In late 2005, I met with Professor Frank Larkins to discuss what needed to be done in the upcoming year when I took on the role of acting Dean of LFR.

Just before Christmas I met with Heads of Schools, Greg Moore (Horticulture / Burnley), Rod Keenan (Forestry / Creswick) and Snow Barlow (Agriculture / Dookie and main campus).

Frank had laid all the complicated ground work for the exit from the TAFE sector which was still underway, the faculty was grappling with some serious financial challenges, there was a large celebration for the faculty centennial to be planned and implemented, and of course the mission to successfully complete the search for a new Dean.  The University was in the process of Melbourne model implementation, and since it was clear that few exceptions to the model were going to be tolerated, the faculty had particularly difficult issues in redesigning courses when enrolments were already low, predictions about the fate of agricultural higher education in Australia were bleak and the faculty remained deeply in debt.

I toured most of the original LFR campuses, to complete sign-off for the University exit and to finalise arrangements for the teach-out of TAFE courses.

Staff at these sites were reserved in their welcome – they were not fools and the University was resented for abandoning their fate to others.  I felt this most acutely at Longerenong and Warrigul, where the fate of the TAFE programs and the existing infrastructure was in limbo once the University departed.

It was clear, given these complex issues, that the faculty could not afford to pause and wait for the arrival of the new Dean for leadership, and with the support of Heads of Schools we set about to put each school in a better position by the time the new Dean was appointed.  While central University administration was sympathetic and supportive, I felt the strong expectation was for the faculty to manage its affairs without additional financial support from the center, and to undergo self-analysis to revitalise areas that could grow, and to shed activities that could not survive on their own.  The University had clearly signalled its intent to improve its research and that vocational training was of lesser significance especially if it was unsustainable.

Burnley: 

Set in beautiful gardens, this was the natural home for urban horticulture.  The strength of the school was in its TAFE level programs and in its faculty who were national leaders in horticulture for council parks and gardens.  The school had lost its competitive place in production horticulture, and although the gardens were maintained superbly, the University facilities were dated and some needed substantial refurbishment.  Enrolments were static despite efforts to change course structures to make them more appealing.  Post graduate numbers were low, and while it was apparent that the future in part lay in a higher profile in urban environmental sustainability, how to get there without major investment was difficult to envisage.  Discussion with potential partners, including the science faculty and biology were unproductive, I think because we were unable to sell a clear vision, nor able to shake the stigma of a faculty in financial trouble.  The strong local community who maintained an active interest in Burnley was a force to be considered, and the overlap of environmental programs with others was either a potential boon or considered competition depending on the players involved.

Sadly, it was on my watch that some of the iconic horticultural programs at Burnley came to an end, and Greg remained adamant that the Burnley school was both nationally significant and financially viable, viewing any budget short falls as artifacts caused by central University levies and fees.  To his credit, the Vice Chancellor came to Burnley early in 2006 to reassure faculty that Burnley would remain under the University umbrella, and not suffer the same fate as Warrigul or Longerenong.  Perhaps the discussions with science planted the seed for the subsequent breakup of LFR and science to become the faculty home for Burnley, but I doubt it, and it seems to be more a logical progression with evolving circumstances over the years that followed.

Creswick:

Creswick had the advantage that its infrastructure was well maintained, the township valued its existence, and it had a strong research culture, both in wood science with Peter Vinden, and in forest science.  One major issue was the low enrolment rates in its courses.   There was great anxiety that conformance with the Melbourne model would exacerbate these low enrolments.  There was also the need to seek greater engagement with major forestry companies, and to steer the faculty more into forest ecosystem management and, to this end, Rod Keenan worked energetically to achieve this.

In 2006, Kevin Tolhurst led a somewhat isolated and under-appreciated group modelling bushfire behaviour.  Fortunately the expertise of this group has become much more central to the management of bushfires in Victoria, especially following the tragic bushfires of 2008.  To me, Kevin represented one of the most troubling issues for the advancement of LFR faculty.  He and a number of other young and mid-career scientists who engaged in applied research for which there was very limited peer comparisons available, who published technical notes rather than peer reviewed manuscripts, were disadvantaged by the promotions system in the University at the time.  Clinically appointed staff in my faculty shared the same fate.  In large measure, the University has rectified these problems and faculty members like Kevin are now acknowledged for their specialised contributions.

Dookie:

Dookie had a long and proud history in agricultural education and research but when I first surveyed the situation in 2006, the lack of investment in some of its activities showed, exacerbated by the diversity of enterprises.  Chen’s work of the effect of the CO₂ levels on crops, the irrigation monitoring projects with engineering and the analysis of monitoring systems for improved grape and fruit production were all exciting, but many of the other enterprises were suffering.  The educational resources for students were modern, but the student accommodations were spartan.  The piggery was a going financial concern but a liability when it came to expanding the campus as a tourist destination site and cellar door because when the wind blew from a certain quarter, Dookie was blanketed with the stench of pigs.

We sought assistance from main campus to examine the contractual arrangements between the operators of the piggery and the campus with an aim to discontinue pig production on site and move the piggery elsewhere.  David Chapman’s group was strong in dairy research but the dairy herd at Dookie was small by industry standards, and the dairy in need of modernisation.  Sheep and cropping enterprises were holding their own but the nature reserve with its heritage and indigenous aspects was poorly utilised.  As far as trying to interest other faculties in the prospects for incorporating Dookie in any teaching and research programs, apart from engineering, nursing and education, there seemed little interest, and to this end the faculty organised a Dookie function for the University senior executive to assist in overcoming ignorance about the campus and to provide insights as to why the faculty sought additional funds to secure Dookie’s future despite annual financial budgets that were never far from operating costs.

In one sense, the diversity of Dookie’s agricultural activities probably levelled swings in annual earnings from year to year, but I have little doubt that the central University financial planners took no pleasure from the fact that the rise or fall of margins was largely affected by the weather and prevailing agricultural commodity prices just as for any family farm.  While the Dookie Day was by most measures a successful innovation, it did little to dispel the sense of remoteness from the central campus, and continued to provide my colleagues with ammunition regarding Dookie wines as the crowning glory of the campus.  While I did think there were synergies possible between some of the animal science subjects taught in veterinary science and Dookie programs, and encouraged exploration of these possibilities, I was, and remain, opposed to the merger of veterinary science and LFR, contrary to what has been expressed elsewhere by others.

Dookie’s sustainable future lay in increasing student enrolments, realigning higher education to better meet industry requirements and to be more productive in high quality research where Dookie infrastructure was essential to the research.  These were no easy targets to meet, staff were understandably anxious about their futures and there was an enormous amount to do.  Past attempts to improve student enrolments had spawned enormous subject options and kept entrance standards at near TAFE levels.

Introduction of the Melbourne model and the departure from TAFE training provided the impetus for a broad review of subject offerings and curricular change with the clear mission of removing low enrolment subjects.  It was my sense that most staff did not welcome these changes, nor take kindly to demands for greater research output.  It was probably perceived as a great deal of work for marginal financial reward that might be ultimately become overshadowed by University forces outside the faculty and unpredictable changes in fortune and direction by agribusiness, commodity markets, government policy on climate change and research opportunities.  Challenging cross-staffing arrangements with the Horsham laboratory and, despite general goodwill, the teach-out of students under the new banner of Go-TAFE caused a heavy administrative load relating to fall on too few academics at Dookie.  In my view, the unease felt and close supervision of teach-outs by Dookie staff was entirely appropriate and history will show that not all students would be complementary about how the University exited its responsibilities for TAFE students at Dookie.  This was despite the monumental efforts by the local University staff to make sure the Go-TAFE offered teachers and subjects of appropriate standard, scope and with all the anticipated learning resources that the students expected.

Aside from the academic programs, the Dean’s office also turned its attention to the state of student accommodation.  When it became clear that Ian Marshmann and the University executive could not support further capital expenditures on accommodation, even in accepting highly optimistic figures for budget recovery and student enrolments, we explored a variety of co-leasing or ownership possibilities.  While discussions with a number of organisations took place, the model that emerged after discussions with YMCA seemed the most promising, but progress stuttered and despite initial excitement, nothing happened. An inability to convincingly show student numbers at Dookie would rise over the next decade, particularly since the faculty was concurrently fighting to retain the B.Ag as well as the B.Ag Sci, uncertainty about making additional commitments to Dookie from central funds, and the general pressure of other important issues meant this idea lost impetus and faded away.  As the time for student enrolments for 2007 approached, Ian Marshmann assisted the faculty develop the Dookie Scholarships Program and explored creative ways to keep the B.Ag and link it better to subjects taught in Parkville.

Such cross degree crediting options were uncommon and unwieldy in 2006, especially between facilities where cost sharing issues often arose.  This was an important step, although cross-crediting now commonplace across the University for course and subject planners.

One of the issues I was anxious to address was the faculty image held by some across the main campus that the faculty finances were simply a reflection of an underperforming faculty; acting in isolation with a modest management team, staff who in large part remained oblivious to the pulse and politics of the main campus and who were often naïve in understanding the processes involved in the central assessments and approval of subject and course changes.  After seeing some proposals forwarded that were replete with errors, sometimes whole irrelevant passages cut and pasted from older versions of documents, I had stern words with Heads of School indicating the importance I attached to seeing only thoughtful, polished and spell-checked documents leave the faculty bound for University committees.  It was also apparent to me that there were too few academics from LFR that served on University committees, both a privilege and an obligation in my view, an important conduit to understanding how academic boards and other central committees worked, so I pressured people like Prem Bhalla, Deli Chen, Mohanne Sing, Rebecca Ford, Ross Gall, Peter Shepherd and Rob Edis to stand for committees and play an active role in wider University affairs.  I don’t know whether this ultimately favoured the faculty fortunes, but I do feel it radically improved the status of the faculty within the University. One of the tyrannies of distance was the extra load it placed particularly on Dookie and Creswick staff who took up roles on main campus committees.  To be fair, Heads of School and most of the professors had their hands full with other matters, and it seemed timely to ask more junior staff to step up and gradually transfer leadership opportunities more equitably to them.

In summary, in 2006, the University reiterated to Dookie that it remained a part of the University and would continue to support faculty in its endeavours to change its circumstances to become more economically sustainable.  The University has continued to honour this commitment to its LFR campuses at Dookie, Burnley and Creswick to this day, although faculty ownership has changed.

Parkville:

The LFR academic activities in Parkville in some measure mimicked those at Dookie and had some of the same issues regarding the compelling needs for revenue, renovation and the reduction of subjects and courses.  There was too little attention paid by some to unfavourable subject QOT scores so I reiterated the University stance toward remedying rather than tolerating or excusing low student assessment scores.  The M.Agribusiness course was, in contrast, a great and positive story for the faculty, delivered in an online format, well subscribed, financially viable and one of the first online programs at the University.  The Food Science program seemed to hold so much promise but was beset with problems, too few senior staff, difficult teach-out arrangements with Werribee Food Science, few enrolments, low entrance requirements including a low IELT’s score, and a student population dominated by international students, many of them facing repeated subject failures and already critical of the lack of support services to assist them.  Dr Said’s workload in teaching was such that he suffered the fate of many academics at that time and by honouring the University commitment to students, some of whom should never have been accepted without further English training, he sacrificed opportunities to advance his research career.  Since 2006, the University has made significant strides in the classification of roles and in staff recognition, rewards and advancement by promotions committees.

It was a blessing that there was no student housing to worry about at Parkville.  Some refurbishments had been done, but the faculty offices, some research laboratories, and some student laboratories were in need of modernisation.  Because the Dean’s office was situated here, there was a steady stream of the building’s denizens seeking to have turf wars about space, laboratory equipment access and sometimes access to staff and students resolved.  The systems garden was ostensibly under the LFR footprint but managed by the grounds staff, but adjacent facilities including greenhouses and some specialist laboratories were clearly not mutually shared or ever likely to be.

Other matters:

Two of my most important tasks were to find a new Dean and to celebrate the centenary of the faculty.  Planning for these exercised the faculty executive for a considerable period.  Those who attended the centennial celebrations seemed to appreciate the occasions, and there is a photograph somewhere in the archives that shows seven Deans together at the gala dinner.  The appointment of Rich Roush who took up his role in 2007 was greeted with enthusiasm and my observations in the years that followed showed Dean Roush to be an astute leader unafraid to critically advance the faculty while mindful of the importance of collegiality and cooperation between Deans.  Rich was in his element at the annual planning conferences held by the University.

Not all was upbeat in 2006 however, and when I began there were a number of open senior positions to fill that were critical to faculty and the faculty was indeed fortunate to recruit Frank Dunshea and Nigel Stork, for example.  In my view the usual stream of faculty affairs was hampered by a lack of depth in administrative staff.  I did not have experienced staff to assist me in the Dean’s office at the beginning, and the loss of Janet Beard to the central administration was a substantial setback.  My assessment after touring all the LFR campuses including teach-out sites, and chatting with as many staff as possible, was that the mood was somber and that the attrition of staff, changing work patterns and expectations, and temporary leadership arrangements caused considerable disquiet and anxiety.  Although a few of the LFR most senior professors were consistent contributors to the faculty leadership, I remain puzzled why some others remained silent for my term in office.  This may simply have happened to give me the generosity of space and time to follow a particular course unimpeded, but it may have been a hangover from times when agricultural industry leaders took a much more intimate and sometimes controversial role in faculty affairs, and in past times the senior academics were neither adequately consulted or if so, their advice not heeded. Whatever the case, I was acutely aware that a number of senior academics seemed disengaged from the faculty leadership and I missed their counsel.  It will be up to those who followed me to document whether the complexities and unique qualities of each school, and the involvement or lack thereof had any impact on the ultimate change in faculty structure and the merger with veterinary science.  Given my view of the level of administrative support in 2006, the continued decline in local service provision since this time and the workloads naturally imposed by any merger of this type, I do not believe the merger serves the interests of either faculty very well, and has further compromised the time academics have for true scholarship.