NOM Minutes March 2002

NOM-MEETING 10/03/02

1. Opening of the meeting 10.15

1.a) Roll Call

Present in the meeting: DSF (Mads Aspelin and Klaus Eriksen), LMS/FHS (Rasmus Jarlov, Kirstine Verstergaard Nielsen), NSU (Monika Hested), SFS (Johan Almqvist, Peter Dahlgren, Kristina Lutz), SHI (Thorarinn Oli Olafson, Haukur Agnarsson), StL (Astrid H. Mjærum, Øyvind Kyrkjebø ) and SYL (Susanna Kärki, Elina Moisio). SAMOK (Jouni Kantola) was present for points 4c, 9, 11 and 12.

Chair: Tommi Himberg, Jyväskylä university, student

1.b) Adoption of the agenda

SYL proposed that the order of the Agenda would be changed so that points 4a, 5, and 10 will be dealt with first.

SFS proposed a new point 4c about the Nordic Rectors Council.

The agenda was adopted with these changes.

2. Minutes of the Oslo NOM-meeting

The minutes of the Oslo NOM-meeting were postponed in Copenhagen NOM-meeting due to the fact the minutes were not available for the meeting. The minutes were still not available. The meeting decided that NSU and StL will draft brief minutes from the Oslo meeting based on the agenda and with the help of those who had been present to the meeting. These minutes will be presented to the Reykjavik meeting for adoption.

3 . Minutes of the Copenhagen NOM-meeting

The minutes of the Copenhagen meeting were accepted without changes.

4. Report and update from the Nordic Council of Ministers

4.a) Report and update from DSF and NSU

A report was handed out. (See appendix 1.)

DSF explained that getting in contact with the NMR had proved difficult. They had, however, managed in the end to have an interesting discussion on what both parties wish to co-operate in, what NOM does and what NMR is doing.

A discussion followed on what could be NOM’s role and input in the co-operation. Possibilities could be e.g. the Bologna process and the Nordic perspective, education and educational co-operation (e.g. with Russia and the Baltic).

NSU presented shortly the Nordplus and the work of the Centre of International Universities, CIU, Norway in IRIS: co-operation between universities, mobility of the students and teachers, quality of the studies and gathering of information: (www.ciu.org /IRIS)

4.b) Discussion on the future NOM-NMR co-operation

NOM today carries no political mandate to represent the NOM NUS’s towards any official bodies. Currently NOM holds a seminar twice a year connected to a meeting and there is a growing amount of contacts in between the members on a daily basis. Whether someone in NOM should also carry a political mandate was discussed. If for example policy papers are going to be worked out in NOM in the future more work and more commitment would be required from the NOM members? Would that also mean the increase in meetings; and then what would be the role of ESIB? What would be the added value to NOM members in relation to the resources, time and effort invested in NOM? Greatest benefit could come from the discourse in between NOM and NMR?

If the above is to be achieved would there be a need to restructure NOM for this purpose? Or at least a change of the area in which NOM is active.

For the next NOM-meeting the members should clarify amongst themselves:

• what they want themselves from the NOM-NMR co-operation – and NCR co-operation
• how much they would be willing to commit themselves
• what in their opinion would be required from NOM: enlarging the structure etc.
• It should also be remembered that this is everybody’s individual responsibility, but within NOM someone should organise the activities, but who?

SFS proposed that in the Stockholm NOM-meeting in Spring 2003 a policy paper and strategic plan on the topic would be made. In the Reykjavik NOM meeting we’ll do a check-up to find out where we are at the moment. It was decided that:

• That each country should prepare a report of their discussions so far
• NMR responsible in NOM shall continue the discussion with NMR
• NUS´s lobby in their own countries: meet relevant bodies and discuss the Nordic dimension with their education ministries, rectors council etc.

4.c) Nordic Rectors Council

Kristina from SFS had met with Lars from SUS. In the discussion a worry of losing the Nordic perspective had emerged. A Nordic view would be needed and the Nordic countries ought to have their input into Bologna-process, ECTS etc. There will be a meeting in Tromsø in August – and possibly a declaration of a kind would be given. The Rectors Council appeared to be very interested in further co-operation. It would also be good to have participants there from the NUS’s.

5. Update from ESIB

1. Update by Stefan

Stefan reported briefly from the working group meetings: mobility, equality, social, and international. Also upcoming events were introduced.

2. Susanna, SDC

Susanna explained briefly what the Strategic Development Committee had been working with since the Coventry Board Meeting. She also reminded that active participation to the discussion from the NUS’s is essential also in the future. There will be a report little prior to the BM – and NUS’s are requested to send their comments to that report.

6. Election of the host organisation for the next NOM

According to the rotation it is SHI’s turn to organise the next NOM. SHI was elected.

The next NOM-meeting will be organised at 30.8 - 1.9.2002 in Reykjavik and hosted by SHI.

The agenda of the NOM-meeting will be based upon the agenda NOM always uses. The provisional agenda will be sent to the NOM-mailing list in good time before the meeting for comments from NOM members.

The Troika was formed from SYL, SHI and SFS.

7. Selection of a theme for the next NOM

SHI presented their proposal: interdisciplinary studies. The theme was adopted.

8. Ratifying the statutory changes of the Copenhagen NOM-meeting

The statutory changes were ratified.

9. Review of memberships: MFS, DKIK, LMS

MFS and DKIK:

Both MFS and DKIK have been inactive in NOM for years: the last NOM-meeting MFS attended was in 1999. Both are located in Denmark. Contact to them has so far failed – it appears that both organisations have a problem of continuity. It was decided that a letter would be sent to the by SHI with the recent information about NOM. After sending the letter has been sent SHI will attempt to call them. It is also important to find out what is their status, how do they function, what are their current issues, and are they interested / aware of NOM at all?

It was decided that they are to keep their membership unless they specifically inform a wish to resign. It was also stressed that it woudl be of a great improtance to really put effort now to try to contact them about NOM.

LMS:

FHS (former LSM) reported the progress, discussion and clarification of the status of FHS. (See appendix 2.)

A discussion followed where it was agreed that at this stage it is not possible/required to determine whether FHS fulfils the membership criteria of NOM as the organisation is in a transition period. In the Reykjavik NOM-meeting FHS will present their further progress and there it will hopefully be possible to determine whether FHS is fulfilling now or able to fulfil in the near future the NOM membership criteria. It should also be decided what, if any, further action needs to be taken in respect to the role and position of FHS in NOM.

10. Student Participation seminar in Norway

Monika from NSU presented the project. They are expecting around 130 participants. Preparations for the seminar are already going on. Administration of the seminar consists of several people from Council of Higher Education, from Universities and some students.

11-12 AOB

None.

12. Closing 14.55 p.m.