15th governing board meeting european studies institute Moscow, 26 April 2012 (стр. 3 )

Mr. Oleg BARABANOV

I would like to say a couple of words to follow up on what Tamara has said about new projects, including sending students to other summer schools, besides the three basic trips that we are already doing. Two GB members, Professor Berg from Tartu and Professor Triantaphyllou, who now represents the Kadir Has University in Istanbul, have suggested that we should send a small group of students and members of the faculty to their summer schools, to Tartu and Istanbul respectively. And parity funding has been offered for these small groups, with a considerable share of the money to be provided by the Universities in Tartu and Istanbul. If the Governing Board gives the "go ahead" to the redistribution of money, including summer schools, I would like you to take into account these two specific schools, because they are planned for the end of June and July, so, we do not have much time, and financial and administrative decisions must be taken without delay.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

I don’t think that we have any objections, the proposals are very reasonable. We can support them.

Mrs. Tamara SHASHIKHINA

There are no problems or difficulties in redistributing the money, because it's all in the same item under the same heading.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Shall we move along to the next item?

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

To the issue of the Director?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Dear colleagues, Mr. Hafner would like to take the floor.

Mr. Gerhard HAFNER

I would like to take the floor concerning the last issue. As I understand, the re-distribution is only confined to the same chapter. And it remains so. Is this correct?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Yes, that's right. Thank you.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

Dear colleagues, at the previous meeting we spoke about the need to take decisions on the operational governance of our Institute because Prof. Entin in the autumn will be completing his second three-year term. Since the Statute of the ESI means that he cannot seek a third consecutive term, of course, he, as one of the founders of the ESI, will continue cooperating with the European Studies Institute wherever he works, be engaged here in a different capacity, as a Professor, an expert in European law. But we have to take a decision on his successor. I examined very attentively the Statute of the ESI we adopted in 2006 and the duties of the Director of the Institute. And we also have a draft document which, as I understand, has been submitted by the members of the EU Delegation, which contains the job description of the Director of the Institute, even though we also have a job description in our joint document, the Statute of the ESI. I don’t think that we have to discuss the issue again because the job description given by the European Delegation can mean that something will have to be changed in the Statute. But the draft of the EU Delegation, actually, specifies the basic requirements for a candidate for the Director's post: the person should have a scientific degree, speak foreign languages, preferably not only English; he or she should be competent, have expertise in the field, have computer skills, negotiating skills, administration skills and he/she should have at least ten years of experience in the sphere of education, and the study and teaching of European issues, issues of European integration; and at least five years' experience in the management of projects or structures. And, of course, he/she should be a Russian citizen. These are the requirements that are contained in the draft prepared by the Delegation but, once again, I would like to stress that the responsibilities and powers of the Director are contained in article 4 of the Statute of the ESI and there are some discrepancies between the Delegation-prepared draft in English and what we already have in the Statute. So, a question arises whether we should amend the Statute if we agree to adopt the draft of the Delegation.

As for the requirements that a new Director is to meet, I think, they are all reasonable: of course, it should be a scholar with a scientific degree either in economics, or political science or law and, certainly, the person should have a good command of English and preferably some other European language, and also have a background of teaching on European issues and experience of managing such structures. So what should we do, Mr. Chairman? Shall we ask our colleagues for advice? Maybe, without discussing the powers and the zone of responsibility of the Director, we should now concentrate on the modalities of considering the candidates for this post?

We should also remember that we elect a Director for three years, but formally, our project expires in 2013. Now we are in 2012 and, I understand, some time in October Mark Entin will be leaving the post, his term is expiring. Without knowing what the situation will be in the future, we cannot undertake certain obligations if our own future is uncertain now, and we cannot even guarantee the pay. We are now outside the Russian legal field: after the contract expires, we'll be entering the Russian legislative *****ssian system of payment and rates are different, they are lower, even for the Director, as compared to similar projects. It is clear that we must appoint a Director and it is clear that Professor Entin has informed us of his decision, and, of course, the Statute does not allow him to seek a third term. We should realize that today we cannot appoint a person to this post for three years, and even if we do, we should make a reservation that for a year and a half the person will be working under one set of terms, and after this period expires, the conditions of his employment may change. So, the issue is rather complicated.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Yes, you are welcome, Mr. Webb, please.

Mr. Michael WEBB

Thank you, Mr. Prikhodko. I would like just to clarify the status of the document which we provided. We were asked by Professor Entin to draw up a job profile to assist in the recruitment procedure for the nomination of the successor to Prof. Entin. It was certainly not our intention that we should change the Statute in any way, but rather, the document should be used as a tool, as a working tool for whichever committee or whichever group chooses the next Director.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

Thank and large, this is the way we perceived it. But I had some doubts, nevertheless.

Mr. Michael WEBB

Well, just to make this issue clear, Rector Torkunov was referring to several amendments in the text, if you compare them. The main ones concern the procedure to be followed with regard to appointing Director, Deputy Directors and Chairs of the Institute. Presently, it seems completely logical that the final decision with regard to appointments lies here, in the Governing Board. To that extent, I interpret the proposal put forward by the EU Delegation as an improvement. I mean, it's not in order to impose ourselves, - no. It's up to the management to confirm the candidates, and it's up to the Governing Board to take a decision. But with regard to Director, Deputy Directors and Chairs, it is completely logical that this Governing Board should take the final decision. You mentioned the differences. This one is a very important element. I would be really happy if we could follow this EU scheme, it would be very good. But, of course, we shouldn't forget about a very difficult task, to find a good successor with such a short deadline.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

Well, as Mr. Webb has said, the document can serve as a working document. Indeed, it was drawn up at the request of Prof. Entin. There is nothing that prevents me from accepting it. We shall not consider it as an addendum to our Statute, we shall simply consider it as a working document adopted by the Governing Board. I think it is a good document. But I think what is important is that we take a definite decision about what the procedure of confirming a candidate will be. If we proceed from the fact that a candidate will be confirmed by the Governing Board, - and we are clearly obliged to do it while the contract continues - we must make it clear who will interview the person at the selection stage and prepare recommendations for the Governing Board to ensure that the best decision is taken - this is point 1. And point 2 is that we have very little time left. Now it's April, and the procedure should be completed by October, the decision will have to be made at the next meeting of the GB. We should probably say in advance that at this stage we will be appointing the Director not for three years but until the contract expires, and if the project continues, then the person will be entitled to have his contract extended to include 2014. Then his contract will cover 2012, 2013 and part of 2014. This is a longer period. You should realize that the person who will agree to accept this position, should know his prospects, know what the future holds for him.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

You are welcome.

Mr. Gerhard Hafner (?):

As to your first question, I guess that the Executive Committee can be the body that interviews candidates and also prepares a kind of report for the GB that will enable the Governing Board to make a decision.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Yes, I think that would be correct. Dear colleagues, now in accordance with the tradition of frank and interested discussion of all issues, we ourselves should answer one question. There are two options. Option one: we elect a Director for a year and a half, actually, because we should not go into the period when it is to be regulated by the Russian legislation, because [after the contract expires] election of all officials is to be regulated by the Russian legislation. So, we would be able to elect the Director only for the duration of the contract, until it expires. And, as Prof. Torkunov says, we may seek to prolong the joint funding and, respectively, extend the contract of the new Director. These may be our wishes, but so far we don’t have any legal guarantees of that. So, the first option is that together with the Executive Committee we select a person for a year and a half.

Option two: there can be a temporary measure: we could appoint an Acting Director until the contract expires. I don’t know to what extent this would be acceptable to our colleagues from the European Union, because the person will have financial responsibilities, he/she will have to work on the budget, the syllabus, the curriculum. I would like to hear what the attitude of our European colleagues to the second option is. Would it be acceptable if we don’t hold an election as such, but appoint somebody as a technical, acting Director? I don’t know to what extent this would be acceptable to you. I would like your opinion, colleagues. What would you think of these two possibilities? You are welcome, Mr. Triantaphyllou.

Mr. Dimitrios TRIANTAPHYLLOU

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that in either case, whether it's Director or Acting Director, it all depends on the Statute, whether it will allow us to do it or if it will have to be changed. My first instinct would be that in either case, we have to appoint someone who knows this house well, who knows the work of the Institute, - this is my first reaction. This should be someone who is closely, intimately linked with the Institute in one way or another. We can't have someone from the outside who will come in here for one and a half years, and tries to learn everything, - to me, it doesn't make sense. Regarding your point about an "Acting Director," it is up to the lawyers in the room to tell us whether it's possible or how we do this. We are still talking about a Statute, which limits us to a three-year appointment. We'll still have to find a way around it. Thank you.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

You are welcome, Mr. Hafner.

Mr. Gerhard HAFNER

As to the legal aspects, it seems to me that it amounts to the same thing: whether we elect a Director or appoint an Acting Director for a year and a half, it is not in conformity with the Statute as it stands now. For this reason, from the legal point of view, it will be very much the same thing, in my opinion.

Mr. Klaus SEGBERS

Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, but I dare make assessments, and my political assessment is that if we find a person who is convincing to the Governing Board, it's much better to have a full-fledged Director, than an acting one. I would prefer to have a real Director, if possible.

Mr. Jaap Willem de ZWAAN

Chairman, this is my position as well. I understand the reasoning of Rector Torkunov that formally we cannot extend the mandate beyond the end of 2013. The understanding should be that we are looking for a person who will serve for two years, if not three. And in the light of our discussion, I think that somehow, if the funding continues beyond 2013, we'll be able to extend his contract for a longer period, including 2014, maybe, entering 2015. However, I follow your reasoning that formally we cannot extend the mandate beyond 2013. But it must be written somewhere, there should be a clause in the report on this meeting, stating our intention and willingness to extend his mandate beyond the term of eighteen months. If we proceed like this, we should look for a full-fledged Director, not someone who would serve as some kind of "observing" Director. Certainly, it should be a person who knows this house very well. In order to meet our standards in terms of transparency, accessibility etc, the idea should be to place the job description, and the text from the Statute, on the sites of MGIMO and the ESI, with a very short deadline, inviting those people who are interested to apply. And the deadline should be very short. Then we can organize the interviews with the candidates even before the summer break. This will be a balanced and correct procedure. And the understanding will be that it should be a full-fledged Director for two years, maybe three. And there should be utmost openness, with publicity on the MGIMO and the ESI website, etc.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Mr. Grushko, maybe you can contribute to the discussion?

Mr. Alexander GRUSHKO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not speak about specific candidates. But I believe that we have a force majeure situation. Well, if we spoke about a more remote future, we could probably start the selection process. But I believe that now the main requirement to the future Director that we can formulate, is that he/she should be professional and know the machinery of this Institute, as there won’t be any time for him/her to get attuned to everything, because his/her term of office can expire in 2013. So, I believe that this factor should be decisive in our decision-making.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Dear colleagues, is there anybody else who wants to take the floor? If not, I will try to sum up the discussion. The draft document, which the EU Delegation has provided at the request of Mr. Entin, which slightly expands on our criteria of how we see the future candidates for the post of Director, is a good document. We see it as a recommendation of the GB. We are not required to make any amendments to the Statute, we shall take this draft of the EU Delegation as a prompter that will be used as a working document. We all agreed that we should select and elect a full-fledged Director and the decision will be made by the Governing Board following the discussions in the Executive Committee on the basis of the criteria we have articulated here.

And the third point: as our distinguished colleagues from the EU and Mr. Grushko said, it’s preferable that we should concentrate on the candidates who are already involved in one way or another in the academic and administrative practices of this house. Have I summed up your suggestions correctly? Would you accept all these points? Yes, you are welcome.

Mr. Oleg BARABANOV

I would like to say a few words not specifically on the selection procedure for the Director, but rather on point three of the draft document of the EU Delegation. Mr. de Zwaan said that it also applies to the appointment of Deputy Directors and department Chairs: they are to be confirmed by the Governing Board. But an important point should be made with regard to the department heads. Since heads of departments are not administrative workers, but members of the faculty, they are elected, according to the Russian Labour Code, in an open competitive process by the Academic Council of MGIMO. So, with regard to heads of departments, the GB can and should make recommendations, but the final say, according to the Russian Labour Code, belongs to the Academic Council of MGIMO.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you for your clarification. I would like to stress once again that precisely for these reasons we perceive the document, prepared by our colleagues from the European Union, not as a legal document, but as a prompter, a working paper that will help us in the selection process. Thank you.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

Now what about the deadlines?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

The deadlines? The final dates for submitting the applications by candidates? Mr. Torkunov, what do you think? Proceeding from your experience and practices, what is usually the time needed?

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

The first thing to do now is to post the information on the website of the European Studies Institute to ensure transparency. The next meeting of the Governing Board must elect the Director. The selection must take place before the next GB meeting.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Let us draw up a road map: What is the deadline for submitting applications? Until the end of May? Is that enough? Is the time sufficient? OK, by the end of May.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

Then, at the end of June, before the vacation season at the Institute begins, the Executive Committee must hold a meeting to interview the candidates and discuss the candidacies. And the next meeting of the Governing Board in October will elect the Director.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

It’s a very important issue. So, let me say it once again. The candidates should submit their applications by the end of May. In June, by the end of June, the candidates should be interviewed. And the candidacies should discussed by the Executive Committee at its meeting. And the next meeting of the Governing Board can take a decision on electing the Director. Have I summed up your suggestions correctly?

Mr. Gerhard HAFNER

Something did not come across clearly in translation. The Executive Committee should hold a meeting in June to interview the candidates and to prepare a shortlist for the Governing Board to decide on in October. Is that correct?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Ok. Let’s proceed. If you don’t mind, we won’t have a lunch break now, but continue. Mr. Grushko, you have to take a plane later today. Can you stay with us a little longer? (the answer not heard) The next item of the agenda is the Executive Committee. We have agreed that Mrs. Alexandra Khudaykulova will take the floor on this subject.

Mrs. Aleksandra Khudaikulova

Thank you. Much has been said on the Executive Committee, I'll try to be very brief. In accordance with the October decision of the GB, it was decided to set up a Working group, which would prepare a mandate for the Executive Committee. Mr. De Zwaan and Mr. Hafner were the European participants, the Russian participants were Alexey Gromyko and myself. I did not take part in the first exchange of opinion, which took place on October 27, right after the session of the GB, subsequently the exchange continued, and on February 13 the first session of the Working group on setting up the Executive Committee was held.

I would like to say that the session was very dynamic, at times even emotional, - nevertheless, we managed to agree on the most important things, and we managed to elaborate a draft decision on the Executive Committee. It was forwarded to all the members of the GB. Since there was no negative response, we can presume that this document was approved. I would like to draw your attention once again, to the fact that the Appendix to the document lists the priorities of the Executive Committee, including the selection of the candidate for the ESI Director's post, the ESI financial performance, and setting up the Board of Trustees. Today we have confirmed all this. Besides, the Appendix also lists a number of other issues not to be covered today, but for further sessions. I will not elaborate on them now.

Thus, we agreed on the main directions of the work of the Executive Committee, and I think the Executive Committee will deal with very important issues. I feel that the decision to adopt the consensus principle in decision-making will be a very efficient mechanism for our work and deliberations. Thank you!

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Dear colleagues, would anybody like to speak on this item? Mr. Hafner, you are welcome.

Mr. Gerhard HAFNER

Thank you very much. It's only to respond to what has just been said about the establishment of the Executive Committee. I can only concur with what Mrs. Khudaykulova said. There are a few things that I would like to add. Of course, we had quite a long discussion. It was, as was stated, sometimes very emotional. But there was a problem, so, perhaps, there should be some criticism. Some secretariat service should be afforded to the meetings of this body, because, as it was, there were a lot of difficulties in establishing the results of the meeting, and this was in particular caused by the absence of any secretariat. There were different versions of the results. Finally we were able to come to a common conclusion on the results. I want to draw your attention to the one issue which was left open, that's point 2C, the Chairpersonship of the EC. It's the next item on our agenda: we did not come to agreement on this.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

You are welcome, Mr. de Zwaan.

Mr. Jaap de ZWAAN

I think it’s important to repeat: it is not a decision-making body, it contributes to, and assists in, the work of the GB, plus the ESI administration in the process of the implementation or preparation. That's all. And for this reason, I think it should not interfere in the competence of the GB by drawing up a full list of responsibilities and topics. That's how we proceeded, and the end product was a fine balanced one. I clearly see three priorities for the EC meetings: financing, the post of the ESI Director and the Board of Trustees, which are all very important issues, so let’s give this Committee a chance. And the next issue will be to elect the Chairperson.

Mr. Gerhard Hafner

And one more thing: the first meeting of the Executive Committee will take place tomorrow. (Voices prompting "today in the afternoon"). Today in the afternoon? Well, it means that we want to start work as soon as possible.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Professor Entin, would you like to add anything? Must we to adopt a formal decision?

Mr. Mark Entin

Dear colleagues, as to the formal decision, there is no need for one, because the decision was approved by electronic voting, by e-mail. We can just ask the Executive Committee next time not to take six months, but work in a very efficient way, so that at our next meeting we could hear about the specific results on the three priorities of the Executive Committee that have been mentioned in the mandate. So, no vote is necessary.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Did I understand you correctly? No formal vote is necessary? I’ve heard something about the Chairman. Did I hear you correctly?

Mr. Mark Entin

Chairmanship of the Executive Committee is not just extra frills, it’s a very important job. In accordance with our agenda, we have a special item on the Chairman of the Executive Committee, can you give the floor to Mrs. Khudaykulova again?

Mrs. Alexandra Khudaikulova

It is true that we failed to reach consensus on the candidates for the Chairperson, despite the fact our session lasted nine hours. It was a very extended session, but, I regret to say, we failed to reach a compromise. What do we propose? We propose that the EC as a new body should elect it own Chairperson, if necessary, - co-Chairpersons. Our European colleagues suggested that a member of the GB from the European Union should be the Chairperson. The arguments that we offered were as follows: we believe that at present it is important to follow the ESI's established practice of organizing its work. Throughout the ESI's existence and functioning, when its structure was taking shape, nationality was never important institutionally, the ESI never determined the nationality of representatives and chairmen on different committees. We should preserve this practice.

And there is another element - human, or personal: inside our small body the atmosphere should be honest and constructive. I think the members of the Executive Committee themselves would be able in the shortest time possible to elect a Chairperson or Co-Chairpersons and preserve this good working atmosphere in its deliberations.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you. To be quite honest, I think the issue of Chairperson is of secondary importance. Maybe, I’m not democratic enough.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

How many members will there be in the Executive Committee?

Mrs. Alexandra Khudaikulova

Four.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

Well, I have a proposal: we decided that on the Russian side, Vice Rector Khudaykulova and Deputy Director of the Institute of Europe Alexey Gromyko will be our members of the Executive Committee. The European side of the GB should also appoint their members of the EC. When there are only four people, I don’t see any need to have a Chairperson, I think they can adopt the principle of rotating Chairmanship: one person chairs the meeting in the morning, another - in the afternoon. If four people can’t come to agreement, then why do we need this Executive Committee? We can come to agreement with a larger number of participants in the GB. With just four people, I’m against appointing or electing a Chairperson.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

I also want to call on our colleagues - the representatives of the European side on the GB - to take an active position in recommending their members to the Executive Committee - and recommend people, who can be very mobile and come for session at short notice, but we can’t impose on you any decisions.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

But the timetable is very tough, so we should keep in mind that the members should get down to business right away, literally today.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Professor de Zwaan, you are welcome.

Mr. Jaap de Zwaan

I think we shouldn't spend too much time on this issue. Of course, we must have a certain order. The issues on the table are complicated ones. I think we can agree on the rotation principle, let’s make no fuss about it. I think it would be nice. It’s a non-decision-making body. It’s only an instrument to assist implementation and preparation. The rotating chairmanship principle could be a nice solution and then it's up to the members of the EC to designate the person. So, when we start in the afternoon, we'll discuss this. The rotating chairmanship principle may be a very wise solution.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

I think that the members of the Executive Committee, should realize that all the successes of the ESI will be credited to the Governing Board, but for all the failures of the ESI the Executive Committee will be held responsible.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

I want to ask the members of the Executive Committee how long it took them to leave this dispute open, because you see how wise the Governing Board is: it took them two minutes to resolve the issue.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

Let’s hope that the Executive Committee will follow our example and I call on all our colleagues to be more cooperative. Our main capital is time, and we must be very efficient with time.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

If I'm not mistaken, the next item that we can start discussing is item seven of our agenda? Mrs. Shashikhina.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Just a minute! You are welcome, Mr. Berg.

Mr. Eiki BERG

The Governing Board members from the EU side have decided that Gerhard Hafner and Jaap de Zwaan would be our members on the Executive Committee, so that this would be clear. Thank you.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you for the time which you are going to devote to this very important work. Thank you in advance. And now let’s move to the next item. Mrs. Shashikhina is going to report on item seven.

Mrs. Tamara Shashikhina

Thank you, Mr. Prikhodko, I will try to be brief and focus on the activities of the Institute, on what we have been doing in the past months. We really lived in an atmosphere of the international audit, and I want to thank the European Commission for this experience. Now we have acquired this new experience. Of all the Russian educational institutions we were the first one with this kind of foreign investment. And there was an international audit. The “Deloitte” company checked our documents and the members of the team comprised experts from France, Bulgaria and other countries.

This work was rather interesting not only from the viewpoint of acquiring knowledge, but also because some issues remained unsolved.

First of all, I would like to point out that in their conclusions the auditors commented on the rather high quality of management of our Institute. That was the first item in their report. For the administration of the ESI, it is very important, because the administration of such a ground-breaking project was carried out under your guidance, distinguished members of the GB. Thank you very much for this guidance.

The next item is of financial nature, and is more pragmatic. I can tell you that the amount of information that we submitted, would be equal to the many volumes of Vladimir Lenin’s works. The auditors checked all the documents, all the originals documents since 2006 and identified some aspects, which are not clear to us even now. The Director and myself asked the Delegation to help us hold a joint meeting of our financial department and the financial department of the EU Delegation here. We still hope that such a meeting will be held, because some of the comments made by the auditors are not clear to us. On each item the ESI gave our dissentient opinion, and on each item we expressed our wish to have a view of the Delegation.

The first issue concerned the exchange rate we used. The auditors commented that the exchange rate which we used was wrong. There had been correspondence since the beginning of our project; we regularly submitted reports and accounts for auditing, - and the EU Delegation never criticized us. Now the question for us is: what are we going to do in the future and what budget item are we going to use to write off (make up for) the difference? Because if we use the mean annual rate, as the auditors suggested, rather than the mean monthly rate, as we had been doing, then, our professors, including the members of the GB, will either receive less in Euro equivalent or more. So, how are we going to write off (compensate) this difference? We don't have a budget item that would make it possible. I don’t think that MGIMO-University should shoulder the responsibility. This is one example. I will not mention them all, because there are a lot of examples like this. That is why we want to have a meeting with the financial department of the European Commission.

Another example has to do with the fees for simultaneous interpreters, whom we invite to interpret the lectures of visiting professors and the meetings of the Governing Board. In accordance with MGIMO internal rules, professors of MGIMO University, who work as conferences interpreters, get paid on the basis of administrative orders, where their University job is indicated. We usually invite English language teachers and professors from one of the English Language departments of the University as simultaneous interpreters. One of them was employed at the University as a part-time professor, and the auditors decided that the pay which this person should receive for simultaneous interpretation should be 50%. We don’t think it is logical, because it is a different kind of activity, it’s not teaching. Moreover, this is discrimination vis-a-vis external simultaneous interpreters we invite. We simply don't have this kind of information about them, as well as about lecturers from the EU, who can also be part-time professors.

I am not going to take much more of your time. I just wanted to stress the results of our joint work, the work of our financial department. I hope that in the future we shall work more productively, because the accountant who prepared reports and accounts for the years of the previous contract, from 2006 to 2010, did not work for us during that contract, but she continues to work now, and the financial management at the ESI has changed. Now we have a special accountant assigned to the ESI from the accounting department of MGIMO: she is Deputy Chief of the accounting department of MGIMO, and her responsibilities will include financial management at the ESI as well. Her experience of the international audit and the reports and accounts done by her will enable us in the course of the second contract to have fewer problems and complexities with the documents. We were not quite prepared for some of the auditors' requests, because in Russian legislation financial and accounting regulations and standards are different. The positive conclusion of the auditors is very important for us. We are very grateful to the “Deloitte” auditors. We have now approached the final item, namely, that the ESI project is to receive about 57,000 Euros from the EU.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Dear colleagues, do you have questions to Mrs. Shashikhina?

Mr. Klaus Segbers

I'm just curious because, maybe, I'll have some answers for my own accounting, in my University. Under 1.1.1 financial findings there's an interesting thing, an additional income generated by the project that has not been reported to the Commission. What is that? How do you generate income which is not reported? And also 4.1.7: income not reported.

Mrs. Tamara Shashikhina

It is another issue which I decided not to raise today, we decided that total financing is 3 million from each side, and all additional income that the ESI may receive in the course of its activities, like tuition fees of the fee-paying students, all this income will be additional to six million. But the auditors came to the conclusion that this income should be deducted from the six million. However, the GB took a decision that any extra income is supposed to be used for funding our additional activities. That’s why the sum total of our financial activity amounted to more than six million, which included the expenditure covered by the fees paid by students, which is logical. It’s another item that we hope to discuss with the financial department of the EU Delegation.