REPORT OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE GRAZ 11 AND 12 APRIL 1997

Participants: Utrecht Network Poul Bonde (Aarhus), Patricia de Clopper (Antwerpen), Piet van Hove (Antwerpen), Gerald Zimmermann (Basel), Desanka Schwara (Basel), Bjorn Einar Aas (Bergen), Ingrid Bernt (Ber- gen), Manfred Nettekoven (Bochum), Monika Sprung (Bochum), Gianni Galloni (Bologna), Jiri Sramek (Brno), Maria Filomena de Marquez (Coimbra), Isabel Texeira (Coimbra), Louise Tobin (Cork), Maria Krobath (Graz), Sabine Pendle (Graz), Dana Afrashteh (Graz), Päivi Tauriainen (Helsinki), Michael Wintle (Hull), Béatrice Delpouve (Lille), Katja Cerjak (Ljubl- jana), Ingeborg Kunath (Madrid), Carlos Seoane (Madrid), Jean McKillick (Malta), Svend Poller (Leipzig), Annemone Seisum (Leipzig), Kersti Schmölzer (Lund), Bjorg Eysteinsdottir (Reykjavik), Gérard Clady (Strasbourg I), Christian Civardi (Strasbourg II), Marc Arnold (Strasbourg III), Marjanne Paardekooper (Utrecht H.K.U.), Costas Kastritsis (Thessaloniki), Ioanna Georgiadou (Thessaloniki), Jeroen Torenbeek (Utrecht, chairman) Bettina Nelemans (Utrecht, minutes).

Observers Joel Glassman (University of Missouri at St Louis), Peggy Dotson (University of Missouri at St Louis), Fraser Taylor (Carleton), Boyan Lomev (Sofia), Algimantas Lipinaitis (Vilnius), Kostas Bogdanas (Vilnius)

Friday, 11 April

1. Welcome and practical matters The rector of the Karl-Franzens Universität Graz, Mr Helmut Konrad, addresses the Utrecht Network members. He says that to Graz (one of the 18 universities in ) Utrecht Network membership has proved to be tremendously helpful. Like many other universities in Europe, this one too is facing cutbacks in budgets. It is always good to be able to learn from each other. Mr Konrad adds that Graz has many good contacts with universities in Central and South- East Europe, including the war-afflicted areas (Bosnia, Albania). The Utrecht Network may be able to benefit from these contacts.

Jeroen Torenbeek welcomes everybody to the annual meeting of the Utrecht Network 1997, this year held in Graz. The newcomers, the universities of Brno and Malta, are enthusiastically welcomed. Joel Glassman, Peggy Dotson, Fraser Taylor, Boyan Lomev, Algimantas Lipinaitis and Kostas Bogdanas will attend (part of) the meeting as observers. Jeroen Torenbeek expresses his thankfulness to the people of Graz (Sabine Pendl, Maria Krobath and Dana Afrashteh) and the Rector of their university for the excellent organisation and their generous hospitality. The agenda is set for the meeting. The minutes of the Strasbourg meeting (April 1996) are accepted.

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

2. State of the Art presentation Bettina Nelemans gives a presentation on what the Utrecht Network has achieved in the past few years and what it is hoping to accomplish in the future. The complete text is included in these minutes as an Appendix (Appendix I). discussion After the presentation of the state of the art, a short discussion on the future of the Utrecht Network follows. * Poul Bonde (Aarhus) announces that an invitation will be sent out to all rectors of the Utrecht Network and the Coimbra Group to the 70th anniversary of , to be held on 11 September 1998. This opportunity will be taken to have a rectors' meeting (by then two and a half years after the meeting held in Utrecht on 26 March 1996). His initiative is very much welcomed by the meeting.

3. Budgetary matters The budget is settled. Of the 22,500 Ecus which have been assigned to us by the Commis- sion, about 14,000 Ecus will be needed to cover the annual meeting in Graz (8,000 Ecus travel expenses, 6,000 Ecus living expenses). Remaining funds will go towards Teaching Staff Mobility. The Strasbourg meeting was so cheap (8,950 Ecus) because it was organised by three institutions that all contributed to the meeting.

4. Future plans Utrecht Network statutes and membership fee A preliminary version of the Utrecht Network statutes was distributed before the meeting and has been carefully studied. A discussion evolves. Some of the most noteworthy points are worded below. Members' comments will be processed in the definitive version of the statutes.  The 2000 Ecus fees was already approved by the rectors at the meeting in Utrecht in March 1996. Marc Arnold still believes that it is too high. The fee cannot be covered by Socrates-funds. He avers that we now have 22,500 Ecus subsidy from , which is far less than what we will have when all members pay the fee (about 50,000). Poul Bonde says that the funds that we receive from Brussels on annual basis cannot be used for all activities that we plan to carry out. Also, only a limited number of members are eligible for ICP-funding. He believes that group funding will contribute favourably towards the identity of the Network. Pats de Clopper agrees, but she adds that it is essential to have a clear idea of what the UN budget will be spent on. So far, steering committee and Task Force meetings have never been paid out of UN funds. Manfred Nettekoven states that Bochum is an old and loyal member. 2000 Ecus does not seem to be that much. However, he too underlines the importance of establishing some kind of code on the use of UN money. Filomena Marques stresses the relevance of being member of a big network, and believes that 2000 Ecus is a fair price. According to Bjorn Einar Aas, too, it is important to be a member of an institutional network. There

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. are clear benefits to be gained by being part of a network (having easy access to information on the China programme for example). Costas Kastritis draws our attention to points A to J of the statutes. All these issues confirm the importance and right to exist of the UN. Carlos Seoane takes things even further by saying that we should aim at becoming one of the leading associations in Europe ('fly high'). Jeroen Torenbeek concludes by saying that (being the Technical Assistance Office) has the moral obligation to be frank at all times about the financial situation of the UN. Overhead costs will continue to be paid by Utrecht. Before the next meeting a proposal will be made describing the financial terms of reference of the Network. For the three Strasbourg universities 'pooling' will be a good and economical way of being able to stay a member of the UN. Pooling implies, however, that the three universities need to act as one entity, with one representative and one vote.  The question is raised as to whether the steering committee should be bigger. A disadvantage would be that the group could easily get unworkable. Even with four people it is difficult enough to fix dates for meetings. Now that the Network is growing bigger much of the work will have to be organized by separate Task Forces which all have the duty to report back to the steering committee. It seems that there is broad consensus on this. The steering committee will retain its present size and task-driven groups (i.e. Task Forces) will take up new initiatives. Regional distribution within the steering committee and task forces will remain important, but will be dealt with in a flexible way.  The necessity of having a Technical Assistance Office is clear. There are two TAO models: 1. establish an office in Brussels (or some other central location); 2. continue to have the office in Utrecht. No objections are raised against the second option. Utrecht University will keep on hosting the office.  Unfortunately, as yet it is impossible for the Utrecht Network to be registered under European law, it will therefore be registered as a Dutch association (meaning that is becomes a legal body which has members)  If a member wishes to incorporate a partner university within the near vicinity into the Network (e.g. Bergen and Trondheim, Antwerp and its sister institutions in Antwerp), this should be locally organized. It goes without saying that these so-called satellite constructions should be announced to the Network.  Calendar years are preferred to academic years when it comes to accounting.  It is an issue whether or not the rectors should be mentioned under article 12. It is stressed that they should be regarded as an advisory board. A certain degree of rectors' involvement will undoubtedly strengthen the institutional commitment to the UN.  The question is asked if it is necessary to have elections on the chairmanship of the steering committee, but it turns out to be more practical to leave this open. It is emphasized that there is a difference between a chairman and a president. The Utrecht Network, as opposed to other networks, has no president. The steering committee exercises joint leadership.  So far the UN has never had financial auditors, so this is a new element. Auditors will be appointed at the next annual meeting.

Expansion of the Utrecht Network It is decided that Krakow will be officially admitted to the Utrecht Network as the 26th member.

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. The proposal for limited expansion indicates that next year a Baltic university may join the UN.

China, Canada, Medcampus, Unitwin, Leonardo, Tempus, Peace One-page presentations on these programmes were distributed before the meeting to inform everyone on the latest developments. Leonardo: Beatrice Delpouve will be the Leonardo contact person for the Utrecht Network. Hopefully, the programme will gradually be open to all European countries. So far, however, Leonardo requires a lot of input whereas the output is very small. Also, it is difficult to talk to people in industry. Madrid complains that there are only 50 placements for all the universities in their region.

5. Working groups a. Socrates - Louise Tobin reports We are now in an interim period, awaiting the results of the first institutional applications. The group discussed application procedures set up in the UN international offices and institutions. People were interested to hear how different institutions are planning to allocate OMS and TM funds. Some universities have established a central committee which will decide what money will go where. Everybody agreed that it is essential to have guidelines ready when the results are made known. Some universities have alternative funding available (e.g. regional or national government) in case certain parts of the propo- sal are not approved. Other universities, unfortunately, have very little leeway when it comes to extra funding. b. China - Michael Wintle reports The working group discussed the papers by Jenny Hallen. There is some concern about the little time available between the moment when application forms and guidelines are issued and the application deadline. The group wishes to become an official task force, one of the duties being to support the Lund office. Some sort of constitution should be defined in order for the task force to become a well functioning group. c. Central and Eastern Europe - Job Mulder reports Sofia and Vilnius have both sent students to UN universities, but have received no students back. One of the roles of the Task Force could be to solve the imbalance problem. Job mentions the problem of high living standards in Western Europe. Even when tuition fees are waived, it is still difficult for students to get by. Perhaps business firms can be approached to see if they can donate funds. On an application which was recently sent to the TEMPUS office Job remarks that there is no news yet. Cork and the Utrecht Arts School were included in the proposal. In June there will be a Socrates-information meeting in Brno for all former JEP-partners. d. UN products - Manfred Nettekoven reports WWW - As yet the UN-site does not have its own domain. For reasons of accessibility it might be good to have one. Universities can now update their own material. Because of the Netscape version the site is only operable in Windows 95. As for the contents of the site, all Task Forces should have a page on which they could keep everyone posted on what they are doing. Training products - Since there is so much expertise on Socrates within the Network, why

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. not organise training sessions on the management of the programme? Internationalisation management could also be an option. The exchange of administrative people within the Network should be encouraged. e. Canada - Svend Poller reports A group of Canadian universities (represented by Fraser Taylor of Carleton University) is interested in working with the Utrecht Network, if this co-operation stretches beyond the domain of student mobility. The English speaking universities have good contacts with the French speaking universities, making co-operation also interesting for the French Utrecht Network universities. As for the Canadian side, government funding may be available for setting up and keeping up links. The Canadians are interested in the UN because it offers a large and flexible framework for all sorts of co-operation. It is stressed that, unlike English universities for example, Canadian universities do not need to have an exact balance in the number of students exchanged. All disciplines involving Canada and Europe can be involved, including numerous other disciplines. High living costs may be a problem for Canadian students studying in Europe.

Saturday, 12 April

6. China Jenny Hallen is present to report on the ins and outs of the China programme. She reminds us that there was fierce competition among about 100 institutions and networks as to who could administer the co-operation programme with China. As everyone knows the Utrecht Network (Lund), was finally given the responsibility. The overall aim of the programme is to improve relations between Europe and China. Jenny gives information on the composition of the Academic Committee which is to have its first meeting in Beijng in June. The State Education Commission in China has designated six Chinese universities as European Centres. In May, the first workshop will be held in China. In the autumn of 1997 then, the programmes on postgraduate studentships, postdoc fellowships and internships for officials will start. All universities in Europe and China should have access to funding. It is felt throughout the Network that participation in this prestigious programme is a major contribution to the whole of the Utrecht Network. It is also acknowledged that working with the Chinese may turn out to be very difficult. The Task Force pronounces its wish to have strong UN involvement within the programme and stresses that it is keen on functioning as an advisory group which can assist the Lund office.

7. EU - US Joel Glasman and Peggy Dotson are in Graz to discuss the MAUI-UN exchange programme which has been operative since 1994. Joel thanks the UN for asking him and Peggy to come and attend the meeting as observers. He believes that the annual meeting is good for the continuation of the co-operation and he draws everyone's attention to a meeting which will be held in Kansas City on 15 May. Anyone interested is welcome to come. It is interesting to see how a viable exchange scheme has been created with relatively little

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. difficulty. A brochure is distributed with information on the MAUI-network. The consortium is still growing, allowing for more opportunities and creating a better balance between UN and MAUI. In order to formalize the links between MAUI and the UN, an agreement has been drafted that describes current practice. The agreement is a necessity for some members that would otherwise have difficulty participating. It is wise to sign some kind of document, as long as the contents are flexible. The Utrecht Network people express their thanks to St Louis for being so efficient and flexible. Costas Kastritsis asks Joel whether it is possible to offer free boarding to American students and to get the same in return for their students visiting one of the MAUI schools. However, Joel replies that this is hard to organize within a multilateral framework.

8. Task Forces Now that the Network is becoming bigger and bigger, the Task Forces are acquiring more importance. It is therefore time for formalisation of these groups. At present there are four active task forces. China: Bochum, Aarhus, Lille, Antwerp, Hull, Bologna. Cork may join later as well. Central and Eastern Europe: Leipzig, Brno, Antwerp, Lille, Utrecht. Canada: Leipzig, Antwerp, Aarhus, Bochum, Lille, Strasbourg II, Iceland, Graz. Training products/WWW: Bochum, Lund, Utrecht, Malta, Thessaloniki. It is up to each task force to decide who the chairperson is.

9. Election steering committee Pats de Clopper is stepping down as member of the steering committee. The only candidate to replace her is Beatrice Delpouve (Lille). Beatrice is heartily welcomed by the UN as new member of the committee. Jeroen thanks Pats de Clopper for having been a critical and conscientious member. Beatrice promises to do her utmost and to try and keep the UN as efficient as it is now.

10. Set place and date for meeting next year Hull, Thessaloniki and Malta offer to host the next meeting. Eventually it is decided that Thessaloniki will be the venue of the meeting. It will be held either on 3/4 April or 17/18 April 1998.

11. Any other business * Manfred Nettekoven encourages all partners to exchange information on cultural initiatives taken by students, so that all kinds of performances can be attended and worked on by Utrecht Network students other than the ones of the home university. * Jeroen Torenbeek proposes to organise a Utrecht Network working group or session at the next EAIE-conference in Barcelona. * A newcomers' meeting is still to be held for the newest members of the Network: Ljubljana, Brno, Malta and Krakow. * Maria Krobath addresses some practical points. She hopes we have all liked the meeting

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. and expresses her thanks to the members of the Graz team: Sabine Pendl and Dana Afrashteh.

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.