University of Auckland Council Meeting 2019-10-21
Mon Oct 21 2019 13:00:00 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time)
Transcript
Note: transcription and dioarization are automated and may contain errors.
00:06 Speaker 1: Okay, nōmai haere mai ki tēnā hui to this live broadcast of the Council meeting from wherever we are. So welcome one, welcome all. We have an apology from Rachel. So we're going to change the order of service here, but have we got any disclosures?
00:31 I
00:31 Speaker 2: have one. So part B item 2.2.3 which is the Cardall Park proposal. A friend of mine is on the board of one of the companies involved. I've declared that conflict of interest in the part A minutes of the Capital Expenditure Committee and I'll just redeclare it here Chancellor.
00:51 Speaker 2: Thank you.
00:52 Speaker 2: George you're a student. I am a student.
00:55 Yep
00:55 Speaker 3: as am I.
00:57 Speaker 2: And you're a student.
00:57 Speaker 3: And I might with my daughter here next year.
01:01 I
01:02 Speaker 4: think my niece is still here as well.
01:04 Speaker 1: Okay, so let's just record there are various mild conflicts on that front.
01:12 Speaker 1: So I will move that we note those and we will go to 732.
01:21 Speaker 2: Stuart.
01:23 Speaker 2: Thank you, Chancellor. So we're on paper 7.32, which is the domestic fees for 2020 and international student fees for 2021.
01:34 Speaker 2: You'll notice that there are a couple of items redacted from this paper in Part A because of commercial sensitivity. We'll come back to those in the same time, but they don't concern the main fee setting. As Council members will recall, I'm sure we required to set fees for domestic students for 2020 and for international students for 2021. And the reason for being a year ahead for international students is that we need to be recruiting in the international student market and we need to be able to signal what the fees for 2021 will be when we are out recruiting those students.
02:17 Speaker 2: The structure of the paper is as almost all of the council members, I think other than George, which we'll have seen before from past fee-setting meetings. So I'll just pick out some of the highlights and then we can deal with any questions that members might have.
02:35 Speaker 2: So if we go, first of all, the background pages, the first half a dozen pages of the paper are really just setting the scene in terms of New Zealand's funding of domestic students and of universities relative to international norms.
02:53 Speaker 2: and the general challenge we have of low income per student and broadly declining rankings.
03:00 Speaker 2: If we could go to page 87 of Diligent. You'll see...
03:13 Sorry
03:13 Speaker 5: Stuart, would you mind also giving the page of the report because I don't know if others are like it. I marked up the version in part
03:21 Speaker 2: B. Sure, that's fine Andrew, no problem.
03:23 Speaker 2: We are on page 10 of the report and page 87 of Diligent. So what we've done there is just to outline the expected cost movements that the University will experience in 2020. This is again following the same style as in previous years. And you'll see that we have projected our expected increase in people costs, which is a combination of the across-the-board increase that we negotiated each year with staff and in some cases with their union representatives, along with other movements for promotions, the mix shift and other related people costs. And we're anticipating a 3% increase in people costs for 2020 over 2019. For other operating costs, non-people costs, we've applied an estimated CPI factor of 1.9%.
04:22 Speaker 2: and then for building and asset related costs, the anticipated and significant increase in those costs for 2020, which reflects the fact that we have a number of new buildings coming on stream with associated costs of those. And then we also have the one off cost of close to $12 million, which is related to preparing for the new Recreation and Wellness Centre.
04:49 Speaker 2: If you go to the table one, the top right, Right hand corner of that page you see the aggregation of those different expected cost movements and their proportional contribution to our overall cost structure which gets us for 2020 to an expected overall increase of 5.7% which is driven particularly next year by that lump of asset related costs.
05:18 Speaker 2: If we turn over the page so 10 of the paper 88 of You'll see the same calculations for 2021. Now we don't have the massive increase in building and asset related costs that we had in 2020. The movement in people and in operating costs is similar to what we're projecting for next year. And so overall the anticipated increase for 2021 is appreciably lower than it is for 2020.
05:52 Speaker 2: Now the issue that the university has to deal with each year is shown on page 12 of the paper, 89 of diligent and that is that our significant revenue streams are controlled by government and now this is thinking particularly about the domestic fee situation.
06:12 Speaker 2: So you can see in the table 4 on the right hand column of that paper the calculation. First of all if we take the in anticipated teaching costs for next year. This year our budget was 525.5 million.
06:29 Speaker 2: If we apply the 5.7 per cent that's an increase of just under 30 million, taking us to an expected or estimated cost for the same activity. This is assuming our activities are like for like, so it's taking out changes in student numbers which we expect to be small and a mixed shift which we expect to be small. And so we're looking at an increase overall of $29.9 million.
06:55 Speaker 2: In order for us to have all of that recovered from government funding, we would need government to increase the SAC funding by 8.9%.
07:06 Speaker 2: Of course, government never does that. The actual increase in SAC for 2020 will be 2.1%, which contributes $7 million of our increased costs and leaves us with a $23 million shortfall.
07:23 Speaker 2: The domestic fees, if we were to make up all of that shortfall, would have to go up by 12.2%.
07:30 Speaker 2: Again, this is not going to happen. We noted in the paper that the government at the time we wrote this paper was consulting on an increase of 2% in the domestic student fees. And in fact, that consultation resulted in the answer it does every year, which is that the number that was consulted on is the number that we get. And so we are permitted to increase domestic student fees by up to 2%. And if we do that, that will be an increase of 3.8 million. And that will leave us with a shortfall of 19 million out of the original 29 million increase in costs. And obviously any lesser increase in the domestic fee than that 2% will increase that shortfall.
08:22 Speaker 2: accordingly. We've noted in the right-hand column under that Table 4 that we have continued to pursue administrative efficiencies. We've done multiple functional reviews. We've consolidated libraries. We are in the process of consolidating campuses. And all of these things will contribute cost savings. But the reality of it is that with the size of the deficit that we have to deal with, because of the very Considerable limitation on SAC funding increases and on domestic student fee increases.
08:58 Speaker 2: We will continue to have a shortfall. That shortfall of course is additive, it's effectively staffing positions foregone and that is part of what explains the general decline in the international rankings of New Zealand universities. We've commented, if we go over to the next page, which is 13 of the report, of diligent. We've commented on some of the other options that would be available to us. The obvious one, because we are a teaching organisation and our staff are our major costs, the obvious thing to do if your income per student is falling in real terms and your cost per staff member is rising, the obvious thing to do would be to have less favourable student to staff ratios. The difficulty with that, of course, is that it makes the bigger class sizes, it lowers the quality of teaching, but it also has a negative impact on the international rankings because staff-student ratios or student-to-staff ratios are a major driver of those rankings. And so we have protected our student-to-staff ratios by benchmarking them against the group of eight or the group of seven in Australia, and that means that we have to get savings from elsewhere in the university, as we've seen in the last year or two, those savings.
10:22 Speaker 2: are sometimes controversial. Further on that page we've commented on other programmes, our postgraduate taught programmes, postgraduate research programmes, now going over to the next page. And our view is that the only appropriate action for council is to increase all of those fees by the maximum that is available, which is 2%, because to fail to do so is to increase the deficit of funding that we have to face, which ultimately means that we have to reduce services to our students. If we go then to the international fees, I'm now on page 15 of the paper and 92, I think of diligent. I'm having trouble because my bottom reading bar won't let me see it. I think it's 92. And you'll see there the comment on the market conditions for international tuition fees. Broadly what we aim to do, is to set a tuition fee that is in the lower part of the Group of Eight of Australia, because that's about where we're ranked. In the international market, of course, high fees tend to be seen as an indicator of quality, and international students look at that relationship between fees and ranking quite carefully, and so we aim to position our fees in that sort of bottom third of the Group of Eight.
11:51 Speaker 2: There has been quite a lot of consultation just on that same page, section 5.2, with each of the faculties. So around the general expectation of what we think is a reasonable movement for international fees, there are some variations according to where each faculty is at. How well is their international recruitment going? What programs are they introducing? How well are they ranked in the international market? And so you can see if you turn over then to page 16 of the report, 93 of diligent, that we have recommended broadly a 4% increase in international fees, but some variation according to the particular circumstances of the different faculties and where they are positioned in the international market.
12:44 Speaker 2: We go across then the next page, 17 of the report, 94 of diligent, Study Abroad fees. Last year we increased the Study Abroad fee by 1.6%. These are students who come to us primarily from US universities as packages, so they're enrolled at their home institution.
13:06 Speaker 2: They're spending a semester typically with us and the fee is paid through the institution. The view of the International Office is that given our current fee structure and the increase that we have, we had last year and how we're positioned, and you can see that in the table to the right, that we should hold the fee for 2021 at the 2020 fee, being $12,950, and the view of the International Office is that that is appropriately positioned in terms of our continuing to attract study abroad students who are now coming in significant numbers into the university.
13:53 Speaker 2: The items 5.5 and 5.6 we'll come back to in Part B. If we could then go to page 20 of the report.
14:01 Speaker 2: Now my diligent page has disappeared completely but I'm going to guess 107. 97. Alright, okay. Alrighty. Just dealing with the compulsory student services fee again I think you'll all be familiar with the history of this. The previous government put constraints on what we can charge for through this fee and required a consultation process which we have gone through. And I would have to acknowledge that in the last couple of years that consultation process with AUSA has worked very well. I think it's been a joint exercise. There's less perhaps conflict in it than it might have been in earlier times. And so we've been through a quite extensive consultation through the student consultative group.
14:51 Speaker 2: to discuss with students and to survey students as to their views of the priority areas for the CSSF. And if you go to page 23 of Diligent, and that is page... Page 100. All right, so we're adding 77.
15:15 Speaker 6: Sorry. I'm
15:16 Speaker 2: sorry.
15:17 Speaker 6: That's all right.
15:17 Speaker 2: For some reason, my page numbers have dropped off the bottom of my screen.
15:21 Speaker 2: But that'll just be my technical incompetence, I'm sure. So just to go to page 23 of the report, or what do we say, 100 of diligent,
15:31 Speaker 6: you'll
15:31 Speaker 2: see there the four services that students rate most highly, and that's consistent from year to year. Students rate health and counselling at the top of the hit parade pretty much every year, information on employment, opportunities while they're studying, information on careers, information, information, advice and guidance, and financial support. So generally speaking, the students in the survey rank most highly those services that are applicable to wide numbers of students, and less highly those that might be more localised, for example, support in halls of residence where there's a lower proportion of the students, and so on.
16:14 Speaker 2: And the recommendations, which I can get to fairly smartly on page 25 of the paper or 102 of diligent. There are recommendations for two additional areas to be funded through the CSSF and these are out of that consultation process and by agreement with AUSA and the Student Consultative Group. The first one you will see on that page is an additional $50,000 to be made available for the student group's grant fund.
16:50 Speaker 2: Student Groups are ranked fairly highly by the students in the consultation process and they're recognised as a very important part of the extracurricular life of students on our campus which in turn contributes to the success of the students. And then a further 200,000 recommended to be made available to introduce a case management approach for issues faced by students. This partly came out of a proposal from Campus Life and it then intersected with discussions at the special working group that George and I co-chair and this proposal is essentially to pilot positions that will be initially in two of the faculties, Arts and Science, who will give a first point of call for students who have concerns that they need help with resolving. It may well be that the problems can be resolved where they are. It may be that the students will be looking for advice on where they should take those issues and so this is a pilot trial which we would hope will be successful and if so then we would be looking to fund positions in all of the faculties over time. So if we go through to page 26 of your papers or 103 of diligent you'll see the recommendations which is an increase of 8.3 3% to reflect the increased costs that are shown under Section 6.3, and a further increase of 2.9% to fund the activities that I've just talked about. No levy increase for the one-off costs related to the Recreation and Wellness Centre. The University will bear those because they are one-off preparatory costs, and that means that over Overall, there would be an 11% increase in the CSSF to $942.61 per annum in 2020. And then there's a full list in the appendices of the general fees which are proposed not to be changed for 2020. The final comment just to make is that if we go back to the beginning, you'll see that the overall increase in the domestic fees that is proposed is, I'll just have to get that figure, just to put that in context.
19:37 Speaker 2: The overall increase, I'm on page two of the paper, 79 of Diligent, the recommended tuition fee increase will be an increase per full-time domestic student of 197.
19:50 Speaker 2: dollars per annum and that will leave us still with a considerable shortfall that we will need to manage through savings elsewhere.
20:01 So
20:01 Speaker 1: we will go to discussion and we'll perhaps, George do you want to, you got anything to add or anything that you want to ask? Acknowledge your participation and assistance in this. Thank
20:14 Speaker 7: you Chancellor. I think I would note particularly for those that might be joining us over internet Two things. One is in regards to campus care and the additional $50,000 that's proposed for student groups and clubs. I think this makes sense both from a student point of view but also from a governance point of view. It's important that students are coming to the University of Auckland and actually being here physically on campus. And so this move helps greatly in terms of making sure that students feel there is student life, there is purpose to being here.
20:50 Speaker 7: here. Just in regards to the campus care model that the Vice-Chancellor talked about, this I think will be a really substantial step in the right direction for the University to take what is noted in the student survey as a more proactive role in response to dealing with student issues. So the entire purpose of this campus care model is to enable students basically to go to one central point, which is what students have consistently told us throughout feedback is that they want, and for them to be in the hands of that person to be able to deal with a whole range of issues. And so we are very supportive, AUSA is very supportive of the pilot that will be taking place in the Faculty of Science and in Arts and we hope that it will be successful and will be rolled out.
21:35 Speaker 7: The last point that I would make is, you know, it's convenient for me, particularly bearing in mind the conflict of interest that I have to note in being a student, but also being a student member of Council around the decision over the increase in fees.
21:50 Speaker 7: The reality is, as the Vice-Chancellor has stated and has put out in this paper, questions need to be asked of this government in regards to the funding that is given to universities to be able to deliver quality education. I think it's far too easy sometimes for us as students to play into this narrative of the university is the ones making the wrong call when they decide to increase fees and things like that, but the reality is so much more complex and nuanced.
22:21 Speaker 7: So for those members who will be joining us over internet, those students who will be interested and concerned, I think it's important to recognise the constraints that are on the university in particular, and I think that might be indicative of the way in which I will be voting in relation to these motions.
22:36 Well
22:36 Speaker 1: said George, thank you for your input.
22:40 Speaker 1: So just perhaps eyeballing my way around the table, just this side.
22:51 Speaker 4: It's good to see the students' voices being heard, something that we've focused on quite a lot over the last year or so, four years, and to be actually be able to be responsive to that through what we do at this level.
23:07 Speaker 1: Nodding on this side and working my way down to Jan.
23:13 Speaker 1: Andrew.
23:14 Speaker 1: Dr. Maybe
23:15 Speaker 5: just a query. It wouldn't change anything with respect to my view of the expenditures versus how limited income that we get. But I'm just looking for whether we treat increases in non-cash items differently than we treat increases in cash items. Because in 2020, we're seeing a huge increase in depreciation, I think. I don't know, Adrian, if you know the exact amount. To non-cash, clearly we have more debt.
23:44 Speaker 5: We've got to pay off the more debt, greater debt, but it is a non-cash item that's going into our increase in expenses as opposed to a cash one.
23:53 Speaker 5: So do we ever debate inside the university whether we should always treat it the same way, we should always look at cost increases on the net income level as opposed to the cash flow level?
24:07 Well
24:08 Speaker 8: I think that's an interesting point, but we also are caught really by the risk framework of TEC around our operating surplus. So that risk profile that TEC uses does not distinguish between cash and non-cash items. So that actually does drive that target that we've had for a minimum of a 3% surplus on average, and hopefully more given the risk that we are growing with respect to international student revenues.
24:44 Speaker 8: I understand the point, but yes, we're still caught by the risk frame.
24:49 Speaker 8: That's fair.
24:50 Speaker 1: I guess the cash non-cash thing catches you when ultimately you have to replace that.
24:57 Speaker 1: Well, exactly. You've got to repair it.
24:58 Speaker 1: It is what's catching us now.
25:00 Speaker 5: You do.
25:00 Speaker 5: We are speaking to this.
25:01 Speaker 5: We are.
25:02 Speaker 5: I just thought that question might be in some people's minds, so I thought let's just get it on the table and chat about it a bit.
25:10 Speaker 5: The second one, and this is the reverse, is that we've done better than we expected in growth in international students, and I just query whether we're being too timid in increases of international students, given the fact that we seem to be growing better than we expected to.
25:27 Speaker 5: Too timid in the fee increase? Yeah, exactly.
25:31 Speaker 2: Well, I think the view of the international office is that this is about the right positioning.
25:40 Speaker 2: that group of eight hierarchy and that's essentially what international students do. They look at that price ranking relationship. The other thing of course is that we, as our numbers have gone up, we are still very dependent on the Chinese market. So we're exposed to a single market and we want to diversify that market over time. But I think we do need to be a little bit cautious just at the moment. We don't want to turn off potential students from and
26:13 Speaker 5: when
26:13 Speaker 2: we
26:40 Speaker 5: and very clear arguments here that I clearly would support.
26:44 Jane?
26:45 Speaker 9: Yeah, just in that international, so, because I don't think we had necessarily the fee comparisons in the paper for international fees. I take the point that we are setting it somewhere in relation to the G8, but is medical and health sciences, is that out of line with where the G8 is at the moment, because we're proposing zero increase.
27:21 Yes,
27:22 Speaker 8: that's the answer to that. I think we were out of line.
27:26 Speaker 8: There was some commentary on that, yeah.
27:31 Speaker 9: It's on page 93.
27:33 Speaker 1: Talked about UK
27:34 and...
27:38 Speaker 9: It would be quite useful I think to note for the future maybe if we're going to justify it as a benchmarking against G8 then there should somewhere in here be what the G8 is. I think we have had that in the previous international strategy paper. We've got
27:54 Speaker 8: the average in there on page 94. But we haven't got it by program.
28:03 Speaker 9: 94. That's study abroad. No, no, that's study abroad.
28:08 Speaker 9: I'm talking about the international tuition.
28:13 We
28:13 Speaker 2: can certainly note to put the benchmarking out of that strategy paper for future years.
28:19 Speaker 2: Yes, it's in the July Finance Committee meeting by faculty.
28:25 Speaker 2: Which we don't get.
28:26 Speaker 2: We did put it on the
28:28 Speaker 9: agenda
28:29 last
28:32 Speaker 8: time, didn't we?
28:33 Speaker 8: We brought it through into Council last meeting for August. So it's in your August Council papers.
28:42 Mike. Well,
28:46 Speaker 10: at Finance Committee obviously we look at this in detail both for this and right through the year and I'd just like to make the comment that it's quite a balancing act to get us to where we can actually operate the institution with such modest government funding increases and obviously it might increase from students as well and there's a lot going on behind the scenes, sometimes unpopular, but very necessary to ensure we're running as effectively and efficiently as possible and meeting the financial viability and not least of which is we have an external regulatory requirement to meet as well.
29:25 No,
29:26 Speaker 3: I agree. There isn't an alternative from my perspective.
29:30 Speaker 5: Sir Ralph?
29:31 Speaker 5: Well, we discussed this, as Mike said, at the Finance Committee, so I have the opportunity there to ask my questions, et cetera. So there's nothing additional. I think it's a very well-prepared report. It argues the case very well, so I'm supportive.
29:45 Speaker 1: So I'm just going to look to the room here. Is there any further discussion? Any other questions? And I'm getting a no look. And so the next interpretation I'm going to get from your eyes, is, are we comfortable me putting all nine subsets here, or should we perhaps put A separately and the other eight? Or I can put all nine separately.
30:17 On
30:18 Speaker 7: the assumption that you're speaking to me, Chancellor, I'm happy with all motions being put together. Are we all kind of nodding? I
30:27 Speaker 5: think given the Finance Committee has been across this in such detail, All
30:32 Speaker 1: right, well, that being the case, I will move A through I, inclusive. Mike, you'll have better second. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Against. Carried. Thank you all for the work. And we will revert back to the agenda.
31:01 Speaker 1: As put, so we are at three confirmative degrees. So by the authority vested in me by resolution of the University of Auckland Council, I, Scott St John Chancellor confer the degrees stated upon those who within the several faculties have satisfied the requirements of this university. And on four, similarly, I, Scott St John Chancellor award the diploma stated to those who within the several faculties have satisfied the requirements of this
31:27 university.
32:02 Speaker 3: I just wondering, was that what we actually asked? We asked if the Pro Vice Chancellor of Māori could investigate whether membership of Runanga needed to continue having elected members. I thought we were actually asking the other way around
32:16 Speaker 11: whether
32:17 Speaker 3: they should be elected when actually they were being appointed.
32:22 Speaker 3: I thought that was the point you'd made.
32:26 Sorry,
32:26 Speaker 1: repeat that.
32:28 So
32:28 Speaker 3: it says in seven, at the bottom of the, just above it says, "Council asked if the Pro Vice Chancellor Māori could investigate whether the membership of runanga needed to continue having elected members." Because I thought the question was whether there should be elected members.
33:20 Speaker 2: Just on 5.2, Chancellor, just the point about the resident for mentioning the graduation march having to be cancelled is not that you were disappointed, but that we were going to use that as the trial run of the new security procedures and we're not able to do so, so that'll have to be now put back to May of next year. Okay, thank you, Chancellor. Just on to my report, given that we've got some fairly weighty matters to get through, I'll just pick out a couple of things if I could. The first one, on page one of the report or something of diligent.
33:58 Speaker 12: 22,
33:59 Speaker 2: thank you. Just to note that there have been a couple of notifiable events since the last report. One has noted the student who received a small splash of acid to the eye and the other a contractor who came into contact with an improperly insulated electrical Cable. Neither of these resulting in serious injury, but both of them being reported because of their potential severity. And then there was a situation in the new engineering building where a worker for one of the subcontractors received a nasty gash handling glass, and that incident has been reported to WorkSafe by the main contractor, who obviously has control over the site. So a couple of incidents or notified of events that have occurred and they have been followed up on by our health and safety team. I think the rest of the report I can probably just take as read and answer any questions given the time, but I was going to just mention two things. One is you'll see under item 2.3 on page 6 of the report or 27 of diligent reference to the fact that four of our staff have received National Tertiary Teaching Excellence Awards. Again, an outstanding performance performance from the University. This is now I think 15 of the last 16 years that the scheme has been running that we have had at least one staff member named among the top 20 or so teachers in the country which is a pretty extraordinary result. And on Thursday night I believe it was at the National Research Awards distinguished Professor Jane Harding received the Rutherford Medal which is the top award for a researcher in New Zealand and another four or five of our staff also received awards. So in terms of the nationally recognised performance of our academics, it's been an absolutely bumper year.
35:59 Speaker 2: I think probably that's the only issues I need to pick up on. The KPI data, we're now at the stage of the year where we pretty much know what the end of the year is going to look like, so there'll be nothing very much as new there. And I think probably I can... Oh, so one other thing I should mention, page 16, of the report, 37 of diligent.
36:22 Speaker 2: We've now secured a site for the South Auckland, I'm not sure if we're calling it a campus, a small campus-like thing. Location. Is that what we're calling it? So this is a consequence of our having been unable to remain at the MIT site because MIT are rationalising their own property. We've leased the property at Six Austerley Way in the central Manukau Club.
36:48 Speaker 2: to the transport hubs. This will allow us to continue the teacher education program that was at MIT, but also allow us to expand our foundation programs and to provide additional support for students from South Auckland who are enrolling with us and who are, as we know, disproportionately Māori and Pacific students. And so I think that's a really significant advance for the university in terms of the support will be able to give those students close to home, particularly on the days that they don't need to be coming into the campus. And then on the next page, 5.12, just to note continuing significant donations to the campaign and to remind you that the campaign close will be on the 21st of November.
37:39 Speaker 2: I'm hoping that you have all got at least hold dates in your diaries. That will be where we will wind up the campaign and acknowledge the 7,000 or so donors who have contributed to the campaign and reveal the final campaign total in relation to our target of $300 million.
38:03 Speaker 2: So that's the report but I'm happy to take any questions, Chancellor.
38:06 Speaker 10: Questions from the folk? Just one back in health and safety. I think the measles outbreak is fading now, fortunately.
38:18 Speaker 10: if this kind of thing happened again, or even if this one continues much longer, is there any merit in considering vaccination program for university staff and even students?
38:30 We
38:30 Speaker 2: have been managing the measles outbreaks very carefully with the public health authorities. When I was a boy, which was a long time ago, measles was just something you got perfectly normally and we didn't think anything of it. Now I suppose, because most people are vaccinated, the impact on those who aren't is quite considerable.
38:48 Speaker 2: We can check that with the health and safety folks. There has also been a shortage of vaccinations.
38:58 Speaker 2: If we offer to vaccinate large numbers of our folks, that would potentially be problematic. The public health authorities have been very good in helping us to track and isolate people who have turned up with measles through whatever classes they've been in. We seem to have had relatively limited spread of it, but we can certainly ask that question.
39:47 Speaker 9: PARTICIP in particular, Jane's.
39:51 Speaker 9: But is there any way to get a feel for the universe of awards? Because we see it in sort of regular updates, but we don't really have a feeling for the universe. So is getting too distinguished out of how many teaching awards, is there, do we have a, like a, so two out of 20 is not as good as two out of 10 scenario.
40:18 Speaker 9: what the trend is year on year. Sure, sure.
40:23 I'd
40:23 Speaker 2: have to think about that. Let me go and think about that one. For the National Tertiary Teaching Instance Awards, we could certainly get historically the number of our winners relative to the total number of winners and a profile by institution. That wouldn't be difficult, I think. And for the research awards, we know the awards that are made. There are six or eight of them.
40:48 Speaker 10: made
40:48 Speaker 2: each year, which is why I are getting four or five of them this year is reasonably spectacular. But we could get a, we could pull out probably the last 10 years' data.
40:57 Speaker 9: Because if we're kind of measuring, and it would probably be helpful for the next Vice Chancellor as well, because she won't necessarily have that context, but if we're going to measure progress against, you know...
41:12 Speaker 2: What you'll see in both of them is, I mean, I think what's spectacular for this university and the teaching one is that we in the last 16 years and no other institution would come close to that. Particularly for an institution like ours where it's claimed that only research matters.
41:25 Speaker 4: In
41:26 Speaker 2: the research awards what we'll see is it'll be up and down. We feature most years. Some years it will get two, some years we'll get four.
41:34 Speaker 6: But
41:34 Speaker 2: because we are such a big research institution and have so many of the top researchers we will be disproportionately represented in that group. We can pull those numbers. There is also of course the issue that We are never going to win everything. Even if we had all the top researchers in the world, there is a tendency to want to spread the recognition around, which is not unreasonable, and so that will limit
41:56 Speaker 9: the trends. But if we suddenly started getting zero year on year, you'd be concerned. Sure, sure.
42:01 Speaker 2: Let me see if I can get one of our researchers to pull out that information.
42:05 Just
42:06 Speaker 9: for significant ones. Yeah. The second point I had was on, there's a point in here about a major incident.
42:16 Speaker 9: Where does that go?
42:18 Speaker 9: and how do we handle it because it's obviously a sense to fish out but um sorry where are you in the report sorry now 41 41 um 20. an investigation into serious misconduct to me that pricks up antennas and say how does the council or where does that go to within the council subcommittees or what have you to understand what that is and what the outcome is, etc.
42:55 Speaker 9: I'm just looking for the 41.
42:57 Speaker 9: Oh, it's in the first paragraph. It's actually talking about the
42:59 Speaker 2: PVC Maori.
43:01 Speaker 9: It was on the first study left.
43:03 Speaker 9: Oh, right, right, right, right.
43:04 Speaker 9: Only returning to...
43:05 Speaker 9: Well, the short
43:05 Speaker 2: answer is they don't go to council because the vice-chancellor is the employer.
43:09 Speaker 2: So this is a reference to an allegation of serious misconduct against a staff member.
43:17 Speaker 2: Under our discipline policy, which is part of the collective or the individual employment agreement, if the Dean writes to the Vice-Chancellor stating that a matter may be serious misconduct, then the Vice-Chancellor is required to appoint a delegate. Normally I appoint two delegates, it depends on the circumstances, so we have to take into account gender, we take into account ethnicity, seniority, those sorts of things.
43:45 Speaker 4: And
43:45 Speaker 2: then we will work through the allegation of serious misconduct with a range of possible outcomes from a finding that no misconduct occurred to the other end of the extreme, a summary dismissal. In the middle, quite often, you'll get into a situation where there'll be a negotiated solution. Sometimes people who are accused of serious misconduct fall on their sword and there's nothing you can do about that other than be happy that they've gone out the door.
44:15 Speaker 6: But
44:15 Speaker 2: we don't report them beyond that HR process. So
44:20 Speaker 9: I'm not concerned and don't want to insert ourselves into that process.
44:25 Speaker 6: But
44:25 Speaker 9: I think where something like that could potentially have a reputation risk for the university, there should be some... It's like a whistleblower line. And as
44:35 Speaker 13: you
44:36 Speaker 9: recall at the Audit and Risk Committee, we talked about how do we get visibility over a whistleblower line, not completely.
44:46 Speaker 9: It's a similar sort of thing that we're trying to manage the reputation risk and it's really there was x allegations of serious misconduct, here's the outcome and the risk is being dealt with x, y and z.
45:06 Speaker 2: I think we could certainly put together a report on that.
45:10 Speaker 9: I don't particularly want to have the details. No,
45:13 Speaker 2: that's what I'm just thinking.
45:16 Speaker 2: I mean what we do with the reputational risk if something comes up that I think has got a potential to go public on us and to be a reputational risk then what I would normally do is to advise the Chancellor and Pro-Chancellor that that's on the radar and to have our comms people alongside that early on so that if it blows up on us we're ready to go. Very few of these things do. There was one I put the fact of a dismissal into the VC email because I wanted people to understand that the behaviours have consequences. But if I think about most of the ones that we've had to deal with, they've been resolved as a confidential outcome. And there would be perhaps half a dozen of them a year
46:10 Speaker 9: that
46:11 Speaker 2: we go through.
46:14 Speaker 9: So...
46:15 Speaker 9: because I've asked the guys to come back in terms of the whistleblowing scenario. So it could maybe come through as one of those.
46:24 Speaker 2: Yeah, we'd have to be quite careful about it. But we can certainly do something with this is, you know, in the last year we had X allegations of serious misconduct and they were resolved in the following ways.
46:38 Speaker 2: That would be possible.
46:40 Speaker 2: The number of them is quite small because the threshold for serious misconduct misconduct in our policy is essentially could you be fired for it? Not will you be fired for it, but is it of that scope?
46:52 Speaker 9: But
46:52 Speaker 2: okay, we can have a look at that.
46:54 Thank
46:54 Speaker 9: you.
46:56 Speaker 2: Anything else for Stuart?
47:01 Could
47:01 Speaker 1: that be the case, I will move that we note the Vice-Chancellor's report and we'll move into the reports of Council Committees and Jen, we are with you for Ordered and Risk. Short story.
47:16 Speaker 1: Is there any discussion? I'll move. Perhaps Jan seconds. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Gains to carried capital expenditure. Scott, why don't you take this one? Okay. I don't think I've got anything to add. All right. Well, I'll move, but I might have somebody else second. I'll second. Thank you very much. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Gains to carried. Mike.
47:45 Speaker 10: A similar story for the Finance Committee, there's really no business in Part A, although we have some Part B
47:50 Speaker 1: material
47:51 Speaker 10: in the minutes.
47:52 Yep.
47:53 Speaker 1: Any discussion? I'll move. You second. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Carried. So we are now at 7.4 and that is page 145 I think, which is the runanga.
48:19 Speaker 1: So who's taking us through that?
48:25 Speaker 1: Ah, sounds like I am.
48:26 Speaker 2: Yes.
48:27 Speaker 2: 7.4 is the proposed terms of reference coming to us from Cindy Kerou.
48:34 Speaker 2: You'll see that in the first item there was an amendment, I think was suggested at the last Council meeting, The University's obligations to acknowledge the principles of the treaty. There's the addition of reference to consensus being sought wherever possible because all Māori staff of the University are able to attend the meetings. But then there is the voting membership which is referenced on page 146 of Diligent.
49:10 Speaker 2: of the Ruinanga here who might be better positioned to comment than I am.
49:13 Well,
49:13 Speaker 4: Cindy met with both of us and I delegated Amokurita.
49:18 Speaker 11: Who's not a member of Ruinanga. The other change was to ensure that both co-presidents of NTM are also members of Ruinanga.
49:30 Speaker 11: Yeah, sorry. I don't think there's anything further to add. I mean, at the last meeting there was that concern that I had about whether getting rid of the elected members was a good idea, but we've talked that
49:42 So
49:42 Speaker 1: I've rounded out the discussion from last meeting. Is there any further discussion on that?
49:50 I
49:50 Speaker 9: just had a question.
49:51 Speaker 9: Jan. On page 145, why are meetings only open to Māori staff?
49:59 Speaker 4: Because it's a forum for Māori staff to kind of be put on tap, I guess. And in saying that, the PVC Pacific and PPC Equity.
50:11 Speaker 4: are members of that committee as well.
50:15 Speaker 4: Put it this way, no one's excluded. In terms of... We don't do an ID check. Yeah. But I guess one of the functions that Runanga provides for in the university is a space and a place for Māori staff to come together and have a conversation around issues that are relevant and pertinent to Māori within the university.
50:37 Speaker 4: Which is why it's an open forum, because there's not many other spaces.
50:46 I'm
50:47 Speaker 9: not sure that's terribly inclusive.
50:51 Speaker 9: But I'm not going to die in a ditch on it.
50:54 It
50:54 Speaker 3: doesn't say anybody else can't go.
50:56 Speaker 9: It's open to only Maori staff.
50:59 Speaker 9: It says it's open to all Maori staff.
51:01 Speaker 2: It doesn't say it doesn't exclude.
51:04 Speaker 3: It doesn't say you can't go. It doesn't say anybody else can't go.
51:08 Speaker 3: It says it is open to all Māori staff, so professional and academic.
51:12 I
51:13 Speaker 2: think the point though is Jan, that this was, this, the Renanga is a committee of council intended to give advice, its primary function is to give advice on matters Māori to this council, hence the membership on page 146, which is an appropriate membership for people who can give advice. But because of, to the point about a place in space, The view of Aruna has always been that Māori staff should be able to be a part of this whether or not they are members in a voting sense. So in that way it's
51:51 Speaker 4: inclusive.
51:55 Speaker 2: I
51:56 Speaker 4: think it's one of the few opportunities within the university that Māori staff actually have to come together to be able to have that conversation from a Māori perspective around what are the issues that and matter to Māori both internally and externally within the university. Similar to the student space I guess and the PVC Pacific. And there is a
52:18 Speaker 2: Pacific equivalent although it's not a Committee of Council.
52:22 Yeah.
52:24 Speaker 4: But it's definitely not if you want to come you can come because that's the way that we operate generally anyway.
52:32 Speaker 1: It's Māori staff are invited but
52:35 Speaker 11: no
52:35 Speaker 1: one's excluded.
52:36 Speaker 1: Yes. Is that?
52:38 Speaker 1: Yeah,
52:39 Speaker 11: and really my concern that I raised last time around was that other Māori staff wouldn't feel welcome unless it was very obvious that they are welcome. But I don't have the right, for example, to turn up to an Equity Committee meeting. So there is something special about the unanga.
52:57 Speaker 4: And I have to say, in the last couple of meetings that we've had, there have been staff there who are isolated within their own working environments and spaces So being able to come to the runanga is an important part of their sense of belonging and being engaged and included within the institution, which is often quite an isolating experience overall.
53:24 Other
53:25 Speaker 1: discussion?
53:28 Speaker 1: So I will move and perhaps Kath if you could second. All those in favour say aye. Aye.
53:39 Speaker 1: and we are at student appeals and from memory that's you.
53:46 Speaker 5: Pretty straightforward what the paper says. I'm happy to take questions if anybody has any questions. We had all the members of the committee were present.
53:58 Speaker 1: Discussion on that.
54:03 Do
54:03 Speaker 9: you have a lot of appeals?
54:06 Speaker 5: That's probably one a year. I mean, that's the first one I've chaired, and I've been on the committee a couple of years.
54:14 Probably
54:14 Speaker 12: slightly less than that.
54:17 Speaker 12: I feel like a year, so I've got about five.
54:21 Speaker 12: Yeah,
54:22 Speaker 1: we don't see
54:23 Speaker 6: them often.
54:24 Speaker 9: But they're always difficult
54:25 Speaker 12: when they come, though.
54:26 Speaker 12: Oh, I'm sure.
54:26 Speaker 12: Yeah, it takes a
54:29 Speaker 1: huge amount of time.
55:02 Speaker 2: The only issue of significance in this report is the review of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. There are a number of year on progress reports that Senate was generally happy with the way those other reviews are progressing. But you'll note on page 151 the review of the Department of Mechanical Engineering.
55:23 Speaker 2: The review was generally very positive, commenting on the collegial spirit of the Department on its leadership.
55:30 Speaker 2: on the role of technical staff, on the efforts being made to improve the retention and recruitment of Māori and Pacific students, but also identified a number of other areas that the Department of Mechanical Engineering should focus on, and you'll see that Senators recommending that that review be received, and that will go through the process. It'll come back in year-on reviews and so forth.
56:00 Speaker 2: The only major thing aside from on page 153, members might want to note at the top of that page the reference to the amendment to the regulations to introduce the provision for third class honours, for bachelor's honours, postgraduate degrees and this comes from the Faculty of Engineering where essentially the majority of the students undertaking what we might call the regular engineering and so they had the situation of students passing that program at a modest level of achievement but not graduating with honors and Senate was comfortable with the proposal that there could be a provision for third class honors although to some of us that seems inherently odd but anyway and that's I think the only thing that's of particular significance in the report, Chair.
57:30 Speaker 10: terminology to something that might be a bit more marketable.
57:33 Speaker 10: Third class
57:34 Speaker 2: isn't it rather way
57:35 Speaker 10: steep?
57:35 Speaker 10: Yes, it does.
57:36 Speaker 10: That's what it conjures up images of.
57:38 Speaker 10: Perhaps, I mean, this is a funny
57:40 Speaker 2: thing in engineering because the students are going into a four year honours degree as opposed to a three year degree with an honours year on top of it.
57:49 Speaker 2: So I suspect, and then of course the level of honours has an impact on your eligibility to go straight into PhD and various other things.
57:56 Speaker 2: So I suspect that they'll be happy with the third class honours
58:00 Speaker 9: line.
58:00 Speaker 9: So the third class honours gets you straight into a PhD?
58:05 Speaker 2: No. First or a 2.1 gets you into a PhD.
58:08 Speaker 3: So do law do honours, right?
58:12 Speaker 3: It's different. Do they do
58:13 Speaker 12: honours in engineering?
58:15 Speaker 12: Yeah.
58:15 Speaker 12: And law is an extra one as well.
58:18 Speaker 12: It's tacked on at the end.
58:19 Speaker 12: Yeah, law
58:19 Speaker 3: is an extra, well, whatever it is now.
58:54 Speaker 2: That's the point. It's not a three plus one, it's a four by definition.
59:00 Do
59:01 Speaker 9: we have other four year degrees?
59:04 Speaker 2: Law is
59:05 Speaker 6: a four year degree.
59:23 Speaker 3: I think the problem with the terminology is you have to be in line with the international terminology. Right? And I think that if the first class on a second class, I don't know about third, but first and second is a terminology that is
59:34 used.
59:36 Speaker 2: Fairly widely.
59:38 Speaker 3: Internationally.
59:38 Speaker 2: Is third class used widely? It is used in some cases like this, but it would be in four year degrees. You wouldn't see it. I don't think you typically see third class where it's a three class one where you're in and on as you.
59:54 So
59:55 Speaker 3: in a similar situation to this.
01:00:01 Speaker 10: Work hard, get first class things, that's the best policy.
01:00:04 Speaker 10: Yeah, yeah.
01:00:05 Speaker 10: I'm a kura.
01:00:06 Speaker 11: I will, on page 151 of Diligent, there's a reference to the, this is for the School of Medical Sciences, Māori and Pacific Strategy. So I had a look at it, and I just wanted to point out quite a serious typo.
01:00:24 Speaker 11: There's a reference to it, so I then had a look in the Senate papers just out of interest to see what was in it. And the policy, well strategy here is whakapikaake, which means to bring the axe down on the heads. It must be a typo. Yeah, so if we could
01:00:42 just... Oh
01:00:48 Speaker 4: yeah, it's picky, not... Oh,
01:00:50 Speaker 11: okay.
01:00:50 Speaker 1: Okay, right.
01:01:22 Speaker 1: The recommendations in part of the report of Senate from 23 September be adopted in part of the NCB. Noted. Stuart, you're happy to second. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Against. Carried. We don't have any correspondence from me apart from the pastoral stuff which will catch up a little later on. I don't think we've got anything under the seal.
01:01:52 Speaker 1: I've got a deed of lease. I can't find it. Just to be noted. It's just in the papers. Right. We'll move that we will note that, read the Stanley Street property, and we will go to 10-2. Is there any discussion on this? It's pretty straightforward. Apparently given the wrong
01:02:13 Speaker 2: class of honours in error, and this is writing that error. So it's all straightforward. Okay.
01:02:18 Speaker 1: So I will move that that's received, that we rescind and that we confer the Master of Professional Studies Food Safety with First Class Honours. Can I have a seconder please? Alex, thank you. All those in favour say aye. Aye. So we will now move to pastoral care. So, Michael, welcome.
01:02:44 If
01:02:44 Speaker 2: anybody doesn't know Michael, Michael Reaners heads our accommodation team. Come over here, ma'am.
01:02:52 Approvals.
01:02:55 Pardon?
01:03:22 Speaker 13: was sent both to you at Scott's request, but it also formed our October 18th submission to the TEC.
01:03:33 Speaker 13: So that's it. So I'm happy to entertain questions if there are any or any specific topics somebody would like me to address.
01:03:45 Yeah. Yeah.
01:03:48 Speaker 5: Incredible amount of information and a huge amount of procedures and so on. I had two questions when I read it. One is how long have these sort of in aggregate been in place for the university?
01:04:01 Well,
01:04:02 Speaker 13: so we're developing and changing them all the time, but most of what you were sent has been there at least the six or seven years that I've been here. We do review them annually and we improve our performance each and every year and they are getting better. They're not perfect yet.
01:04:20 Speaker 5: There's
01:04:21 Speaker 13: more we can do.
01:04:22 Speaker 13: But we're very proud of what we do do, and we do believe that we create safe communities. Is there much information sharing between the various institutions around the country in this specific space? So at my level, it's been relatively quiet. What I will tell you that at the next level down, it is almost constant at the moment, just talking about how could this have happened, who's heard what.
01:04:52 Speaker 13: I wouldn't call it necessarily educated discussion. I think it's varying on rumour.
01:05:00 Speaker 1: I guess where I'm going, are we kind of an outlier in terms of the spectrum of the framework of pretty much everyone operating this sort of a framework? I don't know. I
01:05:11 Speaker 2: think it's important to remember about this particular case. The student passed away in his room. This is not common, but neither is it unusual.
01:05:20 Speaker 2: There's nothing remarkable about a student passing away in the halls. What's remarkable about it was that his body wasn't found for, well initially it was reported as eight weeks, now I understand it's four weeks. That is kind of remarkable, but it's also worth noting that this student was in a relatively independent living environment. This is not a person who was in a standard first year hall. It would be more akin to our self-catered kind of situation. So one of the concerns The concerns I have is that the government has seriously overreacted to this. If we go where we look to be going, they are going to mandate ratios of residential assistance and we are going to have to put a whole lot of cost on to students. So I think there is quite an overreaction from this one terribly tragic and unfortunate case but remarkable only because the young man's body wasn't found, not because there was any evidence of neglect
01:06:22 It
01:06:23 Speaker 10: looks like putting a solution in place without understanding the problem.
01:06:28 Speaker 2: Well exactly, it's hard to see how more RAs would have prevented this particular situation, about which we don't know everything and there's quite a lot of rumour going
01:06:36 on.
01:06:38 Speaker 3: Michael, we've got on page 167, we've got our ratio of RAs to students.
01:06:44 Speaker 3: Do we know, do we have the data to compare that to other New Zealand and Australian universities?
01:06:51 So
01:06:51 Speaker 13: it varies quite a bit. So our current ratio for our current planning ratio for a first year haul will be 1 to 35. That is at the, if you were to look to the code of practice that the minister's looking to, that's at the top end of what is acceptable. It totally ranges. Give us some context then. So they say anywhere from 1 to 20 to 1 to 35. Okay. So who had, And for us it will depend kind of which hall it is and a lot of the structural part of the hall. One, for instance, when we look towards next year, and this is going to Stuart's point, why Peru? Because of the way the floors are designed. The floors have in the main tower have 41 students, one of which will be an RA, the other 40 of which will be school leavers. That would not, if he were to mandate that ratio, we would not meet that next year.
01:07:50 Speaker 13: at the same time putting two of them on the same hall we think is more than is needed and that in a hall that has 24 hour coverage that that is plenty. I guess where I'm seeing issues is that pastoral care is not only provided by resident advisors. They are very part time well trained students who have a full academic life. So if that's what's between safety in a hall and not being safe That's just not the answer. It takes the entire structure and how you build communities. So I agree with Stuart. I would be very hesitant to start having five bedroom apartments as the preferred first year school leave or accommodation. I just think that's way too hard to actually know what's going on in a student's life in any way, shape, or form.
01:08:45 But
01:08:45 Speaker 3: that is something that, like I know Massey does it in Wellington and obviously Canterbury doesn't in Christchurch.
01:08:53 Speaker 13: But that is kind of where your facilities go.
01:08:58 Speaker 13: I mean we've been quite fortunate in that even from the early days of Whitaker Hall and O'Rourke, they were built as what I would call the best style of accommodation for school leavers.
01:09:10 Speaker 6: Yes.
01:09:13 Speaker 12: One of the things, I'm sure we've all been following what's happened in Christchurch, One of the things was that some people were saying that the IRAs in Christchurch were big in IRA, full-time study, and they were working as well, part -time. So are our IRAs got part-time jobs as well?
01:09:34 Speaker 13: They are limited by their university contract on how part-time they can be, and if they have a job, they have to have disclosed it to us contractually. But could they work eight hours in a department store if they so needed? Yes.
01:09:49 Speaker 13: But more than eight additional hours. So they're assumed to work 15 hours a week. And we will let them work an additional eight. And
01:10:00 Speaker 5: then we would say that is too much. I had a second question I was trying to come up with. Because presumably Canterbury would have had similar procedures to what we did. Like in aggregate. And one of the things that struck me and reading it is there's so many procedures. What's the risk of something falling through the cracks just like what happened in Canterbury? Well,
01:10:29 Speaker 13: so quite regularly we'll get a call from a parent. Sometimes the child hasn't been heard from for three hours. That was the shortest time frame this year. Their child hadn't called them for three hours and could we find them. So even that we take very seriously. The RA very quickly determined where this person was and said please call home. Again, we can't even tell the parent what the person's an adult. If they're 18 years old, they're an adult, we can say don't worry, but much more than that we can't really disclose. But we highly encourage the student to call their concerned one. If the RA can't do that and they've tried and we do an awful lot of a lot of social media tracking and the RAs are better at that than parents. I'm happy to report.
01:11:26 Speaker 13: I was there for
01:11:27 Speaker 2: young people.
01:11:29 Speaker 13: We would then elevate it. So the principle theory of once we're in reactive mode is that the RAs not out there by themselves. There's a second on call who is a full-time professional staff member and there's one of those on call 24 hours a day.
01:11:48 Speaker 13: If they can't handle it goes to one of the two area managers and if it's really a student who's been missing for 20 hours and we've done everything we do, I'll be notified and then I will struggle to determine whether I need to wake Brendan up in the middle of the morning. I will point out, rarely do these things happen 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. And it really is about knowing what patterns are.
01:12:17 Speaker 13: The last one that was concerning that we debated about was somebody who was used to calling his parents every day. They were used to it. And he went on a hiking trip in the South Island. He told two of his friends here. It never occurred to him there would be no cell phone coverage because where in the world is that true? And he was on a hike and there was no cell phone coverage. So we were able to determine where he was and eventually it all worked out fine.
01:12:46 Speaker 13: But it is actually having all of those very, very close connections and knowing patterns. We ask that if a student is going to go away for more than one or two days, they let us know. They can walk out the door and not do that.
01:13:03 Okay,
01:13:03 Speaker 1: a few other questions.
01:13:04 Speaker 4: Oh no, I think Michael just answered my question. I guess the residential, the RAs only form part of a bigger system of support and networks and I guess it's that confidence that all of our systems are working.
01:13:15 Speaker 4: and talking to each other so that if the situations that you just described happen, that we've got a mechanism to be able to front foot it. And my other question associated to that is because one of the issues that also arose was how come no one told me that he wasn't attending lectures? So it's that joined uppenness between the accommodation and the university.
01:13:37 Speaker 13: So when we, so we don't know and we don't get a weekly report saying that somebody's not attending lectures and in many of our lectures we don't actually take attendance so that would be a pretty meaningless report so we rely much more on how come Sally hasn't been eating meals if it's a first-year hall or particularly in apartment living you know if there's four people in an apartment even if you're not best friends you're going to notice if somebody hasn't been there for a day or two and didn't mention they were leaving and that would be mentioned either to an RA or to the front desk staff where they're leaving the building And we can track most of our accommodation is electronic key in so we can see the last time they keyed into the building, not their room per se.
01:14:27 Speaker 10: Michael, on that vein, and particularly if you think of the circumstance in Christchurch and maybe the one in Victoria, what's caused the government reaction here and the fuss is not finding that someone had died. We don't know why they died, so it's a separate issue.
01:14:44 Speaker 10: So looking at our procedures which are very good and very thorough, that early stage of detection of someone being missing doesn't appear to be addressed in the procedures at all. Or at least I couldn't see it.
01:14:55 Well,
01:14:56 Speaker 13: because, so I don't know
01:14:57 Speaker 10: how you procedure that, but so
01:15:00 Speaker 13: in a first year hall for instance, the RA is living on the floor with them. Presumably they have friends and even if they don't they would then be known to us as somebody to worry about because we would have noticed they have no friends and we would be tracking them more closely. We certainly at any given point in accommodation, there are more than a handful of students who we are deeply worried about and monitoring extremely closely. And we do rely on that community of a floor to say, hey, it's just weird. I don't know where
01:15:33 that
01:15:34 Speaker 10: person is. Do we in fact have a procedure that raises an alarm? As you mentioned, that if someone hasn't used their electronic card for a meal or whatever for three days, that it
01:15:45 Speaker 13: So food service occupancy is about 64% of our students eat every so the occupancy is 64% so we don't we do get a weekly report and we can check it we do not have a trigger that says if you didn't eat three meals in a row that that's a problem because it's probably not particularly when so weekend meals go way way way down and the weekday meals are in that 90 percentile.
01:16:17 Speaker 10: Let's say a week to avoid this horrible month situation.
01:16:20 Speaker 10: Yeah, yeah.
01:16:21 Speaker 13: And that would work in a first year hall.
01:16:23 Speaker 13: We can do that. We have not been doing that.
01:16:27 Speaker 13: But that wouldn't help in a self-cater where they're not eating with us.
01:16:32 Speaker 13: And they don't have to swipe in and out of the accommodation.
01:16:35 Speaker 13: Right. And we do and we can do that.
01:16:39 Speaker 13: At the moment we don't have an ability to get reports doing analytics on that is something that we are considering and certainly wiperuru and this is actually more important wiperuru will have electronic door locks instead of key locks so that you will be able to definitively know if they went into their bedroom at a certain time and that's actually the direction we're going so we're certainly as we need to replace locks go all electronic because that is just by far the very best way to track somebody
01:17:42 Speaker 1: review of what we are doing because TEC is asking us that explicit question. And one of my nervousnesses around this space is the extent to which, the extent of kind of responsibility that we end up signing up for, for what are actually adults because we're not a boarding school. We're a university.
01:18:10 Speaker 1: So talk to me about that.
01:18:13 Speaker 13: We certainly haven't had an independent outside specialist evaluate what we're doing. We are constantly comparing ourselves to what others do. One of my residential experience officer was the former head of the New Zealand Association. He serves on the board of the Australian, New Zealand, Asian, and is extraordinary.
01:18:40 Speaker 13: well versed in what the policies and procedures are. One of the, that is a question is how to answer the November letter.
01:18:51 Speaker 13: It's the who would do an independent. So yeah, you can have an auditor look at your plans, but that's actually not evaluating practice per se. So I think that is a question that has gone unanswered. And I was on a phone call with the other, with actually the risk managers of the other universities in New Zealand and one of them is already doing an independent auditor-like review and they called the TEC and said could you please tell us the outline spec of what you're looking for and they said oh we have no idea so I don't know how you hire an independent and say review this and walk away because that's actually where we are right at this moment.
01:19:36 Speaker 3: Yeah, because there is this thing in the left and right that said I would ask that as a council you conduct a review process, preferably independent, that reassures your council and me that the processes, systems and procedures utilized within your wider accommodation services can give you confidence in the safety and well-being of students. My expectation is that you should complete it and report back to your findings before the 29th of November 19th.
01:19:57 Speaker 1: That's what I'm referring to. Yeah,
01:19:59 Speaker 3: so what are we going to do about that? I know, I mean, you've sent them all the information that you need to send them, by the 18th of October. Right, but what are we going to do? I mean, obviously we're, we've all been given the information we're reviewing at a council meeting, but I don't know, is it an Audit and Risk Committee
01:20:17 Speaker 9: thing? Stuart, I wonder if it's, because everyone's got these, I wonder if it's not something the universities association could pack up and almost do a, So Michael could go and do Victoria and Victoria could go and do Canterbury and move people around. Because it's really an independent view by people who are aware of what the issues are and what they're doing and it'll be beneficial for the other
01:20:53 Speaker 6: university
01:20:55 Speaker 9: people.
01:20:56 Speaker 9: And it could be a way to lift the knowledge of the whole sector.
01:21:06 Speaker 1: industry does a bit of around the dangerous, you know, the pentane and stuff like that. I suspect the airline industry does it. So I quite like that idea. We can certainly talk
01:21:18 Speaker 2: to the other universities about it. I mean, I think the question in my mind is what is the question we're asking? What's unusual about this is that the young man lay deceased in his room for four weeks. So you could ask the question, the narrow question is if a person died in our halls, How soon would we know and how would we know? Would it take us four weeks to know?
01:21:40 Speaker 9: I think it needs to be really narrow. I agree with Michael. If you go and do a review of documentation process, it doesn't tell you. What you're looking for is the Swiss cheese.
01:21:51 Speaker 6: Where
01:21:51 Speaker 9: does it fall through all the cracks that it ends up with four weeks?
01:21:56 Speaker 9: And the people that are used to dealing with the halls of residence should have a much better feel for what sort of things and that was to the point of great documentation, great training for people, but how do we check or what's the key point to evidence that I've seen that 45th person this week? Do I as an RA have to tick a box so I have to think about it? Because you get busy and suddenly someone says, and you go, oh actually no, because you get caught up in your own life. So what forces an RA to tick the box that they've seen that person this week? Or what's the exception report? Or more generally, how do we, does the institution know
01:22:48 Speaker 2: that that person is not a peer? Yeah,
01:22:51 Speaker 9: the exception report. And we can certainly ask that
01:22:52 Speaker 2: question. That's quite a carefully defined and narrow question as opposed to trying to audit our entire procedures and see if they're any good.
01:23:00 Speaker 2: So we can look at doing that. Sharing with the other universities would be One way to do it.
01:23:07 Speaker 2: Isn't there
01:23:07 Speaker 12: a difference though also, I'm just going on newspaper reports, but it was being outsourced, whereas you're doing it all in turn.
01:23:15 Speaker 12: Well it's not all out.
01:23:16 Speaker 12: It was in Christchurch.
01:23:18 Speaker 12: It was, but
01:23:19 Speaker 3: we have halls that are run by other people.
01:23:23 Speaker 3: But we don't have any halls
01:23:25 Speaker 13: that the pastoral care is not run.
01:23:26 Speaker 13: Oh, okay.
01:23:27 Speaker 13: So while we have halls that the front desk is operated and the maintenance operated, 100% of the pastoral care is under one system, one reporting and the same team. But it doesn't necessarily follow that because it was outsourced it was bad.
01:23:40 Speaker 12: No, but there were again just some of the news reports that there were worries, people were saying, there'd been concerns for a while but again that might just be after the fact that people come to do it.
01:23:51 Speaker 4: And I guess it's that you just want the confidence that when students go into a hall of residence that there's a whole bunch of things, systems there that will enable a student who's at risk to be to be identified quickly and that we're confident as a council that that can be put in place. I think there's evidence here that the pastoral care is really strong, the sense of community, the processes, but we just want to know that we're not going to get that same point.
01:24:17 Well
01:24:17 Speaker 12: you also don't want it to get to that situation. That's the worst possible one where someone
01:24:23 Speaker 10: is there. There are potentially two issues here though. There's that, it looks like we're quite strong in that and we can always check that and improve it.
01:24:31 Speaker 10: the knee-jerk from government and media doesn't appear to be that. There's an assumption there was a pastoral care problem.
01:24:37 Speaker 10: Yes, exactly.
01:24:38 Speaker 10: That led to the
01:24:39 death
01:24:40 Speaker 2: of the student.
01:24:41 Speaker 2: If the young man had been found three days after he died, there would be nothing in the newspaper.
01:24:46 Speaker 2: What's unusual is the four weeks that started off as eight weeks.
01:24:50 Speaker 2: So that's why I'm...
01:24:50 Speaker 2: I'm probably going to have to be careful about the question we're asking.
01:24:55 Speaker 2: That's the only thing that makes this unusual.
01:24:58 Speaker 4: There's an
01:24:59 Speaker 11: independent investigation, I think, of the Christchurch. Right. So we should probably wait for that to come out at some point. Well, we don't have time, right? Right. So that's not due to
01:25:11 Speaker 13: Christchurch until the 15th of November. And we're not sure when or if in what form it will be released. That'll be next year.
01:25:20 Speaker 1: So without wanting to put words into people's mouths, the way I'm kind of feeling about about this is that I'm relatively confident in terms of the rigour that has gone into the framework that we have around pastoral care in the context of there always being some room for improvement. We see some areas such as the electronic piece where we will continue to enhance what we have.
01:25:58 Speaker 1: that we are not of a mind to initiate an independent audit, because we don't think that that's necessarily going to deliver us anything of value, but that we do see some potential merit in peer review type processes where institutions are going into other institutions to cast fresh eyes.
01:26:28 Speaker 1: over what we and the sector are doing. So that is a little bit on the spur of the, or on the fly, but I'm wondering whether that is what we go back to TEC with. Thoughts?
01:26:45 I
01:26:46 Speaker 5: agree. I think that that was an excellent way to approach it because, you know, if you try to find global best practices, they could be all over the place on this, because every country
01:27:23 Speaker 1: The real risk here is where we started. The industry ends up laying down the ground.
01:27:28 Speaker 1: a whole lot of unnecessary cost on this so that we can count every student.
01:27:35 Speaker 1: The whole point about the TEC is that
01:27:36 Speaker 2: Tim Fowler is asking for assurance that the students are safe. There's no evidence that this young man wasn't safe. He passed away. That's unfortunate. It's tragic for him and his family, clearly, but there's no evidence that Canterbury provided an environment that was unsafe. So I think we do need to make a distinction between finding there's a problem and finding it early.
01:27:58 Speaker 2: on the one hand, and the global provision of support to our students.
01:28:03 Yeah,
01:28:04 Speaker 3: there's a distinction between safety and well-being, and well-being is really the whole, has somebody noticed he hasn't come out of his room? I
01:28:13 Speaker 5: mean, I think in fairness, if he had been slowly dying over five days or seven days, the ministry is saying, how would you ever pick that up? You know, there is a preventative side to this, which is...
01:28:28 Speaker 5: I think to a degree reasonable. We just need to be assured that one way or another those aggregate systems will somehow deliver oh so and so we haven't seen them in a week or her.
01:28:43 Speaker 5: What do we do about it? It's switching from reactive to proactive a little bit.
01:28:47 Speaker 13: Yeah but I think the best way to be proactive is to make sure you have communities of people who care about each other.
01:28:58 Speaker 13: is not
01:28:59 Speaker 7: particularly going to give you the maximum benefit of that. Kev or George?
01:29:07 Speaker 7: For the most part, my experience as a first year student in one of the halls was very apparent to RAs if you weren't there or something was up because the RA was so closely connected to the students on the hall and everyone was communicating together. So it's building that. I actually think in credit to what we have here, there's a lot of good work done by RAs and accommodation to build that community. Two questions that I had though, Michael, one was just in regards to the kind of training rubric that are given to RAs or that sets out RA training. Do we ever bring in external facilitators or external partners? We do
01:29:42 Speaker 13: bring in quite a number of external. And we work with
01:29:45 Speaker 7: them in terms of tailoring that training. Yeah, absolutely. And then my second question was, obviously we're putting a lot of pressure on our RAs to kind of fulfill this, and that's front of mind.
01:29:58 Speaker 7: I think actually it'll be interesting to see how campus care as a model can kind of work with this as well. Leaving that to an aside though, what support is there for RAs? There's enormous support.
01:30:10 Speaker 13: First of all, let's start with each other. University of Auckland is slightly different than other schools. Their job is the pastoral care and the care of our students. Their job is not event focused. They're not out there planning parties. That has nothing to do with their remit. Their remit is to make sure our students are safe.
01:30:28 Speaker 13: safe learning and making those connections so that they can be successful and that is probably a slight point of difference between our resident advisors and those of many of our peers.
01:30:40 Speaker 13: So that's the first and foremost. Second of all, absolutely, this is a high stress job and finding somebody who's hurt themselves is going to be, you know, they're trained, they know what to do. But then the next step in that is how do I support that RA? They've been traumatized.
01:30:58 Speaker 13: they're at risk and we have to support them so all of those procedures are are in place and we have an amazing relationship with counseling we're kind of partners in that and they're absolutely would get right in there and support all the people that have been supporting in that instance.
01:31:28 Speaker 4: But I guess my question was around, and I've forgotten it because I had to make that statement first up, but it was around that whole thing around how we lose that question. It was really important at the time, I've lost it. But it was around the fact that there's a whole bunch of expectation, I've got it. Have you had a conversation with them around this? Because the
01:31:52 Speaker 1: actual
01:31:54 Speaker 4: responsibility on these young people is huge.
01:31:58 Speaker 4: All over the media that the RAs are the focal point of this. I'm interested to know what is their perception of how this could have been handled differently? I would hope would be captured.
01:32:12 Speaker 13: First of all, we would, even if we had a place that only required two RAs, we would never let the number two be the sole number. We have a place like that. Pernell Student Village has 91 beds.
01:32:25 Speaker 13: By the way, we do self-catered apartments.
01:32:28 Speaker 13: two RAs, that's not acceptable. You cannot do a shift in 15 hours a week and cover it with just two. So after this event, we absolutely talked with the RAs, mostly to support them because the press got pretty bloody mean about RAs there for a while, and we wanted to make sure that they were doing okay with that and being supported. It depends on which RA you're talking about and what has happened in their halls.
01:32:58 Speaker 13: specifically, but it is absolutely something we talked about and it's an ongoing conversation. So, you know, we started talking with the 2020 RAs on Saturday afternoon and one of the questions I put out there is one of the most important things of your job is telling us when it's too much for you because you can't actually be a good support person if you need support at that time yourself.
01:33:25 Speaker 13: So I'm pleased to hear that.
01:33:58 Speaker 1: is that capturing it for everybody? Please speak. Okay, so Wendy, I don't know how you word that but we'll find a way. So I think that deals with that matter. Is there anything else anyone wants to discuss on that?
01:34:21 Speaker 1: I will move that we note that and that we respect to TEC on that basis.
01:34:30 Speaker 1: So, honorary degrees and awards statute, which is part page 276.
01:34:51 Is
01:34:51 Speaker 2: there any...
01:34:54 Speaker 2: Just to explain where we got to, so members will recall that I raised at the last Council meeting the question of honorary degrees for staff, recognising the work they did as staff, and the general preliminary view from Council was that that wasn't appropriate.
01:35:11 Speaker 2: I took that back to Senate to consult the Senate. They were not averse to the idea of our being explicit that people don't get honorary degrees for work they did as a staff member.
01:35:22 Speaker 2: Some of the Senate members raised a completely different question of whether the degrees that we have appropriately reflect our range of faculties and disciplines. So they're going to have a further conversation about that.
01:35:36 Speaker 2: In the meantime, what we have proposed in the documents before you are some changes to the honorary degrees and awards statutes. And they basically involve removing two degrees that have not been used in the last decade.
01:35:51 Speaker 2: The Doctor of the University of Auckland and the Honorary Masters. It being explicit that Honorary Doctorates are not given to staff or former staff for their work as staff members. And those changes then would allow us to have the new Honorary Degrees and Awards Statute in place in the meantime, because I don't know how long the discussion at the Senate will take in terms of getting to that possible new set of degrees. I'm suggesting that we approve the 2019 version We can use it, Chancellor, and we'll come back on the list of degrees issues if and when we get some proposals. Any discussion?
01:36:30 Speaker 3: I have a couple of typos.
01:36:32 Okay,
01:36:32 Speaker 1: we'll get you to fire those in. I'll move. Cecilia, are you happy to second? All those in favour? Say aye. Aye. Against. Carried. Okay.
01:36:46 Speaker 1: Right.
01:36:49 Speaker 1: Skills-based members.
01:36:51 Speaker 10: I'm assuming the chair.
01:36:54 Speaker 1: I'm leaving the room.
01:37:05 I'll
01:37:05 Speaker 8: invite the Vice-Chancellor to speak to his paper on page 280 of Diligent.
01:37:09 Thank
01:37:10 Speaker 2: you Registrar. I think it's all straightforward. As you know we have two skill based members previously in the old constitution referred to as co-opted members being Jan and Scott, both of them have terms completing at the end of this year. Both of them are entitled to further terms, both of them have indicated a willingness to serve.
01:37:31 Speaker 2: It seems to me that, particularly through the transition of Vice-Chancellors, there's good sense in having experience around this table. So I'm recommending that both Scott and Jan be appointed as skill-based members each for a further term of four years, and I will so move.
01:37:49 Speaker 5: I think we're very lucky to have them. They've been putting in a lot of time for the university.
01:38:01 Speaker 8: All those in favor? Aye.
01:38:03 Speaker 2: Thank you.
01:38:05 Speaker 8: We then move to the election of Chancellor.
01:38:08 Speaker 2: We've got to get Jan back under that.
01:38:16 Speaker 8: Musical cheers.
01:38:31 Speaker 8: I'd like to call for a nomination for Chancellor.
01:38:42 Speaker 6: Scott. Do I have a seconder?
01:38:44 Speaker 6: Yes.
01:38:47 Speaker 8: Okay, any other nominations?
01:38:51 Speaker 8: Thank you.
01:38:53 Speaker 8: So I'll put that to the vote. All of those who would like to see Scott as Chancellor, please say aye.
01:38:59 Speaker 8: Aye.
01:39:00 Thank
01:39:00 Speaker 10: you.
01:39:01 Speaker 10: Let's go get
01:39:01 Speaker 3: the Chancellor back.
01:39:03 Speaker 3: Do you need me to leave as a pro Chancellor?
01:39:06 Speaker 3: Sorry?
01:39:07 Speaker 3: We haven't had a nomination
01:39:09 Speaker 10: yet.
01:39:09 Speaker 3: No, I know, but I am currently the Pro-Chancellor, do you want me to leave?
01:39:14 Speaker 3: I
01:39:14 Speaker 2: think we should just not persist with the charades.
01:39:18 Speaker 2: I don't really want to move.
01:39:21 Speaker 2: Well, wait till you hear the discussion.
01:39:23 Speaker 3: Oh, there you go. That's our moment.
01:39:25 Speaker 1: Well, hopefully next year he'll run the meetings on time.
01:39:28 Speaker 1: He'll be well behind at this stage.
01:39:32 Speaker 1: So where are we? We're up to 11.3 elections.
01:39:34 Speaker 1: Now you're up to Pro-Chancellor.
01:39:36 Speaker 1: You're going to call for nominations. I've got one. I'd like to nominate Cecilia. Are there any other nominations? Second, all those in favour say aye. Aye. There you go. Congratulations. So, student representative. So, have you got anything that you ought to raise on that matter?
01:40:36 Speaker 7: I think that's really helpful when Senate sends counsel.
01:40:41 Speaker 7: We
01:40:42 Speaker 1: have an orientation process too, don't we?
01:40:45 Speaker 1: So you arrange, you someone arranges meetings with all the committee chairs.
01:40:53 Speaker 1: Yes.
01:40:53 Speaker 1: I
01:40:54 Speaker 12: thought we had a thing about Senate members of staff that weren't on Senate are on Senate, so surely the same thing should happen for a student?
01:41:05 Sorry.
01:41:06 Speaker 2: Yes.
01:41:08 Speaker 2: Members of staff elected to council who are not automatically on Senate are then appointed to Senate.
01:41:14 Speaker 2: Alex is raising the question of whether we should do the same thing with the council member who is a student. Which we can do. There's no problem doing it. We'll just have to take a change in the council, what do we call it, Wendy? In terms of reference.
01:41:30 Speaker 12: Yeah,
01:41:34 Speaker 7: we can do that.
01:41:37 Speaker 7: There were student representatives who were elected when there were two representatives though and I don't believe they had a connection to Senate.
01:41:44 Speaker 7: So when
01:41:45 Speaker 4: the council size changed, that was one of the things I think.
01:41:48 Speaker 4: Yeah,
01:41:48 Speaker 7: we can do that.
01:41:50 Speaker 7: So,
01:41:51 Speaker 3: what he does is not part of the AUSA?
01:41:54 Speaker 3: No, no, he
01:41:55 Speaker 7: is
01:41:55 independent.
01:42:00 Speaker 12: But you're right, we used to have that one where you could have an elected student in AUSA and that elected student was a Senate.
01:42:09 Speaker 12: I think
01:42:10 Speaker 4: it's probably... I mean, have you found being a Senate valuable?
01:42:15 Speaker 11: No. Yes. Because
01:42:20 Speaker 7: also that means
01:42:21 Speaker 4: that they don't have to sit on all the other seats.
01:42:23 Speaker 7: To be put, I'm confident in AUSA's ability and in our working relationship with any student.
01:42:29 Speaker 7: that they don't have to be on Senate to be a proper student representative on Council. And bearing in mind that Johnny is and other student representatives will be full time students who will have to attend a lot of meetings, among them AUSA meetings, which I'd like them to come along to. I don't think it's strict for them to be on Senate, but if Council wanted them to be that, of course I wouldn't be opposed. Well, running
01:42:52 Speaker 2: Senate is complicated enough. If you're happy we don't need it, I suggest we leave things the way they are.
01:43:33 Speaker 7: I've asked Johnny and he has agreed to be a part of that council so he can engage with the views of our student community so I'm confident that we have that working relationship there. I also think it puts the onus on AUSA to make sure that we're engaging with the student representative whoever they are.
01:43:50 Speaker 1: I think the other thing that's
01:43:52 Speaker 2: a bit troubling, what we can do about it is we've got 300 votes out of I'm assuming 40,000 eligible students for the council representative, which doesn't strike me as being a very positive thing. Whether there are things in the future we can do to encourage more interest among the students might be a question.
01:44:12 Speaker 1: Yeah.
01:44:13 Was
01:44:13 Speaker 3: there like, did everybody stand with a platform or was it just if you knew people, how well connected are you sort of thing?
01:44:22 The
01:44:23 Speaker 7: things kind of happen online more than they happen on campus and so I think that's part of it. There definitely needs to be a focused effort on upping engagement in AUSA and council representative elections. I think the struggle is that students generally don't vote because they don't know what the positions are, they don't know what the positions are, don't care about what the positions are because they don't see how those particular roles or officers fit into how their concerns are communicated. That's a broader question for AUSA and the University to answer.
01:45:02 Right,
01:45:03 Speaker 1: we better keep rolling. So I'm going to move and George, you happy to second? Yes. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Against Carrick.
01:45:15 Speaker 1: So moving to 11.5, shortlisting committee for the appointment of the Māori representative on council.
01:45:22 Speaker 1: There is a paper on page 283.
01:45:25 Speaker 1: Is there any discussion? I just note that Sir Ralph has offered to assist us there as the one other. Thank you, Sir Ralph. Is there any discussion?
01:45:40 For
01:45:41 Speaker 11: the future, I just wondered to what extent Runanga might be involved.
01:45:52 Speaker 11: And I know that the Pro Vice-Chancellor Māori is part of that subcommittee, but I just don't know whether it's possible for a body which is actually external to... well, it's a subcommittee, isn't it? Yeah.
01:46:10 Speaker 11: I just, I don't know, it just felt like that would be a good place for nominations to be discussed.
01:46:18 Speaker 11: It's a bit tricky because of confidentiality concerns.
01:46:21 Speaker 11: I was going to say some of them may
01:46:23 Speaker 1: be coming from here anyway. Yes,
01:46:24 Speaker 11: that's right. But whether there might be some discussion, so not necessarily about individuals, but about things that Roonaga think are important that might then inform the process. Yeah, just whether there is some way that Roonaga could be brought in to that process. And I don't know what the answer is, actually, but it's just, you
01:46:49 Speaker 1: know.
01:46:52 Speaker 1: And these processes are every how many years? Every four years. Every four years. Yeah, so
01:46:59 Speaker 11: for the future. I'm thinking for the future.
01:47:02 Speaker 1: It's too late to deal with it now. Let's just note that that being the case, I will move. And I'm a career you have it seconded. All those in favour say aye. Aye.
01:47:21 Speaker 1: on Council, so we've seen the paper there. Any discussion?
01:47:28 Speaker 1: It's just for noting.
01:47:29 Speaker 1: Move.
01:47:36 Speaker 1: This must be an emotional time for you because this is your last meeting.
01:47:42 Speaker 1: I'll
01:47:42 Speaker 7: go to catch it or I'll go to.
01:47:44 Speaker 7: That's right.
01:47:45 Speaker 7: And that is why
01:47:46 Speaker 1: we are doing it in Part A, because this will be preserved forever.
01:47:50 Speaker 1: But we have really appreciated having you here. You were parachuted in here at short notice. You've been a fabulous contributor. You've been rigorous with your thought and pragmatic with your decisions. And so it's been great to have you around. And I think I speak on behalf of all of us in terms of our appreciation for your efforts. So many, many thanks.
01:48:20 Speaker 1: and we wish you well.
01:48:23 Speaker 7: Thank you very much.
01:48:25 Speaker 7: It's an honour to represent students on a party such as this.
01:48:28 Speaker 7: And I've greatly enjoyed my short time on council.
01:48:33 Speaker 7: So thank you very much.
01:48:34 Speaker 1: Good on you.
01:48:37 Speaker 1: So we are now at other business.
01:48:38 Speaker 1: Cecilia, you had one item.
01:48:40 Speaker 3: Yes, I wanted to bring to the attention of the council.
01:48:47 Speaker 3: There was last December, Council passed a resolution asking that the Foundation review their policy on investment in fossil fuels. They did that and worked with, the Foundation has worked very closely with Cambridge Associates, who is their advisor, and looked not simply at fossil fuel exposure, but looked at the the question of actually including environmental, social and governance screening for all potential investment opportunities. But the decision has been made that due to the increasing availability of sustainable funds options in the market, we have now committed to moving to zero fossil fuels exposure in the investment portfolio over time using the Carbon Underground 200 list of companies as the measure and that is sort of a standard investment measure that's used.
01:49:47 Speaker 3: We are targeting a reduction from what in August was 1.5 to 0.5 or less by December 2020. I believe that we are already at 1 in terms of the decisions that we had made at that time. Just wanted to report that back. The Council
01:50:05 Speaker 1: remember this is something that Anna brought up last year. Any discussion on that?
01:50:13 All
01:50:13 Speaker 7: I would say is that the students are greatly welcome.
01:50:17 Speaker 7: the decision of the foundation. Fossil Free UI, who have been an active, officially recognised student group, have been pushing for this for quite some time and we're very happy when the decision came out. So yeah, greatly
01:50:30 Speaker 2: welcome.
01:50:32 Right,
01:50:32 Speaker 1: so that's the end of part A. We're having a one minute break.
01:50:37 Speaker 6: We're having a five
01:50:38 Speaker 2: minute break. We're having a five minute break.