6.
SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF SENATE
The requirements of the National Governance Protocols
1. The National Governance Protocols were released by DEST in draft form last year, with the final version released on 12 May 2004. The Higher Education Support Act 2003 includes a requirement that all universities comply with the Protocols if they are to receive increased funding.
2. Two of the Protocols impact on the size of Senate:
Protocol 3
.. Other than the Vice-Chancellor and the Presiding Member of the Academic Board each member must be appointed or elected ad personam…….
Protocol 5
The size of the governing body must not exceed 22 members. There must be at least two members having financial expertise (as demonstrated by relevant qualifications and financial management experience at senior management level in the public or private sector) and at least one member with commercial expertise (as demonstrated by relevant experience at senior management level in the public or private sector). There must be a majority of external independent members who are neither enrolled as a student nor employed by the higher education provider. There must not be current members of any State or Commonwealth parliament or legislative assembly other than where specifically selected by the governing body itself.
The present size and composition of Senate
3. The membership of Senate is determined by the Murdoch University Act, s 12. Any change in the size of Senate will require legislative amendment. Senate's decision on the size of its membership will shape the size and composition of Senate for the foreseeable future.
4. We should not lose this opportunity to consider seriously the size and composition of Senate rather than tinkering with numbers to comply in a pro forma way with the Protocols.
5. The work of university Councils has changed dramatically in the past few years. Councils are required to operate in the same way as the boards of public companies. The fact that the work of Senators is honorary is irrelevant when it comes to the exercise of their duties and responsibilities. Senate members are required to act in the interests of the university as a whole rather than particular sectional interests.
6. Currently Senate comprises 25 members as follows:
Lay members / Internal membersChancellor
Appointed by Governor (6)
Nominated by the Premier (1)
Nominated by the Leader of the Opposition (1)
Appointed by the Minister for Education (1)
Elected by Convocation (3)
Co-opted (up to 3) / Vice Chancellor
elected academic staff (4)
elected general staff (1)
elected students (2)
Guild President
Total = 16 / Total = 9
One of the positions appointed by the Governor is vacant at present.
The size and composition of other university Councils in response to the National Governance Protocols (available data)
7. In 2003, the average size of University Councils was 21.2. Attached is a table from DEST’s 2002 Crossroads Issues Paper on the Governance and Management of Universities, analysing the membership of Australian University Councils.
8. Only four universities have governing bodies that exceed the maximum allowed under the Protocols: Griffith University (25), James Cook University (25), Murdoch University (25) and the University of Queensland (35). In response to the Protocols, UQ is recommending to the State Government that its size be reduced to 22; information is being sought on the other two.
9. Three universities that already comply with these Protocols have taken this opportunity to reduce the size of their Council:
· Australian National University / has reduced its Council from 22 to 15 members from 1 July: Chancellor, VC, Pro Chancellor, 6 externals, 3 academics, 1 general staff, 2 students· Charles Darwin University / Its Council has 15 members: Chancellor, VC, Chair of the Academic Board, 8 appointed by the Administrator, 2 elected academic staff and 2 elected students. The previous Council had 20 members.
· University of Southern Queensland / Council has recommended that its membership be reduced from 22 to 14: Chancellor, VC, Chair of the Academic Board, 4 government appointees, 4 co-opted, a academic, 1 general staff, 1 student
In addition, Edith Cowan University has circulated an options paper canvassing four broad options for the size of its Council: the current 21 members, 19, 17 and 13.
10. Next year the average size of University Councils will drop to 20.1.
The trustee model and skills set
11. Senators are referred to the paper prepared by the University Secretary "Philosophical Basis for Senate Membership" (4 April 2004) which succinctly outlines the requirements of the protocols and those objective skills and experience which Senate has identified as important for its members.
12. Notwithstanding that the Protocols require Senate members to be appointed ad personam, effective governance of a university requires a certain desirable knowledge base and skills. Senators are referred to the attached papers outlining the arguments supporting the inclusion of the Guild President and academics on Senate.
13. I suggest that our discussions take the following shape:
14. First we agree to the following principles in determining the desirable size and composition of Senate, as recommended by the Governance Working Party at its meeting on 17 May 2004:
1. The University will comply fully with the National Governance Protocols, rather than lose the funding tied to them. Accordingly, the Guild President will no longer be a member of Senate ex officio, and the total membership of Senate will be no more than 22.
2. The Vice Chancellor must continue to be a member of Senate.
3. The proportion of Senators who are lay members be no less than the current 64%.
4. Senate should continue to include staff and student members.
5. There be no reduction in the number of co-opted positions.
6. The 9 lay positions appointed by government – 6 by the Governor, 1 by the Governor upon the nomination of the Premier, 1 by the Governor upon the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition, and 1 nominated by the Minister for Education – should be folded together into one category of Senators appointed by the Governor.
7. In keeping with their role as trustees, people should not be appointed on the basis of their position elsewhere. Accordingly, the President of Academic Council (like the Guild President) should not be a member because of her or his position alone.
8. If there is a reduction in Senators elected by staff, there continue to be membership of both academic and general staff, i.e. the one general staff position on Senate be retained.
15. Further, we acknowledge that there must be a significant number of members with business, financial and professional experience. We are also working within our own requirements that a just balance be struck between the different elements on the Senate (off-campus members, academic and general staff, students, graduates).
16. As the Governance Working Party noted, if Senate adopts the above principles, four issues remain to be addressed, namely:
1. Is the desirable total size 22, or less? If less, what is the preferred size?
2. With the removal of the Guild President as a member, should the total student membership then be 2, or should the number of elected students increase to 3?
3. If Senate favours minimal reduction (i.e. 22 members), how should this be achieved? The Guild President must go, plus two others. Two thirds of Senators are lay, so should the other two positions removed be lay ones, or one lay and one staff?
4. If Senate favours a significant reduction in its size, what should the new membership comprise? [categories of membership, and numbers per category]
Senate
17. All Senators have been emailed seeking their views on the size of Senate. Five responses have been received: three favoured limiting the reduction to the maximum number permitted under the Protocols (22 members), one favoured 20-22 members, and the fifth commented on categories of membership rather than total size. It was argued that a reduction to 22 members will be the least disruptive way of changing the composition of Senate. The reduction can be achieved through attrition as current members resign or reach the end of the maximum term.
18. To assist Senate in determining the desirable size of Senate, the following comments are made for Senate's consideration.
19. There are broadly three options open to Senate:
(a) the ‘radical’ option: a Senate of 8-10 members. This has been advocated by some business leaders, who would model university Councils on corporate boards. The Governance Working Party believes that this option would not provide Senate with the breadth of membership needed to perform its role well. This option also appears to lack any significant support within Senate and the University. It is not pursued any further in this paper.
(b) A substantial reduction in the size of Senate. 17 is suggested as a basis for discussion.
(c) A minimal reduction, i.e. 22 members.
The case for a substantial reduction
20. Size does not necessarily equate with more efficiency or effectiveness. However, there are advantages of a smaller Senate. These include:
· A smaller and more expert governing body may be better suited to dealing with the complexity of issues confronting universities and increasing government intrusion in university management and governance
· Greater focus by members across all issues rather than specialised focus
· A closer working relationship between all members
· More manageable and inclusive Senate meetings
· More effective decision making with less protracted debate
· Minimised risk of "non-performers"
· A greater sense of responsibility to contribute to decision-making and for the decisions that are made
21. Regardless of the size of Senate, it is unlikely that the skills and expertise possessed by members will be adequate for informed decision-making in every case. Often external advice will be required. It is important for stakeholders' interests to be brought to Senate's attention and given due consideration. The interests and views of particular groups (e.g. academics; students; alumni) could be accommodated by the establishment of advisory groups for the purpose of advice generally or in the context of a particular issue. Senate standing orders might allow for speaking rights at Senate members in certain situations. Stakeholders could then agitate for a particular issue without the constraints which affect Senate members. It is arguable that this model could result in closer and more inclusive links between Senate and stakeholders and minimise "group think" mentality. Senate sub-committees could also accommodate non-members of Senate.
22. The following model has been suggested by the Pro Chancellor as a basis for discussion:
Chancellor
Vice Chancellor
5 lay members with business, board, and legal expertise
2 lay members from the community at large
2 academic staff
1 general staff
2 students
1 from alumni
Up to 2 co-opted persons
___
17
The case for a minimal reduction
23. In the Senate at present the Governor in Council nominates six members, the Director-General of Education one, the Government party in State Parliament one, and the Opposition one. Unlike the position in some other States the members nominated by the Governor in Council (in effect the State Government) have always been appointed with the advice and consent of Murdoch University and have not reflected party political allegiances.
24. It is arguable that there is no longer a need for dedicated members nominated by the Minister of Education and the two political parties. The former was included in conformity with practice at the University of Western Australia Senate, dating from an era when the training of schoolteachers loomed larger in the University's agenda than it does today and when State Governments funded universities. The political parties were given representation at my own suggestion, as a means of communication between Murdoch University and the major party rooms, so that support could be lobbied for University policies and ill-founded criticisms in Parliament sometimes averted. In the early years of Murdoch senior frontbenchers were appointed to Senate and proved of value, but more recently the practice has arisen of nominees from outside Parliament. Their contribution has been useful but they no longer serve the purpose of a directline of communication with the political parties. In addition, in the last thirty years it has become just as important to lobby the Federal Government as the State Government.
25. I am disposed to suggest:
a) That in any reconstruction of Senate the Minister of Education, the Government and the Opposition no longer nominate members to Senate;
b) That if Senate agrees to (a), then the number of members nominated by the Governor in Council be increased from six to seven. [This will give us the opportunity of retaining the present individuals nominated by the Minister, the Government and the Opposition, but reduce the total representation in that category of nominated members from nine to seven].
c) That if Senate votes to retain the members nominated by the Government and the Opposition, then the number of members nominated by the Governor in Council be reduced to five.
d) That if Senate votes to retain the members nominated by the Government, the Opposition, and the Minister of Education, then the number of members nominated by the Governor in Council be reduced to five and the number of co-opted members be reduced from three to two. [I don’t consider it realistic to believe that a greater reduction in the Governor in Council’s nominees would be acceptable].
26. At present the academic staff elects four members to Senate and the general staff elects one. I suggest that the number of academic staff be reduced to three (a reduction commensurate with the reductions in lay members and students) and the general staff representation remains at one. I do not favour reducing the number of academic staff below three because of the need to aim for a balanced representation between divisions.
27. If Senate decides that the President of Academic Council should not be a member of Senate ex officio, we could ensure that holder of that position and the Guild President both attend meetings of Senate and speak by invitation but do not vote and that both are eligible candidates for the appropriate elected positions on Senate.