Presentations by the Director of the Global Change Institute and the CEO of UniQuest preceded the meeting proper.
Declaration of interests, statement by Vice-Chancellor on recent UQ achievements; reports of Senate sub-committees and Academic Board; gifts and grants report; PPL changes; bequests, donations and prizes. Update on a new international venture.
A progress report on the transfer of the campus to USQ was noted without discussion.
A report from the Vice-Chanellor was noted. It covered his recent round of presentations to staff; news that staff will be invited to join a UQ Leadership Community (to connect with others into the UQ Leadership Framework); news that the Staff Engagement Survey due before the end of 2014 will be deferred to April 2015 (given the Culture Survey done late 2012 and the ongoing response to its results); and that informal and formal ways of rewarding staff achievement are being reviewed, with a webpage of tips and resources due in September.
It was proposed to change the PPL on Parking on University Sites such that Senate's authority to set parking fees is transferred to the Vice-Chancellor. The argument was that this is management business, not Senate business - Senate needs to concentrate on higher-level, strategic issues.
While understanding the argument that parking fees can be seen as operational rather than strategic, and noting that the proposal completes the removal of any role by Senate in carparking - something that has occurred in steps over recent years - I sought to have a couple of caveats put on the proposal. My speaking notes were as follows:
"I�d like to support the proposal, but with a couple of caveats.
Parking fees tend to, like it or not, create controversy. Although they are not a condition of employment in the industrial sense, many staff see parking as part of the employment relationship and judge the University accordingly. Similarly, parking fees are not part of the tuition contract between a student and the University, but they influence the student experience.
Lots of staff, especially many of my professional staff colleagues, feel the cost of parking fees, as do students, most of whom are on lower incomes.
Thus, the more consultation there is about fees, the better for everyone, including the University and its reputation, in my view.
We have a Transport and Parking Advisory Committee (TAPAC), which has student and staff representation on it.
We also have stated Principles of Car Parking which were approved by Senate in 2006 and amended by Senate in 2007.
My suggestion is that any fee change proposal should go to TAPAC for input and that there should be enough notice of changes such that TAPAC can consider and debate them with reference to the Principles of Car Parking, without feeling unduly rushed.
And so, I would like to propose a motion. From my reading of the standing orders, formal notice is not required, but I would be open to deferring the motion and giving formal notice if it would benefit Senate�s consideration of the matter.
The motion reads:
That Senate delegate to the Vice-Chancellor its authority to set parking fees, on condition that any proposal for changes to fees is taken to the Transport & Parking Advisory Committee for genuine consultation, and that the Principles of Car Parking remain subject to Senate approval."
A couple of external Senators with legal backgrounds were not comfortable with putting caveats on a delegated authority, so I withdrew the motion when it seemed there was not adequate support for it.
However, it was acknowledged that the V-C would be wise to consult appropriately over parking fees, which it was agreed is a contentious topic. I went further, suggesting that he take a look at the Principles of Car Parking and that the TAPAC, if it is to be the consultative forum, do the same.
