This is a blog for publishing my own experiences and comments. Welcome comments from others as well. 我在这里表达我自己的观点和体验。欢迎评论。
办了16年的纽约华夏分校, 2012年7月27日由法庭宣布解体，学校一分为二。
这个博客的使命已经结束或许该改个新的名字了。
The four board members don't necessarily have to be bound together. Each board member's role was different in the whole thing and each board member's responsibility/blame should also be different. Most of the violation was committed by Zhu Li. If I were the other three, I would get my own lawyer to give the blame to the others, or try to settle on my own. Since the four of them don't have the same interest any more, it may not be a good idea to have one lawyer representing all four of them. Imagine what can those four say to the judge? We didn't do it? The ghost made us do it? Sorry, your honor, we know what we did was wrong, but that was necessary because what they did was evil? We were all raving lunatics so we can't be responsible for what we did? Or the other three raving lunatics did it not me! Is there any other argument?
=================================================== Now, maybe each board member really has to think for themselves whether they want to hire their own lawyer to protect their own interest. 6/22 is only two weeks away.
complain 2: Pursuant to N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law 724(c) and pursuant to Articles 13.01 and 13.02 of the 2010 Bylaws of the school (which Bylaws were in effect prior to the competing elections on the proposed, amended bylaws held on April 15,2012), authorizing and directing an advancement to the Majority Directors of $50,000.00, from the funds of the Corporation, for indemnification against the reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, of said Majority Directors, who are unpaid, volunteers serving on the Board of Directors for the Corporation, a New York Not-for-Profit corporation, which expenses are to be actually and necessarily incurred by Majority Directors have answered the claims against then and, in do doing, have "raised genuine issues of fact or law" in defense of the claims against them and have submitted undertakings to the Corporation to repay any advancements that the Court determines they are not entitled to pursuant to N.Y. Not-for-Profit Cort. Law 275.
13.02 Advancement of Expenses: Reasonable expenses incurred by an officer, Director, employee, agent or volunteer of the School in defending a civil or criminal action, suit, or proceeding described in Section 13.01 shall be paid in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit, or proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of such person to repay such amount, if it shall ultimately be determined that the person is not entitled to be indemnified by the School.
Willfully conducting unlawful activities and be sued for those illegal activities that are harmful to school do not constitute actions described in section 13.01.
Willfully conducting unlawful activities and be sued for those illegal activities that are harmful to school do not constitute actions described in section 13.01. -- This truely describes Lei/Li/Zhou and Hu/Liu.
complain 5: Declaring, pursuant to N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law 618, that the two competing elections on the adoption of the propsed, amended bylaws for the School, both held on April 1, 2012, were defective and irregular and"so clouded with doubt" and:tained with questionalbe circumstances" as to warrant and required a new election on the adoption of the amended bylaws; setting aside the results of both competing elections on the adoption of the proposed, amended bylaws held on April 15,2012; and fixing a new election on the adoption of the proposed, amemded bylaws at a time and place to be set by the Court under the supervision of inspectors of election to be appointed by the court, upon such terms with respect to voting by proxy or absentee ballot and with such notice to the members of the School, as this Court, or the supervisors of election appointed by the Court, deem proper;
TRO detail: viii) temporarily enjoins and restrains Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Pricipal Hu nd PC Chair Liu from entering any lease agreements or making any other purchases transfers, or commitments on behalf of the Corporationof the School valued in excess of $100 for the upcoming academic year without obtaining the prior approval of the Board of Directors, and from implementing policies, such as textbook policies, that are within the authority and responsibility of the Board, under the 2010 Bylaws;
Rumor has it that the four board members' legal fees are paid by others. Maybe that's why they're willing to file another action against the other three board and Hu/Liu. The four board members should really think clearly. Hu/Liu have a much stronger case and they're asking Zhu Li to pay for school's legal fees. When that happens, do they think Li Jianren and his minions will pay for the school's legal fees for the four? Let's who runs first, Li Jianren or Hu Baonian?
4 board members' lawyer Ms. Galvao could only list a single one and it was purely based on imagination without any proof. She argued that the 3 board members may not come to 6/10 and 6/17 board meetings to deprive the necessary quorum. The proof is just the opposit. All board members attended 6/3 board meeting (with election as agenda) and the minutes had been published in school's Newsletter. Is there any reasonable doubt that the 3 board members would not attend 6/10 and 6/17 board meeting (on the same agenda)? On what basis the 4 board members had to drag the 4 board members into the lawsuit? Because they are supporters of Hu/Liu? We are all supporters of Hu/Liu.
In contrast, what the 4 board did had ALREADY done irriparable harm to the school and to Hu/Liu. Declaring the validity of the new bylaw by fiat and forgery had harmed the interest of school members by negating a legitimate voting process and by forcing upon them a voting method of the board election majority of them did not want. It also harmed Hu/Liu's interests (wether them want to excise it is not a issue) by taking away their rights to become board members according to the existing bylaws.
According to Ms. Galvao's own argument, her client should not be awarded with a TRO. See her MEMORANDUM OF LAW, under section "Preliminary Injunction Standard".
On what basis the 4 board members had to drag the 3 board members into the lawsuit? Because they are supporters of Hu/Liu? We are all supporters of Hu/Liu.
Legal case should stand on facts, not on opinion or imagined motives.
"Plaintiffs Hu and Liu are the key actors in this struggle; and, upon information and belief, their decision to commence this lawsuit was spurred by self-interest, personal hostility, and greed for the power and prestige that they perceive the Huaxia name and the repuratation of the school to carry."
The above paragraph reads more like something from go-hxny as from Ms. Galvao's affirmation letter to the court. Where did she go to law school? I'd like to see her using facts to prove her accusations.
Hu/Liu filed lawsuit only AFTER the 4 board members declared, by fiat and forgery, the passing of the new bylaws. It's a case for resolving the chaos induced by the 4 board members' illegal actions. Not about who will control the school. Not a single person is against direct election of the board. The dispute was about which voting method should be used. Even after the new bylaws failed to pass at 4/15 vote, Hu/Liu called for direct, free election of the board (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9d733d7d390b8fac6c5e290c7&id=805e9efb67). Where are facts that Hu/Liu tried to gain control of the school?
a. Preserve the staus quo, in terms of the members of the board of directors, pending judicial resolution of this dispute. If provisional relief is not sought, Plaintiffs will attempt to assume a position on the Board of Directors while the issue as to the vote on the proposed amended bylaws is still before this court.
What is status quo? The current Bylaws IS status quo. Ms. Galvao violated her own argument by asking the court to allow her clients to stay as board members until the legal case is resolved, which maybe well past the end of this academic year. By her clients' own admission, " both competing elections on the bylaws must be held a nullity and a new election conducted ...". Only until "2012 Bylaws" is passed in a new election, the Bylaws governing the school is the current Bylaws ("2010 Bylaws"). The current Bylaws stipulates that on 7/31/2012, two board members' term would expire and they would have to exit the board. The current Principal and PC Chair would become the Board members. If the court enjoins that the retiring members to stay in the board past 7/31/2012 and prevent Hu/Liu to enter the Board, it would break the status quo and severely tilt the case in favor of the Defendants. Besides stopping the irreparable harm, the 5/16 TRO had preserved the status quo by enjoining that "2010 Bylaws" is the current operating Bylaws.
b. Prevent the Plaintiffs and the Third-Party Defendants from attempting to remove or impeach the members of the current board, pending judicial resolution of this dispute. Since the TRO was issued by this Court on May 16, 2012, temporarily enjoining the Defendants from seeking to enforce the 2012 Bylaws, efforts have been made by certain individuals who support Plaintiffs Hu and Liu to use the TRO as a basis to malign and impeach the Defendant Majority Directors.
c. Require the minority directors to appear for and participate in duly noticed board meetings over the next several weeks, except upon good cause shown, so as to allow the Board to reach a quorum and act to fulfill its duties while this dispute is pending. The Minority Directors have failed and refused to attend 3 of the last 4 duly noticed Board meetings, thereby intentionally depriving the Majority Directors of the ability to reach a quorum and carry out the business of the Board. Immediate relief is necessary to ensure that the upcoming nominations - scheduled for June 10, 2012 - and upcoming elections of the Principal and PC Chair-scheduled for June 17, 2012 - are not impeded by the Board's inability to reach a quorum and approve a slate of candidates.
d. Ensures that all parties abide by the terms of the 2010 bylaws while the dispute is pending, including the provision relative to the membership election scheduled for June 17, 2012, by which the membership will vote for a new Principal and PC Chair- which vote is required by the 2010 Bylaws that Plaintiffs seek to enforce; in the absence of a TRO, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants may attemp to impede and obstruct the upcoming election as to the new Principal and PC Chair, in order to deprive the Defendants, as Majority Directors, of their right under the 2010 Bylaws to approve the slate of candidates for these positions.
e. Requires Plaintiff Principal Hu to turn over to Li Zhu, as Chairman of the Board, the current membership list of the corporation, including contact information, which Principal Hu has heretofore refused to do, thereby preventing the Majority Directors from having any ability to communicate with the membership directly.
There is no mention in the Bylaws which office should hold parents' contact information. Many parents expressed objections to give email list to the board members. In fact, several times a few current and previous board members, including Zhu Li, leaked private emails onto anonymous website for the purpose of inciting personal attacks. Unless directed by court, the Principal has no obligation to give email list which is part of registration record to anybody.
As for communicating to parents, there are many channels besides using email list or school Newsletter. For example, the Board can post any anouncement in School's Forum without any editing or approval. The Board could also setup its own website for displaying all board anouncement and document, which should be part of the Board's fiduciary duty.
Finally, the current Board had made several anouncement/statement for the purpose of attacking Admin/PC using crude language, personal attacks, unfounded accusations and outright slandering. Such anouncement/statement do not warrant circulation in email or in Newsletter.
f. Prevents palintiffs from assuming a position on the board, pending resolution of this dispute; and
g. Requires plaintiffs to perform only those acts that are within their roles as Principal and PC Chair, and prevents them from implementing policies within the Board's purview without prior board review and approval.
即：
f. 在本案终结前，阻止胡/刘进入董事会。
g. 阻止胡/刘在没有董事会批准的情况下，做任何属于董事会权力范围内的事（意指教科书选择和课程设置）。
"Principal Hu's and PC Chair Liu's true motivation in bringing this lawsuit - and, earlier, in impeding and preventing a fair and democratic vote as to the 2012 Bylaws - was to ensure that the 2012 Bylaws would not pass. Plaintiffs were unhappy with the 2012 Bylaws because, pursurant to the amendments contained in these Bylaws, the full membership would be entitled to vote to elect the members of the Board of Directors".
Either someone lied to Ms. Galvao or Ms. Galvao lied, in court, no less. I challenge Ms. Galvao to find one sentence from all previous published statements, bylaws discussions that Hu/Liu were against direct election of the Board members. There are many genuine discussion on school Forum (http://hxcsny.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?166) about the proposed Bylaws amendment. It would be clear to anyone who read them that the focus of opposition was on the voting method for the board (Limited Voting vs. Single Member Plural Voting). "2012 Bylaws" was rejected by majority parents precisely because one faction insisted on putting Limite Voting in it.
Even with personal objections, Ms. Yawen Liu organized a clean and legitimate vote for "2012 Bylaws". Unlike last year's PC Chair Mr. Zhu Li, who refused to organize and called parents to boycott the Principal/PC Chair election only because he personally objected the Board exercising the right and refused to admit the Board had the right to prescreen the candidates as defined in the bylaws.
From "MEMORANDUM OF LAW" by Ms. Galvao Under section "Plaintiffs Cannot Show Irriparable Harm and the Equities Favor the Defendants"
She said:
"The Defendant Majority Directors concede that the irregularities surrounding the April 15, 2012 elections on the proposed, amended bylaws render both elections 'so clouded with doubt' and 'tainted with questionable circumstances' so as to warrant the setting aside of the results of both competing elections and the conducting of a new election pursuant to NPCL $618"
Why, then, the 4 board members tried to declare "2012 Bylaws" passed at 5/6 Board meeting and fabricate meeting minutes and voting record (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9d733d7d390b8fac6c5e290c7&id=e81fa593a0)? If you knew both voting results were "tainted", why as board members you did not just state the fact and call for a new vote? Where was your fiduciary duty?
If Hu/Liu did not take you to court, would you have conceded this fact?
Even if there were no voting process organized by PC Chair, was not it a fact that your own voting process organized by "Special Voting Committee" had been "tainted with questionable circumstances" as it probably broke all electon laws?
If there were no voting organized by "SVC", the voting organized by PC Chair would definitely not be tainted. Why should the court rule in reward for bad if not out-right illegal behavior?
++++++ Complete Story: Update on School Litigations ++++++
June 9, 2012
Dear Members of HXNY,
In responding to Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu’s lawsuit against us, on June 7th, 2012, the undersigned four members of the Board filed a counter petition against Dapeng Hu, Yawen Liu and the three minority Board members: Minghui Lei, Shengjing Li and Ching Zhou in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. Now the court has the evidence and opinions from both sides.
The counter petition became necessary and is our only option because it compels Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu and 3 minority Board members to perform their duties, and allows the school to hold election in accordance with the 2010 edition Bylaws:
* Have an obstruction-free period to have the new school Principal and PC Chairperson elected without violating the court order. * Prevent egregious abuses of power and breaching of the Bylaws and the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. * Have the 3 Board members fulfill their fiduciary duties.
The judge of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County has issued an Order to Show Cause on June 8th, 2012, highlighted below (Click here for complete details):
* Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu and the 3 minority Board members are prohibited from interfering with the election for the 2012/2013 academic year. * The 3 minority Board members are prohibited from impeding, disrupting, or blocking the Board meetings scheduled for June 10th, 2012, June 17th and depriving the Board of a quorum. * Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu are prohibited from blocking the Board of Directors’ efforts to communicate directly with the school members in the Newsletter.
We urge members to support our efforts to end the current chaos and to find a lasting solution for a stable and peaceful HXNY.
Sincerely yours,
Chairman of HXNY Board of Directors: Li Zhu Member of HXNY Board of Directors: Lida He, Ying Huang and Gutuan Zheng
From "MEMORANDUM OF LAW" by Ms. Galvao Under section "Plaintiffs Cannot Show Irriparable Harm and the Equities Favor the Defendants"
She said:
"Here, not only is there no threat of irreparable injury to Plaintiffs given the Majority Directors' position that both competing elections on the bylaws must be held a nullity and a new election conducted - ....".
As a lawyer, Ms. Galvao needs to pay attention to logic as well as the sequence of time. Before 5/16 TRO was issued, there was no record anywhere that the Defendants held such positions as stated. In fact, they had declared "2012 Bylaws" passed and called people to submit their candidacy for both Principal/PC Chair and the Board elections according to the "2012 Bylaws". Such actions had caused the irreparable harm already. Only after 5/16 TRO was issued, such activities finally stopped. Changing position today by the Defendants did not change the fact that TRO was urgently needed on 5/16.
From "MEMORANDUM OF LAW" by Ms. Galvao Under section "Plaintiffs Cannot Show Irriparable Harm and the Equities Favor the Defendants"
She said: "Moreover, given the Plaintiffs' obstructive and fraudulent conduct in the administration of their competing election, which includes, inter alia, allegations of duplicate voting by members utilizing the two PC Voting stations operated by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs's actions in allowing two of their supporters to cast over 30 alleged 'proxy votes' each despite their questionable authenticity ..."
The two PC voting tables were for logistic reasons. One for last names starting from A-L, one for M-Z. At the end of voting, the records of two tables were carefully checked against each other. Only 3 families for various reasons had voted at both tables as stated in the voting result anouncement. One of which was done deliberatly by a BAC member who was supporting SVC and did it as proof of alleged duplicate voting. As for proxy voting, it was allowed by the current Bylaws. All proxies had been sealed and stored after voting. Anyone in doubt of authenticity could ask for an examination. In fact, "SVC" also allowed proxy voting.
One of which was done deliberatly by a BAC member who was supporting SVC and did it as proof of alleged duplicate voting.
+++++++++++++ 孙亦农was another one done deliberately and then had a major fight with one of PC voting committee's female member. Now 孙亦农is the PC chair candidate approved by the four board members.
朱立等四位董事接二连三地借用家长签名要求校长家长会长撤销对他们的起诉，而当校长,家长会长宣布在条件成熟时可以考虑撤诉之后（see herehttp://eepurl.com/mw6az），四位董事却对华夏纽约中文学校，校长、家长会长以及另外三位董事兴讼。6月8日在威郡纽约州最高法院，他们的律师，with an affidavit of Ms Lijie Cheng (家长签名组织者）, made the arguments in an Order to Show Cause proceeding against 学校，校长、家长会长以及另外三位董事。他们诉求的主要内容包括（原文点这里）：
Yesterday June 8th, the attorney for the four board members, Li Zhu, Sue Huang, Gutuan Zheng, Lida He (“Majority Directors”), with an affidavit of Lijie Cheng, made the arguments in an Order to Show Cause proceeding against Principal Hu, PC Chair Liu and three minority directors, Minghui Lei, Shengjing Li and Ching Zhou. Among other things, the arguments include (click here for originals):
authorizing and directing an advancement to the Majority Directors of $50,000 from the school
enjoining Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu from acting as Principal and PC Chair and they may not rotate to the Board of Directors at the end of the school year;
enjoining Principal Hu, PC Chair Liu and three minority directors from attempting to remove, impeach the Majority Directors.
enjoining Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu from implementing textbook policies.
"14. This damaging situation is made worse by the fact that, in numerous blogs and other such postings on the Internet, certain individuals on both side of the controversy have seen fit to cast aspersions and write negative commentary. Much of this commentary has been posted anonymously - which reflects not only cowardess, but also suggests that the sole purpose in making such posts is to throw the School into furthur chaos and deepen the divide that have already proved so damaging to the operation and reputation of the school".
Good point! The main source of these anonymous postings are from go-hxny blog (http://go-hxny.blogspot.com) which is widely believed to be owned and operated by BAC Chairman Li Jianren or his wife. Why did Mr. Li need such a blog when he was acting as BAC Chairman and had a Yahoo discussion group at his disposal? In reality, many parents who publicly expressed their opinions about the Bylaws amendment had been personally and obscenely attacked. As a result, some people choose not to express their opinions about the new Bylaws. The mere existance of go-hxny had tainted the Bylaws amendment process and poisoned the school environment. Many people protested cyber bullying by go-hxny. But the board turned a blind eye and never wanted to investigate. It's time for the court to find out the truth. If go-hxny is indeed owned by Li Jianren or his wife, then the whole Bylaws amendment process was tainted, not just the final voting process.
Today, Zhu Li and the four board members colluded and vetoed Dr. Jun Lin and Dr. Dachun Yao’s candidacy to be the Principal and PC Chair, respectively, for the next school year. Dr. Lin is a professional educator and current Associate Dean who initiated the education reform at our school and led the Education Assessment effort (please see their insightful presentation via attached video link 林骏： http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3df7JdYiMxU 姚大纯： http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Byl5FTwF0). Sadly, the four board members gave no consideration to the school’s long term interest. Dr. Lin and Dr. Yao became the victims of the four board members’ retaliation against the Admin team and parents’ vote for education reform.
On June 3rd, Zhu Li and the four board members were in school frantically asking parents to sign a petition to withdraw the lawsuit filed by Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu. Now we know what happened to the petition and what they’re for. Cheng Lijie signed an affidavit attesting to the petitions, which became an exhibit in another action filed by the same four board members against the Principal Hu, PC Chair Liu and the other three board members. Here are what the four board members asked the court to do (details see https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=ZdK6UjJVhgjdAxYHAKstbw==):
1. direct the school to pay the four directors $50,000 as advanced legal fees; and
2. direct Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu not to implement the textbook policies.
So, let the facts speak for themselves. The fact is that the four board members voted down the most qualified principal and PC chair candidates. The fact is that the petition of withdrawal was used to sue others while they told parents it was to stop the lawsuit. The fact is that the petition of withdrawal was used to get money from school. Finally, the fact is that the four board members’ lawsuit is to overturn the education vote of the parents.
What is the best interest of the school? Is it to veto the most qualified candidates? School’s reserve fund belongs to all members. How dare they try to use it for their legal action against other school volunteers? Education reform was overwhelmingly voted by the members. How dare they prevent the school Admin from implementing it?
Every parent who voted for the education reform, and every parent who doesn’t want the school to foot the bill for the four board members, let’s tell them we don’t agree! Impeach Zhu Li!!!
If you support the petition to impeach Zhu Li, please reply via email “Yes” and sign both your and your spouse’s names. Your privacy will be protected. Other than yourself and for PTA audit purposes, no one will receive your personal information.
Dr. Lin and Dr. Yao made two excellent presentations and they are qualified for the positions they were seeking. Unfortunately they chances were ruined by the wrong strategy of Dapeng and Yawen to file the lawsuit against the 4 board members and to force them to use the 2010 Bylaws.
Hu/Liu forced the school to use 2010 bylaw. Hu/Liu forced all board members to only choose up two pairs. No more. Otherwise, they are against law (TRO). Let us all 谴责 Hu/Liu。
Dr. Lin and Dr. Yao made two excellent presentations and they are qualified for the positions they were seeking. Unfortunately they chances were ruined by the wrong strategy of Dapeng and Yawen to file the lawsuit against the 4 board members and to force them to use the 2010 Bylaws.
Huang Ying said in the meeting that they could choose not to screen, but since Hu/Liu sued them in court, they had to screen. We are waiting to see how they justify their choices.
"9. ...As Parent Council Chairperson, I worked with my team members to make the School a peaceful and enjoyable environment for both children and parents. We followed the school bylaws and never broke any School regulations."
False. When the board prescreened the candidates, he strongly objected and denied the board had such right under the Bylaws. He helped to organize the impeachment drive trying to overturn the board's decision. After the first impeachment against one board member failed to pass, he immediately worked to organize a second impeachment against 5 board members. He refused to fufill his duty to organize the Principal/PC election as defined in the Bylaws and called parents to boycott the election.
"13. Regrettably, the Corporation has been embroiled in turmoil over the past couple of years, as competing 'factions' of individuals engage in an ongoing, ultimately destructive struggle to take over governance of the Corporation and thereby control the day-to-day operations of the School. This lawsuit is the second action commenced by the members of plaintiffs' 'faction' in the past year. The first was in June 2011. Although the named parties in that prior action were different than the current one, both actions appear to have been designed to instill fear and intimidation in anyone who would dare to disagree with, or oppose plaintiffs Hu and Liu or the members of the 'faction' that they clearly lead."
False. In fact, the faction Zhu Li belongs had almost complete control of the school for many years. Since the school started to have Principal/PC Chair election in 2005, anyone who was not in their faction and wished to serve the school was ruthlessly pushed back. Almost every year, there were people disheartened by their behavior and chose to leave the school, including the original three founders of the school. As the school became larger, the faction's grip on power became tenuous. Last year, almost by accident, there were 5 board members who were not closely aligned with the faction and constituted a super majority in the board. Using the rights defined in "2010 Bylaws", the 5 board members succesfully blocked the candidates from the faction. If the faction's candidate went through the screening process, the faction would most likely win in the election as previous years. By the succession plan defined in the Bylaws, the faction would gain complete control of both the Board and Admin/PC offices. After losing the nomination, the faction had stired up a huge turmoil. As most parents were not familiar with Bylaws and did not wish to know the details of the internal struggle, the faction denied the board had the right to screen the candidates. They called for impeachment of the board Chairman and after this failed to pass, called for second impeachment against the 5 board members. They disrupted prescheduled 6/12 election and planned to disrupt the re-scheduled 6/19 election. Only after the board went to court and obtained a TRO against the faction leaders, the 6/19 election went through. Immediately after the election, the 5 board members dropped the lawsuit as a courtesy to the defendants. After the first impeachment failed to pass on 6/12 and unwilling to share the power,a faction leader (previous Principal)quietly registered his own school. Notice that it was before the date of 6/18 lawsuit filed by the 5 board members and before the 6/19 election. The faction's split from the school would not become public before they stired up more turmoil and until after 7/17 where the faction called for another impeachment of the 5 board members as the final measure to regain power in the middle of summer vacation. For reasons still unclear to outsiders, 7/17 impeachment was called off and the 5 board members had a settlement with the faction. In the settlement, the faction acknowledged the legitimacy of the 6/19 election. In exchange, the faction was allowed to gain a simple majority in the board as the result of natural succession and gain complete control of the Bylaws Amendment Committee by appointing a faction leader as Chair.
After 7/17 settelment, part of the faction spit and setup their own school, others decided to stay and keep fighting. Right after 2010 election nomination process, parents realized the flaws in the Bylaws and called for Bylaws amendment so that the Board could be democratically elected. However, BAC Chairman and his hand picked BAC members chose to write into the Bylaws the Limited Voting Method for electing the Board. The Limited Voting severely restricts parents' voting rights and gives a cloesly nit faction undue advantage. It virtually garanttees some board positions for the faction even when they are in the minority. In extreme situations, the faction could even gain majority control of the Board. It was the last effort by the faction to retain at least part of their power. Since the beginning of the Bylaws amendment process in Oct 2010 and even before, the faction members displayed typical behavior of a previleged group of people on the verge of losing their grip on power. Their open hostility and anonymous attacks against Admin/PC team and anybody outside their faction went on daily non-stop. Anyone who spends some time on the infamous "cesspool", go-hxny website, would easily conclude that most personal attack and cyber bullying came from the faction members. All these daily skirmishes led directly to the 4/15 Bylaws voting confrontation and the chaos and turmoil after 4/15.
It is absolutely false to call Hu/Liu being leaders of a "faction". They were elected in an election where the majority voters do not belong to any faction. Admittedly, the nomination process was flawed as prescribed by the Bylaws. But it was not their fault. After elected, they had shown their leadership quality by being able to work with people from all sides. They implemented education reform by setting up experimental classes using new text books. Their conduct had won appraise from many parents. In fact, the majority of Hu/Liu's supporters are new parents with children in lower grades who don't know anything about past infighting in the school leadership. They have directly benefited from Hu/Liu's effort in education reform and wanted their policies to continue in coming years. Hu/Liu may have lost their cool once, or twice when facing open hostility from the faction membersin open meetings. But if you read all published exchanges between Hu/Liu and parents, they were always patient, courteous, polite and trying to use humor to defuse tension in exchanges with even the most openly hostile faction members. They have shown that they deserved to be called the leaders of the school, not any faction. As for "ultimately destructive struggle", Mr. Zhu Li could speak about his own behaviors.
From: Lin, Li (GE, Corporate) [mailto:li.lin@ge.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:47 PM To: Alan Yuan Wang (alawang) Cc: May X. Wang; xhyang2000@yahoo.com; xue1209@yahoo.com; dapeng.hu@gmail.com; gaom@un.org; hz65@columbia.edu; xs10@yahoo.com; zhanglj@hotmail.com; Hong, Bo; Qun Zhou; Jaclyn Liu Subject: HXNY Student Dance Team
Dear Principal Wang, how are you doing? I called you on Monday but you were out of the town. So briefly talked to your wife. She suggested that I send you an email discussing about HXNY student dance team.
HXNY dance team have represented the school participating in various community events, such as Asian Festival in the NYC and at the Westchester, Chinese New Year performance, and Huaxia General School's Huaxia Star program, etc. We have been looking for Good dance teaching staff to carry on this team. Couple of the team parents came to know a dance teacher Nico Li over the summer. Nico's impressive background and teaching style prompted these two parents to strongly recommend her to be the dance team teacher. However, due to our school's lower pay scale compared to the market, Nico is hesitated to consider the position. We really want Nico to come to teach the dance team, but would like to know how to address the pay issue. So greatly appreciate if you can kindly advise on how to proceed.
1) What the dance team can do to help bring Nico on board and start teaching by Sunday (10/30)?
Nico indicated that she has a valid working permit. If needed, she can provide the document. Attached is her bio.
The original dance team members (at least 7 students) have expressed their interests of coming to Nico's dance class once the class is open. Nico indicated that in order to have similar level's students in a dance team, she would like to have a simple audition in her first class. So the audition will be open to all students at 6th grade or above.
As Nico will have some productions/performances at the weekends over time, at first she asked to have the class around 8:30am. However, based on my conversation with May, it seemed unlikely the classroom would be available at that time. So very likely the class will be at 9:30am, regular 1st class time.
2) How to address the teacher's pay
Nico requested hourly pay of $100, which we believe is much higher than what our school can offer. We learned that the school Band faces the similar issue. They are going to submit a proposal to Board for approval, we wonder if you can add Nico Lee's issue to the discussion and see for teachers with special talents, skills or achievements, whether they can get competitive pay.
If the pay request is not approved by the board, then we need to tell the students that they have to share the cost if they want to join the team.
We really appreciate your support for the dance team. Should you have any question, please feel free to call me. Thanks.
Best regards,
Li Lin, CFA CPA CTP Director of Exposure Management & Hedging Advisory GE T +1 203 961 2109 M +1 203 252 7565 F +1 203 961 2108 li.lin@ge.com 201 High Ridge Road, MS2953-2014 Stamford, CT 06927 General Electric Company
False. These are all empty, imagined, trumped up accusations without any factual basis. You may find similar or worse accusations daily in the cesspool (go-hxny).
The only thing worth mentioning is that we don't know what "principles" Zhu Li is upholding. If it's "for the best interest of the school", we have not found any evidence from his behaviors.
"16. Significantly, however, the election by which Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu assumed their repective positions in June 2011 failed, in several material respects, to strictly comply with the requirements of the very same 2010 Bylaws.(These irregularities and problems are addressed more below)."
False. Many of those alleged irregularities were caused by obtructive and destructive behaviors by Zhu Li and other members of his faction. Furthermore, there was a legally binding settlement on 7/17 regarding to the legitimacy of 6/19 election for which Zhu Li was a willing signer. Therefore, any issue related to 6/19 election should be considered settled and not admissible in court. In addition, by raising the issues in court, Zhu Li showed that he misled the court and his lawyer, and had withheld material information from the court and his lawyer for which he should be reprihended. Accusation #16 and all other related charges should be dismissed without any discussion in court.
"17. More importantly, however, it was plaintiffs' own antics and ultra-vires actions that caused the April 2012 vote on the passage of the 2012 Bylaws to devolve into chaos and confusion. The result was exactly what plaintiffs had envisioned and hoped for because they desperately wanted 2012 Bylaws to be defeated. Plaintiffs Hu and Liu did not want to risk losing control over the School and the Corporation - which might happened if the membership had voted against their bids for elected seats on the Board."
False. It was Zhu Li and his illegal "Special Voting Committee"s unlawful behaviors that caused chaos and confusion. Many parents wanted "2012 Bylaws" defeated because it contained several items harmful to the school. The most serious of which is the "Limited Voting Method" for Board elections. Hu/Liu supported election of the Board but they were against the Limited Voting Method. There is a material difference between "Vote" and "Vote by Limited Voting Method". For most people, "Vote" is understood being "Vote by Single Member Plural Method" which is the most common practice in this country(i.e. simple majority rule). In many Board communications with parents, Zhu Li deliberately avoided to make the distinction. In court, however, you need to be exact and precise with your definitions. By using "Vote" and "Vote by Limited Voting Method" without distinction, Zhu Li deliberatedly misled the court and should be reprehended.
"Vote by Limited Voting Method" ------ i still do not get it. Why Hu/Liu do not state the "Vote by Limited Voting Method" as a damage in their lawsuit, but use not automatically rotating themselves as a damage of passing new bylaw.
Limited voting itself is not illegal. The Board could be created in any way you want. You could write in Bylaws that the board members are appointed by Zhu Li. As long as 2/3 majority accept it and pass the Bylaws, it's fine. NPCL gives a lot of freedom on how a board could be created. You can not say one particular way will do harm to the corporation.
To get a TRO, you need to convince the court that there would be an immediate irreparable harm if a TRO was not granted. Limited voting is not an irreparable harm. Try to enforce a rejected Bylaws and using it to run an election would be an irreparable harm. Taking away someone's right explicitly granted in the old Bylaws would also be a clear-cut irreparable harm.
There are so many problems with Zhu Li's Affidavit that I have lost interest in refuting all the items. Obviously, Zhu Li's lawyer only picked a few that she considered "presentable" in court. Zhu Li misled the court in many places and failed to provide all material information which may lead to serious charges. With yesterday's board actions, the 4 board members just committed more transgressions against the best interests of the school. They had failed to perform their fiduciary duty one more time.
最新消息：法官今天拒绝了四董的TRO要求。
ReplyDeleteMore detail to come.
看看今天4董告胡/刘和3位董事要求什么吧：
Delete4董要求继续担任董事。
4董要求法官用禁止令保护他们不受弹劾。
4董要求学校出5万元给他们打官司。
看清楚了吗？这就是4个口口声声为学校的人。亏他们想得出这几条。4董的状纸今天被法官驳回，真是大快人心！
Good News!
Delete撤诉还是法庭解决？
Deletehttp://hxnyforum.blogspot.com/2012/06/blog-post.html
Really? Who told you that? Hu/Liu/Li/lei/Zhou?
Delete你算老几？见鬼去吧！
ReplyDeleteConfirmed, the requests from the four boards were rejected this morning.
ReplyDeleteWho confirmed that? Their lawyer? Count?
Delete胡，刘为哈不宣布这样的好消息？
DeleteThe four board members don't necessarily have to be bound together. Each board member's role was different in the whole thing and each board member's responsibility/blame should also be different. Most of the violation was committed by Zhu Li. If I were the other three, I would get my own lawyer to give the blame to the others, or try to settle on my own. Since the four of them don't have the same interest any more, it may not be a good idea to have one lawyer representing all four of them. Imagine what can those four say to the judge? We didn't do it? The ghost made us do it? Sorry, your honor, we know what we did was wrong, but that was necessary because what they did was evil? We were all raving lunatics so we can't be responsible for what we did? Or the other three raving lunatics did it not me! Is there any other argument?
Delete===================================================
Now, maybe each board member really has to think for themselves whether they want to hire their own lawyer to protect their own interest. 6/22 is only two weeks away.
can you tell us more?
ReplyDelete噎住了，说不出话啦。
Deletecomplain 2:
ReplyDeletePursuant to N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law 724(c) and pursuant to Articles 13.01 and 13.02 of the 2010 Bylaws of the school (which Bylaws were in effect prior to the competing elections on the proposed, amended bylaws held on April 15,2012), authorizing and directing an advancement to the Majority Directors of $50,000.00, from the funds of the Corporation, for indemnification against the reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, of said Majority Directors, who are unpaid, volunteers serving on the Board of Directors for the Corporation, a New York Not-for-Profit corporation, which expenses are to be actually and necessarily incurred by Majority Directors have answered the claims against then and, in do doing, have "raised genuine issues of fact or law" in defense of the claims against them and have submitted undertakings to the Corporation to repay any advancements that the Court determines they are not entitled to pursuant to N.Y. Not-for-Profit Cort. Law 275.
看这狗屁不通的英文。4董多半又找了个没有职业道德的山寨律师。光会坑顾客钱。
Deleteyou are dumb.
Deleteindemnify: recompense, reimburse, repay
DeleteThat means AFTER the suit is settled, not during the process!
没见过先要学校预支的。真是对学校不负责任。
13.02 Advancement of Expenses:
DeleteReasonable expenses incurred by an officer, Director, employee, agent or volunteer of the School in defending a civil or criminal action, suit, or proceeding described in Section 13.01 shall be paid in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit, or proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of such person to repay such amount, if it shall ultimately be determined that the person is not entitled to be indemnified by the School.
Willfully conducting unlawful activities and be sued for those illegal activities that are harmful to school do not constitute actions described in section 13.01.
DeleteWillfully conducting unlawful activities and be sued for those illegal activities that are harmful to school do not constitute actions described in section 13.01. -- This truely describes Lei/Li/Zhou and Hu/Liu.
Deletecomplain 5:
ReplyDeleteDeclaring, pursuant to N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law 618, that the two competing elections on the adoption of the propsed, amended bylaws for the School, both held on April 1, 2012, were defective and irregular and"so clouded with doubt" and:tained with questionalbe circumstances" as to warrant and required a new election on the adoption of the amended bylaws; setting aside the results of both competing elections on the adoption of the proposed, amended bylaws held on April 15,2012; and fixing a new election on the adoption of the proposed, amemded bylaws at a time and place to be set by the Court under the supervision of inspectors of election to be appointed by the court, upon such terms with respect to voting by proxy or absentee ballot and with such notice to the members of the School, as this Court, or the supervisors of election appointed by the Court, deem proper;
这律师还真会模凌两可。他没说哪个投票过程是 defective and irregular and"so clouded with doubt" and tainted with questionalbe circumstances。为骗顾客钱真会编。
Delete他怎么不说如果没有4董搞的"Special Voting Committee"就不会有这些defective and irregular and"so clouded with doubt" and tainted with questionalbe circumstances？
Delete这律师在法庭上白纸黑字承认他们的选举过程是defective and irregular and so clouded with doubt。 这种律师还能拿客人的钱。只有找不到好律师的guilty客人才会出钱雇这种律师。
DeleteTRO detail:
ReplyDeleteviii) temporarily enjoins and restrains Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Pricipal Hu nd PC Chair Liu from entering any lease agreements or making any other purchases transfers, or commitments on behalf of the Corporationof the School valued in excess of $100 for the upcoming academic year without obtaining the prior approval of the Board of Directors, and from implementing policies, such as textbook policies, that are within the authority and responsibility of the Board, under the 2010 Bylaws;
3/18教改投票就被4董这样一笔勾消。
DeleteTRO detail:
Deleteviii)
====================
That's complaints viii). Not TRO. The judge denied their request.
四懂自己要求花5万元为其非法行为买单， 校长不能花100元以上，还要由没读过教科书的四董为大家决定教材。 太有才了
ReplyDelete四董要求415家长投票结果无效， 学校被法庭接管， 校长出接管费， 什么用心？他们的投票无效非要把人家干干净净的结果取消， 有这么无赖的人呀！
ReplyDelete弹劾朱立， 王亮徐珉动手吧
ReplyDelete撤诉还是法庭解决？
ReplyDeletehttp://hxnyforum.blogspot.com/2012/06/blog-post.html
To Dapeng & Yawen,
ReplyDelete我们一起走过岁月的风风雨雨，手牵着手。我们一起经历难忘的日日夜夜，共济同舟……再大的困难我们见过，从不低头……”
To Dapeng & Yawen,
Delete我们一起走过岁月的风风雨雨，手牵着手。我们一起经历难忘的日日夜夜，共济同舟……再大的困难我们见过，从不低头……”
===
一起走向灭亡。
又来暴力威胁了。典型的黑帮行为。
Delete又来暴力威胁了。典型的黑帮行为。--是否觉得阴森森，冷嗖嗖啊？
Delete又来暴力威胁了。典型的黑帮行为。
Delete----
玩火者必自焚。懂吗？
就看谁在玩火了。沈肇麟，你以为这里是上海青红帮的天下？
DeleteTo Dapeng & Yawen,
Delete我们一起走过岁月的风风雨雨，手牵着手。我们一起经历难忘的日日夜夜，共济同舟……再大的困难我们见过，从不低头……”
============
一首情诗。
就看谁在玩火了。...
Delete----
胡，刘玩火给烧着了。
大鹏和雅文，去年你们在紧要关头挺身而出，今年又是你们力挽狂澜。佩服你们，支持你们！
ReplyDelete看清了吗？没有一个人挺赖明辉，周卿，李神经。也不回有任何人帮他们的忙。希望胡大鹏刘雅文清醒过来，吸取教训。不要再接着被那三利用了。
ReplyDeleteRumor has it that the four board members' legal fees are paid by others. Maybe that's why they're willing to file another action against the other three board and Hu/Liu. The four board members should really think clearly. Hu/Liu have a much stronger case and they're asking Zhu Li to pay for school's legal fees. When that happens, do they think Li Jianren and his minions will pay for the school's legal fees for the four? Let's who runs first, Li Jianren or Hu Baonian?
ReplyDeleteThe same goes to you - Hu, Liu, Lei, Zhou and Li!
DeleteWhere is irriparable harm?
ReplyDelete4 board members' lawyer Ms. Galvao could only list a single one and it was purely based on imagination without any proof. She argued that the 3 board members may not come to 6/10 and 6/17 board meetings to deprive the necessary quorum. The proof is just the opposit. All board members attended 6/3 board meeting (with election as agenda) and the minutes had been published in school's Newsletter. Is there any reasonable doubt that the 3 board members would not attend 6/10 and 6/17 board meeting (on the same agenda)?
On what basis the 4 board members had to drag the 4 board members into the lawsuit? Because they are supporters of Hu/Liu? We are all supporters of Hu/Liu.
In contrast, what the 4 board did had ALREADY done irriparable harm to the school and to Hu/Liu. Declaring the validity of the new bylaw by fiat and forgery had harmed the interest of school members by negating a legitimate voting process and by forcing upon them a voting method of the board election majority of them did not want. It also harmed Hu/Liu's interests (wether them want to excise it is not a issue) by taking away their rights to become board members according to the existing bylaws.
According to Ms. Galvao's own argument, her client should not be awarded with a TRO. See her MEMORANDUM OF LAW, under section "Preliminary Injunction Standard".
DeleteCorrection:
ReplyDeleteOn what basis the 4 board members had to drag the 3 board members into the lawsuit? Because they are supporters of Hu/Liu? We are all supporters of Hu/Liu.
三个烂人支持的不会是什么好货。支持烂货的也不会是是什么好东西。这就叫物以类聚，人以群分。
DeleteLegal case should stand on facts, not on opinion or imagined motives.
ReplyDelete"Plaintiffs Hu and Liu are the key actors in this struggle; and, upon information and belief, their decision to commence this lawsuit was spurred by self-interest, personal hostility, and greed for the power and prestige that they perceive the Huaxia name and the repuratation of the school to carry."
The above paragraph reads more like something from go-hxny as from Ms. Galvao's affirmation letter to the court. Where did she go to law school? I'd like to see her using facts to prove her accusations.
Hu/Liu filed lawsuit only AFTER the 4 board members declared, by fiat and forgery, the passing of the new bylaws. It's a case for resolving the chaos induced by the 4 board members' illegal actions. Not about who will control the school. Not a single person is against direct election of the board. The dispute was about which voting method should be used. Even after the new bylaws failed to pass at 4/15 vote, Hu/Liu called for direct, free election of the board (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9d733d7d390b8fac6c5e290c7&id=805e9efb67). Where are facts that Hu/Liu tried to gain control of the school?
4董告胡/刘和3董要达到什么目的： (from Ms. Galvao's Affirmation)
ReplyDeletea. Preserve the staus quo, in terms of the members of the board of directors, pending judicial resolution of this dispute. If provisional relief is not sought, Plaintiffs will attempt to assume a position on the Board of Directors while the issue as to the vote on the proposed amended bylaws is still before this court.
即：让4董占据董事职位直到案件在法庭上判决结束。
看看是谁想赖在董事会里不走？
DeleteWhat is status quo? The current Bylaws IS status quo. Ms. Galvao violated her own argument by asking the court to allow her clients to stay as board members
Deleteuntil the legal case is resolved, which maybe well past the end of this academic year. By her clients' own admission, " both competing elections on the bylaws must be held a nullity and a new election conducted ...". Only until "2012 Bylaws" is passed in a new election, the Bylaws governing the school is the current Bylaws ("2010 Bylaws"). The current Bylaws stipulates that on 7/31/2012, two board members' term would expire and they would have to exit the board. The
current Principal and PC Chair would become the Board members. If the court enjoins that the retiring members to stay in the board past 7/31/2012 and prevent Hu/Liu to enter the Board, it would break the status quo and severely tilt the case in favor of the Defendants. Besides stopping the irreparable harm, the 5/16 TRO had preserved the status quo by enjoining that "2010 Bylaws" is the current operating Bylaws.
4董告胡/刘和3董要达到什么目的： (from Ms. Galvao's Affirmation)
ReplyDeleteb. Prevent the Plaintiffs and the Third-Party Defendants from attempting to remove or impeach the members of the current board, pending judicial resolution of this dispute. Since the TRO was issued by this Court on May 16, 2012, temporarily enjoining the Defendants from seeking to enforce the 2012 Bylaws, efforts have been made by certain individuals who support Plaintiffs Hu and Liu to use the TRO as a basis to malign and impeach the Defendant Majority Directors.
即：阻止Plaintiffs（Hu/Liu）和 Third-Party Defendants (3董？ 全校家长？）弹劾董事会成员。
4董告胡/刘和3董要达到什么目的： (from Ms. Galvao's Affirmation)
ReplyDeletec. Require the minority directors to appear for and participate in duly noticed board meetings over the next several weeks, except upon good cause shown, so as to allow the Board to reach a quorum and act to fulfill its duties while this dispute is pending. The Minority Directors have failed and refused to attend 3 of the last 4 duly noticed Board meetings, thereby intentionally depriving the Majority Directors of the ability to reach a quorum and carry out the business of the Board. Immediate relief is necessary to ensure that the upcoming nominations - scheduled for June 10, 2012 - and upcoming elections of the Principal and PC Chair-scheduled for June 17, 2012 - are not impeded by the Board's inability to reach a quorum and approve a slate of candidates.
即：要求3董不能无故缺席董事会议，造成达不到quorum的情况。
谁知道“3 of the last 4 duly noticed Board meetings”都是哪天？什么agenda？
Delete4董告胡/刘和3董要达到什么目的： (from Ms. Galvao's Affirmation)
ReplyDeleted. Ensures that all parties abide by the terms of the 2010 bylaws while the dispute is pending, including the provision relative to the membership election scheduled for June 17, 2012, by which the membership will vote for a new Principal and PC Chair- which vote is required by the 2010 Bylaws that Plaintiffs seek to enforce; in the absence of a TRO, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants may attemp to impede and obstruct the upcoming election as to the new Principal and PC Chair, in order to deprive the Defendants, as Majority Directors, of their right under the 2010 Bylaws to approve the slate of candidates for these positions.
即：确定各方在法院判决之前都严格遵守2010Bylaws，包括关于6/17选举校长家长会长的有关规定。如果没有TRO，胡/刘和3董可能会阻止4董行使2010 bylaws 里给的遴选候选人的权利。
4董告胡/刘和3董要达到什么目的： (from Ms. Galvao's Affirmation)
ReplyDeletee. Requires Plaintiff Principal Hu to turn over to Li Zhu, as Chairman of the Board, the current membership list of the corporation, including contact information, which Principal Hu has heretofore refused to do, thereby preventing the Majority Directors from having any ability to communicate with the membership directly.
即： 要求胡校长交给董事会长朱立学校家长们的名单和email list.
There is no mention in the Bylaws which office should hold parents' contact information. Many parents expressed objections to give email list to
Deletethe board members. In fact, several times a few current and previous board members, including Zhu Li, leaked private emails onto anonymous website for the purpose of inciting personal attacks. Unless directed by court, the Principal has no obligation to give email list which is part of registration record to anybody.
As for communicating to parents, there are many channels besides using email list or school Newsletter. For example, the Board can post any anouncement
in School's Forum without any editing or approval. The Board could also setup its own website for displaying all board anouncement and document, which should be
part of the Board's fiduciary duty.
Finally, the current Board had made several anouncement/statement for the purpose of attacking Admin/PC using crude language, personal attacks, unfounded accusations and outright slandering. Such anouncement/statement do not warrant circulation in email or in Newsletter.
4董告胡/刘和3董要达到什么目的： (from Ms. Galvao's Affirmation)
ReplyDeletef. Prevents palintiffs from assuming a position on the board, pending resolution of this dispute; and
g. Requires plaintiffs to perform only those acts that are within their roles as Principal and PC Chair, and prevents them from implementing policies within the Board's purview without prior board review and approval.
即：
f. 在本案终结前，阻止胡/刘进入董事会。
g. 阻止胡/刘在没有董事会批准的情况下，做任何属于董事会权力范围内的事（意指教科书选择和课程设置）。
From "MEMORANDUM OF LAW" by Ms. Galvao:
ReplyDelete"Principal Hu's and PC Chair Liu's true motivation in bringing this lawsuit - and, earlier, in impeding and preventing a fair and democratic vote as to the 2012 Bylaws - was to ensure that the 2012 Bylaws would not pass. Plaintiffs were unhappy with the 2012 Bylaws because, pursurant to the amendments contained in these Bylaws, the full membership would be entitled to vote to elect the members of the Board of Directors".
Either someone lied to Ms. Galvao or Ms. Galvao lied, in court, no less. I challenge Ms. Galvao to find one sentence from all previous published statements, bylaws discussions that Hu/Liu were against direct election of the Board members. There are many genuine discussion on school Forum (http://hxcsny.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?166) about the proposed Bylaws amendment. It would be clear to anyone who read them that the focus of opposition was on the voting method for the board (Limited Voting vs. Single Member Plural Voting). "2012 Bylaws" was rejected by majority parents precisely because one faction insisted on putting Limite Voting in it.
Even with personal objections, Ms. Yawen Liu organized a clean and legitimate vote for "2012 Bylaws". Unlike last year's PC Chair Mr. Zhu Li, who refused to organize and called parents to boycott the Principal/PC Chair election only because he personally objected the Board exercising the right and refused to admit the Board had the right to prescreen the candidates as defined in the bylaws.
From "MEMORANDUM OF LAW" by Ms. Galvao
ReplyDeleteUnder section "Plaintiffs Cannot Show Irriparable Harm and the Equities Favor the Defendants"
She said:
"The Defendant Majority Directors concede that the irregularities surrounding the April 15, 2012 elections on the proposed, amended bylaws render both elections 'so clouded with doubt' and 'tainted with questionable circumstances' so as to warrant the setting aside of the results of both competing elections and the conducting of a new election pursuant to NPCL $618"
Why, then, the 4 board members tried to declare "2012 Bylaws" passed at 5/6 Board meeting and fabricate meeting minutes and voting record (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9d733d7d390b8fac6c5e290c7&id=e81fa593a0)? If you knew both voting results were "tainted", why as board members you did not just state the fact and call for a new vote? Where was your fiduciary duty?
If Hu/Liu did not take you to court, would you have conceded this fact?
Even if there were no voting process organized by PC Chair, was not it a fact that your own voting process organized by "Special Voting Committee" had been "tainted with questionable circumstances" as it probably broke all electon laws?
If there were no voting organized by "SVC", the voting organized by PC Chair would definitely not be tainted. Why should the court rule in reward for bad if not out-right illegal behavior?
DeleteAll nonsense. Why don't you ask Hu/Liu's lawyer and get answers. What you say here wouldn't help you get anything.
Delete++++++ Complete Story: Update on School Litigations ++++++
ReplyDeleteJune 9, 2012
Dear Members of HXNY,
In responding to Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu’s lawsuit against us, on June 7th, 2012, the undersigned four members of the Board filed a counter petition against Dapeng Hu, Yawen Liu and the three minority Board members: Minghui Lei, Shengjing Li and Ching Zhou in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. Now the court has the evidence and opinions from both sides.
The counter petition became necessary and is our only option because it compels Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu and 3 minority Board members to perform their duties, and allows the school to hold election in accordance with the 2010 edition Bylaws:
* Have an obstruction-free period to have the new school Principal and PC Chairperson elected without violating the court order.
* Prevent egregious abuses of power and breaching of the Bylaws and the New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law.
* Have the 3 Board members fulfill their fiduciary duties.
The judge of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County has issued an Order to Show Cause on June 8th, 2012, highlighted below (Click here for complete details):
* Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu and the 3 minority Board members are prohibited from interfering with the election for the 2012/2013 academic year.
* The 3 minority Board members are prohibited from impeding, disrupting, or blocking the Board meetings scheduled for June 10th, 2012, June 17th and depriving the Board of a quorum.
* Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu are prohibited from blocking the Board of Directors’ efforts to communicate directly with the school members in the Newsletter.
We urge members to support our efforts to end the current chaos and to find a lasting solution for a stable and peaceful HXNY.
Sincerely yours,
Chairman of HXNY Board of Directors: Li Zhu
Member of HXNY Board of Directors: Lida He, Ying Huang and Gutuan Zheng
---------------------------------------------------------------
尊敬的各位家长，
作为对胡大鹏，刘雅文对我们诉讼的回应，6月7日我们在威郡纽约州最高法院递交了对胡大鹏，刘雅文的反诉文和对其他三位少数董事雷明辉，李盛京，周箐的诉讼文。现在法院拥有双方的证据和观点。
我们曾声明： “我们将竭尽全力通过校内协商解决问题，化解危机，不首先动用法律手段。但如果个别成员或小团体对任何学校志愿人员进行讼诉，我们将严阵以待”。既然胡大鹏，刘雅文首先把我们告上法庭，我们现在反诉是必要，因为它能促使胡大鹏，刘雅文和其他三位少数董事会成员履行职责，保证学校按2010校章举行正常选举：
* 学校需要没有干扰的环境来举行不违反法庭令的校长，家长会长选举；
* 防止胡大鹏，刘雅文继续滥用职权，违反校章和纽约州非营利机构法；
* 促使其他三位少数董事成员履行职责.
下面是威郡纽约州最高法院法官6月8日发布的对胡大鹏，刘雅文和雷明辉，李盛京，周箐等三位少数董事成员的八个临时禁令（点击此处阅读法庭英文版全文）其中三个要点：
* 禁止胡大鹏，刘雅文和其他三位少数董事会成员干扰2012/2013学年的学校选举；
* 禁止其他三位少数董事会成员限制，扰乱，妨碍或阻止预定于2012年6月10日，2012年6月17日及以后的董事会会议，禁止剥夺董事会会议的所需法定人数；
* 禁止胡大鹏，刘雅文阻止董事会通过学校Newsletter直接与学校成员沟通。
本案开庭时间暂定于2012年6月22日。我们敦促家长们支持我们为尽快结束目前的混乱，寻求一个长期的解决方案而做出的努力。恳请家长们支持我们履行我们的职责，支持我们把我们在6月22日开庭之前能做的工作做好。对广大支持我们的家长，对广大以各种方式帮助学校的家长，再次表示感谢。
纽约华夏中文学校董事会主席：朱立
纽约华夏中文学校董事会成员：贺力大、黄莺、郑顾团
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
纽约华夏中文学校董事会主席：朱立
Delete纽约华夏中文学校董事会成员：贺力大、黄莺、郑顾团
-----------
感谢你们，向你们致敬！
华夏家长感谢四董， 特别是朱董事长！
Delete您们大公无私，忍辱负重，是华夏的良心。
四董是我们的英雄，我们早就盼着扬眉吐气这一天了。让一而再再而三告别人的董事们也尝尝被告的滋味。
Delete我们曾声明： “我们将竭尽全力通过校内协商解决问题，化解危机，不首先动用法律手段。但如果个别成员或小团体对任何学校志愿人员进行讼诉，我们将严阵以待”。
Delete朱立, 贺力大、黄莺、郑顾团一忍再任，为学校正常选举，现在反诉，合法及时。 我们支持！
From "MEMORANDUM OF LAW" by Ms. Galvao
ReplyDeleteUnder section "Plaintiffs Cannot Show Irriparable Harm and the Equities Favor the Defendants"
She said:
"Here, not only is there no threat of irreparable injury to Plaintiffs given the Majority Directors' position that both competing elections on the bylaws must be held a nullity and a new election conducted - ....".
As a lawyer, Ms. Galvao needs to pay attention to logic as well as the sequence of time. Before 5/16 TRO was issued, there was no record anywhere that the Defendants held such positions as stated. In fact, they had declared "2012 Bylaws" passed and called people to submit their candidacy for both Principal/PC Chair and the Board elections according to the "2012 Bylaws". Such actions had caused the irreparable harm already. Only after 5/16 TRO was issued, such activities finally stopped. Changing position today by the Defendants did not change the fact that TRO was urgently needed on 5/16.
From "MEMORANDUM OF LAW" by Ms. Galvao
ReplyDeleteUnder section "Plaintiffs Cannot Show Irriparable Harm and the Equities Favor the Defendants"
She said:
"Moreover, given the Plaintiffs' obstructive and fraudulent conduct in the administration of their competing election, which includes, inter alia, allegations of duplicate voting by members utilizing the two PC Voting stations operated by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs's actions in allowing two of their supporters to cast over 30 alleged 'proxy votes' each despite their questionable authenticity ..."
The two PC voting tables were for logistic reasons. One for last names starting from A-L, one for M-Z. At the end of voting, the records of two tables were carefully checked against each other. Only 3 families for various reasons had voted at both tables as stated in the voting result anouncement. One of which was done deliberatly by a BAC member who was supporting SVC and did it as proof of alleged duplicate voting. As for proxy voting, it was allowed by the current Bylaws. All proxies had been sealed and stored after voting. Anyone in doubt of authenticity could ask for an examination. In fact, "SVC" also allowed proxy voting.
One of which was done deliberatly by a BAC member who was supporting SVC and did it as proof of alleged duplicate voting.
Delete+++++++++++++
孙亦农was another one done deliberately and then had a major fight with one of PC voting committee's female member. Now 孙亦农is the PC chair candidate approved by the four board members.
HXNY Legal Action Update
ReplyDelete朱立等四位董事接二连三地借用家长签名要求校长家长会长撤销对他们的起诉，而当校长,家长会长宣布在条件成熟时可以考虑撤诉之后（see herehttp://eepurl.com/mw6az），四位董事却对华夏纽约中文学校，校长、家长会长以及另外三位董事兴讼。6月8日在威郡纽约州最高法院，他们的律师，with an affidavit of Ms Lijie Cheng (家长签名组织者）, made the arguments in an Order to Show Cause proceeding against 学校，校长、家长会长以及另外三位董事。他们诉求的主要内容包括（原文点这里）：
1）要求学校预支$50,000为四位董事的违法行为买单
2）要求罢免推进教改的校长和家长会长，阻止校长和家长会长依现有Bylaw进董事会
3）禁止校长、家长会长及另外三位董事罢免朱立等四位董事
4）禁止校长推行实施教材方面的政策
Yesterday June 8th, the attorney for the four board members, Li Zhu, Sue Huang, Gutuan Zheng, Lida He (“Majority Directors”), with an affidavit of Lijie Cheng, made the arguments in an Order to Show Cause proceeding against Principal Hu, PC Chair Liu and three minority directors, Minghui Lei, Shengjing Li and Ching Zhou. Among other things, the arguments include (click here for originals):
authorizing and directing an advancement to the Majority Directors of $50,000 from the school
enjoining Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu from acting as Principal and PC Chair and they may not rotate to the Board of Directors at the end of the school year;
enjoining Principal Hu, PC Chair Liu and three minority directors from attempting to remove, impeach the Majority Directors.
enjoining Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu from implementing textbook policies.
支持四董合理合法的正当请求！
Delete1）要求学校预支$50,000为四位董事的违法行为买单
--》符合学校Bylaws和纽约州非营利机构法。当学校志愿者被告时，如不保护志愿者，违法了学校Bylaws和纽约州非营利机构法，也打击志愿者今后为学校服务的积极性。
2）要求罢免推进教改的校长和家长会长，阻止校长和家长会长依现有Bylaw进董事会
--》胡/刘滥用职权，违反Bylaws和纽约州非营利机构法，隐瞒欺骗家长，毫无诚信，已给中文学校造成无法弥补的伤害。
3）禁止校长、家长会长及另外三位董事罢免朱立等四位董事
--》因为四董要为学校站好最后一岗，他们（同BAC一样）已宣布以后不再寻求学校职位。与此相反，胡/刘屡次撒谎，欺骗家长法庭，不择手段，赖着不走。
4）禁止校长推行实施教材方面的政策
--》因为胡大鹏违法2010Bylaws. Bylaws规定这属于董事会的权力和责任范围。 胡大鹏不顾董事会一再请求协商解决，一意孤行，强制推行。 实际上，董事会也赞同，支持实施教材多样化，他们仅要求在法律范围内实施。
No way school will pay them $50,000 for violating bylaws of the school.
DeleteYou are entitled to you opinion. We must follow the Laws if you want to live on this land.
Delete高尔基：海燕之歌 -送给勇敢的四董为保卫华夏纽约而挺身而出，你们就是勇敢的海燕！
ReplyDelete==================
在苍茫的大海上，狂风卷集着乌云。在乌云和大海之间，海燕像黑色的闪电，在高傲的飞翔。
一会儿翅膀碰着波浪，一会儿箭一般地直冲向乌云，它叫喊着，──就在这鸟儿勇敢的叫喊声里，乌云听出了欢乐。
在这叫喊声里──充满着对暴风雨的渴望！在这叫喊声里，乌云听出了愤怒的力量、热情的火焰和胜利的信心。
海鸥在暴风雨来临之前呻吟着，──呻吟着，它们在大海上飞窜，想把自己对暴风雨的恐惧，掩藏到大海深处。
海鸭也在呻吟着，──它们这些海鸭啊，享受不了生活的战斗的欢乐：轰隆隆的雷声就把它们吓坏了。
蠢笨的企鹅，胆怯地把肥胖的身体躲藏到悬崖底下……只有那高傲的海燕，勇敢地，自由自在的，在泛起白沫的大海上飞翔！
乌云越来越暗，越来越低，向海面直压下来，而波浪一边歌唱，一边冲向高空，去迎接那雷声。
雷声轰响。波浪在愤怒的飞沫中呼叫，跟狂风争鸣。看吧，狂风紧紧抱起一层层巨浪，恶狠狠地把它们甩到悬崖上，把这些大块的翡翠摔成尘雾和碎末。
海燕叫喊着，飞翔着，像黑色的闪电，箭一般地穿过乌云，翅膀掠起波浪的飞沫。
看吧，它飞舞着，像个精灵，──高傲的、黑色的暴风雨的精灵，──它在大笑，它又在号叫……它笑些乌云，它因为欢乐而号叫！
这个敏感的精灵，──它从雷声的震怒里，早就听出了困乏，它深信，乌云遮不住太阳，──是的，遮不住的！
狂风吼叫……雷声轰响……
一堆堆乌云，像青色的火焰，在无底在大海上燃烧。大海抓住闪电的箭光，把它们熄灭在自己的深渊里。这些闪电的影子，活像一条条火蛇，在大海里蜿蜒游动，一晃就消失了。
──暴风雨！暴风雨就要来啦！
这是勇敢的海燕，在怒吼的大海上，在闪电中间，高傲的飞翔；这是胜利的预言家在叫喊：
──让暴风雨来得更猛烈些吧！
今天有三对半校长候选人参加初选。一场意外的火警差点让这次筛选延期，两辆消防车一大帮消防人员忙活半小时后，初选按预期结束。
ReplyDeleteFrom Affidavit of Defendant Sue Ying Huang:
ReplyDelete"14. This damaging situation is made worse by the fact that, in numerous blogs and other such postings on the Internet, certain individuals on both side of the controversy have seen fit to cast aspersions and write negative commentary. Much of this commentary has been posted anonymously - which reflects not only cowardess, but also suggests that the sole purpose in making such posts is to throw the School into furthur chaos and deepen the divide that have already proved so damaging to the operation and reputation of the school".
Good point! The main source of these anonymous postings are from go-hxny blog (http://go-hxny.blogspot.com) which is widely believed to be owned and operated by BAC Chairman Li Jianren or his wife. Why did Mr. Li need such a blog when he was acting as BAC Chairman and had a Yahoo discussion group at his disposal? In reality, many parents who publicly expressed their opinions about the Bylaws amendment had been personally and obscenely attacked. As a result, some people choose not to express their opinions about the new Bylaws. The mere existance of go-hxny had tainted the Bylaws amendment process and poisoned the school environment. Many people protested cyber bullying by go-hxny. But the board turned a blind eye and never wanted to investigate. It's time for the court to find out the truth. If go-hxny is indeed owned by Li Jianren or his wife, then the whole Bylaws amendment process was tainted, not just the final voting process.
今天看到四董对人不对事地封杀最具教育背景的林俊/姚大纯这对候选人的时候，我看到四董复仇的火焰在燃烧孩子的未来。 我们的教改才刚刚开始，需要专业的人才专门研究，带领我们一起去寻找有效地学中文之路，四董为了个人的仇恨，胡乱为我们指定IT精英，把全校孩子未来至于自己的复仇计划之后，我们为什么要这样的董事，心里全是自己唯独没有孩子。心里除了悲哀，就是一声呐喊：“弹劾朱力”
ReplyDelete华夏中文学校不需要搞经济搞医的博士来做校长。你们还是安心本职工作吧。
Delete今天，很多有良知的家长事先担心的一幕还是遗憾地发生了。四董滥用校章赋予的筛选校长/家长会长候选人的权利，辜负广大家长给予的信任，悍然否决了林骏/姚大纯这对优秀的校长/家长会长候选人。
ReplyDelete比较今年参选的几对候选人的任职资格，不难看出，四董否决候选人资格的标准绝非出于公心。其他两对参选者均是IT精英，没有任何学校教育管理经验，我们不否认他们愿意出来为学校服务的热情。但是，相对他们而言，林骏教授是专业教育工作者，大学终身教授，战略与组织管理专家，并曾从事体制改革实务。 他们这一对被四董封杀而不能出线参选，是中文学校的一大损失。
去年以来，林骏教授担任我校副教务长一职，促进和推动了教改，并总体负责教学评估体系的建立和推介，显示出很强的教育专业素养和工作能力，深受同事和教师们的尊重。今年开始他还应急兼任七年级博览班教师一职，身体力行他所推行的教改措施，教学成效显著，深受孩子和家长的推崇。他能在当前局势下勇敢参选，愿意以其丰富的教育和教改经验为大家服务，是中文学校之幸，有利于学校不断提高教育质量，符合广大家长的切身利益。他的竞选伙伴姚大纯博士有丰富的活动组织经验，热心公益，对重建社区信任作了广泛的调研和准备。
不幸的是，他们成为四个董事出于一己私利而报复的牺牲品！
反观另两对候选人，戴扬是去年以来发动群众运动造成学校动荡的领头人，而田肇基曾有过在移交学校财产时，带来学校财产不明流失的不良记录。这进一步证实四董即使百般粉饰，但骨子里反对教改、置学校长期利益于不顾，追求小团体私利的实质。
华夏纽约去年以来各种事态的发展，让人寒心。本以为今年董事会能够本着前车之覆、后车之鉴的精神，相应家长的呼声，尽心履行董事职责，为家长提供最优秀的候选人。不料，事实证明，广大家长赋予四董的权力，又一次成为他们党同伐异的工具。家长的意志，被四董无情地践踏。今天，又是华夏历史上黑暗的一页。
姚大纯博士鼓动胡/刘支持者违反Bylaws,是为恶还是为善？
Delete胡/刘首先恶告四董，从新校章倒退到旧校章，用TRO强迫董事会遵循并执行旧校章。旧校章赋予董事会的职责之一就是遴选校长、家长会长候选人。
Delete四董遵守校章，法庭令，选出了他们认为最合适学校的候选人， 这是他们的职责和权利。
新校章不但不遴选候选人，而且赋予家长全面选举校长，家长会长和全部董事的权利。
胡/刘（林骏/姚大纯）为什么害怕，阻止新校章？！
胡家帮口口声声说要依法办事，董事会昨天依法从三对半校长候选人中，选出合法的两对候选人， 你们闹什么？！ 你们不把华夏继续搞乱不罢休？
Delete谁违反Bylaws？ 是四董。等着法庭判吧。
DeleteToday, Zhu Li and the four board members colluded and vetoed Dr. Jun Lin and Dr. Dachun Yao’s candidacy to be the Principal and PC Chair, respectively, for the next school year. Dr. Lin is a professional educator and current Associate Dean who initiated the education reform at our school and led the Education Assessment effort (please see their insightful presentation via attached video link
ReplyDelete林骏： http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3df7JdYiMxU
姚大纯： http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Byl5FTwF0). Sadly, the four board members gave no consideration to the school’s long term interest. Dr. Lin and Dr. Yao became the victims of the four board members’ retaliation against the Admin team and parents’ vote for education reform.
On June 3rd, Zhu Li and the four board members were in school frantically asking parents to sign a petition to withdraw the lawsuit filed by Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu. Now we know what happened to the petition and what they’re for. Cheng Lijie signed an affidavit attesting to the petitions, which became an exhibit in another action filed by the same four board members against the Principal Hu, PC Chair Liu and the other three board members. Here are what the four board members asked the court to do (details see https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=ZdK6UjJVhgjdAxYHAKstbw==):
1. direct the school to pay the four directors $50,000 as advanced legal fees; and
2. direct Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu not to implement the textbook policies.
So, let the facts speak for themselves. The fact is that the four board members voted down the most qualified principal and PC chair candidates. The fact is that the petition of withdrawal was used to sue others while they told parents it was to stop the lawsuit. The fact is that the petition of withdrawal was used to get money from school. Finally, the fact is that the four board members’ lawsuit is to overturn the education vote of the parents.
What is the best interest of the school? Is it to veto the most qualified candidates? School’s reserve fund belongs to all members. How dare they try to use it for their legal action against other school volunteers? Education reform was overwhelmingly voted by the members. How dare they prevent the school Admin from implementing it?
Every parent who voted for the education reform, and every parent who doesn’t want the school to foot the bill for the four board members, let’s tell them we don’t agree! Impeach Zhu Li!!!
If you support the petition to impeach Zhu Li, please reply via email “Yes” and sign both your and your spouse’s names. Your privacy will be protected. Other than yourself and for PTA audit purposes, no one will receive your personal information.
Please send yout emails to
liang@hotmail.com
mr.min.xu@gmail.com
Message flagged Monday, June 11, 2012 6:54 AM
ReplyDelete6月10日，在筛选校长/家长会长候选人的open board meeting上，三对候选人田肇基/孙亦农， 林骏/姚大纯，戴扬/曹亮 以及无竞选伙伴的单名候选人梁涛介绍了自己的资历，理念和施政纲领，在随后的董事投票中， 戴扬/曹亮与田肇基/孙亦农得到七名董事票中的四票，通过初选，进入下一轮全校投票， 林骏/姚大纯得到三票，被否决。 而遗憾的是林骏/姚大纯却是在场家长们普遍看好的一对。
毋庸置疑，所有候选人都具有愿意为学校服务的热情，尤其是能够在当前校内局势高度紧张的情况下勇敢参选，每一个人的勇气都是值得敬佩的。 但是作为校长候选人，光有热情和勇气是不够的，首先，专业素养和工作能力应是最重要的选拔指标之一，尤其在教学改革方兴未艾之际， 广大家长更希望选用最有能力深化完善教改的候选人。 其次，在经历了一次次动荡之后，家长们迫切希望下任校长出自较少参与以往学校纠纷的新人，来带领华夏重新起步。 在这两点上林骏/姚大纯无疑具有明显优势。
在专业素养上，两位获选的校长候选人田肇基、戴扬都是IT专家，但是没有任何学校管理经验。 而落选的校长候选人林骏则是专业教育工作者，大学终身教授，战略与组织管理专家，并曾从事体制改革实务。 获选的田肇基、戴扬从未做过一线老师，落选的林骏则在今年开始兼任七年级博览班教师一职。 获选的田肇基、戴扬从未直接参与过教改，落选的林骏则在过去一年里，利用他在教育，组织管理和体制改革方面的专业知识，协助制定了一系列教改方案，参与引进马力平美洲华语教材，并在他代课的班级上推行他所倡导的教改措施，得到了家长和孩子的欢迎。
为了不使以往的矛盾继续困扰华夏，家长们都希望新任校领导应是温和中立的新人。获选的田肇基、戴扬在去年以来群众运动极为活跃， 有时还是组织发起者。 田肇基在华夏十年更难以称为新人。 田肇基的搭档孙亦农多次因政治立场原因与其他家长（包括女家长）发生激烈冲突。 落选的林骏则从未参与过任何以往的运动，他的温和立场有目共睹。他的搭档姚大纯为人正直，朋友遍及校内持各种立场的人群。
董事会成员的权力来自家长，甄选校长会长候选人关系着全校八百余名家长的切身利益， 董事们行使权力时应以学校利益为最高优先。 可是令人不解的是林骏/姚大纯这样一对优秀的候选人却遭到封杀。 我们不得不再次面对一个令人痛心的现实，教育，再一次遭到帮派恶斗的屠戮； 权力，又一次成为党同伐异的工具。 在华夏局势高度紧张的今天，各方个人政治立场有冲突是谁也无法回避的现实，但是从家长的角度，任何因为个人政治立场而牺牲孩子教育的人都不配享有家长的信任。
为保证选举的公正透明，保证家长的知情权，保证孩子得到最好的教育机会，代表200多签名家长，我们要求每位董事公布他们在open board meeting上所选择的候选人和他们否决其他选人的的理由。
胡/刘首先恶告四董，从新校章倒退到旧校章，用TRO强迫董事会遵循并执行旧校章。旧校章赋予董事会的职责之一就是遴选校长、家长会长候选人。
Delete四董遵守校章，法庭令，选出了他们认为最合适学校的候选人， 这是他们的职责和权利。
新校章不但不遴选候选人，而且赋予家长全面选举校长，家长会长和全部董事的权利。
胡/刘（林骏/姚大纯）为什么害怕，阻止新校章？！
胡家帮口口声声说要依法办事，董事会昨天依法从三对半校长候选人中，选出合法的两对候选人， 你们闹什么？！ 你们不把华夏继续搞乱不罢休？
Delete董事会昨天选出不合格的两对，那两对人马除了打仗闹事，什么也不会。目的就是将华夏的争斗延续下去。
Delete更可笑的事，居然有人声称组班时不用有争议人士，可他自己就是一个有争议的人。也就是说，他组班时，只要像他们自己这样的闹将。
四董筛去教育专家，留下闹事专家。想干什么，还不是一目了然?
Delete看出来吧，教育和教学质量，从来不是四董所关心的事。他们所关心的只是延续争斗，盗用学校的资产。
戴杨的老婆在教育委员会中竭力攻击马立平和美洲华语教材，甚至在最后阶段还反对教材多样化。
Delete新校章不但不遴选候选人，而且赋予家长全面选举校长，家长会长和全部董事的权利。
Delete=============
Limited Voting is not 董事会直选。昨天黄莺还在董事会上想误导大家。姚大纯在他的presentation里指出了这条。
董事会给了家长们两个选择，Dumb and Dumber,
Delete林骏： http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3df7JdYiMxU
ReplyDelete姚大纯： http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Byl5FTwF0
Dr. Lin and Dr. Yao made two excellent presentations and they are qualified for the positions they were seeking. Unfortunately they chances were ruined by the wrong strategy of Dapeng and Yawen to file the lawsuit against the 4 board members and to force them to use the 2010 Bylaws.
Delete四董干的坏事，还要倒打一耙?
Delete这学年以来，四董所做的决定和选择，都是要把华夏推下万劫不复的深渊的最坏选择。
DeleteHu/Liu forced the school to use 2010 bylaw. Hu/Liu forced all board members to only choose up two pairs. No more. Otherwise, they are against law (TRO).
DeleteLet us all 谴责 Hu/Liu。
Dr. Lin and Dr. Yao made two excellent presentations and they are qualified for the positions they were seeking. Unfortunately they chances were ruined by the wrong strategy of Dapeng and Yawen to file the lawsuit against the 4 board members and to force them to use the 2010 Bylaws.
Delete--------------------------------------------------
So you agree that 4 board members' decisions were not based on the qualification of Lin/Yao but based on their desire to revenge for Hu/Liu's lawsuit?
What is the fiduciary duty of the board members when they choose candidates? The best interest of the school or personal vengeance?
They are asked to choose the best candidates, not the worst ones!
DeleteHuang Ying said in the meeting that they could choose not to screen, but since Hu/Liu sued them in court, they had to screen. We are waiting to see how they justify their choices.
Delete恕我直言，华夏藏龙卧虎，能胜任的家长比比皆是。
Delete林骏过度张扬，姚大纯杀气腾腾，俺得不自在。。。
推出来的两队只能算小爬虫。
Delete还有可笑的呢。
ReplyDelete有人亲眼目睹四董方面的人拉响火警警报，故意拖延时间，有意不让广大家长听完校长候选人最后提问和表决部分。
朱立老婆季均
Delete啥招都敢使啊?
Delete无聊的谣言。。。
Delete你怎么知道是谣言?
Deletewho is responsible for opening up Q/A channel with candidates? When it's going to be ready?We'd like to ask them some questions.
ReplyDeleteThe election will go through quickly. Members will not have any time to get to know these candidates.
DeleteThen the 4 board members again violated their own promise.
DeleteNo surprise.
Delete看看四董给华夏挑的校长候选人吧，
ReplyDelete没有一人有管理经验，
没有一人懂中文教学，
没有一人不是各次闹事的主力，
没有一人不想把学校的钱分掉，
没有一人在昨天以前表示支持过教改。
朱力黄英郑顾团贺力大，你们的名字将永久地刻在通往地狱的耻辱柱上。
胡大朋开了华夏的先例-没有在华夏担任过任何职位的人都可以做校长。昨天的几位每一位都比他强， 你们就行行好，别再羞辱胡大朋了。
Delete没有一人有管理经验-什么管理经验，
答：教育管理经验吗？胡大朋有吗？别拿花街的MD臭显。几个候选人说不准还是胡大朋的老板。
没有一人懂中文教学，
答： 胡大朋懂吗？至少人家几位在学校里做过教师，家长代表，在校委会工作过。
没有一人不是各次闹事的主力，
答： 各次闹事的主力-胡大朋当之无愧！
没有一人不想把学校的钱分掉，
答： 造谣。
没有一人在昨天以前表示支持过教改
答： 造谣。
From Affidavit of Defendant Li Zhu:
ReplyDelete"9. ...As Parent Council Chairperson, I worked with my team members to make the School a peaceful and enjoyable environment for both children and parents. We followed the school bylaws and never broke any School regulations."
False. When the board prescreened the candidates, he strongly objected and denied the board had such right under the Bylaws. He helped to organize the impeachment drive trying to overturn the board's decision. After the first impeachment against one board member failed to pass, he immediately worked to organize a second impeachment against 5 board members. He refused to fufill his duty to organize the Principal/PC election as defined in the Bylaws and called parents to boycott the election.
How could you forget? Impeachment is to follow bylaw!
DeleteBut did he defend the Board's right to prescreen last year? If not, he willfully ignored the Bylaws.
Delete0, 1 and two pairs are all following bylaw.
DeleteFrom Affidavit of Defendant Li Zhu:
ReplyDelete"13. Regrettably, the Corporation has been embroiled in turmoil over the past couple of years, as competing 'factions' of individuals engage in an ongoing, ultimately destructive struggle to take over governance of the Corporation and thereby control the day-to-day operations of the School. This lawsuit is the second action commenced by the members of
plaintiffs' 'faction' in the past year. The first was in June 2011. Although the named parties in that prior action were different than the current one, both actions appear to have been designed to instill fear and intimidation in anyone who would dare to disagree with, or oppose plaintiffs Hu and Liu or the members of the 'faction' that they clearly lead."
False. In fact, the faction Zhu Li belongs had almost complete control of the school for many years. Since the school started to have Principal/PC Chair election in 2005, anyone who was not in their faction and wished to serve the school was ruthlessly pushed back. Almost every year, there were people disheartened by their behavior and chose to leave the school, including the original three founders of the school. As the school became larger, the faction's grip on power became tenuous. Last year, almost by accident, there were 5 board members who were not closely aligned with the faction and constituted a super majority in the board. Using the rights defined in "2010 Bylaws", the 5 board members succesfully blocked the candidates from the faction. If the faction's candidate went through the screening process, the faction would most likely win in the election as previous years. By the succession plan defined in the Bylaws, the faction would gain complete control of both the Board and Admin/PC offices. After losing the nomination, the faction had stired up a huge turmoil. As most parents were not familiar with Bylaws and did not wish to know the details of the internal struggle, the faction denied the board had the right to screen the candidates. They called for impeachment of the board Chairman and after this failed to pass, called for second impeachment against the 5 board members. They disrupted prescheduled 6/12 election and planned to disrupt the re-scheduled 6/19 election. Only after the board went to court and obtained a TRO against the faction leaders, the 6/19 election went through. Immediately after the election, the 5
board members dropped the lawsuit as a courtesy to the defendants. After the first impeachment failed to pass on 6/12 and unwilling to share the power,a faction leader (previous Principal)quietly registered his own school. Notice that it was before the date of 6/18 lawsuit filed by the 5 board members and before the 6/19 election. The faction's split from the school would not become public before they stired up more turmoil and until after 7/17 where
the faction called for another impeachment of the 5 board members as the final measure to regain power in the middle of summer vacation. For reasons still unclear to outsiders, 7/17 impeachment was called off and the 5 board members had a settlement with the faction. In the settlement, the faction acknowledged the legitimacy of the 6/19 election. In exchange, the faction was allowed to gain a simple majority in the board as the result of natural succession and gain complete control of the Bylaws Amendment Committee by appointing a faction leader as Chair.
---to be continued
---continue
DeleteAfter 7/17 settelment, part of the faction spit and setup their own school, others decided to stay and keep fighting. Right after 2010 election nomination process, parents realized the flaws in the Bylaws and called for Bylaws amendment so that the Board could be democratically elected. However, BAC Chairman and his hand picked BAC members chose to write into the Bylaws the Limited Voting Method for electing the Board. The Limited Voting severely restricts parents' voting rights and gives a cloesly nit faction undue advantage. It virtually garanttees some board positions for the faction even when they are in the minority. In extreme situations, the faction could even gain majority control of the Board. It was the last effort by the faction to retain at least part of their power. Since the beginning of the Bylaws amendment process in Oct 2010 and even before, the faction members displayed typical behavior of a previleged group of people on the verge of losing their grip on power. Their open hostility and anonymous attacks against Admin/PC team and anybody outside their faction went on daily non-stop. Anyone who spends some time on the infamous "cesspool", go-hxny website, would easily conclude that most personal attack and cyber bullying came from the faction members. All these daily skirmishes led directly to the 4/15 Bylaws voting confrontation and the chaos and turmoil after 4/15.
It is absolutely false to call Hu/Liu being leaders of a "faction". They were elected in an election where the majority voters
do not belong to any faction. Admittedly, the nomination process was flawed as prescribed by the Bylaws. But it was not their fault. After elected, they had shown their leadership quality by being able to work with people from all sides. They implemented education reform by setting up experimental classes using new text books. Their conduct had won appraise from many parents. In fact, the majority of Hu/Liu's supporters are new parents with children in lower grades who don't know anything about past infighting in the school leadership. They have directly benefited from Hu/Liu's effort in education reform and wanted their policies to continue in coming years. Hu/Liu may have lost their cool once, or twice when facing open hostility from the faction membersin open meetings. But if you read all published exchanges between Hu/Liu and parents, they were always patient, courteous, polite and trying to use humor to defuse tension in exchanges with even the most openly hostile faction members. They have shown that they deserved to be called the leaders of the school, not any faction. As for "ultimately destructive struggle", Mr. Zhu Li could speak about his own behaviors.
July 1, 2011 8:41 PM
DeleteAnonymous said...
(学校的校长在C公司上班，为了给学校点省钱，建了一个server，为学校提供了电子通信工具十几年。没料到，董事把他告上法庭，罪状之一竟是用公司资源为学校帮助做事。)
以 上一段话是从网上摘下来的。我以前说，董事会不择手段，不顾后果，不惜代价，排除异己，今天看了这段话，更让我相信，你们是想置人于死地。请问董事会，你 们能把别人往死里整，难道家长就不能用同样的方法对付你们吗？很多家长都想放弃，离开这个学校，让你们自己折腾。但现在他们发现，他们不能走，他们走了， 就没人再反抗，你们就更无法无天了。我告诉你，这些家长们已经决定不走了，就待在这个地方，你走哪儿他们跟哪儿，家长们会一直跟你们斗下去。从现在起，你 们每一个人都会在网上一一披露，你在董事会呆多久，家长们就披露多久。记住，你们在华夏的日子不会太长，在这一段时间里，你们的日子不会好过。家长们的克 制是有限度的。昨天家长们发起了的只是第一轮：你们利用华夏做跳板，做舞台，进入OCA, 再用OCA来达到你们个人的目的。家长们还会往深里挖。
董事们，欢迎你们呆下去，家长陪着你们。
在 westchester, 还有一群人。。。（待续）
Delete在 westchester, 还有一群人。。。他们属于中产阶级。 工作稳定， 有房有车。没有 伪上流们富有， 但也已经实现了美国梦。他们很能干， 做事也很雷力风行。 在华夏做了许多具体的事。在学校有很强的人际关系。暂时叫他们 ”实干派“。
2011 年 选举，伪上流 和实干派都想当校长 。。。伪上流有权，有钱。 什么都不怕。所以顶着众议，愣是把ZZ没理由地封杀了。他们知道只要ZZ参选，她们一定赢。如果他们humble一点，至少不会做得那么赤裸裸，只让一对 出来。大家连选得权力都没了。如果当初胡大鹏和雷明辉一起出来，他们把ZZ 封杀了，恐怕也不会有这么多事。 可见伪上流们有多自负。 我们怕什么？我们有钱，权。大了不起打官司。我们用自己的钱。你们实干派行吗？几十万的官司扣到你头上，这不，校长已经吃不消了吗？ （待续 ）
哎， 昨天写累了。今天接着写。先说说为什麽伪上流一定要控制华夏。他们是一群有‘野心’的人。和朋友家人野餐，旅游，聚会已远远不能满足他们。他们需要站在聚 光灯下。没看到几乎任何华人的活动都能看到郭钢那张冬瓜脸? 然而，没听任何人对他的人品说过一句好话。失去华夏，就失去了他们的‘皇土’。OCA 虽然也可以，但他们在那里只是大臣，不是皇帝。而且在华夏每星期都露脸，OCA 一年才几次？掌控华夏还可以与OCA 联手，为自己的子女谋福利，拉拢校长，董事，扩大自己的势力，说不定可以把华夏改头换面变成更有利可图的学校。这样的肥肉是不能放弃地。 （待续）
伪 上流们自以为控制了董事会，把zz封杀了就可以了。他们没想到zz的势力远远超过了他们的估计。家长们也以身受美国民主教育，怎么能没有选举权？于是场面 开始失控。伪上流们只好拿出撒手锏--打官司。他们平时就注重结交“上流人”，所以律师盟友是有地。OCA 也可在财力上帮忙。你别看李省劲在会上信誓旦旦地说“我们用自己的钱打官司”，让他说说他掏了多少了？
实干派可就惨了。大家都是遵纪守法 的良民。没有野心。只想享受美国梦。谁没事会和律师拉关系？谁也不想花几万，几十万打官司。所以伪上流们一动真格上法庭，实干派立即处了下风。虽然真理在 实干派一边，却施展不了手脚。如果有人为实干派捐钱，或有律师为实干派免费出庭，局面会大不相同。
这场大战，是权+钱 和真理的斗争。实干派错过了弹劾董事的最佳时机，但是仍有机会因为大多数家长对董事所为都以恨之入骨。只是道路已很艰难。（完）
看看谁是小帮派，黑势力。。。
Delete近几年华夏选举结果：
2008年，黄莺 350 vs 林利 80
2009年,只有一对候选人
2010年，汪元 284 vs 尹永义 107
2011年，胡大鹏 148 vs 雷明辉 50 （五董操纵“选举“， 80%家长抵制非法“选举“）
uly 4, 2011 11:02 AM
DeleteAnonymous said...
青年领袖奖获奖者， 对申请大学有利：
1）2007年，张思珍（财务长）大女儿。
2）2008年，张思珍（财务长）二女儿。
潘利（校长，董事长）女儿，
3）2009年，郑兴（家长会长，董事）儿子。
4）2010年，李胜京（校长，董事长）女儿。
July 5, 2011 8:57 PM
DeleteAnonymous said...
2009-2010 舞蹈队大班学生：
蔡梦雪（林莉女儿）
郭丹丹（郭刚女儿）
胡舒菡（胡大鹏女儿）
游青舟（洪泼女儿）
高东仪（高鸣江女儿）
袁熙悦（刘雅文女儿）
知道她/他们为什么要当官了吗？为啥抱成一团了吗？
From: Lin, Li (GE, Corporate) [mailto:li.lin@ge.com]
DeleteSent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:47 PM
To: Alan Yuan Wang (alawang)
Cc: May X. Wang; xhyang2000@yahoo.com; xue1209@yahoo.com; dapeng.hu@gmail.com; gaom@un.org; hz65@columbia.edu; xs10@yahoo.com; zhanglj@hotmail.com; Hong, Bo; Qun Zhou; Jaclyn Liu
Subject: HXNY Student Dance Team
Dear Principal Wang, how are you doing? I called you on Monday but you were out of the town. So briefly talked to your wife. She suggested that I send you an email discussing about HXNY student dance team.
HXNY dance team have represented the school participating in various community events, such as Asian Festival in the NYC and at the Westchester, Chinese New Year performance, and Huaxia General School's Huaxia Star program, etc. We have been looking for Good dance teaching staff to carry on this team. Couple of the team parents came to know a dance teacher Nico Li over the summer. Nico's impressive background and teaching style prompted these two parents to strongly recommend her to be the dance team teacher. However, due to our school's lower pay scale compared to the market, Nico is hesitated to consider the position. We really want Nico to come to teach the dance team, but would like to know how to address the pay issue. So greatly appreciate if you can kindly advise on how to proceed.
1) What the dance team can do to help bring Nico on board and start teaching by Sunday (10/30)?
Nico indicated that she has a valid working permit. If needed, she can provide the document. Attached is her bio.
The original dance team members (at least 7 students) have expressed their interests of coming to Nico's dance class once the class is open. Nico indicated that in order to have similar level's students in a dance team, she would like to have a simple audition in her first class. So the audition will be open to all students at 6th grade or above.
As Nico will have some productions/performances at the weekends over time, at first she asked to have the class around 8:30am. However, based on my conversation with May, it seemed unlikely the classroom would be available at that time. So very likely the class will be at 9:30am, regular 1st class time.
2) How to address the teacher's pay
Nico requested hourly pay of $100, which we believe is much higher than what our school can offer. We learned that the school Band faces the similar issue. They are going to submit a proposal to Board for approval, we wonder if you can add Nico Lee's issue to the discussion and see for teachers with special talents, skills or achievements, whether they can get competitive pay.
If the pay request is not approved by the board, then we need to tell the students that they have to share the cost if they want to join the team.
We really appreciate your support for the dance team. Should you have any question, please feel free to call me. Thanks.
Best regards,
Li Lin, CFA CPA CTP
Director of Exposure Management &
Hedging Advisory
GE
T +1 203 961 2109
M +1 203 252 7565
F +1 203 961 2108
li.lin@ge.com
201 High Ridge Road, MS2953-2014
Stamford, CT 06927
General Electric Company
学校的校长在C公司上班，为了给学校点省钱，建了一个server，为学校提供了电子通信工具十几年。没料到，（五）董事把他告上法庭，罪状之一竟是用公司资源为学校帮助做事。
Delete去年，五董告校长状文：
Gary Guo, Shengjing Li, Minghui Lei, Peiwin Yang and Ching Zhou
vs
Alan Yuan Wang, Xiaodi Cai and John Does 1-10
June 17, 2011
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, Index No: 12335-11
http://wro.westchesterclerk.com/legalsearch.aspx#
就像今年胡大鹏/刘雅文隐瞒，欺骗家长一样，去年五董一直不敢把状文发给家长。
From Affidavit of Defendant Li Zhu:
ReplyDelete14. "... and surrender our principles...".
False. These are all empty, imagined, trumped up accusations without any factual basis. You may find similar or worse accusations daily in the cesspool (go-hxny).
The only thing worth mentioning is that we don't know what "principles" Zhu Li is upholding. If it's "for the best interest of the school", we have not found any evidence from his behaviors.
"16. Significantly, however, the election by which Principal Hu and PC Chair Liu assumed their repective positions in June 2011 failed, in several material respects, to strictly comply with the requirements of the very same 2010 Bylaws.(These irregularities and problems are addressed more below)."
ReplyDeleteFalse. Many of those alleged irregularities were caused by obtructive and destructive behaviors by Zhu Li and other members of his faction. Furthermore, there was a legally binding settlement on 7/17 regarding to the legitimacy of 6/19 election for which Zhu Li was a willing signer. Therefore, any issue related to 6/19 election should be considered settled and not admissible in court. In addition, by raising the issues in court, Zhu Li showed that he misled the court and his lawyer, and had withheld material information from the court and his lawyer for which he should be reprihended. Accusation #16 and all other related charges should be dismissed without any discussion in court.
From Affidavit of Defendant Li Zhu:
ReplyDelete"17. More importantly, however, it was plaintiffs' own antics and ultra-vires actions that caused the April 2012 vote on
the passage of the 2012 Bylaws to devolve into chaos and confusion. The result was exactly what plaintiffs had envisioned and hoped for because they desperately wanted 2012 Bylaws to be defeated. Plaintiffs Hu and Liu did not want
to risk losing control over the School and the Corporation - which might happened if the membership had voted against their bids for elected seats on the Board."
False. It was Zhu Li and his illegal "Special Voting Committee"s unlawful behaviors that caused chaos and confusion. Many parents wanted "2012 Bylaws" defeated because it contained several items harmful to the school. The most serious of which is the "Limited Voting Method" for Board elections. Hu/Liu supported election of the Board but they were against the Limited Voting Method. There is a material difference between "Vote" and "Vote by Limited Voting Method". For most people, "Vote" is understood being "Vote by Single Member Plural Method" which is the most common practice in this country(i.e. simple majority rule). In many Board communications with parents, Zhu Li deliberately avoided to make the distinction. In court, however, you need to be exact and precise with your definitions. By using "Vote" and "Vote by Limited Voting Method" without distinction, Zhu Li deliberatedly misled the court and should be reprehended.
"Vote by Limited Voting Method"
Delete------
i still do not get it. Why Hu/Liu do not state the "Vote by Limited Voting Method" as a damage in their lawsuit, but use not automatically rotating themselves as a damage of passing new bylaw.
Limited voting itself is not illegal. The Board could be created in any way you want. You could write in Bylaws that the board members are appointed by Zhu Li. As long as 2/3 majority accept it and pass the Bylaws, it's fine. NPCL gives a lot of freedom on how a board could be created. You can not say one particular way will do harm to the corporation.
DeleteTo get a TRO, you need to convince the court that there would be an immediate irreparable harm if a TRO was not granted. Limited voting is not an irreparable harm. Try to enforce a rejected Bylaws and using it to run an election would be an irreparable harm. Taking away someone's right explicitly granted in the old Bylaws would also be a clear-cut irreparable harm.
There are so many problems with Zhu Li's Affidavit that I have lost interest in refuting all the items. Obviously, Zhu Li's lawyer only picked a few that she considered "presentable" in court. Zhu Li misled the court in many places and failed to provide all material information which may lead to serious charges. With yesterday's board actions, the 4 board members just committed more transgressions against the best interests of the school. They had failed to perform their fiduciary duty one more time.
ReplyDeleteGood luck, Zhu Li! You do need it!
胡大朋开了华夏的先例-没有在华夏担任过任何职位的人都可以做校长。昨天的几位每一位都比他强， 各位就行行好吧，别再羞辱胡大朋了。
ReplyDelete华夏中文学校不需要搞经济搞医的博士来做校长。你们还是安心本职工作吧。
ReplyDelete