ACADEMIC BOARD REPORT - Meeting 22 April 1998 A belated and (I hope) attenuated report this time. I have found trouble making the time to write it. Too many alligators, or should I say, following Easter in FNQ, estuarine crocodiles. For once we had the VC himself in the chair, with the regular chairperson, Alam Lindsay away. As expected, the meeting kicked off with Malaysia. The VC had included a 3-page memo and about 15 pages of spreadsheets, maps, etc. in the papers, and made a very strong, no-nonsense statement. The subsequent discussion was fairly muted, and one got the impression that there had been prior hosings down. Marion Quartly opened up on academic freedom and conflict with the law. She was supported by Adeline Johns-Putra, a graduate student rep., who tried unsuccessfully to table extracts from Malaysia's Internal Security Act. The VC made it very clear that Monash in Malaysia would be abide by and be subject to Malaysian law alone (I'm sure there are people in BHP who wished the same applied to their Ok Tedi operations in PNG.) Anyway, the debate, if it can be called that, fizzled out. Next we had the Great Science Report. Kristina Macrae (Science ADT, standing in for Ron Davies) introduced it with much praise, and several other speakers made glowing comments of the "way forward" variety. The general impression was the proof would be in the ultimate implementation of the recommendations. Peter Darvall introduced the discussion of some tabled Research Indicators which showed Monash in its traditional place in the lower end of the Great Eight. The output/staff figures are pretty awful, but improve somewhat if you discount for the CAE amalgamations (my view; PD wouldn't dare say that out loud.) The usual comments that the effort going into chasing ARC money was hardly worth the outcomes, and we should be looking more to industry funding of research. Then it was on to the outcome of the audit of the 1995 Publications return. Surprise, surprise, it turned out Monash was above average in accuracy, and we can expect to "rewarded" by a few $100k. I hope all that effort was really worth it. Peter Darvall then whipped over the announcement of the appointment of new Director - IT so quickly that Rob Willis, who was intending to ask some barbed questions (in no way related to the Computer Centre) missed out because he was gossipping with Merran Evans. The VC closed off the VCGroup/starred items section with a few comments about the West Report. He waved a copy of the Australian Higher Ed. Supplement quoting David Kemp's speech a day or so before, and opined that Kemp was distancing himself from the report. Warming to the task, he went on to say that he thought the West report was "appalling" and just what was expected from a set of embittered nobodies, that he was right in insisting that Monash make no submission, and (now positively heated up) told us that that it was a "crock of shit!". The meeting sat silent; mute with amazement at this rare fissure in the Vice-Chancellorial pack-ice. The remaining discussion at the meeting involved the presentation of the Faculty, etc. Annual Reports on their way to Council. Bob Williams, (outgoing) Dean of Law spoke briefly about the changes he expected with the introduction of fees, and the fact that at the margin, students considering a fee place place at Monash would have the alternative of a HECS place at, say, Deakin or Latrobe. He felt this would make the Law Faculty all the more conscious of the need to maintain and increase the quality. Roy Jackson (Chemistry) picked up on the research outcomes and processes of the Law Faculty, a perennial topic between them. RW is always a bit touchy on the subject, and remarked rather testily that the basic process of the Law is research, and that all students began it early in their course. I kept thinking of that terrible solicitor in "The Castle". Then Edward Lim spoke to the Library's Annual Report, and chose to highlight the perpetual problem of the escalating cost of serials. He mentioned that the libraries at Monash and Melbourne were discussing the possibility of sharing some periodical subscriptions. This topic stirred the slumbering masses, and there were several speeches on the evils of the publishers, and the need to find alternative scholarly avenues for publication. No pen portrait this time, but the mention of Roy Jackson above reminds me that it is time for a run of the "Who Threw the Noxious Chemicals in Microbiology's Disposal Bin" saga. Jim Breen 5 May 1998