CDS International, Inc.
330 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10001
(212) 760-1400
Telefax: (212) 268-1288
Telex: 49000 8173 CDS UI
Date: 1 APRIL 1992
From: KAREN KALINA
To: AMBASSADOR RITA KLIMOVA
Number of Pages: 12 including Cover Sheet
Company: EMBASSY OF THE CZECH AND SLOVAK FEDERAL
REPUBLIC
AS PER OUR PHONE CONVERSATION YESTERDAY, ATTACHED
IS:
1) A TWO-PAGE INTERNAL MEMO FROM MARY ALBON,
THE CHARTER 77 FOUNDATION - NEW YORK, REGARDING OUR DECEMBER TRIP
TO THE CZECH AND SLOVAK NATIONAL COUNCILS
AND
2) A NINE-PAGE DRAFT OF THE DEMOCRACY
TRAINING PROGRAM FINAL REPORT TO THE USIA.
THE REPORT IS STILL BEING EDITED, BUT IT IS
BASICALLY COMPLETE.
LET ME KNOW IF I MAY BE OF ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE.
GOOD LUCK.
SINCERELY YOURS,
To: Wendy, Helena, Eric, Jana, Trish, Pat,
Rachel
From: Mary
Date: December 18, 1991
Re: CSFR Trip Report
Democracy Training Program Meetings
On the whole, both the meetings at the Czech
National council and at the Slovak National council went well.
In addition to meeting with the legislators from both councils
who participated in the DTP, Karen Kalina and I also met with
Dagmar Burešová, president of the CNC, and František
Mikloško, president of the SNC, and with a few staff people
and other interested legislators.
Program Impact. The
participants gave us numerous examples of how their experience
in the United States has influenced their work here--including
on very concrete pieces of legislation (such as on taxation) and
on ways of thinking about and approaching things (such as in what
light to view tourism). They also told us about all sorts of ongoing
relationships they have established and exchange programs they
are setting up (sister cities, elementary schools videotape exchanges,
other educational exchanges, etc.). Mikloško also told us
in private that he thought Ftacnik--the communist--has become
less of a communist....
Program future. Everyone
was keen for the program to be repeated. There was general agreement
that English capabilities were crucial for a thoroughly successful
and profitable experience, and there was interest in having English
preparation in advance within the national councils. There was
also fairly general agreement that the program was too long, that
a six-week program of substantive education and practical job-shadowing
internships would be better. There were mixed reactions to the
Washington trip, though most seamed to see it as less important
than the practical training. On the whole, the legislators agreed
with our proposed changes if the program is offered in the future.
In terms of a future program, because there
will be elections in June 1992, both councils thought that beginning
the program in October would be best--allowing sufficient time
for a coherent selection process, allowing time for English study,
etc. We did make it clear that everything depends on obtaining
funding.
Selection Process.
The selection process did elicit some discussion. We proposed
a joint process, involving representatives from Charter 77, CDS
and the respective national council. The Slovaks seemed to think
this would be fine (but then they managed to send a politically
balanced delegation which they themselves selected), but the Czechs
feared that involving anyone from the CNC would inevitably lead
to political manipulation. We then suggested that one or more
of the 1991 participants might participate in the process in at
least an advisory capacity, regardless of whether s/he will be
reelected. We also might involve a representative from students
for Czecho-Slovakia (see below regarding potentially involving
them in the DTP process).
Interpolation on Rita Klimová presented
in the Czech National Council. When
I raised the issue, calling it irresponsible and based on misinformation
and emphasizing that they were not entitled to speak for the whole
Czech and Slovak emigré community in the United States
and Canada, as well as for Americans in general, their response
was, "You are Americans, you can't understand." Later,
we spoke in private with the most perceptive and thoughtful of
the Czech participants, but I'm not sure that it really sunk in.
In accordance with the grant agreement IA-PSJL-G1190342
between the government of the United States of America and CDS
International, Inc. this is a final narrative report of The
Democracy Training Program for Young Czech and Slovak Legislators
presented in chronological order.
I. Dates of Grant
A. Date Revision.
Originally, the grant was approved from September 1, 1991 through
August 31, 1992. As an earlier arrival was necessary for the Czech
and Slovak Deputies due to the scheduling of their legislative
session, a grant revision was proposed and accepted so that the
program dates span from August 1, 1991 through to 31 August 1992.
B. Final Dates.
Eleven legislators (six Czechs and five Slovaks) arrived in the
United States on August 15, 1991. The Slovaks departed on October
21st and the Czechs departed on October 22nd. On December 4th,
two staff members, Karen Kalina and Mary Albon, departed for one-day
evaluation seminars in Prague and Bratislava. They concluded their
meetings with the legislators an returned to the U.S. on December
10th.
II. Participant Selection
A. Selection Criteria. The requirements for participant selection were that the nominee
1) be a current member of the Czech or Slovak National Council
2) be approximately between the ages of 15-40
3) have had limited or no chance to travel abroad and
4) due to his/her own limited English language
ability. since the availability of English training in Czechoslovakia
at any level was very restricted until only recently.
B. Czech Participants
The Czech National Council through its International
Committee, provided general background information on interested
candidates to CDS international. Ms. Kalina and Ms. Kalina and
Ms. Albon chose the Czech participants based on the above outlined
criteria and talking into consideration the nominee's placement
potential.
The final candidates, with no alternates, were:
1) Mr. Libor NOVAK, age: 33, Committee: Trade & Tourism
2) Mr. Vladimír BUDINSKY, age: 32, Committee: National Economy
3) Mrs. Anna ROSCHOVA, age: 40, Committee: Legal and Constitutional
4) Mrs. Lenka SEPSOVA, age: 36, Committee: Social & Health Policies
5) Mr. Jiri FIEDOR, age: 25, Committee: Petitions, Legal Protection and Security
6) Mr. Vladimir CECH, age: 40, Committee: Science,
Education & Culture
The Czech participants were mailed IAP-68 forms
issued by CDS international in order to secure J-1 visas designated
as international Visitors.
B. Slovak Participants
The Slovak National Council chose their own
participants from an internal committee overseen by the President
of the Slovak National Council. CDS international retained the
right to approve or disapprove their choices. The nominees presented
were:
1) Mr. Martin KRAJCOVIC, age: 37, Committee: Foreign Affairs
2) Mr. Miroslav POLLAK, age: 34, Committee: Trade and Services
3) Mr. Milan FTACNIK, age: 35, Committee: Education, Science, Culture and Sport.
4) Mr. Anton HRNKO, age: 36, Committee: Government Legislation and Regional Autonomy.
5) Mr. Alfonz ZORICAK, age: 41, Committee: Education, Science, Culture and Sport.
6) Mr. Laszlo NAGY, age: 43, Committee: Nations,
Ethnic Groups and Human Flights, also Vice Chairman of Council
The Slovak participants were mailed IAP-66
forms issued by CDS international in order to secure J-1 visas
designated as international Visitors.
However, only five Slovak participants arrived
at Kennedy airport on 15 August. At the last minute, Mr. Nagy
had decided not to come due to the length of the program and his
responsibilities as Vice Chairman of the Council. Because of the
short notice, the Slovak National Council did not have time to
substitute anyone else. Therefore, there were only five participants
represented from Slovakia.
III. Program Execution in the United States
A. Orientation
After the Czech and Slovak legislators arrived
in New York, the next morning there was an orientation meeting.
The meeting was conducted in English with simultaneous translation
into Czech. After an introduction to the program administrators,
the legislators responsibilities to the program were outlined,
their health insurance was explained, and information about their
English language classes, host families, general U.S. program
and maps of the area were distributed. They received their per
diem for New York and in informal disoussion, basic information
about life in America.
B. English Language Training
a. English Classes.
For the next four weeks, the participants studied English at the
Language Institute For English (L.I.F.E.), located at Fairieigh
Dickinson University in Rutherford, New Jersey. On the first day
of classes, all participants were tested and placed at their appropriate
language levels. The course structure was: levels 1-3 beginner,
levels 4-6 intermediate, levels 7-9 advanced, and levels 10-12
pre-university. The participants tested such that two were placed
in beginner levels, five were placed into advanced levels.
Most ranked in the middle of their class and
received final grades of A's or B's. Not surprisingly, those who
were absent most did the most poorly. Unfortunately, one participant,
Mr. Zoriack seemed to put only minimal effort into learning the
language an, since he started at the beginner level, did not come
away knowing much more English after four weeks than when he arrived.
Since he was a last minute substitute from the Slovaks, this also
might have been a reason for his limited enthusiasm. In contrast
to Mr. Zoricak's disappointing performance, however, another Slovak,
Mr. Ftacnik wrote an Indepth 44-page research paper for his English
class. "The Role of the States in American Federal System."
The school was very impressed with the group
overall and commended all the participants on their significant
efforts and worthy progress. The older age of the Czech and Slovak
participants, in contrast to the majority of pr-college age students
at L.I.F.E., made the legislators feel somewhat isolated. The
teachers, however, fait the Czech and Slovak legislators interacted
well with the other students during class.
b. Host Families. The
host families had been selected by the Language Institute For
English (L.I.F.E.). Each family hosted two L.I.F.E. students in
their home. The Czechs and Slovaks were placed with students from
different countries so as to insure maximum exposure to spoken
English. All participants felt their host family experiences were
very valuable and a good way to start the program.
Finance Problems.
A lack of sufficient funds to support the legislator's daily costs
proved to be a significant problem.
The school has suggested a stipend of $200
per person to cover expenses, primarily lunch and incidentals,
for the four week period. most other students at L.I.F.E. had
come with their own significant financial resources. The Czechs
and Slovaks felt ashamed of their limited funds and their "poverty."
As one of the Czech legislators exclaimed, "Japanese student
bought a car when he arrived, and I don't even have enough money
for a sandwich!"
Also, there was a delay in giving the participants
their stipends since CDS was still waiting for final USIA grant
approval. This led to considerable resentment and general distrust
on the part of the participants toward the program staff, which
persisted for the rest of the program and was an unfortunate consequence
of the delay in USIA approval. Before the legislators' departure,
a fellow Czech legislator who had been to the U.S. on a USIA-sponsored
study tour incorrectly assured the participants that they would
be receiving the official USIA daily allowance rate (approximately
$100/day). This led the legislators to have....The group never
got over these expectations, although the difference in funding
situations had been explained to them numerous times.
d. Social Opportunities. Besides
their English studies and host family experiences, the participants
were exposed to many aspects of American culture and life. The
proximity of the school to New York City meant that individually
the participants made many trips into the city to explore all
that interested them. A reception was held at the Czech and Slovak
Mission to the United Nations in their honor as well as a more
intimate cocktail party hosted by Ambassador William Luers, former
U.S. Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, and his family at their home.
the Borough of Rutherford invited the participants to a town council
meeting, to meet the mayor and to tour the Rutherford police station,
the participants were even made honorary citizens of the Borough
of Rutherford. Also, an English teacher at the school invited
a few of them to her vacation home in upstate New York to enjoy
a weekend of barbecue and American relaxation. The Slovak participants
soon discovered the Slovak immigrant community of New York and
were taken in by them. The Slovak League of America hosted a reception
for the Slovak deputies on 7 September at the Marriott in Saddie
Brook, New Jersey, and also arranged for them to be taken down
to Atlantic City for the day.
C. Weeklong Study Tour in Washington
After completing the English course, the Czech
and Slovak legislators spent a week in Washington, D.C., accompanied
by two CDS international staff members. The objective of the visit
to Washington was to expose the legislators to how the U.S. federal
government functions and how the three branches of government-executive,
legislative and judicial-interact. To this end, the legislators
visited Congress, the Supreme Count and key government officials,
policy makers and leading American professionals.
Although initially proposed to visit Annapolis,
Maryland, for a day to get an overview as a group of how the State
capitol functions, the Maryland officials contacted could only
promise to arrange a general tour of the state house. Since we
felt more could be gained by spending an additional day in Washington,
visiting Maryland was omitted from the final schedule.
Unfortunately, although many Senators and Congressmen
were contacted, none were able to schedule meetings directly with
the group. This upset the legislators an they considered.
In meeting with staff members of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the joint Congressional Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Congressional Research
Service and the Department of Commerce, the young legislators
gained a greater understanding of U.S. policy toward Czechoslovakia.
The legislators also had an opportunity to
meet informally with former Congressman Charles Vanik, who told
them of his experience in both local government and Congress.
One morning was spent at a law firm meeting with Lioyd Cutler,
former counsel to President Jimmy Carter and co-chairman of the
Charter 77 Foundation - New York's CSFR Constitutional Advisory
Group, for a discussion on the future of federalism in Czechoslovakia.
Representatives of the American Federation of Labor and Congress
of industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) explained the role of trade
unions in the United States to members of the group.
The legislators also spent a morning at the
USIA where they were greeted by Henry Catto, Director, and met
with representatives of USIA's office of Citizens Exchange and
its Office of East European initiatives. They were received and
entertained by Ambassador Rita Klimova and her staff at the Czechoslovak
embassy, and by members of the American Czechoslovak departments
of both the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Four of ghe
legislators participated in a roundtable discussion on the Czechoslovak
political scene was broadcast on Radio Free Europe in Czechoslovakia.
Some of the legislators felt that so many meetings
in Washington was unnecessary. Many did not get much out of the
meetings. Overall, the group liked the casual parties the best
where they could network. Smaller casual get togethers were the
most interesting since the legislators felt less embarrassed abut
their limited language skills and were able to speak individually
with people who were specifically interested in them.
At the end of the official visits, the legislators
were given a free day in Washington. Many visited the local city
tourist attractions, primarily the museums, and some even traveled
to the Maryland coast for a crab dinner which was hosted by some
Czech immigrants. The next day, all participants were responsible
for getting themselves to the airport to depart for their host
states. The two legislators who were to be sent to Massachusetts
spent an additional day with host families in Washington, because
their host families in Massachusetts could not accept them earlier.
D. State internships
After Washington, the 11 Czech and Slovak legislators
departed for individualized "job shadowing" programs
in the state legislatures of California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Massachusetts and Texas. One Czech and one Slovak were sent to
each state, except for California where only one Czech was sent.
The duration of the internships at the states was four weeks.
The participants were met at the airports in
the states by either a CDS representative or by their host family.
all the participants, except those in Texas who shared a furnished
apartment within walking distance of the state capital building,
were housed with host families. This was done so that the legislators
would have maximum exposure to American home life, their local
communities and culture, as well as be able to continue to improve
their English language skills.
In the majority of states each participant
was under the supervision of the specific department or agency
that related to his or her area of legislative interest. The young
Czech and Slovak legislators had the opportunity to observe on
an extended basis the daily operations of a state legislature
and its administrative offices. During their internships, the
legislators visited various departments, attended committee meetings
and public hearings, accompanied US state legislators to meetings
with their constituents, met with various grassroot organizations,
and exchanged ideas and information on issues of mutual concern
with their U.S. counterparts.
After the legislators concluded their internships.
Program Evaluation Forms were sent to the legislators' state supervisors
and host families. The state forms asked the supervisors to evaluate
the participants' involvement, attach schedules of appointments
the state might have arranged, space for them to offer suggestions
for improving the program and their state would be willing to
participate again next year if the program is repeated.
Unfortunately, perhaps because of the Czech
and Slovak legislator's and tentative understanding of U.S. culture,
there were between the state organizers and the Czech and Slovak
legislators. Not surprisingly, those with the best English language
skills got the most out their experiences and any misunderstandings
were easily resolved.
There was feedback from the states that sometimes
Granted, many states were kind enough to provide the legislators
with additional opportunities for weekend activities and on-site
visits away from the state house, but these opportunities were
in addition to the main focus of program-to learn how various
state departments and legislatures actually work. Ina couple of
the states, however, some of the Czech and Slovak legislators
decided to alter their scheduled appointments, for example not
showing up to appointments, without properly notifying their state
supervisors. The legislators seemed (the governor, local mayors,
other state legislators, company presidents, etc.). It seemed
to some of the state coordinators that.... This attitude was difficult
to handle, since it did not show much flexibility or understanding
on the legislators' part. the state coordinators did not feel
the efforts they had made on the legislator's behalf were appreciated,
but rather they were taken for granted since the....
It must be noted, however, that often the states
were not much better. for example, departments in Indiana and
Georgia promised to host legislators and then, at the last minute,
rescinded their offer leaving the legislators somewhat stranded.
The states which agreed to participate in the
Democracy Training Program again were Massachusetts, Texas, Georgia,
and California. The...and Illinois.
A summary of the participants impressions,
as presented orally during the New York evaluation seminar, and
the state feedback is provided below.
a. Texas - Vladimir Budinsky (Czech) and Alfonz
Zoricak (Slovak).
Since Mr. Zoricak spoke very little English,
Mr. Budinsky had to act as an interpreter for him during the whole
time they were in Austin. This was a problem, since Mr. Budinsky's
English was also somewhat limited. Luckily, Mr. Zoricak and Mr.
Budinsky worked well as a team. They both commented that Texans
speak very fast and their accents are very difficult to understand.
They liked the liked that a Czech and a Slovak were sent to each
state since it represented Czechoslovakia fairly.
Unlike the legislators in other states, Mr.
Zoricak and Mr. Budinsky did not live with a host family, but
shared a fully furnished apartment within walking distance of
the state capital. Nonetheless, they were very socially active.
The Czech and Slovak emigre community in Austin adopted them full-heartedly
and they were taken on weekend trips to Dallas, Houston, Gallveston
and western Texas, near the Mexican border. They were treated
to Texas barbecue dinners and visited many ranches.
Their schedule at the state house and visiting
various departments was incredibly full. They did not have the
opportunity to see the legislature in session, since the legislature
sits only for 140 days every two years. Therefore, their program
was more concerned with the executive branch. They got to see
many government offices and received lots of materials. Mr. Zoricak
and Mr. Budinsky thought that some key areas they visited were
the Controllers office (where they determined that the sales tax
system was very complicated and probably too complicated to implement
in Czechoslovakia, but the property tax system was very well designed),
the Justice Department (where they learned how independent the
Texas state constitution is), local schools, the University of
Texas and a coal power station. They also felt key business links
could be made between the state and Czechoslovakia.
b. Georgia - Libor Novak (Czech) and Milan
Ftacnik (Slovak).
Mr. Novak and Mr. Ftacnik had individual schedules
in Georgia. Both felt this was beneficial because they were forced
to speak English, an important part of the program.
Mr. Novak was assigned to the Department of
Tourism. His schedule was very open, which gave him much flexibility
to focus on his own specific interests. After Mr. Novak arrived,
the Department of Tourism discussed with him which areas he might
be interested in and, after a few days, he had arranged his own
schedule. Mr. Novak's program focused on the development of the
tourism industry in Georgia. He visited various agencies (governmental
and non-governmental), studied the impact of various legislation
on people and spoke with local businessmen. Mr. Novak commented
that all the people associated with his program were very helpful,
friendly and glad to advise him of additional contacts.
Mr. Ftacnik interned at the Georgia Department
of Education. Initially, the Department had proposed a set schedule
which demanded discipline by both parties involved. Happily, Mr.
Ftacnik felt free to suggest changes in the schedule. Mr. Ftacnik
and his supervisors worked well together. The focus of the program
was on the executive side. Although he would have rather been
working under one legislator, he understood that it would be difficult
to arrange for such a direct internship since all the legislators
were preparing for upcoming session. Mr. Ftacnik was able to pursue
his interests and spend time reading various documents on education,
constitutional government, and legislative procedures. He gained
a lot of valuable information that otherwise would have never
been available.
Both Mr. Novak and Mr. Ftacnik disappointed
that there was no session meeting of the Georgia General Assembly.
It was difficult for them to meet a legislator. However, they
weren't that disappointed because those in the government whom
they did meet were happy to speak with them and provide valuable
information about the legislature and how it worked. They understood
the legislature's structure within a matter of a few days. It
seemed that the structure of the legislature and offices made
the system very efficient.
c. Massachusetts - Lenka Sepsova (Czech) and
Martin Krajcovic (Slovak).
The legislators' program was fully organized
by the Massachusetts Senate Legislative Education Office and Mrs.
Sepsova and Mr. Krajcovic were very happily with their experience
in Boston. When they arrived, all the state staff people knew
who they were and why they were there, they felt very welcome.
The Massachusetts legislature was in session:
both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Mrs. Sepsova
and Mr. Krajcovic worked together for two different Senators for
two weeks each. Both Senators went out of their way to address
the legislator's interests and questions. Mrs. Sepsova and Mr.
Krajcovic saw many hearings and would attend session from 11 a.
m. to 4 p. m. the state organizers were very open to any changes
in the schedule that either of them wanted to make, so there were
no problems. Their primary contact was with the executive branch.
Mrs. Sepsova and Mr. Krajcovic also pursued
other professional contacts that they will strengthen for the
future. for example, the legislators spoke at Harvard about the
structure of the new Czechoslovak government and the role of the
republics. Mrs. Sepsova visited some hospitals and spoke with
officials involved in health care issues. They also were very
social and investigated much of Boston's cultural scene. They
were treated to nightclubs, movies, a whale watch, and political
fund-raising lunches and dinners.