- Appendix 1 - Financial report for the fiscal year 2001/2002
- Appendix 2 - Budget proposal for the fiscal year 2002/2003
- Appendix 3 - Financial Report to 22 October 2002
- Appendix 4 - Country report - Bulgaria
- Appendix 5 - Country report - Czech Republic
- Appendix 6 - Country report - Hungary
- Appendix 7 - Country report - Poland
- Appendix 8 - Country report – Romania
- Appendix 9 - Country report - Slovakia
- Appendix 10 - Country report - Yugoslavia
- Appendix 11 - 3rd International Conference of Central European Canadianists, 3rd Congress of Polish Canadianists
CENTRAL EUROPEAN STEERING COMMITTEE FOR CANADIAN STUDIES
Seventh meeting of the CESCCS
Don Sparling (the
Monica Bottez (
Maria Huttova (
Ljiljana Matic (
Judit Molnar (
Agnieszka Rzepa (Poland) [AR]
Katalin Kurtosi (Central European Journal of Canadians Studies) [KK]
Petr Vurm – Assistant, CE CS Secretariat, Brno, Czech Republic [PV]
A. Morning session
The meeting opened at 9.15
2. Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted as presented.
3. Approval of the report on the Grainau meeting
No comments, changes or amendments were suggested, so the report was adopted as presented.
4. Financial report
DS handed out three separate financial reports: i) the financial report for the fiscal year 2001/2002; ii) the budget proposal for the fiscal year 2002/2003; iii) the report on the current balance to
i) Financial report for the fiscal year 2001/2002 (Appendix 1)
DS noted that the form of the report was slightly different from previous years; he had based this year’s report on the annual financial report made by Cornelius Remie to the European Network for Canadian Studies. The term “account” means money carried over from one fiscal year to another, usually for some specific purpose (e.g. publication of the
He also pointed out the item referred to as “members’ time”. This is a notional item representing in a very approximate fashion the value of the time put in by Steering Committee members during the year in carrying out their committee responsibilities. It is there as a reminder of just how much extra time and work on the part of the committee members is needed for the Network to function.
AR remarked that the Canadian Embassy in Warsaw asks them in addition to include an item representing any kind of institutional help (rooms they use, computers, mailing facilities, etc.).
ii) Budget proposal for the fiscal year 2002/2003 (Appendix 2)
DS explained that this too differed from previous years. Everything is going electronic at DFAIT, and they now have a blank form that is to be filled in. So far it is only in the trial stage, but we were asked to submit the proposal using the format.
As usual, the procedure was for DS to submit a proposal to the embassy in Prague and to Marie-Laure de Chantal; the latter examined it, discussed it with Jean Labrie, and then made various suggestions and amendments. The proposal was then rewritten, incorporating any changes, and resubmitted. This year was somewhat more complicated than previous years, since Ottawa suggested various changes in the budget as well as in the practices of the Steering Committee.
In order to make the CE Website accessible to Francophone Canadianists, Ottawa suggested that work should be put in to increase the use of French on the site. Funds in the budget were reallocated to accomplish this, though DS explained that the cost would probably not be as much as Ottawa had anticipated. This was because much could be done fairly simply by having individuals' entries entered and updated in the language of the courses they taught; the teachers themselves would be able to see to their entries. So only the main pages would require parallel English and French versions. DS would also try to ensure that all communications via the listserve would be in English and French - in this he would be able to rely on Petr Vurm (though perhaps he, i.e. DS, would have to curb his natural eloquence a little bit).
Human resources item: DS pointed out that there was no item for members' time (which would have been $5000). This probably should have been included. It was his fault that this had been overlooked, since he had not included in the grant request the section of the original electronic form entitled "Revenues", where an "income" of $5000 could have been included.
iii) Report on current balance to 22 October 2002 (Appendix 3)
DS noted that this was absolutely up-to-date, reflecting the state of the account the day before.
DS pointed out that DFAIT had sent $12,000 - the full grant for the operations of the CE Secretariat - to the Canadian Embassy in Prague, but that $120 had been lost when this was transferred to the CE Network account in Brno. LM claimed that in Yugoslavia the Canadian Embassy transferred funds with no bank charges, and that we should try to do the same here. DS doubted whether this was in fact true - in his experience, banks everywhere charge for bank to bank transfers - but could ask.
The first instalment for the Krakow conference ($4500) was not actually paid to the CE CS Network account, but went straight to the Canadian Embassy in Warsaw, which would convey it (or had already conveyed it) to PACS. AR wished to know what account - in Warsaw? DS did not know; this was the responsibility of the Embassy in Warsaw. Perhaps it would send it directly to the conference account in Krakow.
The funds to allow 13 CE Canadianists to go to conferences (see 8.ii below) are being administered through the ICCS and local embassies; this will avoid the loss of considerable amounts of money in the form of bank charges.
5. Central European Canadian Studies Secretariat, Brno
a) DS reported that no major new initiatives had been undertaken. A beginning had been made on "bilingualizing" the site (see 4.ii above), with Francophone-oriented CE Canadianists being asked to supply information in French on their activities. So far, however, there had not been much response. This reflected a wider problem, that of keeping the information on all the CE Canadianists on the Website up to date. PV is continually adding new material, taking off out-of-date items, and checking to make sure links still function. However, one of the major problems is that when we ask CE Canadianists to update their entries, especially what courses they're teaching, there is seldom any response. Which means that in this respect the pages are generally not up to date: what is there is the courses they offer, but not when. DS suggested that, if the Steering Committee agreed, we would no longer ask people to update their entries every year, but merely ensure (through contact persons) that individuals, with basic information, were listed. The SC agreed.
b) A few more MA and graduate students had come to Brno to do research; DS hoped that numbers would increase. AR asked who they should contact if they wished to come - the answer was PV. AR also asked what arrangements are made for the people in Brno. DS answered that accommodation can be arranged, at a rate of about $15 CAD per night, which they have to pay themselves. The Secretariat looks after office supplies, photocopying. There is free access to the library where the Canadian collection is held; the books are available in open stacks and the catalogue is online. DS asked those present to encourage more students to come to
ii) Class-set grants. There had been problems this year owing originally to a fairly late decision by Ottawa to continue the programme, and then to the conjunction of the original deadline with the height of the exam period. In the end ten good applications came in; they were sent to
AR made the comment that young scholars at some universities find it difficult to get permission to start new courses. But if they can say that there will be a class-set grant to ensure material for the new courses, there is a greater likelihood that the course will be permitted. So we should not overlook the class-set grant as a tool for expanding CS courses. DS note that some people were informed that if they were just starting in CS it was not possible to apply for a CS class-set grant. If the programme is continued, this point should be clarified.
iii) Other book grants. KK pointed out that a new edition of the Bennet and Brown anthology of Canadian literature in English had just appeared; she suggested that we should ask Ottawa to supply every CS centre in the region with at least three copies (cost: $45 CAD per copy), since it is the most useful general anthology available. DS promised to suggest this to Marie-Laure de Chantal; perhaps if there is money remaining towards the end of the fiscal year this would be a good way of employing it.
LM noted that, with regard to Franco-Canadian literature, the seventh volume of the Dictionnaire des oeuvres litteraires au quebec is now in print – all centres should have the series. She asked how many in fact had the first six volumes? KK suggested we could ask, and then perhaps come up with some plan for getting them supplied. DS said it might be better to send a circular asking who actually needs it.
MB suggested there was another item that centres would need - the Canadian Oxford Dictionary – it could go to each centre (hardback copy, $50 CAD).
iv) Journals from BACS. These were finally distributed to the various CE Canadian Studies Centres. DS would try to approach other associations at the ENCS meeting in December to see whether others would be willing to do something similar, especially if they had lots of back issues. Even some centres have their own journal (Marburg, Augsburg), but that might be more tricky. LM suggested this could also be done with the Cahiers francophone (we could ask Arpad Vigh). DS asked what this was; on learning of its non-specifically-Canadian nature, he suggested that perhaps Quebec-focused issues might be useful.
v) CE publications. MB suggested that a copy of each CE publication (book, journal) should be sent to Brno; it could be a "small Berlin". She would ask Romanian Canadianists to do this, and suggested others might do the same in their countries.
6. CS Development in Central Europe
The individual country reports are presented as Appendixes 4-10. Only useful points brought up in the course of the individual presentations are presented here.
When AR mentioned the large number of young Poles at the graduate student seminar in Berlin this year, DS asked how many were MA students and how many doctoral students. AR's answer was three out of nine. DS noted that he believed the original idea had been for the seminar to be for doctoral students; he wondered if there was a general trend to heavy participation of MA students, or if this year was an exception. This would be discussed at the next ENCS meeting
DS pointed out that new initiatives in the Czech Republic had been possible thanks to governmental grants. Now that the country is moving towards the Bologna Declaration model (three-year BA, two-year MA), grants are being made not only for new BA and MA degree programmes, but for individual courses to make offerings more attractive. These have included new CS courses (at
During the brief presentations of the country reports, MB had noted that each was done in a different way, and presented different material. She suggested that in future we should follow the same format. This was agreed on. While the presentations were being made, DS noted the different areas covered, and tried to group them conveniently into a number of categories. His starting point had been that the intention was to present country reports, not university reports - i.e. to give a picture of what was happening in the various countries, not at individual universities. With this in mind, he suggested that in future information in the country reports should be presented in nine sections, as follows (details agreed on during the discussion are included):
1. New courses and new centres (this would give a picture of how CS was developing in the country as a whole). These should be grouped by area, with the name of the university where they have been introduced in brackets.
2. Conference participation; important, as it would indicate how active the Canadianists in the country are. "Participation" here means giving a paper; the name of the person, the conference, and the title of the paper should be provided.
3. Academic publications (books [monographs], essays/chapters in collections, articles in journals, reviews in serious journals)
4. Visiting lecturers (either for single lectures or offering complete courses)
5. Grants (FRP, FEP, governmental grants)
6. Young Canadianists. There was a lot of discussion on what exactly we want to see here. There was common agreement on numbers of people doing MAs and doctorates, as well as the titles of MA theses and doctorates that have been successfully defended. MB pointed out that the Romanian system requires that doctoral students present papers in front of examiners in the first stage; only then are they allowed to go on to write. She felt these too should be mentioned. There was general agreement, however, that it would be best to stick to information that would be common to all countries.
7. Cultural activities related to Canada in the country in question. This ties in with CS, gives a picture of what’s happening. These could be exhibitions, concerts, theatre productions, etc.
8. Translations and special issues of journals.
It was agreed that the country reports at the next SC meeting would follow this format.
i) CE Journal, Volume 2
DS handed out copies of the second volume of the CE Journal. KK as Editor-in-Chief reported that it contained about twice as much material as Volume I. Since we want to be able to produce good quality journal, there was careful selection: what was published is about 70% of the total number of articles submitted. Each one was read by at least five people, four country readers plus Katalin. This was perhaps a slight case of overkill, but it was best, especially in the early issues of the journal, to make it clear that we were approaching the task carefully, and to ensure that we could not be charged with favouring (or hindering) anyone.
KK went on to speak about the appearance of the journal, and technical details. The cover had been changed slightly: now the map covered a better part of Europe (i.e. more of CE), and the names of non-CE countries had been removed. DS admitted to having forgotten to ask MB for the name of the artist who designed the original cover, and promised it would appear in Volume 3; MB supplied it - Petru Rogojina. KK said that it was nice-looking journal, with various improvements in comparison with Volume 1 (the cover, the table of contents). Nevertheless, the margins were still not right (and this would make binding difficult).
Turning to the content, KK said there was a better proportion of English and French articles, and some include references to the other linguistic domain, which was good. A decision of principle had had to be made: should the contributors be only from the region, or would we consider outsiders? This came up because Daniel Forget of Ottawa University had submitted a paper. In the end, KK felt that the presence of her paper would benefit the journal, and so decided to accept the paper. However, a decision should be taken as to SC policy on this issue. She felt that the vast majority of articles would be from the CE region in any case, but that if a person from outside wanted to submit, it should be considered along with all the CE articles - again, it would serve as a sign that the journal was being taken seriously by Canadianists outside the region. DS suggested discussion of this issue be left till slightly later.
A debate arose as to reviews: should any book be eligible, or should there be some kind of criteria for the books under review. After considerable discussion, it was decided that this section of the Journal should be restricted to:
1. Books by authors from the region. It does not matter whether these are in English/French (not many of which are actually published - though see Ana Olos on Findley, or Arpad Vigh on stylistics of Quebec literature) or in national languages; the aim is to let people outside know what is being done here.
2. Books, CD's etc. by Canadian/foreign authors. Here there was considerable discussion. DS expressed the opinion that the review section as a whole should have as its aim letting people know what was happening in the region, and a review of a new book by a Canadian author (e.g. Huston, as in this issue) did not contribute to this aim. However, it was pointed out that it might be very good for CE Canadianists to be informed about various books by Canadianis or foreign authors - in Volume 2 of the CE Journal, for example, Nancy Burke had reviewed a book that she said would be of particular use to teachers in CE courses, in that it provided background that was hard to find elsewhere. Also, the CD-Rom revied by Alois Hynek and Leona Kovarikova was exremely useful in a region where textbooks were scarce. In the end it was agreed that books or other items by Canadians and other foreigners would be eligible if the case could me made that it was particularly useful for teaching in the region.
3. Translations of Canadian books. Again, opinion was divided. DS said that translations were only useful for particular language groups. However, KK pointed out that translations were very important in that they gave a picture of what was coming into the region; also, translators don't get much recognition, and this was a way of doing it . AR supported her, saying that this was an essential aspect of what was happening in CS in the region. It was decided that translations were indeed important, and that reviewers should try to put their reviews in a broader context, e.g. other translations of the same author, how the translation fits into the local culture, quality of translation and so on.
DS brought up two other points. First was the speed with which the Masaryk University Press had worked. In less than a month from the first discussions - and only two weeks after handing in the final text copy (the cover material had been sent in earlier) - the journal was published. DS would like to express his thanks, and the thanks of the SC, to the head of the press, Ms. Milada Bajerova, for her exemplary work.
Second, there was the question of non-CE people publishing in the journal (see KK's comments above). DS put this in a broader context. When the first draught of the 2002/2003 budget was submitted to Marie-Laure de Chantal in early summer, one of the suggestions she made was that we should perhaps consider publishing in one volume the best papers from the Bucharest conference and the best papers submitted to the CE Journal. This obviously reflected a concern for the quality of the publications. DS discussed this by e-mail with KK and MB, but in the end we felt there was enough good material for two separate publications. However, we also felt that one sign of the quality of the journal would be if recognized academics outside the region were interestd in publishing in it. Hence KK's decision to include the paper by Danielle Forget and Zarin Kassim in Volume 2. This had not been solicited, but submitted as a response to the call for papers, which she had read when she was in Pecs. MB felt we should limit outside participation. DS agreed, suggesting one or two at the maximum. KK threw in the idea of a guest section. AR agreed that it helped promotion to have someone from outside. The position agreed on by the SC members was in favour of allowing outside contributions, with the proviso that there should be no more than one or two such articles in any particular issue; perhaps this could be a French/English pair.
DS opened up the question of Volume 3 of the CE Journal. Should we do it annually, or only two out of every three years, with the CE conference Proceedings in between? The general feeling was that the CE Journal and the conference Proceedings were different things, and that we should stick to an annual volume of the CE Journal. In this connection, KK said that Peter Szaffko had not been able to get enough funding for the Debrecen conference to pay for the publication of papers read there. Therefore we could open the journal to the papers read at the conference. It was agreed that DS would mention this at the CE Canadianists' session on Saturday, and that when the call for papers was issued, we should say that we welcome papers from the conference.
MB asked whether copies of the CE Journal were sent to libraries. DS said that postage is expensive; we will ask SC members to distribute the journal and make sure they get to CS Centres and Canadianists. MB asked for one copy per contributor and one per Centre. DS said there were more than that - all the Canadianists in CE should receive a copy. Also, there are copies for Western Europe, Ottawa, etc.
MB reminded the meeting that we had not established a deadline for submissions. It was agreed that the deadline should be before the next SC meeting. Monday 3 March 2003 was set; this gives people more than 4 months. DS and PV will sound out a call for papers and announce this on the CE Website .
iii) Proceedings of
MB explained that there had been delays since she was waiting for the last papers; even though they were very late, she felt it was worh it (e.g. Myrna Kostash's paper). Over 30 submissions; for each she has two reviews. In some cases there are suggestions for changes; she will get back to the contributors and ask them to do this. Editing will not be easy: MLA standards not observed in some cases, and the quality of the language is not up to scratch. DS said he, Petr Kylousek and PV would see to the final linguistic and technical editing. MB was also not sure whether people would resubmit papers with the suggested changes. DS said that in his experience, unless people were asked to make major changes, they usually do make them and send the papers back. He also pointed out that one problem in doing the final editing was references: before that stage, the authors of articles should have been asked to supply any missing references in the text, and to make sure that the references in the text correspond to the titles listed in "Works cited".
MB had some questions of the SC. First, should papers on teaching Canada be included? After a brief discussion it was decided yes, if they are good: they may be a help to starting Canadianists. Second, should papers be included if the presenter was in the end unable to be present in Bucharest? The answer here was no: the Proceedings should be a (partial) record of the actual conference. However, any such paper can be submitted to the CE Journal. Third, what about the possibility of a paper of someone who was there being submitted now at this late date. DS said why not - there might be exceptional cases where for some very good reason it had been impossible to submit the articles until now.
DS asked MB to write a brief introduction to the publication, in both English and French versions.
AR brought up the question of the title of the publication: in Poland articles in Proceedings" were not valued in people's lists of publications. Also, libraries don't seem to be interested in Proceedings, but rather in collections of essays. DS said we would use the title of the conference for the publication, and indicate in some way that these are papers from the conference, or selected papers, or papers delivered in their original form at the conference. MH said we should keep the form (cover, etc.) but without calling the series the Proceedings of the CE conferences.
DS asked what the deadline was for publication of this volume go out? It was decided that MB would immediately send out to their authors (by e-mail) those articles that needed revision, asking them to send them back to her by 15 January. She would then look at them, decide if they were alright, and send them immediately to DS. The final editing would be done in Brno, the aim being to have the publication out in the spring by the next meeting of the SC.
iii) European graduate student seminar
DS explained that there had been no policy for publishing papers from the annual ENCS graduate student seminars. Some national associations got money to publish, others didn’t. A special grant was made available for publication of the Brno seminar in 2000. DS suggested to Cor Remie that this should be a series, publishing the papers annually. In the end Cor Remie came up with the idea that this could be a general series for the ENCS, publishing not only the papers from graduate seminars but papers from other events organized by the ENCS (e.g. the series of miniseminars now underway in various venues in Western Europe). DS offered to look after this (mainly because publishing costs are reasonable in Brno), the first volume being for the papers from 1998 Belfast seminar, which had been prepared for publication and for which funds had been set aside. A special cover for the series was prepared by a Danish designer. DS handed out copies of the first volume of the series (the Belfast papers), explaining that further copies would be sent out later via embassies. The second volume in the series, with the Brno papers, would come out in November.
8. Conferences and meetings
i) ICCS Annual General Meeting in Ottawa, 8-9 May 2002
DS said that there was nothing of immediate concern to report about the meeting. The main event from a CE standpoint was the admission of the Polish Association for Canadian Studies to the ICCS as an associate member; the vote had been unanimous. Before the vote questions had been raised as to PACS's relationship to the CE Network, and the position of the Steering Committee with regard to the application; DS had explained that the relationship worked well, that the SC expected it to continue to work well in future (viz its decision to hold the 3rd CE conference in Krakow in 2004), and that it supported the application. AR thanked DS, in the name of PACS, for the support expressed in Ottawa.
ii) Participation in conferences in 2002/2003 and in future GKS conferences
a) DS explained how complicated a question this was, since three issues intertwined: where the SC would meet in the spring of 2003, how the allocation for the thirteen places for CE Canadianists at conferences would be allocated, and the nature of future CE participation in Grainau.
Concerning participation by CE Canadianists in the GKS conferences in Grainau, in 2003 and later years, DS explained that the GKS had decided to limit the number of places in 2003 to ten. No decision had been taken yet for later years, but there were in essence two models, either a gradual fading out (e.g. 6 in 2004, 3 in 2005, none from 2006 on) or a complete end, beginning in 2004, to the practice of reserving spaces for CE Canadianists. DS pointed out that though many felt this decision was a pity, in fact it should be seen as a tribute to the dynamic growth of CS in the CE region; we were no longer viewed as struggling neophytes who needed to be nourished by the GKS. In any case, in future CE Canadianists could apply for participation in the conference, paying themselves; the Nordic Canadianists do this on a regular basis. In this connection, AR asked whether they send out calls for papers to the conferences. DS replied that he didn't believe so - they invite speakers. Most of these tend to be from Canada, but European Canadianists who are distinguished in their field are also asked to speak at Grainau. Presumably, also, anyone could get in touch with a GKS member and offer a paper, if the theme of the conference was something related to his or her work.
Concerning the meeting of the SC in the spring of 2003, DS reminded the SC members that there had been two sets of e-mails about this in the early fall. The result was the decision that the SC would somewhere else in the spring of 2003, not at Grainau (see 11 below). Since the GKS has made allowance for 10 CE places at Grainau in February 2003 (paid from the CE CS Network budget), this means that all 10 could be taken by Canadianists from the CE region. However, the grant we have is for thirteen places at various conferences (each person to received $250 CAD). This meant several things had to be decided.
DS began by pointing out that each country was slightly different. In the case of Poland, for example, and Yugoslavia, there were associations (though each enjoyed a different status). This was not the case in other countries. So in effect there were three different "players" who might be involved in deciding who might attend which conference - associations, SC members and local Canadian Embassies - and what had to be decided was both general guidelines and specific practices in individual countries. One thing that had to be kept in mind was that by about 20 December DS had to know who at least was going to Grainau, in order to be able to inform the GKS.
One good thing was that the money for CE Canadianists' conference participation had been forwarded to an ICCS account in Ottawa, which means it doesn’t have to be spent by end of fiscal year and there will be no waste in the form of bank charges (the ICCS will send the money to the local embassies on our instructions, and the individuals will be able to be reiumbursed there). Will have to decide in each country whether a person will go to Grainau or some other conference. In February 2003 the theme at Grainau is Acadie; DS felt that those chosen to go there should be Francophones. Sending people specializing in the field of the conference will also be welcomed by the GKS
MB said we should specify the criteria and strategy. She suggested candidates should send applications to both the local embassy and their SC member. Last year there was a choice, so that some sent the application to the SC member and others to the embassy; this led to confusion. She also felt strongly that qualified people should get the conference grants. DS agreed in principle, though pointing out that sometimes it was good to encourage new people, and that in the past the GKS insisted on new people going to Grainau. However, he felt that this year general criteria should be the same. For example, preference could be given to someone experienced who wanted to give a paper at a conference (this would not apply to Grainau). AR noted that this needn’t be an experienced person - young people were also quite capable of giving good papers.
[The meeting broke for lunch at ]
B. Afternoon session
[The meeting reconvened at , continuing with its original order of business.]
DS reminded the SC members that the division of grants had been decided on as follows:
The discussion moved on to that of the criteria for making the grants. Various difficult points were raised in turn. AR pointed out that people might have submitted a paper for delivery at a conference, but not have received acceptance by the deadline for the grant application. DS felt it was enough that the individual had submitted the paper for delivery, though if we wished, in such a case we could also ask for the abstract of the paper. MB said there was a difference between wishing to give a paper and not being accepted, so the criterion should be that people were willing to give papers. DS pointed out that at the ENCS miniconferences, for example, the papers are invited. MB then we said we should make exceptions for conferences with invited papers. Most of the SC members, however, felt that this was getting too complicated. KK pointed out that, given the number of potential places at Grainau, we were probably not talking about many places at other conferences, only one or at most two people per country (and that only in the larger countries). MH felt that if there was no one willing to present a paper, we might choose someone who had already shown their qualities. DS felt we shouldn’t discourage people from applying, but we should at least try this. Applications from applicants wishing (going to) to give a paper shuld be encouraged. In any case, this is only for this year - we don't know if Ottawa will support CE Canadianists going to conferences next year, and Grainau participation will certainly decline, so we’ll have to think more seriously about the situation then. What we are faced with now is a transitional situation.
DS summed up the discussion by suggesting that the best thing would be to send out an announcement of the grants to everybody on the mailing list. This would include the conditions, and the criteria that we decided on. Individuals would be asked to submit applications, including brief CVs and explanations as to why they wanted to attend either the Grainau conference or some other particular conference. The application should be sent in two copies, to the SC representative and the local embassy. AR said that in Poland it would perhaps be enough to send the applications just to PACS. DS agreed that Poland was different, having an association that was a member of the ICCS; in this case the applications could perhaps be sent to just the association. Yugoslavia also had an association, though it is in a very different position; even if it hasn't functioned much yet, it still exists, and shouldn't be ignored. He would have to work this out with Vesna Lopicic, who was also present in Debrecen.
The criteria for selection were agreed on as follows.
1. People could apply to go either to Grainau or to some other place (see above).
2. Those wishing to go to Grainau should be Francophone-centred in their interests; ideally, they would already have shown some interest in l'Acadie.
3. Those wishing to go to some other conference and were giving a paper, or had submitted a proposal for a paper, would be given preference. No distinction would be made in this regard between experienced/inexperienced.
Finally, AR reminded the meeting that we had not decided on a deadline for submitting applications. MB suggested there could be two deadlines, one for those wishing to go toGrainau, one for the rest. DS agreed this was logical - only later would some conferences be announced - but that we could not know how many places to assign to Grainau (ten was a maximum, not the necessary number) unless we knew where else people wanted to go. He suggested a deadline of 9 December 2002 for all applications, with a rapid selection of people for Grainau so that he could inform the GKS before Christmas, as he had promised. December 9 was agreed on, and December 16 for informing DS.
iii) 3rd international conference of CE Canadianists,
DS apologized for not bringing with him the draught budget, which had been approved by DFAIT. He promised to include it in the rerport (see Appendix 11).
The question was raised of the conference fee. DS said that in working out the budget he and Anna Reczynska had stuck to the fees charged in Bucharest – approximately $50 CAD for teachers and $25 CAD for students (in Bucharest the fee had been stated in American dollars - $35 and $15, respectively).
Concerning the theme, DS said that "Memory and Place: Canada as Global Village" had met with general approval. Anna Reczynska had also been in favour. DS said he would be writing to Anna Reczynska to agree on the wording of the announcement of the conference, call for papers, etc.: it should appear simultaneously from PACS and the CE Network.
iv) Graduate student seminars.
DS reminded the SC members that there had been a proposal to hold the 2002 seminar in Debrecen, but the only time Peter Szaffko felt he could organize it was in conjunction with the Debrecen conference. However, the ENCS insisted the seminar be a separate event. Nevertheless, they are interested in holding another seminar in this part of the world, partly to show how CS is spreading out, partly because it is less expensive (the GKS had to put in extra money for the Berlin seminar this year, over and above the ENCS contribution of $5000). Certainly the Brno was much less expensive. KK suggested Szeged as a venue, and asked what year we might be talking about. DS said that as far as he knew nothing had been decided on for 2004. However, this issue would be discussed at the ENCS meeting at the beginning of December. He would report back to the SC. KK asked about the the usual dates for the seminar; DS said that it's usually held in September or early October, a good time for both students and teachers.
9. Lecture tours
DS this fall there was a lecture tour of German academics, arranged originally via Dick Hoerder. Three women professors had been to Debrecen - where else? JM: only Budapest; Szeged couldn't be arranged. KK felt that lecture tours are very welcome, but that the use of time could be more economic. The problem with this tour was that they came in the middle of the week, and so lost days when lectures could have been held.
DS brought up the complicated nature of lecture tours; with reference to the problems last year, he noted that they too complicated to organize from the center. In each case they must be done by one individual, who will také responsibility for contacting others, etc. If it receives the information, the Secretariat can send out information on the listserve as to who may be coming, and tell people to get in touch with the organizer. Even then, though, the problem of covering costs remains. LM said that in Yugoslavia the ticket to get there is covered by Canada and the rest by the local embassy. DS said that in the case of the Czech Republic, the local embassy does cover travel costs within the country.
AR reported that PACS contributes a little bit for internal travel, but crossing borders is a problem; DS agreed, saying crossing borders also means long train rides and hence inefficient use of time.
KK noted that the GKS has a rule of lectureres visiting a minimum of three universities,
but we should be more flexible and say two, since it is often hard to cram three universities into one week (which ends up with the lecturers spending a lot of time travelling). But lecture tours are very useful, and we shouldn’t stop them.
DS noted that virtually the only lecturers who had come to Brno had been proposed by the embassy - the difficulty of organizing other visits had simply been too great.
The conclusion to all this was that, owing to the difficulty of arranging tours, especially ones in more than one country, and the different conditions that exist in each country, the Secretariat will no longer try to organize lecture tours, but will limit its role to providing information about them by sending out announcments of impending tours as well as queries as to whether centres want to be visited, and by publicizing such visits.
10. CE Canadian Studies association
DS announced that, as agreed, he was seeing to registering the association in the Czech Republic. A lawyer is looking into it; in any case the constitution will have to be registered in a Czech version, though the English version will be valid. Perhaps there may be some minor changes owing to Czech legal provisions for associations. DS was unable to say more at the moment. He had hoped to have it ready by now but I had not proved possible. In Ottawa in May he had got positive feedback from DFAIT considering the plan to set up the association.
MB asked if DS had received Irina Badescu's suggestion about the democratic election of country representatives. DS admitted he could not remember if he had, but would look into it. In any case, the constitution calls for country representatives to be elected by that country's dues-paying members, so he did not see where the problem might be. But he would check.
11. Next meeting of Steering Committee
DS had had all sorts of suggestions. His original idea had been Krakow, though on second thought he felt this was not well thought out: to go there in spring of 2003 when the conference will be there in 2004 would be perhaps inappropriate. We should try to move around, so that we meet more Canadianists and perhaps hold one-day mini-seminars to foster CS in the region. This would certainly be welcomed by Ottawa, and would help deflect any criticism that the SC is an elite club.
DS suggested that we could combine the SC meetings with some already planned event create a new one (i.e.our own "mini-seminar"). Suggestions that had come up were Bratislava, Poznan, Iasi. As far as dates are concerned, later than Grainau would be better, since this would only be a little over three months after the Debrecen meeting. Sometime in April would be good.
AR offered her Poznan classes on Saturday as something we could combine with, but the dates in April did not coincide with dates when DS was free.
DS then suggested that two years ago there was a meeting of Czech and Slovak Canadianists in Olomouc, last year in Brno, in 2003 they would like to continue with this tradition, and perhaps do it in Slovakia. MH said she would be able to organize something in Bratislava. DS suggested 11,12,13 April in Bratislava, with the SC arriving on Thursday the 10th, having a mini-seminar with the Czech and Slovak Canadianists on Friday the 11th, meeting on Saturday the 12th and leaving on Sunday the 13th. After some comments it was agreed that DS would check with the Prague embassy to see whether this was possible; if so, then the above plan would hold.
i) ICCS questionnaire
DS asked if anyone present had received the ICCS questionnaire. AR said yes - wasn't it it the International Canadianist? DS said yes, but he for one hadn't received the IC. Other SC members were also in the dark.
ii) Summer school in Croatia
DS said that he had been invited to Zagreb in March to help (re)start Canadian Studies in Croatia, and that he had been approached later by the University of Zagreb as to the possibility of helping in the organization of a Canadian Studies component in a summer school the university was planning for 2004. He had answered yes, he thought CE Canadianists could prepare and teach such a component, and would be willing to do it for no cost providing accommodation and meals were covered (and perhaps a small per diem). He had not heard from the university since, but wanted to know if the SC members agreed with what he had said. The answer being yes, DS said he would get in touch with the university again to see what was happening with the suggestion.
DS thanked everyone present for contributing to the smooth proceedings, and asked JM to convey their thanks to Peter Szaffko and the organizing committee of the Debrecen conference for their great help, and in particular for hosting the welcoming dinner the night before. The meeting came to an end at 4.30.