Non-DEST Funds for Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources or the Enrolment of Students

Given the shortfall in public funding, many universities are attempting to obtain additional funding for teaching purposes by forming links with non-DEST sources, including, but not limited to, private enterprise, individuals, prescribed private funds, trusts and foundations, government agencies and non-government sectors. While there are real benefits to such relationships, there are also challenges. These may have implications for the nature and direction of research as well as teaching.

This policy is limited to situations where funding conditions are implicitly or explicitly placed on the nature of the material taught or on the freedoms normally available to academic institutions.

The University’s commitment to academic integrity, scholarship and the highest quality of teaching is given priority in all discussions with non-DEST funding sources.

1.2

All funding for teaching purposes must be congruent with the vision, mission, and strategic directions of Murdoch University.

1.3

All decisions about the receipt of non-DEST funding for teaching staff, teaching purposes or student enrolment should be made in an open and transparent manner.

In forming productive relationships with external bodies for teaching purposes, the University aims to ensure that:

• The academic integrity of the unit or course is upheld. This includes unit design, unit materials, teaching methods and assessment and staffing;

• The academic freedom of staff to undertake and publish research without fear or favour is sustained; and

• The University is able to honour any commitments made to the funding body.

Insisting on the importance of academic freedoms does not mean that external bodies should have no influence on course design or content. External influence has always existed, particularly as far as professional schools are concerned. Funding should not adversely influence course design, content or assessment and/or lead to a situation in which only certain views can be expressed or endorsed. Funding must not alter the profile of the student body in a manner that contravenes Murdoch’s commitments to equity, open competition and/or entrance standards.

The University recognises the importance and benefits of funding from external sources, however its highest priority is scholarly, independent teaching undertaken for the benefit of the community.

3.1

The University seeks to achieve a balance between ensuring that proper process is followed and leaving scope for initiative. It supports:

3.1.1

Raising awareness of issues through consultation, training and support;

4.1

Non-DEST funding should be considered ‘significant’ when:

4.1.1

It contributes more than one half of the costs of running a unit/course (including salaries), as determined by the university-costing model, or

4.1.2

It contributes more than one half of the salary of a teaching position or Chair, or

4.1.3

It is the source of more than one half of the students attending that unit/program, or

4.1.4

Withdrawal of funding would lead to the unit/course being withdrawn or its quality being undermined.

In some cases, the offer of external funding may complement the University’s values. It might also contradict them. In between, the issues may be complex and uncertain. The University undertakes to provide training and support for those involved in funding negotiations.

The University strongly encourages widespread consultation, particularly at the early stages of negotiation. Depending on the situation, any or all of the following persons may be involved: individual staff members, Heads of School, Executive Deans, the President of Academic Council, the Chair of the Academic Policy Committee, the Chair of the Human Research Ethics Committee, the Pro Vice Chancellor Academic, the General Counsel, Director of Development and the President of the Student Guild. Consultation should aim to ensure that a range of ethical, scholarly, legal and administrative expertise can be brought to bear on the issue. The onus of ensuring that such consultation takes place rests with the Heads of Schools and Executive Deans.

Specialised, central responsibility for quality control and risk assessment must occur for all contracts. The University accepts that the same service should pertain for all instances involving significant non-DEST funding for teaching purposes. It must be clear what are the benefits and acknowledgements for non-DEST funding, except if the funding is in the form of a donation. Liaison between fund-seekers and the Office of Legal and Governance and Office of Development must occur from the beginning of the process.

Any student or staff member who feels that the principles and/or procedures outlined in this document are not being followed can seek a confidential interview with the President of Academic Council and/or the Guild President. The President of Academic Council or Guild President shall submit a confidential report to Internal Audit who must conduct an ad-hoc audit to determine whether there is substance to the complaint. If there has been a breach which did not involve corruption this must be addressed by the original proposer and once resolved be noted by the approving body. If the breach involved corruption Internal Audit must refer this to the Public Interest Disclosure Act Officer for investigation.

Certain safeguards need to come into play on all occasions when ‘significant’ non-DEST funding is involved. Safeguards are best exercised through the democratic processes of the University.

Excluding proposals for Chair salaries, when significant non-DEST funding is sought, the Executive Dean in the Division in which the initiative arises, must invite confidential submissions from interested parties on:

The Executive Dean should make the outcomes of these submissions, together with those of consultations with key members of the University community, available to their Divisional Board. The Divisional Board then recommends whether or not the funding proposal should proceed. This decision needs to be taken at the early stage of the process.

All new majors or courses considered as part of Phase 2 II planning, must identify if a significant element of non-DEST funding for teaching purposes is anticipated APC must review the considerations that have taken place, invite any further submissions, and recommend accordingly.

Approval of non-DEST funding for units is distinct from approval of individual units.

Approval of Funding
Non-significant: Divisional Boards (Academic Council to note).
Significant: Vice Chancellor, on the advice of Academic Council.

As part of its regular accountability measures, the University has a number of review mechanisms in place. These include (a) the annual reports made by Executive Deans to Academic Council and (b) School Reviews with external members. In each case, the University requires that a report be provided on:

• The extent and nature of non-DEST funding for teaching purposes;

• Any issues (positive or negative) related to academic integrity and freedom;

• The overall balance of funding sources; and

• Future prospects and challenges.

The financial aspects of any such reports will be reviewed as appropriate by Internal Audit.

Naming of Chairs, Buildings and Facilities