Murdoch University Senate

1.       MEMBERSHIP

In accordance with Senate resolution, attached is a list of all current Senators. The University has nominated Mr John Gillam to fill the vacancy on Senate. This nomination is expected to go to Executive Council in October.

Elections are underway for three positions on Senate: one elected by Convocation, and two by the students. Nominations close on 4 October. These position are currently filled by Ms Heedes, Ms Slany and Mr White.

The term of Mr Bob Pett, who serves as a co-opted member of Senate, expires on 31 December 2002. This is his second term; he is eligible for one more term. [The University Act limits Senators to three three-year terms.] He is available for re-appointment. The Nominating Committee, by circulation, has recommended that Mr Pett be co-opted to a third term on Senate, expiring on 31 December 2005. Mr Pett is chair of Resources Committee, and of the working party on university companies and consultancies. [Mr Pett will not join the meeting until after this item.]

A. Leave of Absence

Ms Allen has leave of absence approved for this meeting.

Sir William Heseltine has requested leave of absence for the November meeting as he will be away for the whole of November and December.

B. Apologies

Ms Banks, Judge O’Brien and Dr McCall have recorded their apologies for this meeting. Any apologies received after circulation of the agenda will be reported to the meeting.

The Chancellor will ask whether any Senators have an interest to declare concerning any items on this agenda. Senate has adopted the following statement on conflict of interest:

Senators have a duty to place the interests of the University before their own personal advantage (financial or otherwise) and the advantage of any other person or organisation (including the group that elected or appointed the Senator). Possible conflicts of interest include:

employment by, shareholding in or directorship of a company dealing with the University

membership of a body that is in competition or conflict with Murdoch University

for Murdoch staff members, out-sourcing or restructuring of their work sections

any matter under discussion that would result in personal financial advantage

government officials who are responsible for an aspect of policy or operations which affects a matter under consideration by the University

A matter which arises from membership of the group qualifying the Senator for election to Senate, and which is not otherwise special or personal to the Senator, is not a conflict of interest. (Examples could include students voting on assessment policy, or staff voting on a salary increase for all staff.)

At the start of each meeting of Senate and its committees, Senators must declare the nature, character and extent of any conflict of interest. In case of doubt, it is best to acknowledge possible conflict of interest. When conflict of interest is identified the Chair (subject to the views of the meeting) may ask the Senator to leave while the item of business is discussed; to participate in the discussion but withdraw from the meeting before the vote; to stay but not participate in the debate; or to stay with full rights to debate and vote. Where there is a significant conflict of interest, future papers on this matter might not be made available to the Senator concerned.

All declarations of interest shall be minuted, along with any ensuing action.

In addition, if any member of staff presenting a proposal to Senate or one of its committees has a conflict of interest, the person must declare that interest at the meeting.

The November 2001 Senate meeting resolved to establish a working party on University companies and consultancies, to investigate the issues brought up in the paper on the Senate agenda and to prepare a review paper providing guidelines on how to effectively manage subsidiaries of the University in line with good corporate governance. Attached for consideration is the report of the working party, which will be introduced by its Chair, Mr Bob Pett.

At the request of the working party, also attached is a paper containing the summary and recommendations of the report on Governance of Victorian Universities. The full report, and the response of the Victorian government, are on the Senators’ website.

Last year Senate resolved that it will conduct an annual review of major risks, and asked Audit Committee to identify thresholds over which risks must be reported to Senate.

This is one of nine key areas in which Senate agreed to annually review the University’s performance. These are issues for Senate to discuss and critique, rather than to reach decisions. Subsequently the issues may return to Senate with recommendations from management for decision by Senate. At the last Senate meeting, there was general support for a suggestion that the papers not only review the previous year’s performance, but also focus on major issues/problems and on strategies to address these.

Attached is a discussion paper on risk management from the Director of Audit and Risk management, Andrew Burchfield. Mr Burchfield will give a short powerpoint presentation, after which there will be time for questions and discussion by Senators.

Staffing is another area in which Senate agreed it should annually review the University’s performance. Attached is a discussion paper from the Director of Human Resources, Chris Jeffery. Mr Jeffery will give a short powerpoint presentation, after which there will be time for questions and discussion by Senators.

7.       COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Community Relations is another area in which Senate agreed it should annually review the University’s performance. Attached is a discussion paper from the Vice Chancellor. Prof Yovich will give a short presentation, after which there will be time for questions and discussion by Senators.

The meeting will move into committee for this item.

9.1 Deputy Vice Chancellor Remuneration

In October last year, the Deputy Vice Chancellor’s remuneration was set for the period until 11 October 2002, with a review to take place in September 2002. The Chancellor’s Committee met on 24 September to determine the Deputy Vice Chancellor’s remuneration for the balance of his contract, until 31 December 2003. The Chancellor will give an oral report on the decision made.

The Committee also reviewed who should decide this. In August 2001 Senate resolved to delegate to the Chancellor’s Committee authority to determine the remuneration of the Deputy Vice Chancellor. [S/55/2001] However, subsequently (in May this year) Senate approved Senior Executive Remuneration Guidelines under which the Vice Chancellor has authority to approve conditions of service and remuneration for senior executive positions including the Deputy Vice Chancellor. To remove this anomaly, the Committee recommends that Senate rescind resolution S/55/2001, on the understanding that the Vice Chancellor will keep the Chancellor’s Committee informed of changes to the total remuneration packages of senior executives. The authority to determine the Deputy Vice Chancellor’s remuneration would then rest with the Vice Chancellor, acting within those guidelines.

[Note: While making the above recommendation, the Committee proceeded to determine the remuneration on this occasion, given the need to make a decision in advance of the Senate meeting.]

9.2 Vice Chancellor’s Performance Objectives

In September 2001, Senate resolved that the performance objectives of the Vice Chancellor be developed by the Chancellor’s Committee and submitted to Senate for approval. It also resolved that the Chancellor’s Committee shall review the Vice Chancellor’s performance each year against these objectives.

The Committee believes it would be more appropriate for the Vice Chancellor’s performance objectives to be approved by the Chancellor’s Committee (rather than by Senate) and reported to Senate for information. It has several concerns with the current arrangement: that staff members of Senate have a potential conflict of interest when seeking to influence the CEO’s objectives; there is the risk of the objectives being amended to reflect sectional interests or hobbyhorses; and the objectives might enter the public domain. The Committee has recommended that Senate:

	(a)	delegate to the Chancellor’s Committee approval of the Vice Chancellor’s performance objectives, with these to be reported orally to Senate in summary form on a confidential basis.
	(b)	amend the 2nd term of reference of the Chancellor’s Committee as follows: "To recommend to Senate on what should be determine the performance objectives of the Vice Chancellor".

The Chancellor will give an oral report on the performance objectives developed by the Committee for the Vice Chancellor for 2002-3.

Attached is a confidential part of the minutes of the meeting of Resources Committee held on 24 September 2002. The meeting will remain in committee for this item. [Not available]

The July meeting of Senate resolved to approve the establishment of a feeder college on the South Street campus under contract with the IBT Group, subject to approval of a full business case by Resources Committee. It also resolved to delegate to Resources Committee authority to decide the name of the college. Subsequently the Committee resolved to offer full support for the business aspects of the proposal. It recommended authorisation for the legal agreements to be signed.

The August meeting of Senate resolved to authorise the Vice Chancellor to sign the legal agreements that give effect to the association between the IBT Group [through the corporate vehicle Colleges of Business and Technology (WA) Pty Ltd] and Murdoch University for the establishment of the feeder college, subject to review by the Chair and Mr John Gillam and approval by the Chancellor. It also decided to approve the allocation of $1.6m to the establishment of the feeder college on the South Street Campus, and delegate to the Vice Chancellor authority to approve this expenditure.

There have been developments since then. Attached for consideration is a confidential part of the minutes of the meeting of Resources Committee held on 24 September 2002. This minute is commercial in confidence and subject to legal professional privilege.

The meeting will remain in committee for this item.

In September 2001 Senate resolved to conduct an annual self-analysis exercise, consisting of a 2-3 hour review of Senate and its performance, including a review of its duties and responsibilities in the context of what has happened in the last year. It also resolved that an annual survey of Senators be conducted to gather feedback on aspects of the operation of Senate, with the survey results to be discussed at the annual Senate retreat.

The last Senate meeting considered how this self-analysis exercise should take place this year. There was agreement that this should not be held in conjunction with a regular Senate meeting, as Senators need to come to it fresh and not have time constraints. Several Senators suggested that instead of a survey of Senators, that a consultant interview Senators in depth, either individually or in focus groups. It was suggested this would unearth more issues, whereas a survey might pre-determine the outcomes. Another suggestion was that the senior executives should also be interviewed for their views on the performance of Senate. The Vice Chancellor agreed to bring forward a proposed process, based on this feedback. A draft could be placed on the Senators’ website, and comments invited.

A draft proposal was placed on the Senators’ website on 9 September, and all Senators advised. After taking account of the feedback, attached for consideration is a proposal for consideration.

 

The last meeting of Senate resolved to hold a joint meeting with Academic Council on Monday 21 October, starting at 4pm, organised on the following basis:

· It will focus on a single issue for discussion;

· There will be a discussion paper circulated beforehand;

· The meeting will last for an hour and a half, and be followed by a social occasion in order to give members of Senate and Academic Council an opportunity to mix informally;

· The meeting will not be expected to arrive at any decisions, but will be minuted.

The discussion topic will be "Diversity versus Specialisation".

At the start of the meeting, Senate will also consider Statute changes flowing from the Acts Amendment (Student Guilds and Associations) Bill 2002.

13.1 Confirmation of Minutes

Senate is asked to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 2002.

13.2 Action on Resolutions of the Last Meeting

The attached action sheet records the resolutions of the previous meeting and action that had been taken to implement them. It also updates Senate on outstanding action items from previous meetings.

Attached are the minutes of the meeting of Academic Council held on 18 September 2002. These include the following recommendations to Senate:

AC/143/2002(iii) Master by Coursework Degree Regulation 4

AC/153/2002 Guidelines for the Management of Centres

Legislation Committee has endorsed the form of the above regulation change, by circulation.

Attached are the minutes of the meeting of the Resources Committee held on 24 September 2002. These include the following recommendation to Senate:

RC/25/2002 Deputy Chair of Resources Committee

The part of the minutes concerning the Feeder College is attached to item 10 of this agenda.

Attached are the minutes of the meeting of Environmental Committee held on 4 September 2002. There are no recommendations to Senate.

At the last Senate meeting, during discussion of the paper on teaching and learning issues, Senators asked for information showing which courses or discipline areas have high, medium or low employment rates. Prof Borowitzka agreed to provide this for the next Senate meeting. A Senator queried whether the high demand courses (other than those that are monopoly courses) are those with high employment rates.

Attached is the information requested.

Prof Borowitzka is overseas until 11 October, so will not be attending the Senate meeting.

The May meeting of Senate approved Senior Executive Remuneration Guidelines. It also resolved to ask the Chancellor’s Committee, after receiving advice from the Office of Human Resources, to give further consideration to the issues of leave and of recognition of prior service for internal appointments, and to bring forward to Senate recommendations on consequential changes to these Guidelines.

The Committee considered changes suggested by the Director of Human Resources. It made several modifications to the draft. The Committee recommends that Senate approve the attached revised Senior Executive Remuneration Guidelines.

The following draft schedule of Senate meeting dates for next year has been prepared in consultation with the Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor:

Monday 24 February

Monday 14 April

Monday 26 May

Monday 7 July

Monday 18 August

Monday 6 October

Monday 24 November

The only change from this year’s pattern is that the April meeting is one week later, to enable the Vice Chancellor to meet another commitment. The meetings avoid public holidays, and only once will Senate meet during school holidays (in July). All meetings will start at the usual time of 4.30pm.

Senate is invited to approve these dates.

At the end of each year there is an annual Senate dinner to acknowledge the service of all Senators, especially those who retired during the year. Senators are invited to bring their partner on this occasion. It is proposed that this year’s dinner be held on Monday 9 December.

If this date is acceptable, details about the dinner will be forwarded to members shortly.

Report on the Use of the Official Seal

In accordance with resolution 90/85, the Official Seal of the University has been applied to the following documents since the last meeting of Senate –

· Health Promotion Agreement with WA Health Promotion Foundation for funding for an Aboriginal Imaging Project

· Lease Agreement with CBFC Leasing Pty Ltd for computer equipment

· Deed of License with Kathryn Smith concerning intellectual property in her research project

· Deed of License with Marion McCutcheon and the Australian Film Commission concerning her research project

· Memorandum of Understanding with Sam Ratulangi University in Indonesia, for academic collaboration in Law

 

____