Dear Chairs

Thank you to the 15 Chairs who responded to the questions posed in my email of 28 June 2007. What follows is my attempt at summarising the responses without identifying any individual university. Perhaps not surprisingly the responses were reasonably similar indicating a clear separation of "academic" matters (which are within the remit of Boards/Senates) and "resource" matters (which reside with the "executive"). One respondent indicated that the terms of reference for their Senate included the provision "of comments to Council, the Resources Committee or the Vice-Chancellor on policies relating to the allocation of University resources". This has a policy rather than course focus.

I have not checked the Acts of other Universities but the University of Ballart Act 1993 (section 29) contains the following provision with respect to its Academic Board:

"(3) A board-

(a) may discuss and submit to the Council an opinion on any matter relating to prescribed programs of the University and, in particular may make to the Council any recommendations that it thinks proper with respect to planning and funding of education activities (my emphasis), instruction, studies, discipline, examinations, assessments, research, degrees, diplomas, certificates and other awards in those programs of the University;"

Prima-facie this would appear to give the Academic Board at the University of Ballarat some "voice" regarding funding/resources. (This has not been tested yet!)

Question 1.

Once a course/program has Board/Senate endorsement and has been approved by your governing body what, if any, jurisdiction does your Board/Senate have over resource (e.g. physical, staffing etc.) issues that might impact negatively on the achievement of course objectives?

As indicated above the general response was that Boards/Senates have no jurisdiction over resource matters relating to academic programs. Associated comments included:

  1. Two Chairs indicated that their Board/Senate is given the opportunity to recommend/comment on their University budget ("listened to but not necessarily acted on")

  2. A number indicated that their initial course approvals process includes resource and impact statements (prepared by Faculties and "signed-off" by a Dean/DVC/PVC or approved by a "Resources" Committee). They are not the province of the Board/Senate.

  3. Boards/Senates may be represented on "resources" committees

Question 2.

If your Board/Senate has some jurisdiction how is this exercised? For example, how would such issues come to the attention of the Board/Senate? How would they be dealt with?

Notwithstanding responses to the previous question other observations included:

  1. QA processes (e.g. faculty reviews) provide an opportunity to raise resource issues – carriage and follow an executive responsibility

  2. "Member's Business" provides an opportunity to raise such matters – at best Board/Senate would comment then likely to be referred to Deans/DVCs/PVCs.

Question 3.

Does your Board/Senate have any policies/rules etc. which relate to course-related resource issues? If so could you please refer them to me?

Apart from the parallel course approval/resource impact processes nothing further was identified.

The separation of academic and related resource matters seems to be the prevailing practice – not surprisingly I think. I wonder if the clause (above) in the University of Ballarat Act represents a significant departure from other university acts. It is not clear how this might be interpreted in practice!

Once again thank you to those who responded.

Regards

Trevor Hastings
Chair, Academic Board
University of Ballarat

3 August 2007

Any changes to these web pages, please contact the webmaster.
This page and those under its hierarchy are Copyright
33 accesses since
16 Mar 2009

Dynamically generated at 20090704:1916 from an XML file modified on 20080129:1222

473 accesses since 29 Jan 2008, HTML cache rendered at 20091124:1620