1. 2006 review made adjustments to align with restructure 2008 review aims to align senate structure with quality and standards aim

2. Schools Quality assurance Quality improvement Scholarship Collegial Benchmark QA role

3. School ASQC Currently disconnected from structure Greater responsibility and autonomy Membership related to function to achieve greatest quality impact Similar profile to other universities Is Senate Committee not management in exile

4. ? Gender balance policy Target staff with capacity for roles Elected Chair versus Appointed Chair Elected members Chair workload Casual appointment Whole of staff discussion – where to?

5. College School representation Size Critical QA focus Key quality improvement focus Only minor change

6. Peak Most committees minor change Benchmarks well with other uni’s Courses: proposal benchmarks better with other uni’s – prevents split course control Appeals: one committee responsible to specialist policy

7. Senate More elected staff More ex-officio For size of uni proposal benchmarks OK HoS (9) or all? Chair SASQC on or stay with direct election to Senate? (usual benchmark for eligibility is professoriate only) (if direct election 1 per school? Or X per college?) Associate Deans off (?back on) Elected Chair (some uni’s have VC/DVC)

9. Academic Governance Arrangements Review 2008 UWS Academic Senate

10. Process to date: 2007 August initial review report to senate --> 2007 November invitation for input and consultation --> 2008 February recommendation to delete College Boards --> 2008 May delete CBoS carried by Senate ---> Senate resolution to review School Boards and effects of CBoS deletion on academic governance arrangements Requested to Board of Trustees to extend terms to permit further review regarding impact of College Board deletion and arrangements if School Boards deleted ---> Extension permitted to October 2008 No further extension

11. Consultations conducted 2008: - 12 of the 17 heads of school (face to face interviews) (3 email consultations) - PVC TL, R, Q, E. - DVCAE, DVCCS - Chair of Management School Board (face to face) - Associate Deans Academic (face to face interviews) - Associate Deans Research (email comments) - Dean of Research Studies (Phone interviews) - Dean of Indigenous Education (face to face) - University Librarian (face to face and email comments) - UWSCollege Executive Principal and CEO (face to face) - Registrar (face to face) - Executive Committee of Senate (two face to face special meetings) Student representation workshop:- Participation by Chair of Senate in workshop, phone interviews with consultants, report feedback, liaison with Paul Woloch regarding emerging Senate proposal. Full Senate meetings:- two in 2008 have considered academic governance proposals. All meetings have had reports on review issues.

12. Benchmarking Comparison with multi-campus large Australian universities (web search): Monash, ECU, CSU, Griffith, La Trobe, ACU AUQA best practice site Committee of Chairs NSW/ACT and National Committee of Chairs Academic Boards and Senates.

13. Next steps Board of Trustees October deadline 22 August to Senate for discussion --> revisions as required --> general consultation to academic community through policy DDS --> Advice of Senate for next step Recommend to Board of Trustees  October 8 meeting of Board of Trustees  Positions spill No Senate meeting October: elections November: training for elected and new ex-officio members New Senate meets 21 November

14. Principles Senate terms of reference: quality improvement and standards assurance Membership appropriate to discharge functions Schools are the field of action Delegated responsibility from Board: accountability to Board Meetings are expensive : keep small and few Academic governance is learnt Senate committees mitigate academic risk

16. How we compare: Griffith Advisory to Council N=55 DVC is Chair 10 elected academics 7 elected students 38 Remainder PVCs, Deans, Directors, Registrar, Council appointees, HoS Faculty Boards (Chair by Dean; no elected members) School Committees (Advisory to Head of School; 4-7 elected members) Provision for School Forum

17. How we compare: Monash Under review New targets either N=100 or N=86 Status and authority visible in composition Elected President/2xVP There should be significant cohort with high level responsibilities & accountability for overseeing or implementing Uni directions: VC, DVC, PVC, Deans, Directors Retain “an element” of elected membership either 22% or 37% that maintains Professorial Board link Introduce alternates Delete campus reps 3 students

18. How we compare: ECU Advisory to Council Elected Chair N=38 9 elected members 11 ex-officio: incl VC, DVCs, PVCs, Deans, Indigenous, Staff Asociation 15 appointed/nominated: incl HoS, Faculty Profs 3 students Faculty Boards advisory Boards of Examiners: determine grades

19. How we compare: La Trobe Delegated functions from Council (same as UWS) N=99 Equal male/female Unspecified in Act

20. How we compare: CSU Delegated authority from Council Elected Chair N=25 2 Profs elected by Profs 4 elected academic staff (1 each faculty) 2 students 17 ex-officio Faculty Board: chaired by Dean QA School Board: Chaired by HoS QA

21. How we compare: ACU Advisory to Council Approve Teaching and Learning Plan N=30 + PVC Chair 12 ex-officio 4 Deans plus 2 Rectors 6 Profs (2 from each faculty elected by Profs) 3 academic staff (1 from each faculty elected by non-professorial staff) 1 student Co-opted others (unlimited) determined by Council

22. Traditions at UWS Elected Chair of Senate Balance between elected and ex-officio/appointed Lean committee structure Broad participation: not just Profs College representation not Schools HoS and E-Deans not on committees Relatively small senate given size Usually quorate Accountable to Board

23. Challenges UWS Multi-campus Comprehensive Lean committee + program support Rapid structural change Excellent research progress Poor/patchy program/student experience progress Senate key QI QA academic standards and quality mechanism: reputation, rigour, consistency and equivalence Magic bullet? Policies + School involvement

24. UWS Options Option 1: more of the same - delete school boards; replace college board chairs on senate with the same number of directly elected academic staff (?professoriate); replace chairs of college boards in policy roles with associate deans. Outcome: Only have Assessment Committee at School level. Option 2: add school committee keep senate the same- replace school boards and assessment committee with School Academic Standards and Quality Committee (SASQC). Chair SASQC by HoS or nominee or elected by SASQC. Retain existing Senate directly elected membership and replace CBoS chairs with additional direct election position from college Option 3: add school committee; add Heads of School to senate (some or all) - otherwise the same - replace school boards and assessment committee with SASQC. Chair SASQC by HoS or nominee or elected by SASQC. Retain existing Senate directly elected membership from colleges and replace CBoS chairs with additional direct election positions from each college. Option 4: Preferred proposal - add school committee, school committee representation on college committee and on senate, heads of school on senate (?retention of associate deans) FOR DISCUSSION