d. California- Jiri Fiedor (Czech)

Mr. Fiedor interned primarily at the Department of Corrections, spending three weeks in Sacramento and one week in Los Angeles. His program focused on the state police system. Mr. Fiedor spent some time with each of the five units in the department, he found his time in the classification unit the most interesting. He was surprised at how different the structure of the Department of Corrections was from the structure in Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Fiedor also visited work camps for inmates, various security level facilities, UCLA and Los Angeles City Police Department. He found the California prison system to be very strong-similar to Russia. He found the field work more interesting than interning in the offices, partly because his English was rather limited. He believed some parts of what he learned while interning at the California Department of Corrections can be useful to Czechoslovakia.

Since the next legislative session was not until January 6th., he did not get to meet any Senators or gain a feeling for the structure of the legislature, but it seems like its structure is similar to that of every other state the U.S. He would have appreciated some exposure to a legislator.

e. Illinois - Anna Roschova (Czech) and Miroslav Pollak (Slovak).

Their program was structured together which made it easier for them to discuss their mutual observations and experiences at the end of the day. The people were very friendly and helpful. The program took place primarily in Springfield, with one week in Chicago and one day visiting St. Louis. Their program was very well organized and their schedule was very full, they visited about 124 department and took many special trips. Among other things, they visited farms, special institutes for mental health, an alcoholic treatment center, a prison, and various transportation facilities. Overall, felt that they had too many executive branch experiences and not enough legislative exposure.

In Chicago, got to see how large city government worked. Also visited Motorola company in Chicago. They really enjoyed their visit to Motorola and would have liked to visited more privately owned companies. Even during their short visit to Motorola, they noticed the different work habits between government workers an workers in private industry. At Motorola they could see how efficiently people worked and how much more motivated they were.

They felt the biggest problem with program was the absence of the private sector. They felt there was too much government and not enough exposure to how the rest of the American public works.

Mrs. Roschova commented that she felt that 50 % of the time in the states was useless since it was not focused on their individual interests. She, for example, did not get to meet with a judge or have time to study the justice system. She would have liked to focus more on the relationships and differences between the state and the federal system of government.

Vladimir Cech (Czech) and Anton Hrnko (Slovak).

Mr. Cech and Mr. Hrnko's programs were individually structured. They both agreed this was very goo since they were able to ... it forced them to speak only English and they had no opportunity to speak any Czech or Slovak. They felt gaining this skill was one of the most important parts of the program both of them in the long team. Also, by having separate programs, Mr. Cech and Mr. Hrnko were able to better address their individual needs when visiting the different departments.

Their state schedule was fairly flexible. Unfortunately, they ..., but the did speak with some city government officials which was helpful. They were upset that they only got to meet with the Deputy mayor of Indianapolis.

Mr. Cech's first week was spent with the Agriculture Committee. He arranged his schedule based on his interests. He met with many different people and visited a farm. He felt ... as he has little experience in agricultural issues. The second week focused on education, which is one of his primary interests. He learned about the state education system and all the different types of schools, he visited a child care center, a private school, a public school and colleges. The third week he visited the State Police Department and got to visit a crime lab. He also visited a hospital to learn about state health care issues. He also attended two campaign meetings for the election of the Mayor of Indianapolis which were interesting. The last week focused on culture and he spent a week at the Indiana Art Commission. On his own initiative, he spent a weekend in Chicago where he went to a few theaters.

Mr. Hrnko stressed that his host family experience was very important to him. He thinks this is one of the most important aspects of the program since it allowed him to experience American life from the inside. It is his view that it is important that all participants continue to be placed with host families. The support a host family structure provides is crucial to the success of the program. The host family experience was very special to him and really appreciate the family's kindness to him.

Mr. Hrnko spent the first week was in the Department of Administration and learned how the state bureaucrarcy functioned. Although he realized it was important to learn, he sometimes was bored. The second week he spent at the Department of Commerce. Mr. Hrnko was impressed with how state level support can encourage local economic development. He travelled throughout the state an met with people in various Chambers of Commerce. Mr. Hrnko felt the Chamber of Commerce "idea" was a very good one and one which he will introduce into Slovakia. He also began to understand the many tensions between the problems of the state, the counties, and their relationship to one another, let alone their relationship to the federal government. In Indiana, Mr. Hrnko found these three sectors (county/state/federal) were very divided and that everybody had very different interests. He also visited an Indiana Art Commission, which he enjoyed very much. He feels he made a valuable connection between Indians and the Slovak Art Commission. the fourth week was spent at the Indiana Agriculture Commission. There was limited interest on both sides, and unlike Mr. Cech, Mr. Hrnko did not take iniative to shape his program there.

E. Evaluation Seminar New York

After their state internships and before departing from the United States, the young Czech and Slovak legislators returned to New York for an evaluation seminar with CDS staff to discuss their state internships. All felt the state internships were the most valuable part of the program. It was an example of "practice is better than theory." Their state-by-state evaluation was outlined under the previous section.

G. Follow-up Seminars in Prague and Bratislava

As part of the requirement for participation in the Democracy Training Program, the participants were requested to brief their colleagues in the Czech and Slovak national councils on the insights they gained during their stay in the United States that could be applied to improve current legislative and administrative systems in Czechoslovakia. The participants were also required to submit a three to five page written report in English summarizing their experience and presenting a working plan for putting their new knowledge into action in their legislative capacities.

To ensure the participants had fulfilled these responsibilities and to assess the preliminary impact of the Democracy Training Program in Czechoslovakia, Karen Kalina and Mary Albon travelled to Prague and Bratislava for one-day evaluation meetings. In addition to meeting with the legislators from both councils who participated in the Democracy Training Program, Mr. Kalina and Ms. Albon met with Dagmar Buresova, president of the Czech National -council, and Frantisek Miklosko, president of the Slovak National Council, and with staff people and other interested legislators. The meetings at the Czech National Council and at the Slovak National Council were very productive.

Program impact. The participants gave numerous examples of how their experience in the United States had influence their current work in Czechoslovakia. Examples included some very concrete places of legislation (such as on taxation) and on ways of thinking about and approaching things (such as how best to approach the tourism industry).

At the time of the follow-up seminar, the legislators ha only been back for six weeks and were under pressure not only to catch up after their absence but also to help conclude the legislative session prior to Christmas break. They had had no time to set up special meetings focused on discussing their time in the United States. They had, however, briefed their respective committees. Many of the legislators had also spoken on radio and television, and most had been interviewed by regional newspapers regarding their experiences in the U.S. The Czech legislators planned to set up a breakfast club that would meet once a month where one of them would speak about his/her experience to their colleagues.

The Czech and Slovak legislators had also established various professional relationships with people they met in the U.S. and they are setting up exchange programs (sister cities, elementary school videotape exchanges, other educational exchanges). A Slovak legislator was very involved with coordinating a visit to Slovakia by Texas business man in the chemical industry he had met and the possibility of future cooperation.

Program Evaluation. All the participating legislators and other Czech and Slovak government officials were keen for the program to be repeated. They pointed out that, to date, the United States had been the only country to support any type of long-term educational exchange for Czech and Slovak legislators at the republic level. Although the American legislative system differs from the parliamentary system used in Czechoslovakia, these program had been the only one to expose the legislators to any other functioning democratic governmental system other than their own. The impact of this cannot be overestimated.

There was general agreement that English language capabilities were crucial for a thoroughly successful and profitable experience, and there was interest in having English preparation in advance within the national councils future program. There was also fairly general agreement that the ten-week program was too long, and that maybe 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 seemed to see it as less important than the practical training.

Conclusion

The Democracy training Program successfully fulfilled the objectives of the USIA's Central European Educational Exchange and Training Program in providing the opportunity for the participating Czech and Slovak legislators to gain first-hand experience in applying the theories and concepts of democracy. Through their internships in the state legislatures and/or various state departments, the participants' observation of and involvement in the administrative and legislative functions of state government provided them with valuable insights that affect their decision making in Czechoslovakia today.

We appreciate the USIA's funding of this worthwhile program, which left an impact on all those involved. For Massachusetts, the Czech and Slovak legislators were the first international interns at the state house. For Texas, which has a large number of descendants from Czech and Slovak emigres, important economic ties were made which promise greater future cooperation. in Georgia, the mutual information shared about the educational systems and individual school information exchanges will have a broadening impact on many children.

Související odkazy



Přihlásit/registrovat se do ISP