Quality Enhancement Committee
Members
Prof Judyth Sachs (Chair), DVC (Provost)
Prof Jim Piper, DVC (Research)
Ms Deidre Anderson, Exec Director Campus
Experience
Mr Chris Searchfield, Academic Director , Macquarie City Campus
Mr Marc Bailey, CIO
Prof John Simons, Exec Dean, Arts
Ms Maxine Brodie, University Librarian
Mr Tim Sprague, Director HR
Prof Julie Fitness, Vice-President, Academic Senate
Ms Alison Taylor, Exec Director, International Programs
Prof Mark Gabbott, Exec Dean, Business &
Economics
Prof Stephen Thurgate, Exec Dean, Science
Prof Janet Greeley, Exec Dean, Human Sciences
Ms Judith Trembath, General Counsel
Mr Colin Hawkins, Academic Registrar
Ms Caroline Trotman, DVC (Development and External Relations)
Ms Sonia Jeffares, Principal SIBT
Ms Zoe Williams, Manager Quality Assurance, M.I.
http://www.mq.edu.au/quality/qec.htm
In Attendance
Ms Barb McLean, Executive Officer
Ms Jennifer Peasley, Deputy University Librarian
Apologies
Mr Marc Bailey, CIO
Ms Maxine Brodie, University Librarian
Ms Judith Trembath, General Counsel
Minutes
11.00-12.30p.m. Thursday 6th May 2010, Function Room, level 2, E11A
1.
Minutes of the Meeting 25th March 2009 and Business Arising
1.1
Adopted
Update Quality Website page for Reviews and Reporting
http://www.mq.edu.au/quality/reviews.htm
Ms McLean informed the meeting that the Benchmarking and Reviews
sections of the Quality Website had been updated following input from the
Exec Deans. She requested that any planned accreditation reviews for 2010
be also sent to her.
She also informed the meeting that the link to the Quality Website had moved
off the University Home Page to http://www.mq.edu.au/university/index.html
This brought Quality Enhancement into the strategic and governance section
of the Website.
2.
Strategy and Policy
2.1
Review of the Quality Enhancement Guidelines for University Structures and
Activities (response to AUQA2 Recommendation No. 4)
Ms McLean informed the meeting that when she was updating the Quality
Enhancement Framework Guidelines she noticed that there was no process
established to review University committees. She tabled Monash’s
Committee Review questionnaire as an example, to inform the QEC.
Page 1 of 3
It was noted that committees do consume a lot of resources in terms of staff
time and need to be regularly assessed for the justification for their existence.
Discussion took place as to whether the members or the wider University
community should be assessing the value for money of different committees.
It was decided that the University community would be unaware of the work
of many University committees and it would be more valuable to
communicate this rather than review a committee they were unaware of.
It was decided to:
3.

Add a question on whether action points were communicated,
followed up and managed

Trial the questionnaire with a Governance Committee (APC),
Management Committee (QEC) and Operational Committee (to be
identified by the Exec Director Campus Experience)

Use Survey Monkey to provide a Web-enabled response

From the response of the trial, develop 3 or 4 standards to review
committees against
Adopted
Management
3.1
Management Response to the Review of the Macquarie Law School
JS
Prof Simons reported that the Dean of the Macquarie Law School and he had
redrafted the Review Report and, in order to close the loop, he had drafted
responses to the re-drafted Recommendations.
The Chair asked what could be learnt from the Review of the Macquarie Law
School. Prof Simons responded:
 An objective process is required to select the Review Panel and the
Review Panel should be required to sign a Declaration of Interest
form that also included the Terms of Reference the Panel were
agreeing to deliver against
 There must be a member of the University community on the Review
Panel
 The Terms of Reference must form the basis of the Review Panel
Report. If this is not the case, the University should not accept the
Report and require it to be redrafted.
 Prof Simons was not keen on written submissions being made to the
Panel; he felt that all input should be made through the Review
Meetings
 Guidelines should be clearer about the role of the Review Panel and
who owns the Report. The Report is actually a Report to the Exec
Dean and Provost, i.e. a University Report, not a Review Panel
Report.
 Review Reports should be made available through the MQ Staff
Portal
Page 2 of 3
Quality Enhancement Committee
Prof Simons will write a short report detailing the actions to be undertaken in
response to the Review of the Macquarie Law School; and the Report will not
be made public, due to the compromised nature of the Review Panel.
Prof Greeley will write a one-page report on the distinction between
management and academic reviews, to be discussed at the June meeting of the
QEC.
Adopted
4.
Reviews
4.1
AUQA2 Progress Report http://www.mq.edu.au/quality/progress_report.htm
Noted
4.2
Completed Affirmation and Recommendations in response to AUQA2
Review:

Affirmations 4, 7, 8, and 9

Recommendation 11
It was recommended that these Affirmations and Recommendation be moved to
the Progress Report once the following amendments have been made:

Affirmation 4 – re-word the 6th dot point to read:
Supervisors meet with their doctoral students when…

Affirmation 7 – adopted

Affirmation 8 – adopted

Affirmation 9 – add in the PVC (SI) is developing a program to
increase the cultural sensitivity of sessional staff
Discussion took place regarding the reported racist graffiti in the male
toilets. It was noted that the most effective way to stop this problem is
to keep removing the graffiti when it appears. The Exec Director
Campus Experience will take up this issue.

Recommendation 11 – add in Accommodation Review, the Campus
Safety Plan and Chaplaincy Policy and Academic Director, Macquarie
City Campus to provide additional information.
Adopted
5.
Any Other Business
6.
Next Meeting: 11.00-12.30p.m. Thursday 10th June 2010 in Function Room E11A
Page 3 of 3