Council Meeting 1/2005

Mr Jerry Ellis, Chancellor, Presiding

Mr Paul Ramler AM, Deputy Chancellor

Dr June Hearn, Deputy Chancellor

Professor Richard Larkins AO, Vice-Chancellor

Professor Chris Browne, President of Academic Board

Ms Louise Adler

Professor Warwick Anderson AM

Ms Lesley Boston

Professor Colin Bourke MBE

Ms Dale Halstead

Ms Penny Hutchinson

Mr Leo Ostroburski

Ms Jenny Samms

Dr Carol Williams

Mr Tim Wilson

Mr John Hutchinson

Mr Glenn Barnes

Dr John Zillman AO

Ms Sue Smith

Professor Stephen Parker, Senior Deputy Chancellor

Professor Graham Webb, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality)

Professor Merran Evans, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning) and Director, Monash London

Professor Tyrone Pretorius, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Monash South Africa

Mr Tony Calder, Director, Executive Services

The Vice-Chancellor introduced the session and provided Council members with an overview of some of the major issues that could result in the changes to the higher education sector.

The Vice-Chancellor’s presentation addressed the broad issues of universities’ decreasing reliance on government funding as a percentage of total revenue, the decreasing distinction between public and private providers of education services, increasing government controls and the current debate on the possibility of the Commonwealth assuming statutory control of the sector, the debate on abolition of compulsory student amenities fees, possible workplace relations reforms and the status of discussions on indexation of university grants.

World trends that were becoming evident included an increasing reliance on "user pays" in public universities, decreasing government subsidies to public universities with private universities gaining greater access to government funding, more universities establishing off-shore campuses thereby introducing greater competition in local and off-shore markets and increased numbers of internet based or mixed mode teaching-only universities that provide low priced services across national boundaries.

Concluding his introductory remarks, the Vice-Chancellor noted that in a context where student fee income predominated over government funding, the sector was moving towards a more mixed and differentiated system with a limited number of high quality teaching and research-intensive universities.

The Vice-Chancellor introduced Monash Directions 2025, a new statement of the University’s strategic directions, and outlined to Council the major themes and directions including the document Monash Directions 2025 – Annotations which provides further explanatory comments and reasoning behind Monash Directions 2025.

Commending Monash Directions 2025 to Council, the Vice-Chancellor noted that to achieve the strategic directions outlined in the document, Monash must attract and retain the best educators and researchers, enhance collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders, continue with the relentless pursuit of excellence, strengthen financial and physical resources and ensure excellence in administration and infrastructure.

Following an outline of the consultation process by Professor Parker, which included input from the International Self-Review, Research and Research Management Review, and the campus planning process augmented by a number of workshops, use of focus groups and input from the Vice-Chancellor’s Group, Professor Parker invited comments from Council members.

During discussion, members commented on a range of matters including the following specific issues:

• what attributes describe a "Monash Graduate";

• demographics and its effects on student demand;

• the teaching/research nexus and research culture;

• the target of 100% research engagement by academic staff by 2008;

• the absence of the word "equity" from the document; and

• the use of the term "distinctive university".

Following the discussion, the Chancellor thanked the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Parker and his team, and all who contributed to the process and production of Monash Directions 2025.

Following his introductory comments, Professor Parker invited Council members to break-out into groups to discuss the appropriateness of the current set of Key Performance Indicators [considered by Council at meeting 7/2004 (1 November 2004)] and return with comments/suggestions on enhanced indicators that would better enable Council to monitor the performance of the University.

Outcomes/suggestions from the activity included:

• Council would need to monitor the recently approved strategic directions as detailed in Monash Directions 2025;

• noting the emphasis on research in a number of strategic statements, appropriate and succinct indicators were required in areas such as number of staff undertaking research and the level of National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian Research Council (ARC) grants obtained;

• indicators on staff and student mobility and destinations need to be developed;

• How do you measure "internationalisation" of the curriculum?

• continue to use the Monash Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ);

• social justice and equity – how many students gain entry to Monash via merit and equity pathways, compare enrolments of private schools versus public schools, review Special Entry Scheme statistics and measure enrolments of mature-age students;

• enhanced performance indicators were needed for both the Malaysia and South Africa campuses;

• Council needed to be very clear re the areas of performance it deemed most important to monitor;

• Council should receive macro level data and exception reports should return to later meetings for further consideration by Council;

• data on student-related indicators should be able to be broken down into sub-groups such as by campus, international students etc;

• indicators relating to industry and commercial engagement need to be enhanced;

• an indicator to measure how Monash is different/distinctive is needed;

• need to retain a time series of indicators wherever practicable;

• need to develop relationships with universities outside Australia and use that interaction to "think differently about our aims";

• need information on Monash’s capacity to withstand a sudden event such as a downturn in student numbers

• data on staff turnover and outcomes of exit interviews and employer views of Monash graduate attributes is required; and

• Council need to ensure that the resources underpinning Monash’s progress were being delivered efficiently and effectively.

Drawing the discussion to a close, the Chancellor thanked members for their input and noted that Council looked forward to continuing to refine the mechanisms used for monitoring the performance of the University.

Following introductory comments from the Vice-Chancellor and Professor Parker, Council members were invited to convene in groups and provide suggestions on how the University could improve and extend its external relationships.

Outcomes/suggestions from the activity:

• the Foundation must grow as a matter of urgency;

• greater emphasis should be placed on engagement with alumni;

• greater promotion and public engagement with areas of research success such as Monash University Accident Research Centre;

• the Vice-Chancellor should continue to be the public spokesman for the University – the Chancellor and Council members are advocates for the University, not spokespersons;

• the University has an obligation to contribute to public debate and should ensure, wherever possible, that governments and industry groups utilise the knowledge resources at Monash;

• the range of entities willing to accept student placements is still problematic;

• internationalisation – external engagement would vary across campuses,

• access – need to seek out students with both merit and potential;

• a focus should be enhanced relationships at local, state and federal levels of government;

• Monash should discuss with government how Monash can assist the government with internationalisation;

• all campuses need to focus on further engagement with their local communities;

• staff engagement with industry and the local community should be reported in the Annual Report;

• Council members need to continue to familiarise themselves with all Monash campuses;

• an emphasis could be on reinforcing within the community the integral nature of the higher education sector to their lives;

• survey staff (occasionally) to ascertain the types of non-paid community-related activities they undertake;

• Monash could sponsor the internships of students in industry;

• develop a joint Monash/industry higher degree;

• improve relationships with alumni; and

• emphasise the importance of industry relationships with Deans and Heads of Schools/Departments.

The Chancellor, on behalf of Council, endorsed the Vice-Chancellor’s approach to this matter and commended the suggestions of Council members to management.

Professor Webb provided Council members with a detailed overview of the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), its role and methodology for conducting audits and noted that Monash may be audited in late 2006.

Following a discussion on Quality at Monash: Values and Principles, Professor Webb led an extensive discussion on the likely role of Council during an AUQA audit.

Council noted its role in ensuring that Monash was meeting its quality objectives and that members of Council may be invited to attend meetings during the visit of the AUQA auditors.

Prior to discussion, the summary report of the outcomes of the Performance of University Council questionnaire was distributed. (Attachment 1)

The Chancellor noted that the performance assessment was augmented by the annual round of one-to-one meetings between the Chancellor and individual Council members and the two Special Council meetings per year – one that was set aside to discuss specific matters of interest to Council and the other for governance related issues.

During discussion of the outcomes of the evaluation questionnaire, members noted the following:

• the wording of some of the questions was ambiguous;

• while the mean for areas of performance had improved since 1999, there was still a wide-range of responses to some questions;

• during discussion of questions 8, 9 and 10 on Council’s effectiveness in representing the interests of Monash to the Federal and State Governments and the private sector, a view was expressed that whereas the Vice-Chancellor was the University spokesman, Council members had a role as advocates for the University;

• some meetings of Council were "rushed which added pressure" and some presentations were squeezed and rushed, at the end of meetings; and

• induction could be improved by enabling Council members to have short sessions with senior staff in order for Council members to gain a better understanding of portfolios.

Council then discussed a revised Council Evaluation 2005 and suggested a number of changes. A copy of the revised evaluation pro-forma is attached. (Attachment 2)

Council members agreed that the final version of the Council Evaluation 2005 be completed in late 2005 with the outcomes reported to the final meeting of the year and fed into the Council Planning Conference for the following year.

A consolidated report detailing the responses of Council members to the four evaluation questions is attached. (Attachment 3)

Some common observations/themes that emerged included:

• a Council Planning Conference should be held annually;

• backing the Council Planning Conference onto the University Planning Conference worked well on this occasion;

• while the program of discussion items was well received, members suggested a number of improvements including a joint session with attendees of the University Planning Conference and the inclusion of a session(s) where members of Council could interact with senior managers and gain a better understanding of some of the staffing portfolios;

• the location and conference facilities were appropriate;

• the use of "break-out" groups was generally well received;

• some members (recently appointed?) indicated that they would appreciate more time to meet and interact with other Council members; and

• the program of discussion items was full yet appropriate and well received, however, at times a bit rushed.