[Muanet] Size of Senate

[Jim Macbeth]

Dear Staff member,

On Monday night a straw poll was conducted that indicates our Senate 
will probably be reduced to 17 members from 25.  The maximum 
allowable under the Nelson 'reforms' is 22, a size that I have 
supported.  At least one staff member of Senate supported 17.  Today, 
all Senators received the push polling survey that will be used to 
set the agenda for discussion at the next meeting.

Most worrying under the size 17 being mooted is the reduction of 
academic staff members by 50% from 4 to only 2.  This will reduce 
dramatically our ability to influence Senate deliberations and to 
provide an effective staff voice on Senate.

It is generally agreed that the General Staff representation will 
remain at 1 and not be eliminated.

If you are in a position to lobby any Senate members including any of 
the elected staff, please do so.

Elected staff members at present:

Ken Harrision   <harrison at prodigal.murdoch.edu.au>
Stuart Bradley  <S.Bradley at murdoch.edu.au>
Nick Costa  <n.costa at murdoch.edu.au>,
Jim Macbeth  <j.macbeth at murdoch.edu.au>
Pat Allan (General Staff)  <pallen at central.murdoch.edu.au>

Regards, Jim




Dear Senator,

You will have received from John Pease today a format for nominating 
your preferred size and composition of Senate.  I have already 
communicated my concerns about the format of the survey table and its 
'push polling' dimension.  It restricts our ability to provide 
alternative formats and assumes that those who support one size do 
not have a right to comment on the composition of another size, one 
that may be adopted.  John has assured me that he kept the table 
simple in order to make collating of results feasible and that he 
expects there will be further debate on composition, if not size, at 
the Senate meeting.

However, my main concern in this email is to ask you not to lose 
sight of one aspect that we, unfortunately, did not debate: what 
value different 'constituencies' bring to Senate.  I think we all 
agree that the various constituencies are not there to be 
representatives but rather to provide a pool of perspectives and of 
particular knowledges.  This has been most clearly stated in relation 
to lay Senators and the need for business, financial and legal 
knowledge to be available on Senate.

However, two of the key points in corporate governance literature 
over the last few years has been the need for

knowledge of the industry concerned (in this case, higher education) and
a critical thinking approach to the issues that come before the 'board'.

Both of the main scenarios in John Pease's table assume a reduction 
in two constituencies: staff and students.  This is, I think, 
dangerous particularly under the size 17 composition that sees 
academic staff reduced by 50%.

I refer you to my paper in the Agenda of the last meeting where I 
have outlined my belief in the importance of the knowledge that 
academic staff bring to debates and decision-making on Senate. 
Further, academic staff are trained to be 'critical thinkers' and are 
trained to look for and understand the complexities of issues 
involved in any particular decision.  Decision-making might take time 
but the issues will be debated and understood.

Over the years, a number of lay Senators have commented to me on the 
value of staff Senators in helping with their induction and 
orientation as well as the knowledge that we bring to debates.  Don't 
lose sight of the need for that knowledge by opting for a small 
Senate with too few staff positions.

If the size of Senate is reduced to 17 then I believe we need to 
manipulate the composition so that there remain four academic staff 
positions along with one general staff position.  Anything less and 
Senate will endanger its relationship with staff at Murdoch.

There is a majority of Senators in favour of a greater reduction than 
to 22 and I'm sure some of those have not considered the loss of 
knowledge reducing too far will bring.  We can meet Minister Nelson's 
requirement for more that 50% independent without retaining our 
existing ratios.  At the same time, we should be aware that voting 
numbers is seldom a serious issue on Senate because the quality of 
debate leads us to defacto consensual decisions, ones that are 
supported broadly across the membership.  But, in the end it is the 
diversity of education industry and other knowledge that allows us to 
do this.

It may be that a number between 17 and 22 will allow a significant 
reduction in size while still retaining the constituency knowledge 
that has served Murdoch Senate so well.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Jim Macbeth, Phd			Phone	(61-8)  9360 2185
Chair				Office	Social Sciences Rm 2.23
Tourism Program			Fax	(61-8)  9360 6480
Murdoch University
South Street
MURDOCH, Western Australia 6150
http://tourism.murdoch.edu.au
(08)  9360 2698  (Secretary)

Member, Editorial Board of ANATOLIA


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://central.murdoch.edu.au/pipermail/muanet/attachments/20040707/dae6f421/attachment.html