Content
Uni Staff and Students Determine Code of Conduct
15 May 2004
One of our priorities as a new, modern University is to be
flexible and responsive, so that we can move quickly to exploit
opportunities that might take more cumbersome universities years to
respond to.
We've done this by weighing carefully and quickly proposals that
are put to us. Our administrative structure is less hierarchical,
and is leaner than any other I know. In addition, whilst we have
some specialised and vital committees, we attempt to keep committee
work to a minimum.
To ensure that these strategies were not going to lead to the
disenfranchisement of staff and students, I established, from our
earliest days, a Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee. It is very
broadly based, comprising staff, managers and students and it
numbers around twenty people. Its terms of reference have changed
over the years to make its business increasingly important.
The most significant aspect of its business is to comment on
every policy document generated within the University, before that
document is finalised for approval by the University Council. Its
role is, therefore, a very important one and I enjoy chairing those
meetings because members exchange views freely around the table and
can also initiate subsequent discussions with colleagues and peers
around the University to generate further debate.
Last week, for example, we had an initial discussion on a
revised 'Code of Conduct' policy document which circumscribes for
our University what is regarded as acceptable conduct for everyone
who studies and works here.
There will always be breaches of such codes, some of it
inadvertent, some of it deliberate and persistent, but such
breaches only emphasise how important it is to develop a Code that
everyone believes is important, and to continue its refinement over
the years.
The cooperative culture born of being an institution of human
scale has made this University one of the most positive
environments in which I have ever worked. But even that environment
has to be safeguarded and the precautionary framework of the Code
reminds us all of how any organisational culture is reliant on
individual adherence to a Code's basic tenets. It only takes a
handful of cynics to begin to create conflict, and this
institution's success still relies heavily on coordinated effort to
compete in a rapidly developing sector.
The Code does not constrain or stifle, and in fact underscores
the importance of, for example, freedom of speech, but with
reference to five fundamental ethical principles: firstly, respect
for the law, and the system of university governance; secondly,
respect for all people, regardless of their status or position;
thirdly, to conduct their responsibilities with integrity;
fourthly, to be diligent in the conduct of their duties; and
lastly, to have regard for economy and efficiency when using
University resources.
As a Committee we have to consider how these policies can be
drafted so as to support the work of the University and ensure the
maintenance of that 'can-do' culture that has characterised our
early years and continues unabated even after nearly a decade of
increasing size and complexity of the University.
In ways such as this I hope we are reemphasising how flexible
and responsive we can be, whilst acknowledging that the success of
any organisation, including a university, depends on the commitment
of the people within it, who individually and collectively can
bolster or threaten development by those actions enveloped in the
Code of Conduct.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice Chancellor of the University
of the Sunshine Coast