[Sorry about the delayed report on the 15 July Academic Board meeting; I have had a surfeit of alligators.] A major item at the meeting was discussion on a matter which came up at the previous Council meeting. It partly concerned the quality and quantity of documentation getting to Council via Faculty and Academic Boards concerning course amendments. It also concerned the content and rigour of one of the coursework Masters (Professional Accounting). We haven't heard the end of this, and the DVC(R) is reviewing/reporting the status etc of various Masters programmes. Do not be surprised if we end up with either stricter guidleines for Faculties to run Masters' programs, or a central committee as with PhDs. As a result of this, the proposal from the Syme Faculty for its coursework Accounting Masters had a very rough time. Chandler was away, Janek Ratnatunga (acting Dean) fumbled his support a bit, and it was only saved by a fighting and forceful speech from John Miller who put the whole thing in perspective. (The professional accountancy masters degrees are like MBAs in that they do not assume prior accounting training, and hence have subjects like "Introduction to ....". This grates with quite a few members of Academic Board.) I might comment that there is a wide variety of information about courses arriving at Academic Board, with some Faculties providing syllabuses for all new subjects, etc. I think one of the reasons FCIT has had a smooth ride at Academic Board is that our reports and proposals are models of succinctness. Unfortunately one our rare trips into the Board's limelight was not totally successful, with a fairly cool reception to the proposal the Frankston be a full Department. This needs to have its case remade, with the context a bit more fully explained, and the loudest objectors hosed down a bit. The Registrar's Report was followed by some caustic comments about results processing and Exam Registers. Jim Leicester (a/g/ Registrar) was all apologies. 8 8 8 8 I have been asked to provide a bit of background information about Academic Board meetings, so I am taking this opportunity to provide some background information. The Board meets in the Council Room on the 1st floor of the Admin Building (Bastille). See it if you can; it is a large oval room, wood-panelled with grey-green slate along one side, on which is mounted a big crest. The Board itself has about 100 members of whom about 65 attend each meeting. The attendees are mainly male, European and greying/balding. Of the 70 at the last meeting, 10 were female and 4 were of non-European ethnic background. On one side of the room (under the crest) sits the Vice-Chancellor flanked by various officials. Last year Hay and Vaughan sat either side of him, but the present DVCs sit a bit further away (body language abounds.) The Registrar and Comptroller, who became official Board members last year figure prominently, and their regular reports and the subsequent questions and discussions are one of the more entertaining and useful parts of Board meetings. Logan runs the meetings well, allowing items adequate discussion and either pushing items or withdrawing them in a very skilful way. He gives a report to each meeting which is one of the most important parts of the meeting in that it is the formal advice to the academic staff on topical matters such as Berwick, Malaysia, etc. The main players at meetings are: - the DVCs. The present DVCs are also Deans of their Faculties (Pargetter - Arts, and Porter - Medicine). They are quite active in the meetings, speaking to most items, copping follow-up reports. etc. - the Registrar & Comptroller (mentioned above) - the Deans. The Deans usually sit in the front row and are among the main contributors, speaking to items from their Faculties, or responding with Faculty viewpoints. There are a variety of styles: David Aspin from Education makes formal, some would say pompous, little speeches; Bob Williams from Law speaks very quietly; Peter Darvall (Engineering) excels in snappy one-liners.... - the Librarian and Computer Centre Director. Edward Lim often has to respond on Library matters, but apart from speaking to his annual report Peter Annal is fairly quiet. - the rest of us, who for the most part sit there liked the proverbial stunned mullets. In fact about half a dozen members are quite active, generally in a probing & questioning way. They are mostly well established and senior Professors, and their interventions are among the more entertaining parts of the meetings. Prominent in this role are Day (Psychology), Linnane (Biochemistry), Thorburn (Physiology) and Jackson (Chemistry). Melbourne (Mechanical Eng.) can usually be relied on for thoughtful comments, as can Ricklefs (History). Joe Monaghan (Applied Maths) was particularly vocal last year, including some forensic questioning of the Comptroller ("Do you confirm or deny ...") but he has been quiet lately (probably on OSP). For comic relief I was pleased to see Bruce "Last_Bastion-of_the_British_Empire" Knox returned as one of the Arts reps, but he disappointed me last meeting by saying nothing. The student reps are quiet at present, unlike Kerryn Clarke a year or so ago who was very effective in getting her point across. Try and get to a meeting as an observer. It is an interesting piece of theatre, as well as playing a very important role in the Universty's governance. The next meeting is the 12th. I'll try & be more timely with my report.