’ report, emphasising that all aspects of the project were on track.

Ms Miller described the three project review methodologies, their constituent elements and briefly outlined emergent issues and ideas for improvement. She advised members that the next step in the project process would be to bring the three methodologies together with a view to formulation of recommendations/development of business cases. A final report and recommendations would be put to SRC at its meeting of 6 August.

Responding to a member query regarding the level of consultation that had occurred with the faculties, Ms Miller noted that there had been extensive opportunity for faculty input as part of the consultation on Organisational and Stakeholder Needs and Workstream Reference Groups, in addition to university-wide communications.

Referring to concern expressed at the level of Deans’ involvement, the Chair observed that, by bringing project reports to SRC, all members had the opportunity to engage directly with members of the FSE Project Team. It was, however, agreed that the project recommendations would be communicated to the Deans in advance of the SRC August meeting, to facilitate intra faculty consultation.

The Committee received and noted the FSE Project Progress Update.

For information: Ms L Miller

6.2   Workforce Movements Report (Confidential)

6.3   Education Investment Fund (EIF)

Members had before them a memorandum inviting submission of project ideas for the forthcoming EIF round. Mr Marshall emphasised the need for Round 3 preparations to commence without delay, noting that project ideas should be forwarded to Ms Blackwell by 19 June.

He explained the process that Monash would implement to sift through project ideas and observed that, once the EIF business rules were confirmed, it was likely that Monash would cull the project proposals to one bid per funding pool.

During discussion, members noted that in order to take advantage of funding available through the EIF Sustainability Round, Monash would need to develop clear views around sustainability and clean energy projects, and that some ideas were currently in development.

The Committee received the memorandum and noted Mr Marshall’s advice.

For information: Mr P Marshall, Ms M Blackwell

6.4   Performance Development Process: Academic Staff

Members had before them a report on development and implementation of the Performance Development Online (PDO) pilot, which was introduced by Ms Haywood.

Mr Kidd proceeded to demonstrate the PDO application. Key features of the demonstration included:

  • Access to PDO via the “my.monash” portal.
  • The use of a tab-based online form.
  • Graphical representation of progress through the performance development process.
  • Inbuilt integration with e.g. RM4.
  • Ability to add attachments.
  • Facility for addition of supervisor comments.

Members were also advised that:

  • The application was live with the pilot group, with roll-out scheduled for September.
  • The ability to monitor the performance development process was significantly enhanced.
  • Existing commitment to performance development was crucial to successful uptake of PDO. Consequently, the role of the Academic Head was significant.
  • A partnership approach to implementation between HRD and relevant faculty staff teams was proposed.

In response to member questions, Ms Haywood advised that:

  • PDO would not replace the face-to-face component of performance development.
  • The system had the capacity to cater for a primary and secondary supervisor.
  • Access by the Dean could be considered separately.
  • “Personal development” could be amended to “career development”.
  • A link to the Conduct and Compliance Policies, with provision for single acknowledgment, could be included to simplify the compliance content.

The Committee:

  • Received and noted the memorandum and presentation on the Performance Development Online (PDO) pilot.
  • Endorsed PDO as a fundamental component of academic performance development at Monash.
  • Encouraged provision of feedback to Ms Haywood.
  • Recommended single-stage implementation, with a short transitional period, rather than implementation by stages.

For information: Mr P Marshall, Ms K Haywood

6.5   Indirect Costs of University Research

The Committee received and noted the letter from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research providing a progress report on the project to examine the indirect costs of university research and inviting participation in a related survey to be carried out on behalf of the Department by the Allen Consulting Group.

7.    Budget and Financial Performance

7.1   Federal Budget

Mr Dias briefed members on the federal budget and its impact on Monash. The following items were highlighted:

  • Monash’s receipt of a range of large grants, including funding for the Monash Health Research Precinct Facility, Nanofabrication Facility, EMBL and the Australian Research and Data Commons.
  • The impact of anticipated research funding, noting that there was a lack of specificity from the Federal Government regarding the criteria for Joint Research Engagement funding.
  • Apart from Nursing and Education, there was no change to per student funding rates.
  • From 2012 the cap on student over-enrolments would be removed and universities would be funded on the basis of student demand.
  • Revised indexation scheme would apply from 2011, which would provide more realistic annual adjustments.
  • More funding would be available for meeting performance targets. However, in many cases, the criteria for the revised funding were as yet unknown. It was considered that these issues would form part of the negotiations over compacts.
  • Considerable funding had been set aside for increasing low socio-economic participation. A strategy for Monash to take advantage of this opportunity would be developed.

In summary, Mr Dias observed that 2010 would be a financially difficult year, though there was reason for optimism going forward. However, the quantum of funding per student would remain an issue.

The Committee received and noted the Federal Budget presentation.

7.2   Budget Outlook

Mr Dias presented the University’s high level outlook for 2010 – 2012.

He commenced the presentation by informing members of the financial objectives over the next few years - cash break even; no further borrowings; no reliance on the Foundation for cash. Members were then stepped through the formulation of the base projections, or broad assumptions which functioned as start points for development of options and actions and were advised that the outcomes of the base projections were adequate in the case of the operating result, but negative in the case of cashflow. A range of possible options for cashflow adjustments was then outlined.

Responding to member queries regarding the reasons for decline in the forecast cash position, Mr Dias responded that:

  • The impact of rising staff costs was significant – an increase of 1% in staff related costs translated to an increase of $7.5m.
  • Increase in staffing costs would outstrip increased revenue per student by 3 %.
  • Capital projections had the greatest impact on the cash position.

During discussion, members commented that:

  • The outlook for 2010 was not as optimistic as previously thought, given the global financial crisis and less than anticipated government funding.
  • It was timely to reconsider Monash’s current cost structure, with a view to developing operational efficiencies.
  • Cash from the sale of Monash IVF could be used to support strategic capital development.
  • With reduction in EIF funds, windfalls from Government were less likely.
  • If there was insufficient cash to reinvest in core activities, Monash’s ability to improve its capital (not restricted to buildings) base was diminished.

The Committee received and noted the presentation on the Monash high level outlook for 2010-2012.

7.3   Financial Reports

The Committee received and noted the Financial Report for April and summary report for May 2009.

For information: Mr D Pitt, Mr R Dias

8.    Policies

8.1   Outside Studies Program (OSP) Procedures

Members discussed the proposed OSP Procedures at some length, during which the following issues were raised:

Recommendations from the Review of OSP

Review Recommendation 12 (OSP eligibility criteria also refers)

Some members expressed concern that, given the short/ish nature of appointments at this level, the recommendation placed constraints upon Deans.

It was suggested that this portion of the criteria for eligibility be amended by inserting a qualifiers such as “subject to individual negotiation “or similar.

Staff Development Procedure – OSP

Section 1 – OSP Application

It was suggested that the procedures be amended to indicate that approval of an application for OSP for the purpose of completion of a PhD be restricted to once only.

Section 3 – OSP Committee consideration

A member suggested that the Procedures be amended to require a member of the Committee also applying for OSP to stand down from the entire meeting at which the application was being considered.

However, the consensus was that such person should only be required to absent him/herself for that part of the meeting during which a decision is made on his/her application.

Section 4 – Notification of Outcome

Para. 4.2 – Deferment of OSP:

  • Rather than approval of deferment, the procedures should include the power to renegotiate the program.
  • The procedures should be clarified to indicate that the University’s meeting of the cost of a deferred program would only be relevant in the case of a deferral at the request of the University i.e. where the staff member was asked to defer.

The Committee:

  • Approved the Review Recommendations 1- 9 and 12-16, with the qualifier relating to Recommendation 12.
  • Noted the NTEU’s rejection of Recommendation 8 relating to the composition of the OSP committees.
  • Noted the changes to travel grants outlined at paragraph 6 of the attached covering memorandum.
  • Subject to the above suggestions, endorsed the Staff Development Procedure - Outside Studies Program.

For information: Mr P Marshall, Ms K Haywood

8.2   Pecuniary Interests Policy and Procedures

The Committee endorsed the Pecuniary Interests Policy and accompanying Procedures for transmission to Council.

For information: Mr A Calder, Mr D Secomb, Mr K Williamson

8.3   Freedom of Information Policy and Procedures

The Committee approved the Freedom of Information Policy and accompanying Procedures, subject to their endorsement by the Vice-Chancellor’s Group.

For information: Mr D Secomb, Mr K Williamson

8.4   Copyright Compliance Policy and Procedures

The Committee approved the Copyright Compliance Policy and accompanying Procedures.

For information: Mr D Secomb, Mr K Williamson

9.    Standing Committees

9.1   Publications Committee

The Committee received and noted the report of Meeting 2/2009 of the Publications Committee.

For information: Ms D Aitken

9.2   Copyright Advisory Group

The Committee received and noted the report of the meeting of the Copyright Advisory Group held on 27 March 2009.

For information: Ms J Burbidge

12.    Next meeting

SRC Meeting 6/2009 is scheduled for Thursday 2 July 2009, commencing at 4.00 pm.  Refreshments will be served after the meeting.