7th General Meeting (online, 24 September 2021)
- Written by Denisa Krásná
CEASC - 7th General Meeting - Minutes
CEASC - 7th General Meeting - Minutes
Central European Steering Committee for Canadian Studies
Krakow, Poland, 30 April – 1 May 2004
Monica Bottez (Romania [MB])
Maria Huttova (Slovakia [MH])
Katalin Kurtosi (Hungary, CE Journal of Canadian Studies [KK])
Ljiljana Matic (Serbia and Montenegro [LM])
Judit Molnar (Hungary [JM])
Agnieszka Rzepa (Poland [AR])
Don Sparling (Czech Republic [DS])
Petr Vurm (Czech Republic, Secretary [PV])
The meeting opened at 10:00.
The agenda was adopted as proposed.
Comments had been sent by Steering Committee members when the report was prepared in October; it was approved as it appears on the CEACS website.
Don Sparling reported that there had been no unusual innovations in the period since the Belgrade meeting. Comments could be made in several areass, though.
4.1 Student research grants for Brno
Larger numbers of students were coming to Brno do do reasearch at the Canadian Studies Centre library there; the included students from Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Monica Bottez asked exactly how successful applicants were selected DS replied that so far it was an open thing, that the funding available had been more than the actual demand (accommodation and photocopying costs are covered). However, it may be moving towards the point where this will not longer be true. Then some kind of selection process will have to be implemented. Maria Huttova asked whether the stays could be extended, making the scheme somthing like that at the JFK Centre in Berlin. DS replied that the resources in Brno are not nearly on the scale of those at the JFK (though in some areas Brno has more up-to-date material); he felt a maximum stay of a week would be reasonable. Depending on demand, however, we could ask for more resources.
The production of publications continues. The proceedings of the Bucharest conference appeared in February, volume 3 of the Central European Journal for Canadian Studies only this week. The proceedings of the 11th graduate seminar (Berlin, 2002) appeared in the fall. All publications were received very favourable. These three series of publications were keeping DS and Petr Vurm quite busy.
DS reported that Petr Vurm has made some minimal changes to transform the webpage from one for the Central European Network to one for the new Central European Association for Canadian Studies (CEACS). DS said he realized there was a need for a new design, new texts. etc. This would come, but not immediately. Interestingly enough, the many links on the current webpage (which will remain) mean that references to www.cecanstud.cz are very often thrown up when people are googling for something. This is good, as providing publicity for the association.
4.5 Conference grants
Grants to deliver papers at conferences were awarded, a total of thirteen in the past year. These went to academics from virtually all countries in the region, enabling them to attend conferences both in CE and elsewhere.
4.6 Croatian summer school.
Once again the University of Zagreb turned to the CE Network with a request to supply teachers for their summer school in Canadian Studies. They wanted two, one for the English-language week and one for the French-language week. We were able to find a teacher for the former (Katalin Kurtosi); for the latter there was a tentative response from a graduate student in Brno, but in the meantime the organizers said they would see to finding a teacher for the French week. MB pointed out that it is an awkward time for us, as we cannot leave at the end of the semester. DS agreed, though pointing out that last year we were unable to supply anyone, and this year one teacher; perhaps next year we could find two. MH asked for more advance notice of the school; MB felt May would be a better month. DS said he felt the Croatians had little flexibility, what with their academic year, and the demands of the tourist season on possible facilities.
4.7 Travel grants for Krakow conference
There was a total of 2500 CAD earmarked for travel support to the Krakow conference. In the end most of the embassies found money to support at least some of their people. In the end we offered support for seven people, and then for various reasons three of these people cancelled their participation in the conference. The total distributed was, therefore, 1200 CAD.
4.8 Class-set grants
DS reported that he had not had the time to make an analysis of the evaluations of the class-set book grant programme. A preliminary look at the forms indicated they were very favourable. He would try to do this analysis and send it to DFAIT; he was not sure who was responsible now, as Nancy Hector was not in the section anymore. There was general agreement that we should try to revive the programme, assuming the analysis of the evaluations shows that it was well received.
KK asked about whether the Oxford anthology of Canadian literature could be included in this. DS reminded her that when he had been at DFAIT in January 2003 they had said that this should be left up to individual embassies, which could, for example, order a certain number of copies for each Canadian Studies Centre from the funds they have for Canadian Studies. However, each embassy uses this budget as it sees fit. KK still felt that DFAIT should at least mention this to the embassies as a useful initiative.
5. The Central European Association for Canadian Studies (CEACS)
5.1 Current state of CEACS application at the ICCS
DS reminded of the crash campaign in October to put together the application to the ICCS for associate membership of the new Central European Association for Canadian Studies (CEACS) in the ICCS. We had to submit a document with the history of CS in the region, developments in the past decade, activities, country histories with Canadianists’ activities in each of them, the association constitution (in English, French and Czech), the proces sof registering the membership and the numer of members as of October 31. This dokument was sent to the ICCS at very end of October. The Executive Committee discussed it at their meeting in November, and then asked Serge Jaumain and Joseph Glass to prepare a report for the next EC meeting, at Grainau in February. This they did; it was favourable, and at that meeting the EC agreed unanimously to recommend that the CEACS be accepted as an associate member at the Executive Council meeting in Moncton at the end of May. All that remains is for us to send to the ICCS the names of the new CEACS Executive Committee members, who will be elected at the general meeting in Krakow on 2 May.
5.2 Governing bodies of CEACS
DS reported that the system of governing bodies of the CEACS is a bit complex, and it will take a while for the members to get used to it. According to the CEACS constitution, two months before the general meeting, national chapters must select their representatives for the Executive Council, and make thein nominations for the Executive Committee; the latter is then elected at the general meeting. This has been done. Most of the members of the Executive Council were not involved with the Steering Committee; some of those nominated for the Executive Committee are new. This means that, no matter how the elections for the Executive Committee turn out, there will both continuity and change in the leadership of CE Canadianists. This is good, a sign of a healthy organization. In future the Executive Council will meet once a year, and the Executive Committee (probably) twice a year.
5.3 General meeting, election of Executive Committee
Discussion shifted to the general meeting and election of the Executive Committee. Three things had to be decided: how the general meeting on Sunday would be run, who would chair it, and how the election itself would be held. After talking about several options, the SC came to the conclusion that the meeting should open with the election, and that this should be run by the new Executive Council, with one of its members taking the chair. The election itself would be organized by an election committee, chosen at the meeting this afternoon. It would be a two-round affair: in the first the new President would be elected, and in the second the other three members of the Executive Committee would be selected from the remaining nominees. Each candidate would have a chance to introduce him/herself, speaking for two or three minutes. After the election of the new Executive Committee, the new President would become Chair of the general meeting, and conduct the business.
6. Financial report
DS presented the preliminary financial report from the last SC meeting in Belgrade until the end of the fiscal year on 31 March 2004 (see appendix 1). The report was “preliminary” since not all the bills for expenditures up to 31 March had been received; however, they were accounted for approximately in the report. He pointed out that since September there had been a professional accountant in charge of the financial records; the figures he produces will be used for the official report to be submitted to DFAIT along with the new grant request for 2004/2005. The report shows a large “surplus”, but in fact virtually all of this money is earmarked for some particular purpose (travel grants to Krakow, publications, etc.). When all these are accounted for, the budget is more or less balanced.
7. Future relationship with the Polish Association for Canadian Studies (PACS)
In an exchange of e-mails, DS and Ewa Welnic (the President of PACS) agreed that the close cooperation between the CE Network and PACS should continue. Their idea as that at least once a year members of the organizations’ Executive Committees should attend meetings of their counterpart. Of course a lot of things can be dealt with by e-mail, as has been the case so far, but it is useful to have personal contact. One unknown is just how DFAIT sees financing. For example, the travel grants for conferences: we don’t know if DFAIT wishes to continue the present practice, of the grant being included in only one budget, and then distributed throughout the region, or whether it would prefer to make two grants, one through PACS and one through the CEACS. As far as the CE journal is concerned, it seems logical to have one, not two: it takes an immense amount of work to produce the journal, and in fact the number of good articles being produced (at least so far) is sufficient for one quality journal, not more. AR pointed out that it is not only the decision of DFAIT – it is up to us to say what we feel works best. MH noted that the essential reality is that there are two associations, not “one region”. AR mentioned that the class-set grants are another thing we have in common. MH brought up the question of some kind of “calendar” to make sure that major conferences in the region do not clash. DS pointed out that this is a problem partly between PACS and CEACS, but even more so between the various countries represented within the CEACS. In this connection, he mentioned that he had written to Peter Szaffko at the University of Debrecen, who organizes a biennial Canadian Studies conference there; the next one is in October of this year. He suggested that the 4th International Conference of Central European Canadianists might be held there in 2006. This would have the advantage of putting it at some distance from the next PACS congress, which will probably be held in May 2007. KK agreed, saying this set up a good rhythm, and returned us to the fall as a time for our conference (as in Brno and Bucharest).
AR mentioned information sparing as another area for ongoing cooperation; DS agreed, and said we would go on including PACS on our listserve, so that its members receive all the information ours do. The visits by students to do research in Brno will be another area of cooperation – funding for this will come from the CEACS budget.
AR asked whether organizing lectures was possible. DS replied that the GKS has its outreach program, but the point is that there has to be somebody organizing these visits: it is a lot of work. We could include in our budget money to bring people here, but they would have to go more than one place. MH felt she could certainly use some visutiny lecturers. DS reminded her of the potential from CE Canadianists. MH agreed, but pointe dout resources still have to be made available. MB felt visiting lectures by CEACS people could be worked out (even financially) fairly easily; for outside professors we would need other funding. DS saw one of the main problems as being the work involved, and having to find someone willing to see to this.
The morning session closed at 11:55.
B. Afternoon session, 30 April
Present (in addition to those at the morning session) as members of the CEACS Executive Council and candidates for election ot the CEACS Executive Committee
Marian Gazdik (Slovakia [MG])
Petr Kylousek (Czech Republic [PK])
Vesna Lopicic (Serbia and Montenegro [VL])
Ana Olos (Romania [AO])
Voichita-Maria Sasu (Romania [V-MS])
Diana Yankova (Bulgaria [DY])
Jason Blake (Slovenia, observer [JB])
Vlatka Ljubenko (Canadian Embassy, Zagreb, in place of Ivo Josipovic [IJ], who was arriving later [VL])
The afternoon session opened at 14:45
After all those present introduced themselves, DS explained that, since the Steering Committee would soon cease to exist, it felt it should have a joint meeting with the new Executive Council, so that the latter would have a clear picture of the various issues it would be facing in future.
8. Past activities
DS reported on the activities of the CE Canadian Studies Secretariat in Brno (see 4 above). He also explained the process of applying for associate membership in the ICCS (see 5.1 above). At present we have 165 members; in other words, we are a large organization with many active people.
9. Financial matters
DS presented and explained the preliminary financial report for the 2003/2004 fiscal year (1 April – 31 March) – see 6 above and appendix 1. Now we will have to prepare and submit a budget requst for the 2004/2005 fiscal year. It should be submitted in June (DS has discussed some points with Marie-Laure de Chantal the day before), and would probably be approved by DFAIT in the course of the summer. For large events (such as the Central European conference) it is usual to stretch the financing out over two or even three years (two years for conference funding, the third year for the publication of the proceedings of the conference). In the past, the Steering Committee met twice a year; in future, the Executive Council would probably meet once a year, and the Executive Committee twice (once in con junction with the meeting of the Executive Council). DS asked if there were questions about financing or the budget.
Vesna Lopicic asked why, when there were so many members in the CEACS, we had not applied for full membership. DS replied that the Steering Committee’s plan for some time had been to apply for an associate membership. We had not been sure how many members we might have; the minimum for full membership is 100, and at the time of submission, we had only had 118, not a convincingly large number to justify full membership. (Also, from past experience, the ICCS wanted to be very sure that numbers would continue to be high, and not drop under 100; this had happened in the past.) Another compelling reason is that full membership is more expensive. On the other hand, full membership does not offer any particularly advantages: for example, our members will be eligible for all ICCS grants. Of course this status is not fixed – the question can be reviewed in two or three years,
10. System of conference grants
This is an important initiative, but one that is slightly tricky, in that if we want to give grants to people going to conferences, many of which také place in May-August, we have to offer them the grants before we actually have our budget approved. However, Jean Labrie has assured us that unless there are some major changes, out level of funding should remain at least at the current level, and that it is up to us to decide how we wish to use it. The conference grants are usually divided into two offers, the first with a certain number of grants for each country (in order to ensure that they are spread throughout the region), and the second open to any of the Canadianists in the region. One of the conditions is that these grants are only given to people who will be delivering papers; applications can be made on the basis of a submission of a paper for presentation, but in that case any award is conditional on the paper actually being accepted.
For recent developments, see 4.2 above. A call for articles for Vol. 4 of the CE Journal has been sent out. The editorial board of the journal is the responsibility of Katalin Kurtosi, the editor-in-chief. The usual practice is to have the papers sent to Brno, where copies are made and then sent out to the members of the editorial board. Each contribution is read by four people. This is certainly more than usual, but the SC wanted to make sure that the articles were of good quality. This process has acted as an “educational” one, and helped establish standards in the region. Also, it has meant that the final choice of articles had a broad backing; this has ensured that no doubts have arisen concerning either the articles selected or those rejected.
KK added that there had been problems reaching contributors; some e-mail addresses had been inaccurate, and this held up work. JM suggested the editorial board should be stricter about ensuring that all papers have both English and French abstracts, as well as short CVs.
DS spoke briefly about the ENCS and its work. The question was raised as to CE representation on the ENCS – now that the CEACS had been created, should there also be a Polish representative on the ENCS? DS said he would speak to Cornelius Remi about this.
In connection with the European Network, DS spoke about the European seminar for graduate students in Canadian Studies, which it sponsors every year. This year in October it will be in Szeged, and people were encouraged to have their students apply – this would raise the profile of the whole region. Both MA and doctoral students are eligible. Acommodation and food are covered; usually the local Canadian embassy pays or contributes to the travel cost; the participants are responsible for the modest fee themselves. This is an exceptional event, giving participants the chance to meet other young people involved in Canadian Studies; this helps create a new generation of Canadianists. V-MS pointed out that the student need not have completed a thesis – on the basis of past performance one could judge what the work would be like.
DS explained the genesis of the form for country reports – that originally SC members prepared reports on everything in the CS field that had happened in their countries, but that it was hard to compare countries, as everyone had a different system and reported things differently. That led to the creation of the present, structured form for reporting.
Each participant presented his or her report, giving a brief oral summary of the most interesting developments. The reports are included here as appendixes 2-10. A few other points were raised.
DS mentioned that the collection of translations of short stories by Canadian (and American) Natives that had been done in Brno had been part of a translation course in the English Department. The publication had received financial support from the Canadian embassy in Prague (and also from the American embassy). This might be a model for others.
VL spoke about the revival of Canadian Studies in Croatia, and the newly established Croatian association for Canadian Studies. She asked whether members of the Croatian association were also considered members of the CEACS. DS said no, but they could be put on the CEACS listserve. He stressed that the CEACS had no power to shape what individual Canadianists in the various countries did, but that we could provide support (e.g. for conference grants) only for our members. VL also announced that the first conference of the new Croatian association would be held in October/November, in conjunction with a visit by Canadian judges to Croatia; they envisaged it as a multidisciplinary event. DS said as soon as information was received on the event, the CE CS Secretariat would disseminate it.
JM suggested that in the reports on books the size of the printing should be indicated. She also said that the Canadianists in Debrecen hoped to hold regular biannual conferences there, that it would become a tradition.
The afternoon session closed at 16:20 so that people could prepare for the opening of the conference.
The session opened at 13:30
DS reminded those present that the main business of this session was how to run the general meeting of the new association on 2 May. First there would be the election of the new Executive Committee; because of the CEACS constitution, this would have to be in two stages, first the election of the President, followed by the other officers. Then the meeting should discuss future activities.
The suggestions made earlier at the Steering Committee meeting (see 5.3 above) were presented. As Judit Molnar was the only member of the current Steering Committee to be on the Executive Council, it was agreed that she would make an appropriate Chair. First each candidate for the Executive Committee would make a presentation; this would be followed by the election of the President, and then by a second round for the other three members of the committee. At this point the newly elected President would také over as Chair of the meeting. An election committee made of of Diana Yankova, Marian Gazdik and Petr Kylousek was selected.
DS pointed out that the CEACS constitution calls for two auditors to be selected at the general meeting. Although we have a professional auditor keeping the books in Brno, these indivuals would be a kind of check. PK asked how many pages the Brno auditor’s report would be; if not too many, then it could be faxed to these internal auditors for checking (though translation might be a problem). DS replied that the auditor prepares a statement at the end of every month; it is not extensive, varying according the association’s activities. MH asked if these auditors should be from one of the official bodies of the organization; DS replied no, they had to be members of the association, but not members on any body – their independence had to be assured. It was decided to leave the nomination and election of the auditors to the general meeting.
Suggestions were made for issues to be discussed at the general meeting in addition to those that had been touched on so far. DS said there should be discussion of what we do, what kind of changes they would like, what issues they might want to bring up with Ottawa. PK felt we should discuss for the future the coordination of national conferences; there should be a plan so that major events did not take place too close to one another. DY suggested more information on visiting professors.
The Debrecen and Croatian conferences were discussed, as examples of events close to one another that might take away potential participants from each other. .
DS brought up the question of an annual CE summer school, the proposal for which had been approved at the meeting of the Steering Committee in Belgrade in the fall of 2003 (see the report for that meeting on the CEACS webpage, section 11.2). In the end he had not gone ahead on this proposal, since it is a long-term project, lasting a minimum of three years; he felt the new association should rediscuss this, since it would be responsible.
MB spoke about the possibility of creating an outreach program of funding, with participation in a conference being used as a springboard for a small lecture tour in neighbouring universities. DS said that this should be possible, on the model of the GKS practice (though distances in CE are rather great, which complicates the traveling). It would be something completely new for the new association.
KK stressed that where future activities are concerned, a formal mention of the CE Journal might be useful to ensure continuity.
As far as meetings went in future, DS mentioned that in the ICCS the Executive Council meets once a year, and the Executive Committee three times; he felt in our case two meetings of the Executive Committee should suffice. Ideally, one or both of these meetings would be in connection with some other event, to encourage more contact among Canadianists, and enable the executive bodies to be in closer contact with the association’s members. IJ suggested Opatija as a good venue, but DS felt this might be quite early; also, he had more or less committed the group to being in Szeged in October. VL suggested the Raab summer school as a place for the Executive Council to meet; DS agreed it might be a possibility, but May and June are very difficult for many CE universities (e.g. in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary.
JM asked about CEACS fees. There are two questions here, how they are collected and when. They system we have now (their being collected by national representatives) seems best; DS felt they should apply for the calendar year and be collected at the beginning of every year – an appeal in January, with a deadline at the end of February. Of course each country might have individual problems, in particular in connection with forwarding the fees to Brno, but these would be met pragmatically
As there were no other points, and conference sessions were beginning, the meeting closed at 14:15.
CENTRAL EUROPEAN STEERING COMMITTEE FOR CANADIAN STUDIES
Eighth meeting of the CESCCS
Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
28-29 March 2003
Don Sparling (the Czech Republic) [DS]
Marian Gazdik (Slovakia) [MG]
Ljiljana Matic (Yugoslavia) [LM]
Judit Molnar (Hungary) [JM]
Katalin Kurtosi (Central European Journal of Canadians Studies) [KK]
Petr Vurm – Assistant, CE CS Secretariat, Brno, Czech Republic [PV]
The meeting opened at 15:30
2. Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted as presented.
3. Approval of the report on the Debrecen meeting
The report was adopted as presented.
4. Financial reports
4.1. Report to 27 March 2003
DS presented the financial report, covering the period from the Debrecen meeting to 27 March 2003 (see Appendix 1). Most of the items were standard; his comments touched only on those that were of a different nature than usual. This year for example there had been a special budget item for increasing the presence of French on the CE CS Website. He and PV had discussed the possibilities, in the end deciding that it was impossible to make the website totally bilingual. However, this was feasible for the front page, and for the individual pages of teachers whose teaching is in French. See 5.21.
The item “other Sec. expenditures“ covered among other things contributions to accommodation costs for graduate students and others coming to Brno to work on PhDs and Mas as well as the cost of photocopying material in the Brno CS library for Canadianists in the region. Though these kinds of expenditures had not been explicity approved earlier, DS felt that they were legitimate as part of the effort to make maximum use of the very large CS library in Brno.
DS stated that the supplementary grant of 250 CAD would be explained later (see 11 below).
4.2 Preliminary report on fiscal year 2002/2003
DS pointed out that the fiscal year was almost ended, so that a preliminary report could be presented that (with estimates for the Hradec Kralove meeting) would contain figures very close to those in the final report that he would be submitting to DFAIT. He added that in the report on the Hradec Kralove meeting, which he would be writing up after the end of the fiscal year, he would include the final rather than the preliminary figures (see Appendix 2).
Several of the figures were considerably lower than had been anticipated. In particular, because this second Steering Committee was taking place in Hradec Kralove rather than in Grainau (and two of the participants had been unable to attend), the sum spent on Steering Committee meetings was far under budget.
Another expenditure that had not been made, though money had been allotted for the purpose, was a meeting of the CEJCS board. In a brief discussion on whether the board would be meeting in future, KK expressed the view that this might prove necessary, so that this item should be included in the 2003/2004 budget.
5.1 Visits to Brno
DS reported that visits from students (Czechs, a Romanian) doing MAs or PhDs on Canadian topics had continued. He felt that more should be done to encourage this kind of stay, since the CS library in Brno is considerable, and it is far from being fully utilized. In the past period he had used some CE Secreatariat funding to help support the stay of the students in Brno, though this had not been explicity approved of before. He suggested that the SC budget should include an item to help contribute to the cost of students‘ stays in Brno – e.g. to cover their accommodation costs in inexpensive university facilities. This was welcomed by the rest of the SC.
5.2 The CE CS webpage
5.21 Bilingualization. DS reminded people that money had been provided in the budget to introduce more French onto the CE CS website. PV had prepared a new parallel introductory page in French and doubled some other entries; in addition. entries for teachers working in French were being changed to that language. In future there would be an attempt to provide important information in both languages.
5.22 Keeping entries up to date. PV explained that, because it was becoming increasingly difficult to keep the information in personal entries up to date, he had devised a new, automated system. Through the listserve, everyone had been informed of how it works. In future, everyone will be able to update his or her entry automatically, in the language of choice, at any time. The new system is easy to operate (“user-friendly”) and should enable people to make any changes in their entries in a matter of minutes.
5.3 New initiatives
DS asked SC members for suggestions as to what new initiatives the Secretairat might undertake.
5.31 Listserve KK suggested that, since they have an up-to-date listserve in Hungary, kept by Andras Toth, it might be better for Petr Vurm to send all information for distrubution to him (in the way information for Poland is sent to Agnieszka Rzepa). This seemed like a useful idea. PV would contact AT, and also get from him the names to add to our webpage.
5.32 JKF Centre DS reported that he had wanted to list the successful applicants for the JFK Centre grant on the CE CS website, as a means of encouraging people to apply. But he had been told by the librarian at the JKF Centre that this was not possible, as this was classified information. KK mentioned that their had been problems with the payment of grants to some CE scholars; when she was there grants were not paid till almost the end of people’s stays, and this caused some real problems. DS promised he would get in touch with Walter Larink to enquire about both these issues.
5.33 Catalogues of Canadian books. DS had been contacted by Mme Colette Dupuis, who is in charge of the new books exhibit at Grainau every year. Pointing out that many book orders from CE (e.g. those in the book-grant programme) contained books that were not in print, she suggested that since he met a lot of CE Canadianists at various events, he might be able to hand out up-to-date catalogues to them. DS had replied that he didn’t in fact see so many CE Canadianists in the course of a year, but that it would be very useful to have a set of current Canadian book catalogues at the CE CS Secretariat in Brno: people could get in touch and ask us whether or not particular books were available, what books were available in certain areas, etc. She had agreed, and would be sending a full set of the most recent catalogues to the Secretariat. CE Canadianists will be informed of this via the listserve. If this proves useful, the Secretariat would be regularly supplied with the latest catalogues.
5.34 Finally, one general suggestion was made – that the Secretariat should send out an e-mail message to people with a brief summary of the services it provides, just as a reminder, and also ask for new ideas.
6.1 Proceedings of the Bucharest conference
MB was planning to bring the final versions of the articles to Hradec Králové. Instead, she sent them electronically to DS. He and PV will look them over, and do the final preparations for the printers. This might involve some final polishing-up of the language. The articles had been checked, but DS said that in his experience this was not always 100 per cent effective, and a publication with articles in weak English or French was not a good advertisement for CE CS. The same cover will be used as for the Brno proceedings; they will form a series. Probably the title of the publication will be that of the theme of the conference. DS could not say when exactly the publication would come out; given his heavy commitments in the near future, sometime in the summer seemed the most likely date.
6.2 Central European Journal of Canadian Studies
The response to the call for articles had been gratifying: 17 articles (four in French), three book reviews, one article on an event in the region. Comparison with earlier issues showed that interest in the publication was clarly rising.
A discussion was held on the number of readers for each article. KK felt the practice of having four readers for each article, spread out over the whole region, should continue; this ensured a broad acceptance of all articles, and avoided arousing local sensitivies. It was agreed that the same as used in the past would be employed again this time. Complete sets of the contributions would be sent to members of the editorial board in different countries (Nancy Burke in Poland, Margareta Gyurcik in Romania, Petr Kylousek in the Czech Republic) for distribution to readers; KK would see to the readers in Hungary. DS said he would work with Petr Kylousek, and perhaps send some articles to readers in other countries (Slovenia, Serbia). Each article would be given a ranking from one to five (five being the highest), accompanied by a definite statement as to whether it should be published as is, recommended for publication with changes, etc. It was also suggested that new readers should be involved, where possible: we should avoid the situation were only a a few people were reading material issue after issue. KK said that the numbers involved were already large, but agreed that we should always keep in mind the danger of becoming too exclusive.
DS asked when readers’ reports would be due back. KK suggested the end of May.
DS brought up the question of whether the journal board should meet sometime (perhaps in Brno or Bratislava, or even in Budapest). KK felt it would be useful, but there might well be problems of finding a time suitable to all. Suggestions were made for the second half of June or bginning of July. KK would look into this.
DS asked KK to send an e-mail to the board members telling them the articles would be arriving within ten days. This way they could have the readers ready by the time the material arrived. As far as publication date was concerned, DS said he felt it would likely be sometime in the fall.
Finally, it was agreed to raise the print run to 300 copies.
6.3 Proceedings of the European graduate seminars
DS reminded those present that the Secretariat in Brno also published the proceedings of the graduate seminars organized annually by the ENCS, and handed out copies of number two. He had spoken to Elke Nowak, who is putting together the proceedings from the Berlin seminar (September 2002). Between the Brno and Berlin seminars there had been one in Avignon, but there was no communication from the French and he did not know if papers from that event were going to be published. In future, there would be a publication for each grad seminar.
6.4 Distribution of publications
Because of mailing costs, DS had sought for some other way of distributing publications. He had spoken to Magdalena Rosova at the Canadian Embassy in Prague, and it had been agreed that they might be distributed by diplomatic post. DS had not yet had time to arrange this. When this is ready, he will send out an e-mail on the listserve saying that copies will be arriving at the various embassies, and that people should turn to their local embassies if they wish a copy. Embassies will also have instructions that CS Centres should have copies, to put in libraries.
KK asked whether it was possible to send copies of the journal to Paris (the Canadian Cultural Centre there). DS replied that copies would be sent to all of the Western European countries. In the case of the graduate seminar proceedings, most copies would be sent to Western Europe, since the seminar is their initiative.
7. Canadian Studies developments in Central Europe
The country reports were presented (see Appendixes 3-10). This was the first time that a unified format had been used. DS asked how people felt about it. KK felt that it was very practical. DS agreed, adding that it also made it much easier to compare what was going on in different countries. Having all this information in this form would also be useful when the new CE association applied for membership in the ICCS.
A brief discussion on the formal aspects of the reports followed. DS pointed out that there was no specific category for a conference as such; this should perhaps be included under no. 2 in the form.
DS also touched on points of detail. He felt that titles of theses (and their authors’ names) should only be included when they had been defended; otherwise numbers were enough.
JM felt it was a good idea to put the names of teachers down for courses. KK this would also be useful when applying for a grant, since the country reports are public documents and could be referred to.
8.1 Report on the Debrecen conference
The Steering Committee expressed its pleasure at the hospitality it had received at the conference in Debrecen in October 2002, commented on how well it had been organized and how excellent so many of the sessions had been, and asked JM to pass on its thanks to the organizers of the Conference. She replied that we would do so, and added that it was planned to make it a biennial event.
8.2 GKS: Grainau 2003
Since the CE Steering Committee had decided not to meet at the GKS conference in Grainau (as it had in the past), all ten CE places there were freed up for other CE Canadianists. In the end, eight CS Canadianists were chosen to go to Grainau (in fact all who had met the SC criteria for attendance, i.e. work related to the subject of the conference, which was Acadia, or work in Francophone Canadian studies).
DS had also been present at Grainau; part of his stay had been paid by the ENCS, since in his capacity as Co-Convenor of the group he attended a meeting of ENCS reps organizing the big 2005 conference that was held in conjunction with the GKS conference. Some CE Network Secretariat money had also been used.
8.3 GKS: Grainau 2004
When at Grainau, DS had agreed with the new GKS President, Dirk Hoerder, that next year places would be made avaiable for six CE Canadianists at Grainau (they will be paid for out of the CE Network budget). Other CE Canadianists can of course apply on their own, though priority will be given to GKS members.
8.4 3rd International CE Canadianists’ conference, Krakow 2004
DS reported that about a month earlier Anna Reczynska had sent him a draft version of the call for papers. He had made some changes, and distributed the current, provisional version. DS proposed that the announcement should be issued simultaneously by PACS and the CE Network, with “3rd International Conference” and “3rd Congress” in reverse order. DS felt it was hard to discuss the call for papers on the spot, but asked people to send him comments and suggestions by the end of the coming week.
There were some things to discuss. Anna mentioned panels – do we want panels? What exactly do we mean by panels? KK replied that these were perhaps 5 people talking together, each for 5 to 10 minutes, and then answering each other and responding to questions from the floor (as in the final session at Grainau).
In the original proposal the deadline for applications was August 31. DS suggested September 30, with first fall in late April and then reminders being sent out at the beginning of September. It was agreed the original abstract of 200-300 words was slightly too much; the 250 word maximum was better.
It was felt both accommodation and meals should be covered (as in Bucharest). DS said he believed that was the original proposal, on which the budget was prepared. He would investigate this.
8.5 Graduate student seminar in Szeged (2004)
KK felt the seminar in Szeged in the fall of 2004 should be publicized as soon as possible; this would encourage students in the area to work now in order to present a paper there. DS pointed out we can’t do it now, before the 2003 seminar in Italy (or Spain, depending on the final arrangement) - this would only create confusion. As soon as the seminar is over, though, this would be possible.
9. Lecture tours
DS reported that Dirk Hoerder had said the GKS still had money for lectures. However, he (DS} felt these were difficult to organize centrally (i.e. from the Brno Secretariat). Once we are association, we could have an item in the budget for speakers coming to the region; it would be easier to organize this on our own than at second hand through the GKS. In theory it might even be possible to put at item for this activity in the next CE Network budget; however, DS feslt that there would be enough work ahead with the preparation of the new association. Those present concurred. It was agreed to simply send out an e-mail message to people to the effect that if they plan to invite speakers they should let others know, so that maximum advantage can be taken of the opportunity.
10. Class-set grants
DS reported that when he was at DFAIT in January he spoke about the class-set grants.
It was agreed that they would not be offered in the coming year; instead, the programme would be evaluated and if the result was positive it could be renewed the following year. DS had offered to prepare the evaluation questionnaire. He had done so, and the draft questionnaire had been sent to SC members; he asked for comments. All agreed it was OK.
The question arose as to who should send the questionnaire out. It was felt that, since the whole process had been initiated and administered by the SC, the SC should be responsible for this too. DS would be writing to Nancy Hector (who would also be commenting on the questionnaire) and he would pass on to her this view of the SC.
KK brought up the question of the Oxford anthologies of Canadian literature in English. DS reported that Nancy Hector and Marie-Laure de Chantal had said they were going to recommend to embassies that they see to the purchase of anthologies for CS centres. DS was not sure what money would be used for this. KK pointed out that if DFAIT bought, say, 50 copies, they could get a reduction. DS suggested we figure out how many copies would be needed if each centre were to receive three copies; we could then ask DFAIT to approach the publisher and see what price they could get. Since the class-set programme is suspended this year, this anthology programme could have a chance. DS also mentioned that there was an anothology of Quebec literature (he thought in two volumes).
11. Summer schools
DS reported that the question of holding a CS summer school had arisen, in two different situations. First, back in 2002 he had received an e-mail letter from the University of Zagreb asking if he/ the CE CS Network could organize a two-week summer school concentrated on Canadian Studies. The university would pay for accommodation and meals. He answered that he thought he could find teachers in the region, but that he was not sure about money for travel. He had contacted the embassy in Zagreb and asked them to see if Ottawa could fund this. The second situation in which the question of a summer school had arisen was at the conference in Debrecen, where he had talked to Peter Szaffko, who had suggested a summer school in Debrecen in late summer 2003, complete with ECTS credits, that would focus on Canadian theatre..
When in Ottawa in January DS had spoken to Jean Labrie and Marie-Laure de Chantal about the Debrecen idea. In principle they felt it was an interesting idea, but they are moving away from one-off things and are thinking in terms of longer projects. DS suggested that there could be an annual summer school – probably at the MA level, though welcoming PhD students – each year on a different topic and in a different place.
As far as the Croatian summer school was concerned, M-LdC had not heard anything from the embassy in Sagreb. However, about three weeks before the Hradec meeting, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts rang up DS and asked about the summer school. This was the first time DS had had any response from Zagreb since the first communication. The dean told DS the school would be held in a university facility beside the sea on the island of Rab, and for the first time a date was mentioned: the first two weeks of June 2003. DS pointed out this was not the best time. Also that, given the time and the amount of teaching that was wanted, he felt four teachers (two each week) would be needed, and that he had no idea whether transport costs might be covered by DFAIT.
He had done two things; asked the SC members whether they were free to teach in early June, and asked Marie-Laure de Chantal whether DFAIT might be able to cover transportation costs. None of the SC teachers replied in the positive. MLdC replied that DFAIT might consider it, but only in a wider context – perhaps as a pilot project to see if it is feasible to run a summer course, or something like that.
Discussion focused first on the possibility of the summer school in Croatia. DS said the people in Zagreb wanted to know by the end of March whether we could do it. KK pointed out that we would need some time to prepare and coordinate a proper programme, if it was to be a success. No one felt this could be done in the time available. KK also suggested that June was never going to be very suitable; perhaps a date in early September might be more suitable. DS pointed out, however, that this year at least the Croatians were speaking about a course in June. In the end it was agreed that DS would write to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Zagreb explaining with regret the various reasons why we were not able to provide a team of teachers for the course, and suggesting that in future it might be possible to arrange something, if the circumstances were clear and the time right and plenty of advance warning was given.
As far as the option of having a summer school in Debrecen was concerned, DS returned to what the people in DFAIT had told him in January. The main point was that this would have to be part of a larger, ongoing project, not simply a one-of-a-kind event. DS felt this would be feasible, with a different topic and venue each year - e.g. theatre (Debrecen), multiculturalism (Brno), literature (?), language questions (?), etc. However, here again he felt it was not realistic to think in terms of beginning this year. Also, the cost of such a summer school would be more than that needed for the Zagreb event (since Zagreb had offered to cover accommodation and meals). He suggested we leave this subject for now, and return to it in future, perhaps coming up with a proposal for a specific series of summer schools from, say 2004 to 2007.
At 18:45 DS brought the Thursday afternoon session to a close.
The morning session on 29 March opened at 8:45.
12. CE Association of Canadian Studies
DS explained the procedure for registering the new association. He had consulted a lawyer in Brno, who had not added anything to the constitution, but had reformulated it to meet Czech legal requirements and then sent it off to the Ministery of the Interior. After six week we had got the answer that due to the foreign membership some parts of the constitution were somewhat problematical – it would be better to register it as an international organization with headquarters here rather than as an organization with international membership (there is some legal nuance between the two). The lawyer had made the necessary changes and sent the new version off to Prague. She felt there should not any problems – this was the view of the person at the Ministry as well – so we should assume we will be registered without any problems.
DS suggested we should move ahead according to the following scenario, which he had discussed with Gaetan Vallieres in Ottawa in January. As soon as the association is registered this gives it legal existence, which means we can proceed with writing to CE Canadianists and asking them to join it as members. The membership fee would be for 2003/2004. In the fall (Sept.-Oct.) we would know how many members there are. At the end of October we sould send off to the ICCS in Ottawa an application for membership (the application would contain information on the constitution, membership, activities of the CE Network over the past few years and information from each of the coordinators concerning activities in their respective countries. At the ICCS Executive Committee in November our application would be considered. What we would hope would be that they would approve this application, and recommend it for consideration at the Annual General Meeting in Montreal in May. Probably this would have to be a provisional recommendation depending on the election of the Executive Committee of the new CE association; this should happen at the conference in Krakow at the beginning of May. Immediately after the Krakow conference we would send the names of the new executive committee to the ICCS. Hopefully this would be the last formality clearing the way for a decision at the meeting in Montreal.
A discussion on the membership fee followed. DS asked how much it should be. KK declared that it had already been decided: 7 CAD, for both students and teachers.
[[Note: Subsequent to the Hradec Kralove meeting, in checking reports on earlier SC meetings, DS was unable to find a record of the SC having made this decision.}}
The next question was how to collect the membership fee. Because bank and other charges in this part of the world are so outrageous, it would be pointless to have individuals paying their membership fee to the Secretariat through bank transfers or international money orders (this is doubly true in view of the relatively small size of the fee). Even within some countries (e.g. Hungary – KK) banks charge a lot for an account. KK suggested we should ask whether individual embassies in the different countries might not collect the fees, and then forward the appropriate sum electronically to the Prague embassy. DS was sceptical about this, but said he would inquire. It was also suggested that the fee could be collected at the conference in Krakow. DS pointed out this would not be possible, for two reasons. First, when we send in our application for membership to Ottawa in October we will have to include information on the number of members. Second, at the conference in Krakow we will have to elect an executive committee for the association, and to do this we need nominees from each of the countries beforehand, chosen in such a way that every member of a national “chapter” can participate.
It was also suggested that there might be some bank with branches in the different countries that would allow the fees to be paid to them and transferred inexpensively to the Secreriat in Brno. PV would check this out. DS said there was of course one other way, that the SC members could collect the fee in their individual countries and bring the money with them when they met, but that this was quite clumsy.
One final question concerning the new association arose: what if a person on the executive committee had to step down before the end of his/her three-year term? DS
said there was a provision for this in the draft constitution: the members in the national chapter of the appropriate country would choose a replacement. KK felt it would be practical to have two people – a second person in each case, also so that if, for example, a member of the Executive Committee could not come to a meeting, the substitute would. DS felt that this was up to the individual countries: no constitution can make provision for every eventuality – there has to be space for flexibility.
13. Use of conference grants 2002/2003
DS recapitulated briefly the problems with the allocation in the 2002/2003 buidget for CE Canadianists to attend conferences.. Unfortunately there had been a communication slip-up between DS, the ICCS and DFAIT, with the result that the money the Steering Committee thought it would be redistributing had already been distributed. Some of this had then been spent before it was realized what had happened. In the end, instead of thirteen CE Canadianists going to conferences on the basis of the decision taken at the Debrecen meeting, eight went to Grainau, and two to other conferences; in two more cases, the money was spent to cover the travel costs of students going to the graduate student seminar in Berlin. Because of the problems concerned with the distribution of the conference grants, and the approaching deadline of the fiscal year, it turned out in the end that funding for one conference grant could not be allotted. This sum of $250 CAD was then sent to the CE Network in the form of a supplementary grant, and should be used in 2003/2004 to support attendance at a conference.
When DS was in Ottawa in January and spoke to Jean Labrie and Marie-Laure de Chantal concerning the CE SC budget, he was told that we could think in terms of more or less a similar total sum in 2003/2004, and that the makeup of the budget was flexible and essentially up to us, in accordance of course with some of the ideas discussed with them. For example, if we wished we could again have funding for grants to attend conferences. This is good news, since it means we can advertise earlier for these grants, thus enabling people to attend conferences in May/June and over the summer and early fall.
Some items in the new grant request will be less than in the past – e.g. the cost of Steering Committee meetings (no meeting at Grainau; see 4.2). This means that other items can be adjusted, or new activities or items added (e.g. the fee for the lawyer preparing the constitution for the new association). He asked for comments on what the 2003/2004 draft budget should look like.
Various things were mentioned. These included the second instalment of the grant for the Krakow conference; the third number of the CE journal; funding to help CE students come to Brno and do research there (500 CAD was decided on). The question of funding for a summer school came up, but as it had been decided that it would not be possible to organize anything in the summer of 2004 (see 11), any funding for a such a project would only begin in the 2004/2005 fiscal year. KK suggested we leave it at that: we are quite busy now, with conferences, the journal, the travel grants, etc. - other associations do considerably less.
Concerning the grants to attend conferences, DS reminded people of the agreement with Dirk Hoerder: six places at Grainau in 2004. However, the 250 CAD for conference participation did not cover this year’s participants (the conference fee was 177 Euros). So the question to be considered was how many conference grants should be put in the budget request for the next year, and how much per grant. KK suggested that, given the cost of most conferences (travel, meals, accommodation, etc.), 300 CAD per person would be better this would still represent only a contribution to the total cost. It was decided to offer a maximum of 15 such grants (this year there were 13, at 250 CAD; also, 250 CAD is carried over from the current budget), plus the one left over from last year.
Discussion was held on how to advertise these conference grants. It was agreed we should announce them in April right away, for conferences being held between now and the end of the fiscal year (March 2004). KK suggested a deadline of May 10 for applications, so as to enable people to get to conferences in late May and June. Since there are six places for Grainau, in this round we would offer grants for ten people, going to conferences and presenting papers. In this round we would have “quotas” for countries. A second round could be held in the fall, to include Grainau (no paper needed, but involvement in topic of Grainau conference) and grants not taken up in the first round. This round should be done in cooperation with the embassies (except Poland). The allotment would be as follows (number of places): Poalnd – 2; Hungary – 2; Romania – 2; Czech Republic and Slovakia – 1; Serbia – 1; Bulgaria, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia – 2 altogether. For the last group, DS would have to coordinate the selection.
15. Next meeting of the Steering Committee
The next meeting of the Steering Committee should be sometime in October, or early November at the latest. Ottawa likes idea of the SC meeting in conjunction with something else – this produces synergy. DS asked if anybody knew about any event happening in the CE region in October. No one was aware of anything. DS suggested we send out a query on the listserve as to whether there is any centre that is interested, any kind of event that we could hold our meeting in conjunction with. We could also offer ourselves as a little miniseminar; perhaps the local university could provide some contribution for accommodation and/or meals.
There didn’t seem to be any other business. DS reminded those present of two tasks: 1) to provide an electronic version of the country report, perhaps slightly amended in line with the format agreed on at the meeting; 2) to send him, by end of the coming week, any comments on the wording of the call for papers for the Krakow conference.
The session, and with it the Hradec Kralove Steering Committee meeting, closed at 10.05.
central european steering committee for canadian studies
Ninth meeting of the CESCCS
18 October 2003
Monica Bottez (Romania [MB])
Maria Huttova (Slovakia [MH])
Don Sparling (the Czech Republic [DS])
Ljiljana Matic (Serbia [LM])
Judit Molnar (Hungary [JM])
Eugenia Sojka (Poland [ES])
Katalin Kurtosi (Central European Journal of Canadian Studies) [KK]
Petr Vurm – Assistant CE CS Secretariat, Brno, Czech Republic [PV]
The meeting opened at 8:35
2. Adoption of the agenda
DS asked that the Szeged graduate seminar be added to AOB, as well as the question of a CS lecturer coming to Belgrade.
3. Approval of the report on Hradec Králové meeting
The report was adopted as presented
4. Financial reports
4.1 Financial report to 17 October 2003
DS presented the report, running from the SC meeting in Hradec Králové at the end of March until 17 October (see Appendix 1). This covered the end of the fiscal year 2002/2003 and the beginning of the new fiscal year. Expenditures during this period were minimal, since over the summer there was little activity. Income came from the new budget for 2003 (see 4.2). The only item he felt might need some explanation was the expenditure for the translation of the Constitutions of the CA Association into French. He had decided to have this done by a professional agency, since the language was slightly specialized and it was necessary to have a very precise translation of the version that had been approved by the Czech Ministry of the Interior for registration purposes.
4.2 Budget for the 2003/2004 fiscal year
The approval of the budget had taken longer than usual. DS had prepared and sent it to Ottawa in May. He had met with Marie-Laure de Chantal at the beginning of June when he was in Ottawa, and received her approval for the proposed budget. However, Marie-Laure had moved to a new position shortly after, and had not had time to finish the paperwork involved for approval from DFAIT; unfortunately her position has not yet been filled, and so the budget proposal languished. When Jean Labrie looked at it in early September, he noticed there were some problems in the reporting of various expenditures, and it was only in early October that the final version had been approved; Jean Labrie had confirmed this in an e-mail dated 8 October. DS went on to make comments on some of the items:
- Support for students to come to Brno. This was increased to anticipate expected demand; SC members were asked to encourage their students to come to Brno and take advantage of the very good facilities there.
- Second instalment for the 2004 conference in Krakow. This had already been sent directly to the Polish Association.
- Travel support for CE Canadianists to attend the Krakow conference. This was important, since for some Canadianists it would be a real problem getting to Krakow; however, because this will also mark the first General Meeting of the new CE Association, it is crucial that as many as possible be there.
- Preparatory meetings for the Krakow conference. DS had added this, since he felt that he would have to meet at least once with Anna Reczynska in order to work out many of the basic questions connected with the conference (the fact that it is also the 3rd congress of the Polish Association means that in effect two agendas have to be meshed). He said that he planned to go to Krakow in December.
DS pointed out that the financial report had been prepared by employing the form that the Academic Relations Division at DFAIT recommended; he felt that it wa very helpful, and made the expenditures very transparent.
There were no questions concerning the budget; the SC members agreed that it marked a significant shift towards a greater proportion of the money being used for activities, and a lesser proportion for meetings (this because the SC no longer meets in Grainau, which though very useful was also more costly than venues in CE).
5. CE Canadian Studies Secretariat in Brno
In this connection, DS began by running through the tasks that had been given to the Secretariat at the meeting in Hradec Králové.
5.1 Visits to Brno
The amount for student visits to Brno had indeed been increased, as requested, in the budget request, and had also been augmented by money remaining at the end of the fiscal year. What was important now was to ensure that students knew about the opportunities in Brno; DS promised to send out a special notice about this on the listserve. It was also suggested that the SC members send him a list of their graduate students: Petr Vurm could make up a special listserve for them in order to be able to target information that concerned them in particular.
5.2 The CE CS Website
DS reported that they he and Petr Vurm were trying to keep the website up to date, but that it had become so extensive that this was not easy. In any case, a complete overhaul would have to be made now, as it moved to being the official website of the new Central European Association for Canadian Studies rather than the CE CS Network website. In particular, in future only official, paid up members of the association would be listed on the site, though other individuals could be included in the listserve.
5.3 JKF Centre, Berlin
There was no improvement in the transparency of decision-making at the Centre. In fact, DS reported that he had learned of other things that he found disquieting. One was that those who do not have their applications accepted are not even informed of this. Another is that when they ask for advice on what was weak in their application, so that they might have a better chance of being successful in future, they are again ignored. It appears that in awarding the grants, the Centre does not feel responsible to anyone.
DS also reported the comment of a student he knew who had received a grant and spent some time at the Centre, that though the resources were good they were not as good as he had expected, and as far as recent publications was concerned, not good at all: it appeared that very little money was going to the acquisition of new material.
MH asked whether the ICCS should be contacted about this; DS answered that the ICCS had no connection with the JFK Centre; as far as he knew, all Canadian funding there came from the Canadian government. KK suggested the new association could play a role in trying to get answers. DS said he could try this, but felt that the stonewalling policy of the Centre would defeat any such attempt. He thought it would be better to contact Walter Larink, and see if he had any suggestions.
5.4 Canadian book catalogues
DS reported that Mme Colette Dupuis of Export Livre had sent the Secretariat a very large box with a very large number of current catalogues of Canadian books. The idea was to enable CE Canadianists to find out if books they wanted were in print. The catalogues are useful but not that as useful as he had anticipated, since people would need to know which publisher was responsible for a book they were interested in; otherwise we would have to look through every catalogue. Also, publishers differ greatly in the currency of their catalogues: some put out annual ones, others update more frequently.
However, he said he would send out a letter on the listserve to let people know that the catalogues were in Brno, and perhaps through enquiries we would see how useful they are. He felt, for instance, that French publishers in Canada in particular were hard to get information about.
Various suggestions were made for becoming better informed about Canadian books in print. Googling of publishers’ sites was one way; using the services of Northwest Passages another (though they specialize in literature rather than Canadian Studies books as a whole)
While we were on the topic, ES asked how people could find out about other books published in the region. KK pointed out that unfortunately almost all of them were in the national languages, and so inaccessible to the rest. DS mentioned that this kind of information was at least partly accessible, in the country reports that form part of the report for each SC meeting, which are then put on the website.
It was suggested that it would be useful to have information on CE CS monographs in one place. DS suggested we could take what was on the Website as a basis, and perhaps evolve a project. KK wondered whether this should also include translations. DS said he felt that this was an idea that had to be examined at more length, but would be an excellent task for the new association; we should perhaps leave further discussion of this to the General Meeting at Krakow in May.
6.1 Proceedings of the Bucharest conference
PV reported that he was proceeding with this, but had been sidetracked by work on the publication of the Berlin graduate seminar proceedings (see 6.3 below). Also, it had proved more complicated than he had expected, since the articles were in a bewildering variety of formats, and unifying them was taking a lot of time. He and DS expected the publication to be out by sometime at the beginning of 2004 at the latest.
6.2 Central European Journal of Canadian Studies
6.21 CEJCS Vol. 3
KK reported that Volume 3 is now more or less ready. Unfortunately deadlines had not been kept, and the work of evaluating the contributions had only been completed at the end of the summer. Eleven papers will be published, ranging from history through the documentary film and the bilingualism question to literature. There are some papers from the Debrecen conference in October 2002, and others arrived; most are from the humanities (as usual); the proportion of articles in French is good.
One problem was an article which was a lot more like a research project; the question was whether we should open a new section, entitled perhaps “Work in progress”; it might be of interest what kind of research is going on. DS felt this would work better as a site on the website; this would allow comments, etc.. It could be used if someone was wanting to introduce a new course, for example. He said he would try to work something out with PV.
KK reminded everyone of the system we had worked out. Scorings are from 0 – 5; readers are also asked to state whether the article is rejected, accepted but with some reworking, or accepted as is. If there’s one score below 3, it’s rejected. She would appreciate explanations in this case; also, suggestions for improvement. In once case, a paper had marks of 5,4, 3 and 2 – difficult to decide what to do, since the evaluations were so different.
JM suggested that we have too many readers; it would be enough to have two, and in cases like this a third person could be called in. DS explained that we had decided on the five readers as a way of ensuring that the people who submitted papers were satisfied the decisions were objective; this way we avoided any suggestion of bias for whatever reason. He suggested that in fact having so many readers meant that the whole exercise was a good learning process for CE readers, most of whom had not done much of this kind of thing before.
KK concurred. She also added that this grading system could be improved on. Some general approach should be established: as it is now, some readers simply gave marks and two or three words of comment, others offered more than a page for each submission. What is necessary is something in between: they needn’t be long – 7-8 lines are enough – but a few sentences of real evaluation are important in making final selections. She can then draw on these, especially if they are of a critical nature, even quote them, when she writes to contributors, either explaining why the article has been rejected, or suggesting aspects that can be improved. Her experience was that some kind of commentary of this kind is highly valued by contributors, even those whose work is rejected seem more ready to accept this if they are straightforward. She also added that, in her opinion, this systematic grading process was also appreciated by the readers themselves, making them feel they were part of a genuine and serious decision-making process.
ES suggested that in future the names of the papers’s authors should be blacked out so that readers are not biased. This was agreed to. KK also mentioned, we should insist all submissions have both French and English abstracts; it was time-consuming trying to get these later.
KK said there should be brief CVs of the authors of the articles; she had been in touch with the contributors, asking them to write a few lines about themselves. We should know who’s who.
6.22 CEJCS Vol. 4
DS asked how we should proceed with Vol 4. What was the deadline, the timeframe?
The problem was that were now behind what would be an ideal (and hopefully in future regular) schedule, which would be something like an announcement in September, January/February as the deadline for submissions, end of March for readers’ reports, rewriting and resubmissions by May/June, final preparation of copy by September and appearance of the journal in the fall. Now that we were behind that schedule, however, things were complicated because of exam periods at unfortunate times, etc. After considerable discussion of the pros and cons of various deadlines, it was decided to have the call for papers go out in January with an end of June deadline, there would be a reminder in April, readers would have the reports back by the end of September, a shorter period would be given for revision (till mid-November), by early December the final copy would be ready, and the journal would be printed at the end of December or in January. DS said he would make sure that more detailed instructions on the format would be put on the website.
Concerning publicity for the journal, KK mentioned that it did not appear in the list of CS journals from around the world included in the Association for the Export of Canadian Books‘ Books on Canada catalogue. DS promised to write to Mme Dupuis at Export Livre about this.
6.3 Proceedings of the European graduate seminars
DS pointed out that the publication of the proceedings of the European seminars for graduate students in CS was not our business. However, for various reasons we do it at the Secretariat in Brno. We hope that the Proceedings of the Berlin seminar will be out soon. The publication was prepared by Elke Nowak; students used a template PV had prepared. In terms of standard scholarly format there is a problem: one exists in English (MLA), but not in French. So there is lots of editing work with the latter.
6.4 Distribution of publications
One of the main difficulties connected with all these publications is the cost of sending them by mail. In the past we sometimes used various major occasions to distribute them – e.g. in Bucharest we distributed Volume 1 of the CEJCS and the Proceedings of the Brno conference. For the proceedings of the graduate seminar, Cor Remie suggested we use ask the embassy in Prague if they could be sent by diplomatic mail. We did in fact make an agreement with the embassy in Prague with regard to the first two volumes of the graduate student seminar plus the second volume of the CEJCS (Western European institutions were the main recipients), but in the end they did not use the diplomatic mail service since this does not allow them to send mail directly to other embassies; everything has be to routed through Ottawa. So instead they sent the material by ordinary post, covering the cost ($300 CAD). This was a one-off thing: in future we will of course continue to use suitable opportunities for distributing publications, but in many cases the only option will be to send the material by post. This means we should include mailing costs in our budget.
The best way would probably be to send the publications to local Canadian embassies and ask them to look after distribution within the country. One copy of each publication should go to the library at each institution where there is a Canadian Studies Centre. Every member of the new association should of course get a copy of the CEJCS. Additional copies of journals could be distributed as the embassy and the local association representative felt best.
In closing this point on the agenda, DS mentioned that he had had a lot of responses, all very favourable, to the publications that been sent out, and particularly to the CEJCS. Thanks to its striking cover, it is a journal that is immediately noticed: we have to ensure that the contents continue to match it in quality.
7. Canadian Studies developments in Central Europe (country reports)
SC members distributed copies of the reports they had brought with them, and reported briefly on the most interesting developments in their respective countries. These reports are included as Appendixes 3-10.
At this point DS suggested they skip point 8 on the agenda – the new CE Association for Canadian Studies – and finish off the rest of the agenda; this way the topic could be left till the end, and ES would not have to sit through a long discussion that did not essetially concern her, as a member of the Polish association. This was agreed to.
9. Grants for attendance at conferences
DS reminded the SC members that back in Hradec Králové they had decided on the number of conference grants we wanted to award (15), their amount ($300 CAD), and the scheme for awarding them. Of the 15 grants, 10 would be made available immediately; the idea was to see how many used up.
Of the 10 grants offered, those allotted to the Polish (2), Romanian (2), Hungarian (2) and Serbian (1) Canadianiasts had been taken up – 7 in all. No Czech or Slovak applied, nor had anyone from other places applied (Montenegro, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Croatia). That meant that, in theory, 8 should still be avaialable.
However, there was one little problem: we had agreed to have 15, but in the final budget approved by Ottawa, the CE Secretariat in Brno had been given $200 CAD more than had been asked for, but $4300 CAD instead of $4500 CAD had been sent to the ICCS to be held in trust for us. Unfortunately, this does not equal 15 travel grants. Somehow we will work this out.
DS went on to say that now we had to decide how to award the 8 places. They can be for people attending giving papers at conferences, or for going to Grainau, where we have been given 6 places; however, this does not mean that we have to fill them all. He also reminded CS members that it had been decided in the past that those chosen to go to Grainau should have some interest in the central topic being discussed there. KK asked what it would be this time; DS answered transculturalism.
DS suggested there were two ways to divide up the 8 places. One was to devise country quotas, the other to make all 8 places available and decide according to what we get. His preference was for the former – he felt we’d get a better selection. KK said we should definitely mention that Grainau is included when we advertise the places, as a kind of encouragement to go there. DS reminded everyone that the GKS wanted people who hadn’t been to Grainau to attend. JM felt that having to be interested in the central topic at Grainau contradicted the requirement that those going there should be never have attended a conference there. DS said a person could be an established academic but starting in CS.
It was agreed that the CE Secretariat would send out an announcement of the conference grants as soon as possible, with the conditions. Applications would be sent to the CE Secretariat, and then via e-mail the SC would choose those who would get the grants.
DS also reminded people that these grants were for conferences up to roughtly the end of April. Those wishing to go to conferences later would have to wait till the next round of grants, offered in the next fiscal year. However, because we had been assured that our budget would be similar each year, we could actually advertise before then, e.g. in late February or early March, with a deadline in, say, early April. This would be important for those going on conferences in May-July.
10. Class-set grants
There was no new development here: DS reported that teachers and a few students had sent in evaluations of the programme, and it was now up to him to have to write a report to Ottawa. Assuming the response from the teachers was positive – and this seemed to be the case, judging from a quick perusal of the responses – then there was a good chance that the programme would continue. The evaluation is necessary because this was a new programme, not one of standard ones whose effectiveness had been established and was widely recognized.
11. Summer schools
11.1 Summer school in Croatia
DS spoke first about the summer school organized by the University of Zagreb. As decided at the SC meeting in Hradec Králové he had written to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Zagreb, explaining why it would not be possible for the CE Network to supply teachers for the summer school they proposed in June. His explanation had been accepted, with regret. In the end, however, the summer school did go ahead. It was organized by the French Department at the univeristy, with support from Canadianists from France, and was apparently quite a success. This was of course good news, since it showed the seriousness of the committment to Canadian Studies there.
After the event DS had received a report on it both from the Canadian Embassy and the organizer, Prof. Šafranek. In the former letter, and subsequently, there had been indications that the university would again like to ask for support for a summer school this year; it appears they are thinking of it as an annual event. He had been non-committal on this, stressing especially the times when most CE Canadianists were available. Also, he knew that the Steering Committee had agreed to discuss at this meeting the question of establishing its own summer school (see 11.2). After a brief discussion the SC decided it was best to leave things as they were for the time being, and wait to see whether the Croatians do actually send a request for help. It was stressed, however, that this should only be considered if the request comes well in advance, and that there should be input from us as to timing, form, etc.
11.2 CE Canadianists’ summer school
When the discussion turned to the possibility of a summer school organized by the CE Canadianists, ES asked whether Canadian academics would be participating. DS replied that the idea was that we would draw on our own resources, using Canadianists from different CE countries, focusing on what is strongest in the region. Of course where it was feasible we could also turn to Canadian academics; the main question would be a financial one. When had spoken about this idea to Jean Labrie in Ottawa earlier in the year, he had been cautiously encouraging, but stressed that it would be unlikely that DFAIT would agree to fund a single, one-off summer school. Hence we should be thinking of something that would happen more than once, probably in different places.
Two considerations were important. One was credits: in order to be taken seriously, such a summer course should offer ECTS credits. This would mean working out the programme to meet the ECTS regulations. The second was funding: we would be asking for funding from Ottawa, but perhaps in future, if things worked out, we could also try to see whether the summer school could be presented as an Intensive Programme (IP) within the Socreates/Erasmus programme – Masaryk University was involved with summer schools that worked like this.
After brief consideration it was agreed that we did want to create some kind of summer school, and so the discussion moved on to the practicalities of the issue. MB pointed out that if we wanted the course to work on the ECTS systém, we would have to calculate the number of hours, etc. DS replied that there was no forumula for this – the point of the ECTS system was that each university, indeed in theory each department, could decide on the number of ECTS credits for courses using its own criteria: ECTS credits represented part of an overall workload (per term), not (as in the North American system) a certain number of contact hours. In the discussion that followed, the following conclusions were reached.
The SC would propose a series of three summer schools, at Debrecen (2004), Brno (2005) and Sosniewicz (University of Silesia, 2006). The topics would be, respectively, Candian theatre, Native issues and women/gender/trasnculturalism issues.
Concerning the summer school in Debrecen in 2004, it was felt that the best times would be early July or late August; after some discussion early July was agreed on. The draught proposal worked out was as follows:
3 July (Saturday): arrival, with a modest “ice-breaking” get-together in the evening.
4 July (Sunday): introduction, then two 90-minute blocks of classes in the morning, one in the afternoon
5 July (Monday): two 90-minute blocks of classes in the morning; free afternoon (short tour of Debrecen)
6, 7 July (Tuesday, Wednesday): two 90-minute blocks of classes in the morning, one in the afternoon
8 July (Thursday): two 90-minute blocks of classes in the morning; free afternoon
9 July (Friday): two 90-minute blocks of classes in the morning, one in the afternoon
10 July (Saturday): two 90-minute blocks of classes in the morning (final presentations); afternoon and evening, visit to Tokai, etc.
11 July (Sunday): departure
What the course would consist of would be up to the teachers. This would also be true of the requirements (essay, test, presentation of a project [for example a reading/simple staging of a play]). It was felt that a course of this nature could be awarded 4 ECTS credits; these would have to be officially given via a university department. A reader for the course, with all the compulsory material needed for the course, could be prepared beforehand at the CE Secretariat in Brno.
At the end, DS noted that if the Canadianists from Croatia did in fact ask for help with their summer school, he would probably have to tell them that our energies were concentrated on this project of our own.
12. Other events in the region – role of CE Association for CS
DS brought up the question of the role of the CE Association for CS with regard to other events in the region. This had come up because Petr Kyloušek, from Masaryk University, is organizing a big conference in Brno in 2005 – L’imaginaire au roman québecois – in cooperation with a group of researchers from UQAM, and he had asked if the association can be included among those sponsoring the event.
It was agreed that this could and should be done. This would not mean financial support, but the name of the association could help in obtaining financial support from others; also, the Network/Association could offer organizational support, publicity, etc. It was agreed that that this should be a general policy where larger events were being organized; both parties would benefit.
KK said that Petr Kyloušek had asked whether it would be possible to publish papers from the conference in the CEJCS. She felt that on the one hand this would be good – the amount of French material would go up dramatically – but on the other in general we don’t have a policy of publishing large numbers of papers from conferences in the journal (the Debrecen conference was an exception, and in any case we merely invited people to submit their papers if they so wished). DS pointed out that if we did publish the papers of the conference, a large proportion would not be from CE; however, we had decided in the past that no more than one or two articles per issue should be from “outside” contributors.
DS suggested that since it seemed difficult to publish it within a normal issue of the CEJCS, and it seemed strange to publish it as a special number of the journal, a better solution might be for the papers to appear in a volume in our Proceedings series; we could publish it under the conference title (as we will all conference proceedings in future) as a separate issue (in fact opening up this series to include not just our triennial conference). Funding would have to come from elsewhere.
(At this point ES mentioned that Anna Reczynska had asked her to ask DS whether she should apply for funding for publication of the Krakow proceedings. DS said they would discuss that when he was in Krakow; the short answer was that this would be part of the CE Association’s budget request for 2004/2005.)
13.1 12th European Seminar for Graduate Students in Canadian Studies
This seminar will be taking place in Szeged in the fall of 2004. DS mentioned that a student from Masaryk University had been at the 11th seminar, which had taken place just a week earlier in Barcelona, and that she had reported that very few students from CE were there; also that there seemed to be a lot from a few countries. We should try to do everything to improve on this for the Szeged seminar.
KK, who will be organizing the event, asked when it might take place. DS said it’s usually held in early October; he suggested 8-10 October. KK said that perhaps two dates might be suggested as possible (this and the following week); DS said he would also communicate with Cor Remie to see if the ENCS had any preference. KK also reminded those present that they should encourage their students to come. KK reiterated that we must get information out early, and asked when the first call for papers should be sent out. DS suggested February; he also offered to help, by sending KK all the material he had used in organizing the seminar in Brno in 2000, and of course the CE Secretariat would be pressed into action for this as well – this is not merely a Szeged event, but a CE event.
13.2 Lecturer to Belgrade
DS reported that at a meeting held on Friday, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Belgrade had expressed a wish for CE Canadianists to come to Belgrade to lecture and give intensive courses. DS had told him he would pass this information on at the SC meeting; he felt that if an official request came, members of the SC could be asked whether they were available, as well as the general membership of the association. It was agreed that this would be a sensible course.
13.3 Core course for CS
In connection with the request from Belgrade, MB brought up an idea that we had discussed at earlier meeting: that of having/creating a “core course” that could serve as an introduction to Canadian Studies. It could then be used by a team of people (perhaps three) who could tour in the region and teach it. It could be a one-week intensive course with three specialists, and would be used as a means of introducing new people to Canadian Studies.
DS pointed out that you would have to have three people willing to cooperate, and a meaningfull syllabus, a kind of mini “Canadian Studies kit”. He saw a bit of a problem here, in that he felt that two weeks was a minimum for a course like this. Also, the costs involved would be considerable: even though local universities might pay for accommodation, and perhaps even meals, the transporation costs for a three-member “flying team” would be considerable – who would cover this? He didn’t feel Ottawa would be very keen on paying
KK said that since we had decided to work on a summer school, we should not fragment our forces. MH, however, felt that this could serve a genuine need: it would be very useful in situations where it was cleaar that a particular university had a serious interest in establishing some kind of CS component, and could do with help. Such help could then be supplied when needed – we would have a team and the organization skills to help.
DS said that what was being talked about here was a basic short syllabus which would introduce people to the main concepts necessary to understand Canada. We could perhaps produce a course outline, and a course reader. Then if a request for someone to teach an “Intro to Canada” course arose, we could ask around and see who would be willing to teach it on the basis of our course and reader. He said that he would sent to everyone an outline of the course he teaches; most of the reading is accessible on-line. The SC members could look through the course, and see what they thought was useful, and make suggestions for additions, changes, other reading, etc. We would see if this could then lead to the creation of a flexible course that could be offered, along with a lecturer, to interested universities in the region.
13.4 Biennial conference in Debrecen
JM brought up a suggestion she had been asked by Peter Szaffko to pass along, that of Debrecen hosting a regular large biennial CS conference. DS said there is no problem in Debrecen doing this, but if it wants funding from Ottawa, there likely be a difficulty, since Ottawa doesn’t like it if there are requests for funding for more than one important event in the region in the same year (this arose in connection with the Bucharest conference and the 2nd PACS Congress). A large conference in Debrecen in the fall of 2004 coming only four or give months after the big event in Krakow might not be the best idea. However, this is part of wider issue – for example, both PACS and the CE Association for Canadian Studies call for triennial general meetings (and by implication conferences); as it is now, both are being held at the same time. We may have to find a solution to this problem, too. DS said he would try to speak to Peter Szaffko about the question of the Debrecen meeting (in any case he would have to speak to him in connection with the summer school).
13.5 Meeting in Budmerice
MH announced that there would be a major English studies conference (on the occassion of 80 years of English studies in Slovakia) at Budmerice at theend of November next year, and that this might be possible venue for the SC meeting as they plan a section on Canadian Literature as a part of the conference program.. DS thanked her for the suggestion, and reminded everyone that in November of 2004 the life of the SC should have come to an end; what would be in existence would be the Executive Committee of the new CE association, and they might very well agree to meet in Budmerice.
At 13:45 DS brought the (rather too long) morning session to a close.
The meeting reconvened at 15:00.
8. Central European Association for Canadian Studies /
Association d’Etudes Canadiennes en l‘Europe Centrale (CEASC/AECEC)
ES reported that the Executive Committee of PACS had asked her to express their position, that it won’t of course be officially part of the structure of the new association, since they won’t be joining it, but that they very much wish to continue cooperating.
DS thanked her for the message, and said that he was sure the CEASC was also looking forward to cooperating with PACS. However, the question of exactly how this cooperation would continue was something that would have to be worked out. For example, the new four-member Executive Committee of CEASC (plus the Editor-in-Chief of the CE Journal) would probably be meeting twice a year, but it did not make much sense for a PACS representative to be present at these meetings, since virtually everything they would be discussing would be issues relating to the CEASC and its members. However, Ottawa likes to deal with the CE region as a whole. And it is a fact that we are objectively in the same situation, and benefit from the same kinds of initiative (e.g. conference grants, class-set grants, etc.). So it makes sense that we should continue to meet and work together in some way – and Ottawa too might prefer to work with the CEACS and PACS together. One possible solution might be for the CEACS and PACS Presidents to meet once a year or more. It is a question of finding the best mode for cooperation.
After this introductory discussion, ES left the SC members to work out the specific problems of the new association on their own. DS thanked her for her contribution to the meeting, especially the willingness to host a summer school in 2006.
8.1 Present status and state of the CEACS
DS reported that registering the association took longer than expected. To begin with, we had to translate the Constitution into Czech, and then transfer everything into a different form so as to correspond to Czech regulations. Also, some things had to be added, for the same reason (e.g. how the organization could be dissolved, how membership in the organization could be ended, etc.) First we submitted the Constitution with all the provisions resulting from the long history of previous discussions; however, there was a problem with the institutional membership – this was beyond capacities of Czech law. The lawyer at the Ministry of the Interior recommended that we register as an international NGO with headquarters in the Czech Repbublic, and with only individual membership. A lot of concepts then had to be clarified to satisfy the lawyer – for example, the exact nature and responsibility of the national chapters within the international organization. Also, the woman at the ministry was hard to pin down. All this meant that the final approval of the Constitution was only given on 22 August.
8.2 Application for association membership in the ICCS
DS stressed we would have to work quickly. At the meeting of the ICCS Executive Committee on 10-11 November they would have to have our application so as to be able to approve it provisionally upon the election of our new Executive Committee at the Krakow conference in the beginning of May. We would then forward the names of this Executive Committee to the ICCS, and at the annual meeting of the ICCS in Canada at the end of May they could approve our membership. He felt there shouldn’t be any major problems, but we have to fulfill the regulations.
Since the ICCS Executive Committee would be meeting in Brazil, the application would have to be in to Ottawa before then. He would send it by DHL courrier. This would have to leave Brno on 31 October at the latest.
DS said that much of the material needed for the application he already had. The main problems were the membership list and the country history.
Because the association had been registered so late, it was only very recently that the membership forms had been sent out, and people were only beginning to return the forms. But the list sent to Ottawa with the ICCS application could only contain the names of people who had taken the formal step of registering. He said people would have to mail, fax or e-mail the forms to their country representatives. JM felt that people couldn’t react that quickly, but DS said that this was necessary; he would only claim in the membership application those individuals who had indicated their commitment by Oct. 31. MB said that from her experience sending the application in with a signature was one thing, but collecting money was another. DS said he didn’t need the money right away, only the signed form. He felt that given the personal ties of all the people involved with CS, there would not be a problem collecting the money; the only problem would be the technical one of transferring the money to him. But this could be done in various different ways – at the very latest by bringing it to Krakow.
MB asked who we should encourage to apply – for example, MA students? DS felt we should concentrate on teachers and then PhD students. MH said anybody who pays a given fee should become member. MB pointed out that we wanted committed people, so that the membership would not fluctuate. DS replied that this is why he felt a special effort should not be made to attract undergraduates or even students at the MA level: however, those doing doctorates were already displaying a long-time commitment to CS, and of course teachers were in the same category. KK mentioned that in Hungary they required a recommendation of at least one member to be admitted to the CS listserve
A quick estimation was made of possible numbers; the rough total came to around 100.
8.22 “Country histories”
The question of the “country histories” was dealt with next. DS had sent out a form with the information needed, and asked SC members to bring their completed versions to the meeting. These were compared, and a discussion followed on how to best unify them.
DS suggested that the section on the development of Canadian Studies courses in the country should be brief – factual, neutral.
As far as the section on the universities went, where teachers and courses were concerned, it was decided that titles of courses being taught by teachers were enough, not details of the contents. KK objected that the details might be positive for us; DS said that this was probably true, but that he very much doubted that details could be obtained at this stage for most of the courses, and that to have them for some and not for others would look very strange. Questions were asked as to information about the level of studies, numbers of students, etc. It was decided that what was important was the state of people working on MA and PhDs. KK asked about the BA level; DS said this could be added if people wanted to. As for the “notable events” section, people were not sure what should be put there; DS said that he thought these should be events of a national or international nature organized at the university.
Finally, there as the “Highlights of CS Activities” section. DS explained that these were things that moved CS beyond the university, but should maybe be restricted to books, scholarly monographs, book chapters, lexical entries, maybe translations done by Canadianists, other forms that these people do publicizing Canada, radio programs, interviews with Can authors, etc. – it would be better to call it Canadian studies activities. What was important was that these things should not appear anywhere else in the country history.
8.3 Krakow conference
DS said he had read the Constitution carefully in order to be sure exactly what had to be done in preparation for the Krakow conference, and at it.. Just so everyone was clear, he pointed out that there are two bodies in the new association. First there is the Executive Council, with one representative from each country having at least seven paying members who are active Canadianists (teaching, research). The Executive Council meets once a year, setting the general line of policy for the second body, the Executive Committee, which is made up of only four people. It does the actual day-to-day running of the association.
The conference is 1 May; according to the Constitution, two months before that, we need to have the nominations for the new Executive Committee. That means that by 1 March, each national chapter will have to have done the following. Where the national chapter has a right to a member on the Executive Council (see above), it will send to DS two names, one that of the person they have chosen to represent them on the this council, and the other the name of the person they have nominated for the Executive Committee. Where the national chapter does not have a right to a member on the Executive Council, the members of the chapter wll send to DS the name of one person who they’ve nominated for the Executive Committee. As for the person who is nominated for the Executive Committee, he or she will probably be from the national chapter’s own country, but this need not be. Where a national chapter is entitled to a member on the Executive Council, it may decide on nominating the same person for the Council and the Executive Committee. If so, it should have a second name in reserve; if the individual is elected to the Executive Committee, then the person in reserve would become the Executive Council representative.
What is extremely important is that the election of nominees for the two bodies be absolutely open and transparent. It will be up to each country to decide how this should be done – probably the best method would be to have some gathering of the Canadianists of the country who are members of the association, where they could (among other things) choose their nominees. If this is not possible, then some clear, simple method will have to be devised.
At Krakow, we will first have to have our General Meeting, where the members present will elect the new Executive Committee and discuss any business they may have. Also we will have to elect two auditors. Then there should be a meeting of the Executive Council, as the body to make binding suggestions for the Executive Committee to follow. All of this is going to make for a very busy conference.
The session closed at 17.25.
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]
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 ]
[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.