AB15/072 – June
Part I
MINUTES OF ACADEMIC BOARD
A MEETING OF ACADEMIC BOARD HELD BY VIDEO-CONFERENCE
Albany Campus: Video Linked Teaching Room - AT4 Atrium Building, Lower Level 2
Manawatu Campus: Video Linked Teaching Room - GLB1.14 – Geography Building, Level 1
Wellington Campus: Video Linked Teaching Room - 5C17 - Block 5, Level C
ON
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE 2015 AT 1.30PM
PART I
PRESENT: Professor G Jameson (Acting Chair); Professors R Geor, J Hooks, P Lineham, P
McDonald, C McLachlan, T Parker, C Robinson, F Sligo, C White, M Wright,
and T Zorn; Associate Professors H Galbraith, M Koloamatangi, I Laird, and R
Sinclair; Drs S Cassells, J Mbachu, and J Perezgonzalez; S Morris, D O’Hara and
L Palmer
In Attendance: Maggie Stewart, Director Academic Policy and Regulation Unit
Meredith MacKenzie, Academic Strategy Manager
B Chainey, Committee Secretariat – APRU
Dr Michael Millan, Director Research
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
WELCOME
The meeting opened at 1.35pm. Acting Chair Professor Geoff Jameson welcomed Board
members and granted speaking rights to Maggie Stewart and Meredith MacKenzie for the
meeting.
1.2
APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Professors M Belgrave, D Brunton, C Cheyne, S
Haslett, B Heywood, M Kruger, B Marshall, S Morgan, and R Munford; Distinguished
Professor P Spoonley; Associate Professors B Borman, H Jahnke, K Pedley, J Preston, and J
Sluka; Dr F Te Momo; S Maharey (Vice-Chancellor)
Apologies for late arrival Professor F Sligo
RESOLVED THAT THE APOLOGIES BE RECEIVED
CHAIR
Carried
Page 1 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
1.3
MEETING AGENDA REVIEW
There were no late items for Part I or Part II.
1.4
AB15/050
CONFIRMATION OF PART I MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 15 APRIL 2015
Professor Jameson thanked the secretary for the detailed minutes of the discussions at the 15
April meeting.
Amendments:
Professor McLachlan’s attendance at the April meeting be recorded.
Item 2.2 delete the sentence beginning “It was felt that the promotion criteria…” and separate
the sentence above into two to clarify meaning.
Item 3.7 correct spelling of ‘complimented’ and include the Vice Chancellor’s thanks to
Professor Jameson.
RESOLVED THAT THE PART I MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC BOARD MEETING
HELD ON WEDNESDAY 15 APRIL 2015 WITH AMENDMENTS BE CONFIRMED AS
A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD
ZORN/MCLACHLAN
Carried
1.5
MATTERS ARISING
No matters arising from Part I
1.6
FOLLOW-UP SCHEDULE AS AT 17 JUNE 2015
No Follow-up items on the schedule.
1.7
ACADEMIC BOARD AGENDA CALENDAR AS AT 17 JUNE 2015
Taken as read, Professor Jameson was pleased to note that the number of deferred items was
reducing.
1.8
ACADEMIC BOARD CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT
Professor Jameson asked for expressions of interest from Board members for the University
Research Committee. Whilst the vacancy didn’t have to be filled by a Board member the
recent call for nominations went unanswered so Board members were asked to consider
putting themselves forward.
2.0
ACADEMIC DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS
2.1
AB15/052
IMPLEMENTING THE PASIFIKA STRATEGY
Dr Koloamatangi spoke to the draft implementation strategy outlining the four strategic goals
and the areas of focus for Pasifika students at Massey University.
Strategic Goal One is to support academic excellence by creating a learning environment that
supports cultural values and practices, where Pasifika success is the norm. Recruitment,
retention and completion rates have had a slight increase each year. Failure and noncompletion rates have been identified as an area of concern. The development of Pasifika
space is under consideration and it is hoped that the fale project will be able to begin in 2016.
Page 2 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
Increasing study space for Pasifika students was seen as a pressing issue to be addressed
before the completion of the fale.
Strategic Goal Two is to develop Pasifika research capacity and provide research-led
opportunities necessary to promote community development and achieve positive
development outcomes for Pasifika. The Pacific Research and Policy Centre was launched in
November 2014 and is being promoted throughout New Zealand and the Pacific. Research
guidelines for researchers working in Pasifika areas are being developed including advise on
who to talk to and Pasifika methodologies. There are also scholarships available and the
Directorate is working with community groups to add to this pool. There are a number of
promotional events happening including postgraduate breakfast meetings and the Pasifika
Excellence Awards to encourage Pasifika postgraduate students.
Strategic Goal Three is to connect, facilitate and sustain engagement with all key internal and
external stakeholders and champions who play a role in ensuring the success of the
Pasifika@Massey 2020 Strategy. They are meeting with many organisations and community
groups but build links with churches, public sector groups and businesses. Events are being
hosted on Pacific themes including an annual lecture series and business breakfasts. Dr
Koloamatangi acknowledged the Pacific advisory committee in the College of Creative Arts
as an example of positive and proactive support. The University has had a presence at a
number of cultural events including Polyfest and the North Shore Pasifika festival.
Strategic Goal Four is to grow and strengthen the capability within Massey University to
respond to the learning and development needs of Pasifika students and communities by
building a Pasifika staff network and expanding the annual student and staff network
conference to anyone with a focus and interest in Pasifika matters, providing a platform for
sharing research and expertise.
Strategic Goal Five is to develop Pasifika curriculum across all Colleges, to grow Pasifika
content in more papers and the Directorate will work with Colleges to identify good fit papers.
There is a hope that a major and a minor in Pacific Studies could be offered in the BA.
However this requires further work.
Professor Jameson asked about contact in South Auckland to the large Pacific population
there. Dr Koloamatangi confirmed they are looking at creating a Massey Pasifika presence
there with an office or a person along with student hubs to encourage students to support each
other and have somewhere to go. They are also advocating for a free bus service from South
and West Auckland.
Professor Wright queried the uncertainty around leadership as the success strategy falls across
multiple units with questions of leadership and funding being raised. Dr Koloamatangi
acknowledged this and saw the Directorate as working in partnership to help Colleges move
forward with Pasifika goals rather than taking a position of leadership as they don’t have the
resources for this.
Professor Lineham asked if there had been any change in the number of papers across the
University with a focus on the Pacific and Pasifika knowledge and if other Universities were
doing any better and the answer was no to both. Dr Koloamatangi confirmed that without a
Pacific Studies programme progress will be slow although he hoped that a major and minor in
the BA would help. There was an opportunity for Massey University to fill the gap in New
Zealand for Pacific studies.
Professor Robinson confirmed a very fruitful collaboration with Pasifika arts groups coming
to the Wellington campus and the Pasifika Artists scheme had created a way to integrate
exhibition and teaching while they worked on adding Pasifika content to their programmes.
THE REPORT WAS RECEIVED
2.2
AB15/053
NOTIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULTS
Mr Stuart Morris presented the results of the elections to the Honorary Awards Committee
and Doctoral Research Committee.
He confirmed there was still a need for someone on the University Research Committee.
Page 3 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
Professor Jameson wished both new appointees well for their terms.
RESOLVED THAT THE ACADEMIC BOARD APPOINT PROFESSOR MALCOM
WRIGHT TO THE HONORARY AWARDS COMMITTEE FOR A THREE-YEAR
TERM COMMENCING ON 6 MAY 2015 AND ENDING ON 5 MAY 2018 AND
THAT THE ACADEMIC BOARD APPOINT ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR BARRY
BORMAN TO THE DOCTORAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE FOR A THREEYEAR TERM COMMENCING ON 6 MAY 2015 AND ENDING ON 5 MAY 2018.
MORRIS/O’HARA
Carried
2.3
AB15/068
ACADEMIC DESIGN AUTHORITY
Professor Wright presented the report on the Academic Design Authority. Success of the
implementation of the new Student Management System heavily depends on the integration of
the calendar of qualifications the University offers. The project’s intent was to ensure the
portfolio was fit for purpose and attractive to students and staff while being presented in such
a way that avoided the bespoke design of the new system and having old regulations driving
design requirements whilst not forcing everything into a single direction. It was acknowledged
that there would need to be changes to some regulations during this time and the project aim
was to follow standard approval processes by enabling special meetings rather than bypassing
the decision making process.
Professor McLachlan queried the definition of ‘academic offer’ being used in the document as
unusual language. Professor Wright described it as the portfolio of qualifications on offer and
being part of a discussion around what the University ought to do and ought not to do.
Professor Jameson queried why the project group didn’t include many who would actually be
using the system on a daily basis or an in-house computer scientist. Professor Wright advised
that the College nominees should be able to represent the users and that a reference group and
subject matter experts would be consulted to provide the in-depth knowledge needed. There
would also be resources provided from the supplier and ITS who have a strong understanding
of the technology to work with the project manager and the project team.
Professor Lineham questioned the balance of the membership in the Terms of Reference and
noted that whilst it stated ‘a representative’ from AVC Research, Academic and Enterprise
and from Student Administration there were in fact two representatives from these areas. He
queried if this was because each representative offered separate expertise.
Professor Wright was unable to speak to Professor Heywood’s intent but believed it was to
ensure senior members and experts were included. He also assured the Board that the intent
was to try to accommodate all points of view and not to outvote College staff in any way.
Without College support there would be a severe risk to the success of the project.
RESOLVED THAT ACADEMIC BOARD NOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONNECT, TRANSLATE AND CODE PROJECT TEAM [CTC-PT] AND ITS BRIEF TO
DEVELOP AN ACADEMIC DESIGN AUTHORITY AND THE WORK UNDERTAKEN
TO ADVANCE THE ANTICIPATED WORKSTREAMS.
WRIGHT/PERENGONZALEZ
Carried
Page 4 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
2.4
AB15/069
CODE OF RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH CONDUCT
Dr Michael Millan, Director of Research Operations presented the new code of conduct. The
new code has moved from a compliance driven to supportive model and attempts to improve
understanding of what proper research conduct looks like using elements of the existing and
international models. It went through an extensive consultation round with feedback discussed
and addressed as possible. The code has been approved by the University Research
Committee.
Professor Wright expressed how impressed he was by the code but queried the interpretation
of collaborative research and how would it be possible to reach formal agreement when there
were hundreds of collaborators around the world or during informal exchanges of ideas. Dr
Millan advised that it was not a legal agreement simply a way of ensuring that understanding
was reached before collaboration began and it was enough for Massey staff to acknowledge
that they would be operating under the code in many situations.
Professor Lineham queried what the critical changes had been from the old code as there was
no tracked changes version to compare to. Dr Millan confirmed that the covering note
reported the areas of concern identified during the consultation period that framed the major
changes. Firstly the framing of research to cover all disciplines in the University; secondly to
reflect and uphold the value of academic freedom; thirdly to define the differences between
privacy, confidentiality and intellectual property requirements; and fourthly to recognise that
supervision and mentoring go beyond a supervisor/student relationship and needed to cover all
relationships that occur during research.
Professor Jameson expressed his pleasure at the code being a single document which made it
much easier to use.
Mr Morris queried the relevant legislation listed in the policy and whether all had been
included, noting that the Privacy Act was not included.
RESOLVED THAT THE CODE OF RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH CONDUCT BE
APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF ALL RELEVANT LEGISLATION
WRIGHT/FINCH
Carried
3.0
ACADEMIC BOARD COMMITTEES AND OTHER REPORTS
3.1
AB15/055
ACADEMIC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES – PART I MEETING HELD ON 01
APRIL 2015
3.2
AB15/056
ACADEMIC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES – PART I MEETING HELD ON 04
MAY 2015
Items 3.1 and 3.2 were taken as read
RESOLVED THAT ITEMS 3.1 – 3.2 BE RECEIVED
WRIGHT/PERENGONZALEZ
Carried
Page 5 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
3.3
AB15/057
TEACHING AND LEARNING COMMITTEE MINUTES – MEETING HELD 10
MARCH 2015
3.4
AB15/058
TEACHING AND LEARNING COMMITTEE MINUTES – MEETING HELD 14 APRIL
2015
Items 3.3 and 3.4 were taken as read.
RESOLVED THAT ITEMS 3.3 – 3.4 BE RECEIVED
O’HARA/PALMER
Carried
3.5
AB15/059
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS BOARD TERMS OF REFERENCE
The updates were to reflect the restructure of the PVC office and the alignment of subcommittees.
Dr Cassells queried the retention of the title College of Business Board with the adoption of
Massey Business School. It was confirmed that the internal use of College of Business would
continue.
RESOLVED THAT THE COLLEGE OF BUSINESS BOARD TERMS OF REFERENCE BE
APPROVED
WRIGHT/ZORN
Carried
3.6
AB15/060
TEACHING AND LEARNING COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT
The report was taken as read.
RESOLVED THAT THE TEACHING AND LEARNING COMMITTEE ANNUAL
REPORT BE RECEIVED
O’HARA/PERENGONZALEZ
Carried
3.7
AB15/061
HUMAN ETHICS CHAIRS COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT
Dr Brian Finch presented the report on behalf of the previous Chair Professor John O’Neill
who had been chair for most of the previous year.
Activity levels were normal, the Board would be updated later about the ongoing online
projects which have an August 2015 completion target.
Professor O’Neill’s role was acknowledged.
RESOLVED THAT THE HUMAN ETHICS CHAIRS COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT
BE RECEIVED
FINCH/LAIRD
Carried
Page 6 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
3.8
AB15/070
COLLEGE OF HEALTH BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
Associate Professor Ian Laird presented the report noting an amendment to page two where it
should read ‘remainder’ rather than ‘reminder’.
RESOLVED THAT THE COLLEGE OF HEALTH BOARD ANNUAL REPORT WITH
AMENDMENT BE RECEIVED
LAIRD/GEOR
Carried
3.9
AB15/071
HALLMARKS OF A GOOD QUALIFICATION REPORT
Meredith MacKenzie presented the discussion paper.
A project has been launched by the Academic Policy and Regulations Unit (APRU) to explore
the attributes that members of the Massey University community value in qualification design
and delivery throughout various stages of the qualification and student lifecycle. The aim is to
identify the measures of success and quality valued by the University and how they can be
applied at a qualification level. The University undertakes a number of quality assurance
activities including Graduating Year Reviews and Qualification Reviews, and University-level
audits.
Professor Robinson asked what problem was to be solved by the suggested report. Ms
MacKenzie advised that it was to underpin processes and support review panels. The Quality
Framework is missing Hallmarks which could assist. The Treaty of Waitangi section in
Qualification proposal documents is often missing as staff sometimes lack the confidence to
include it in the qualification framework. Also the intent is to give committee members
assistance in knowing what key attributes to look for and ask about when considering
proposals.
Professor Robinson queried why hallmarks were the solution to concerns people might have
about a process. Ms MacKenzie explained that this was not the solution but it was the start of
conversation. Consultation so far had indicated that staff were keen to engage. Directors of
Teaching and Learning, Directors of Academic Programmes, Service Units, Academic Units
and the AVC Maori office had been consulted so far and there were campus based forums to
come to continue the conversation.
Professor Robinson did not believe this was a major concern for the University at this stage
especially with large projects such as SMS implementation taking up a lot of resources and
queried whether this was ‘make work’ for the Academic Policy and Regulations Unit.
Mrs Maggie Stewart advised that the project was initiated by Professor Heywood to explore
the concept of a ‘kitemark’ of quality that would provide a reference point that certain quality
standards had been achieved by a qualification as it progressed through its lifecycle.
Professor Robinson questioned whether existing quality assurance processes were already a
kitemark and any qualification that came from Massey University had the kitemark of being a
Massey University qualification.
Professor McLachlan supported Professor Robinson’s concerns adding that there were
different expectations of qualifications at College Boards. In the College of Humanities and
Social Sciences they had spent considerable time putting together guidance for College Board
and Academic Programmes Committee about what to look for, and that may not be the same
as what is looked for in other Colleges. Professor McLachlan was concerned that University
guidelines would overrule the efforts and guidelines already in place at a College level. She
felt that the Hallmark project did feel like ‘busy work’ for APRU and she also wondered what
the problem was that needed solving as well.
Professor Wright raised the fact that there are a large number of qualifications that Massey
University has with some degree of overlap and often with low enrolments, and that
frequently in Graduating Reviews of qualifications there is a recommendation that the
Page 7 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
qualification be withdrawn due to low or no enrolments for a number of years. He felt this
project could assist in that area and with the amount of resource that goes into qualifications
that ultimately do not succeed it would be valuable to be able to shortcut that. In addition the
in depth and comprehensive Qualification Review process is quite lengthy, which can result in
duplicate recommendations and he hoped that an outcome of this project would be a litmus
test for qualifications outside of the Qualification Review that could provide timely remedial
action if needed whereas Qualification Review remedial action can take a number of years. He
also hoped that outcomes from this project could be integrated into the SMSi project
especially the modules that look at the management of the qualification lifecycle and the
approval processes. He has made some of those recommendations to the SMSi project in
consultation and can see how this project could fulfil them. Professor Wright was sensitive to
the competition for scarce resources but he did see real value in the project.
Professor Robinson did not believe that the problems Professor Wright had raised were the
reasons Ms MacKenzie had raised for the review.
Ms MacKenzie pointed out that they did feed into the strengthening of the Qualification
Review process and the proactive management of qualifications had been mentioned. She
confirmed the large number of qualifications in the University’s portfolio, some 267 in total
and far higher number of specialisations which is a very large portfolio to manage and not all
are successful.
Professor Wright also saw the value of bringing the discussion to the Boards.
Professor Lineham noted in the document that the goal was to move the focus of quality
assurance from summative practices such as Qualification Reviews to proactive approaches.
He noted that if the tools were directed to the Colleges they could be helpful to enable them to
manage qualifications better. However he was unclear what the tools might be. He was
concerned about a move away from summative approaches entirely and whether they would
be better as supplementary as the summative approaches have been very valuable to Colleges.
Professor Zorn had some concerns about the timing and presentation of the project and
whether it was the best use of time and resources. However, he found sense in the proposals in
Phase Four of the plan and wondered if the project had to be so big. If it came to Board in
March 2016 he was sure there would be a more positive response because what the project
was aiming for was very sensible but going through developing a communication plan and
hosting campus panels seemed overly bureaucratic for something we could agree was a good
outcome.
Ms MacKenzie responded that the idea was to bring the project to the Board at the beginning
of the process instead of at the end as it had been raised in the past that the Board felt it hadn’t
been involved in the beginning and was often delivered up the end product with no scope for
input.
Professor Sligo saw the value of having an overview of quality across the University’s
qualifications especially with the number of qualifications on offer. However, Professor Sligo
did express concern that in a paper about hallmarks there was no signal as to what those
hallmarks might be or examples provided. There was mention that the hallmarks would help
staff proactively monitor the performance of their qualification and enable issues to be
addressed promptly and he did see the potential of having targets other than those imposed by
the TEC. He hoped that before the paper returned to Academic Board an in depth assessment
could be done by those already consulted, such as the DTLs, about what the hallmarks could
be and if there could be consensus about the definitions that could give simple and clear
guidance to staff to be able to monitor the performance of their qualifications.
Professor Wright picked up on comments made by Professors Sligo and Lineham that the
project could end up providing extra support to the Qualification Review process with early
diagnostics for a programme which could also give guidance as to when a Qualification
Review was needed, or not needed. Professor Wright had seen processes elsewhere where
programmes were assessed using EFT numbers and trends, diversity of students, student
satisfaction and divided into quartiles in the University with more attention given to particular
quartiles and particular uses. That might not be appropriate here but it is an indication of the
type of tool that could help out early in the process than a Qualification Review. In addition
the intent would be to strengthen the academic approval process to have some of the
Page 8 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
indicators in the approval documentation to pre-empt issues. He hoped that the project would
assist with and enhance the existing process and not throw out the good work of the
Qualification Review process.
Ms MacKenzie clarified that this was a discussion paper not a proposal which is why it is
vague. The intent is to go out and find out what Massey values, what Colleges and academic
staff value, separate to TEC or other third party imposed values. Other universities have
adopted metrics that inform them as to their progress and these are tools that can be provided
to Colleges to avoid surprises at Qualification Reviews. Often at the reviews conversations are
derailed by people encountering programme statistics around cohorts and student numbers for
the first time and having difficulty accepting them. These sorts of metrics need to be
considered far sooner than the seven year review cycle that happens now.
Professor Jameson wrapped up the discussion with three points. Firstly the need to take heed
of well-developed processes that take place in some Colleges such as Humanities and Social
Sciences and Professor Wright’s suggestion of early warning signals that can be implemented
far earlier, and thirdly the fact that whilst new qualification proposals come to Academic
Committee and Academic Board with estimated enrolment numbers there is no feedback as to
whether those targets were reached. In addition the strategic plans of the University may
include signature programmes that cannot be driven solely by EFT numbers. He felt there
would be real value in Academic Board getting feedback two years down the track as to how
close a programme had got to its enrolment targets.
RESOLVED THAT THE HALLMARKS OF A GOOD QUALIFICATION REPORT BE
RECEIVED
WRIGHT/MBACHU
Carried
3.10
AB15/062
VICE CHANCELLOR’S REPORT – PART 1
Taken as read.
RESOLVED THAT THE VICE CHANCELLOR’S REPORT BE RECEIVED
CHAIR
Carried
4.0
INFORMATION
4.1
AB15/063
CUAP APPROVAL OF OFFSHORE ARRANGEMENT WITH HEBUT
Taken as read.
RESOLVED THAT THE CUAP APPROVAL OF THE OFFSHORE ARRANGEMENT
WITH HEBUT BE RECEIVED
LAIRD/GEOR
Carried
4.2
AB15/054
CALENDAR OF KEY DATES FOR 2016
Taken as read.
RESOLVED THAT THE CALENDAR OF KEY DATES FOR 2016 BE RECEIVED
CHAIR
Carried
Page 9 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
5.0
LATE ITEMS
There were no late items for Part I of the meeting.
6.0
MOVING INTO PART II
Official Information Act 1982 and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
Massey University (including its Council) is subject to the Official Information Act 1982. This means
that if a specific request for disclosure is made, information that it holds must be disclosed unless nondisclosure can be justified in the terms of the Official Information Act 1982.
Matters that are included in Part II and most matters in the Finance Section of Council (or Committee)
meetings are protected from disclosure under the Official Information Act 1982. That is, nondisclosure of information relating to such matters can usually be justified in terms of the Official
Information Act 1982. Therefore, care should be taken to ensure that papers relating to Part II or
Finance Section matters are not seen outside Council (or its relevant Committee) and that such matters
are not mentioned outside Council (or its relevant Committee).
All requests (whether written or oral) by any person who is not a Council member for information
included under Part II or the Finance Section of Council (or Committee) meetings and requests for the
minutes of those parts of Council (or Committee) meetings must be referred immediately to the
Registrar for decision on disclosure or otherwise. Individual members are advised not to disclose Part
II or Finance Section matters.
Interest: Declaration and Disqualification
In accordance with the Education Act 1989 members were reminded that if they have any direct or
indirect pecuniary interest (including their conditions of service as the Chief Executive or as a member
of the staff of the institution) in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the Council (or
Committee) then as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to their knowledge they:
(a)
must disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Council (or Committee);
(b)
must not be present during any deliberation or take part in any decision of the Council
(or Committee) with respect to that matter unless the Council decides otherwise.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
THE CHAIRPERSON MOVED THAT, EXCLUDING
•
•
Maggie Stewart – Director Academic, Policy and Regulations Unit
Belinda Chainey – Committee Administrator
WHO HAD, IN THE OPINION OF THE ACADEMIC BOARD, KNOWLEDGE THAT
COULD BE OF ASSISTANCE, MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC BE NOW
EXCLUDED FROM THE MEETING SO THAT FOR THE UNDERNOTED REASONS THE
FOLLOWING MATTERS MAY BE DISCUSSED WITHOUT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE; THE
COMMITTEE BEING SATISFIED, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THAT THERE ARE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH OUTWEIGH THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF DISCLOSURE..
Reference: Section 48 (1) of the Local Government and Information and Meetings Act 1987.
Reference: Section 9 as detailed hereunder of the Official Information Act 1982.
AND
Such matters as members of Academic Board declared their intention to raise under Late Items in the
privileged part of the meeting.
Subject
Item 8.1
AB15/051
Confirmation of Minutes for meeting held 15
Reason for Proposed Exclusion
For those reasons identified by the Academic
Board in its meeting of
Page 10 of 11
AB15/072 – June
Part I
Subject
April 2015
Item 8.2
Matters Arising
Reason for Proposed Exclusion
Item 10.1
AB15/064
Conferment of Degrees and Awarding of
Diplomas and Certificates
Item 10.2
AB15/065
Academic Committee Recommendations –
meeting held on 10 June 2015
Item 11.1
AB15/066
Academic Committee Minutes Part II for
meeting held on 01 April 2015
Item 11.2
AB15/067
Academic Committee Minutes Part II for
meeting held on 04 May 2015
These matters were considered in Part II of the
meeting held on 15 April 2015 those reasons
identified by the Academic Board before the
public was excluded
To protect the privacy of natural persons
(Reference Section 9.2(a))
To prevent the disclosure or use of official
information for improper gain or improper
advantage
(Reference Section 9.2(k))
To prevent the disclosure or use of official
information for improper gain or improper
advantage
(Reference Section 9.2(k))
CHAIR
Carried
14.0
MOVING PART II ITEMS INTO PART I
THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS WERE MOVED FROM PART II INTO PART I:
Item 9.1
CONFERMENT OF DEGREES AND AWARDING OF DIPLOMAS AND
CERTIFICATES
RESOLVED THAT THE DEGREES BE CONFERRED AND THE
CERTIFICATES AND DIPLOMAS BE AWARDED, WITH ONE AMENDMENT,
TO THOSE LISTED IN DOCUMENT AB15/064 AND THE SEAL AFFIXED TO
THE PARCHMENTS
Items 9.2
CUAP PROPOSALS
RESOLVED THAT ALL CUAP PROPOSALS ABOVE BE APPROVED AND
FORWARDED TO CUAP
Page 11 of 11