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。
Thanks for taking the time to answer a lot of the questions. I am still puzzled for a number of reasons:
(1) If there are duplicated and yet conflicting votes, wouldn't you think it warrants some investigation?
(2) If you and Alan are both puzzled by the high volume of mail-in ballots and furthermore the suspicious voting results, has the VC done any investigation? If not, why not?
(3) Maybe I'm naive, but I thought by matching the ticket number with the member name, all you can know is that they voted via mail-in ballots, not how they voted. Why is there a privacy concern to start with? Even if there is a slight concern, it should not be used as a shield to tolerate potential fraud. Can Alan and you sit together to reach 50% of those mail-in voters so that only limited people can know the information?
(4) you didn't answer one of my original questions which is why many duplicated votes were disqualified even though the original voting rule stated that the onsite one will take precedence and be accepted.
Although the impeachment vote of Zhu Li has officially finished and failed, many parents and I feel that the entire process was rather opaque. For instance, the validation process of the petition signatures; how the mail-in ballots were handled; why the sudden surge in the mail-in ballots of "yes" votes on the last day before the vote etc.
As a result of the above-mentioned questions, we feel that the integrity of the entire process has been compromised and that the voting result should be examined and challenged. We appreciate the hard work and efforts you have put in during this process and we are happy it was over but it would be helpful if you could provide us with some details of the petition phrase and the voting phrase so the entire process can be more transparent.
Thank you for your prompt reply. Statistically, I find it incredible that almost all the mail-in ballots post-marked 7/7 were "yes" votes. Does that look right to you? During your previous collections of ballots, was this case of skewed distribution common? What's the average breakdown between "yes" and "no" ballots during each collection? What's the total breakdown of all mail-in ballots between "yes" and "no" votes?
Would really appreciate it if you could supply this information. Thanks.
the following email can tell you why almost all the mail-in ballots post-marted 7/7 were "yes" votes ================================================= Dear Parents, The Parent Council is organizing an all parent meeting on 7/8 to impeach and to remove Zhu Li from the Board of the Directors. We are calling all parents to vote "NO" to stop this reckless and extreme action. If you have already provided the proxies to somebody, please disregard this message. This is essentially the same message sent to you last week by Ms Lijie Cheng who is traveling. We are here to follow up with proxy instructions.
To avoid processing fraud, we strongly suggest you NOT to mail in the ballots. To save you a trip to school on July 8th to cast your vote(s), please contact one of us to arrange for (1) signed proxies and copy of driver's licenses to be sent to one of us so that we can vote on your behalf (to protect your privacy, you can black out your license number when giving us the photocopy of the driver's license; proxy form is attached below), or (2) your sealed envelope with voted ballots to be picked up from your home or office. We would much prefer the first option for ease of gathering votes.
We feel strongly that this vote is nothing but another example of dirty politics (click). Together, we represent the conscience of HXNY and we CAN stop this madness. Please keep in mind that every vote counts especially since many families are away on vacation. Please help to spread the word if possible. Thank you for your support.
It still could not explain that why there are so many mail-in ballots sent on the 7/7 from the same post office, by previous experience there were much less than ballots sent on the last day. It is better to check with those 39 families one by one in order to give the clear answer.
On the voting day I discussed with Zuojun and Dachun on possible anomaly and had the concensus that we need to look into it if the volumn is high. I think the case mentioned here worth to be examined.
Beleive the new ballots had been separated for inspection purpose. Can you provide some details on the new ballots and its comparison to earlier ones? like the number of mail-in ballots received over days and the source zip codes? Facts like this shall be helpful to address people's concerns.
I can answer some of your questions(hopefully easy ones) as well as Lijie’s, Haiwen’s questions(from a separate email) to the best of my knowledge/memory. I hope that my answers can give you the feeling that we are trying our best to make the voting fair and transparent. Zuojun can correct me if my answers are not accurate.
1). Yes. The new ballots are separately sealed, as well as the envelopes. I am not sure if it’s in a safe or not.
2). We got 39 new envelopes on 07/10. I believe 1 or 2 of them was stamped 07/06; the rest of them were stamped 07/07.
3). Of the 39 mail-in ballots, 2 of them voted “NO” (therefore 4 “No” votes); 37 of them voted “YES” (therefore 74 “Yes” votes)
4). Of the 39 mail-in ballots, two of them duplicated the votes counted on 07/08. Specifically, one “YES” ballot duplicated a “YES” ballot counted on 07/08; another “YES” ballot duplicate a “No” ballot counted on 07/08. Shirley Liu was extremely careful. She noticed on that day that one pair of duplicated ballots actually have different font for the ticket numbers. It was explained that PTA did use two font systems when making ballots.
5). As to the number of mail-in ballots over the days. First of all, I have to admit that we did not fetch the mails every single day(You can blame us and we will accept your blame), so we do not have day-by-day statistics. Roughly, Zuojun and I fetched the mails once every 2-3 business days. And the details mail counts are below
6). As to the source zipcode of the mails, we never checked the source zipcode for the mails we counted on 07/08 voting site because there were so many and we were very tight on schedule that day. However, we (especially Shirley Liu) did try to find the source zipcode for the last 39 mails. But I think we failed, we only see the destination zipcode at the bottom of the envelope. We do not see any source zip code at the upright corner close to the stamps for the majority of the envelopes. It did appear to me that the postmark at the upright corner of the majority of the envelopes are the same(I could have the wrong impression). BUT I have to admit that we are not expert at the postmark system so it’s hard to make any conclusion yet. I believe that people working in the post office can tell us more on that if we need that. I believe everyone of us were doing as careful jobs as possible. For example, Shirley Liu also questioned on that counting day that why almost all the envelopes on that day have “Liberty Bell” stamps, and Zuojun explained that we do use different stamps.
7). Haiwen asked how the mails were handled. As stated in 5). We fetched the mails roughly once every 2-3 business days. And each time we sealed the mails in a big envelopes signed by both Zuojun and I, then finally sealed with tape.
8). Haiwen, in a separate email, asked why suddenly so many mail-in emerged on the last day. Well, to be honest, Zuojun and I were surprised (certainly we did not know that most of them were all “YES” votes) too on that day. We expected very few mails on that day. As a matter of fact, on 07/10, I was late from work so I called Zuojun asking him to fetch the mails himself because we believe that there will be very few mails and will not make any difference. Later on, Zuojun called me suggesting that I still should go to the post office because he found the mailbox was unexpectedly full. So Zuojun basically waited for me in the post office for quite some time until I went there and then we counted and sealed the mails, which also showed Zuojun’s responsibility and carefulness. But Zuojun later on had a good explanation: it could be that due to the July 4th holiday, so both sides have more time to call people to vote, therefore more mails came in last minute.9). I also suggested that maybe I should get a copy of “the ticket number to parents name mapping system” so that I can spot check with some families to double verification. We debated little bit and we finally did not reach agreement on whether this will violate parent’s privacy. But this shows how we tried hard to balance everything.
10). I just answer your questions to the best accuracy I can. It does not mean that there are fraud in it. These mails could all be genuine.
I hope that the above can give your guys some confidence. Again, we, by no means, can guarantee that this voting is fraud-free (actually nobody can). We can only assure you that we tried our best.
If you have any further questions, feel free to let us know. Thanks!
Index No.: 58072/2012 NOTICE TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE HUAXIA CHINESE SCHOOL NEW YORK, INC., ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAPENG HU, YAWEN LIU, and HUAXIA CHINESE SCHOOL, NEW YORK, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
-against-
LI ZHU, GUTUAN ZHENG, LIDA HE, and SUE HUANG, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the Matter of LI ZHU, GUTUAN ZHENG, LIDA HE, and SUE HUANG, Counter-Petition Petitioners, -against-
DAPENG HU, YAWEN LIU, and HUAXIA CHINESE SCHOOL, NEW YORK, INC., Counter-Petition Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LI ZHU, GUTUAN ZHENG, LIDA HE, and SUE HUANG, Third-Party Plaintiffs,
-against-
MINGUI LEI, SHENGJING LI and CHING ZHOU in their capacity as members of the Board of Directors of the HUAXIA CHINESE SCHOOL, NEW YORK, INC., Third-Party Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------
PURSUANT to the July 19, 2012 directive of the Hon. Joan B. Lefkowitz, J.S.C. , Article 13 of the Bylaws of the Huaxia Chinese School, New York, Inc. and as one component of a mutually agreed settlement addressing all aspects of the dispute between all parties to the above-captioned litigation, who have reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation on terms that all parties believe are in the best interest of the School and its members, please be advised that Principal Dapeng Hu, P.C. Chair Yawen Liu and the seven (7) members of the Board of Directors, Chairman Li Zhu, Gutuan Zheng, Lida He, Sue Ying Huang, Mingui Lei, Shengjing Li and Ching Zhou, jointly announce to the Huaxia Chinese School, New York, Inc., and to all the members thereof, via email pursuant to the Court’s July 19, 2012 directive, that any member who so desires, may appear before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, Hon. Joan B. Lefkowitz, at the Courthouse located at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., White Plains, New York 10601, on the 24th day of July, 2012, promptly at 9:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as counsel and/or the members can be heard to show cause why an order should not be made, inter alia, authorizing the partial indemnification pursuant to Article 13 of the Bylaws and New York Not-for-Profit Law §§ 721-725 of Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu in an amount not to exceed a total of $45,000, and likewise authorizing the partial indemnification of Li Zhu, Gutuan Zheng, Lida He and Sue Ying Huang in an amount not to exceed a total of $45,000, against the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, actually and necessarily incurred by said parties in connection with, inter alia, the litigation and settlement of this action and the defense of all claims, counter-claims, and counter-petitions asserted therein, upon the ground that said parties to this litigation, as unpaid volunteer directors and officers of the corporation, are entitled to such indemnity under the standards set forth in the Bylaws and New York Not-for-Profit Law, and collectively acted in good faith, for a purpose said parties each reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Huaxia Chinese School, New York, Inc.
$90K gone! Both sides just wasted half of our kids' education fund that accumulated over school's 16-year history. Where are their consciences??? Shame on all of them!!!!
Zhu Li had to settle the case because if he doesn't he will not get a penny from the school. It is not true that only the ones that were sued by others can get indemnified and the ones who sued cannot. In the bylaws it was clear that only the principal can represent the school and Hu Dapeng sued in the name of the school. Therefore Hu Dapeng's legal fees are legal liabilities of the school and the school has to pay eventually. But since the lawsuit was in the name of the school, Zhu Li and the other three cannot be indemnified. That's also in the bylaws.
据技术统计和IP地址分析，网上最大多数赞扬郑琦的贴子都来自康州的Norwalk or Westport. 网上最大多数骂黄岳的贴子来自以下三个地方： (1) 康州的Norwalk or Westport. (2) 纽约州的Yonkers (3) 纽约州的Chappaqua.
ReplyDelete那有木有骂郑琦和赞扬黄岳的技术统计和IP地址分析？
Delete一看就知道的技术统计和IP地址分析是胡闹。有证据证明，到时会披露的。
Delete这怎么能透露,不是把自个给暴露了?
Delete你要真有本事查到, 俺也不怕. 再告诉你, 俺不来自于这上面所有的地方.
那有木有骂郑琦和赞扬黄岳的技术统计和IP地址分析？
Delete+++++++++++++++
有，来自康州的DARIEN。
能否透露一下你的高精尖技术? 不管你从哪儿发的,你肯定是发填空题的那位.
ReplyDelete你听过李开复挖水军的事吗？俺用了类似的方法。
Delete“若要人不知，除非己莫为”我们都知道你是谁？别催你的高精尖技术了！
Delete您就别瞎起劲了。郑琦与黄岳马上就一个走阳关道，另一个走独木桥。河水不范井水了。
ReplyDelete现在俺们家长都看清了
ReplyDelete是谁闹了一年的事？
=>胡/刘及少数追随者
是谁不顾家长对以权谋私的质疑，在毕业典礼上大张旗鼓搞“一家三人秀”？
=》胡大鹏
是谁不顾家长对以权谋私的质疑，今年把总校优秀学生奖发给自己的孩子？
=》胡大鹏/张明宝
是谁以前在华夏为自己的孩子办特殊舞蹈帮，排斥其他孩子？
=>郭刚/胡大鹏/刘亚文/林丽/洪波
是谁一边说他们参选不是为进董事会，一边告发法庭说，新Bylaws剥夺了他们进董事会的权益，造成不可弥补的伤害？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文
是谁宣称，如果校长，家长会长选不出来，他们就自动连任？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文
是不顾四董警告，用谎言先发告人，可能浪费学校宝贵的资金？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文
是谁拼命想进董事会？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文/郭刚
是谁用谎言告发法庭，拼命想推翻>73%家长赞同的新Bylaws？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文
是谁说话不算数？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文/三董， 甚至对法庭，家长撒谎。
是谁屡屡投票败阵，又造谣惑众，无事生非？
=>胡/刘及少数追随者
是谁到法庭欲推翻民选的合法新校长，家长会长，被法官拒绝？
=>胡大鹏/刘亚文
是谁不顾一切地违反BYLAW，纽约州法，法庭TRO？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文/三董
是谁退休了还想回董事会？
=》郭帮主
是谁出而发而，想单方撕毁7/17/2011协议，违反法庭TRO，欲剥夺贺力大的合法董事资格？
=>李/周/雷三董
是谁造谣生事，无事生非？
=>胡/刘及少数追随者
是谁不协商解决，反而再挑起罢免风波，最后以失败而告终？
=>许珉，王亮，胡/刘及少数追随者
是谁为了达到自己的目的，拉帮结派，横行霸盗，不择手段：诬告，造谣，违反Bylaws，违法TRO，甚至撒谎？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文/三董及少数追随者
是谁想分裂华夏纽约，在法庭提出分校？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文/三董
是谁想让我们明年没有学校，孩子们没学上？
=》胡大鹏/刘亚文/三董少数追随者
用了宝贵的一年时间，可结论是清楚的。真相终于大白了。
家长们，作出正确的决定，让法官知道你想要什么。
让我们一起行动起来，保护华夏，反对分裂！
是谁在颠倒是非，造谣惑众？
Delete楼上这位！
难道楼上说得不是事实吗? 有本事一条条说出来用事实反驳.
Delete焦的描述和造谣四点：
ReplyDelete造谣１：随后我就进入到我自己的教室准备给学生开始期中考试。当考试开始没到三分钟，隔壁的教室就传来大声的叫骂声音
(焦造谣 －根本就没有大声叫骂。郑琦说了一句话，唐莉站起来砸门）
造谣２：我的学生们由于好奇都跑到隔壁门口去看热闹，我立刻将孩子们叫回来继续考试，
（焦造谣－我们的学生上课时会因为门口有声音都去看热闹吗？尤其是考试时，这是你的孩子们吗？焦在造谣时太不了解中文学校的家长和学生了。）
造谣３：随之，我走到隔壁教师（注：应是“室”）敲门并请她们小点声争吵，因为这已经严重影响到我学生的正常考试。
（焦造谣－隔壁教室的门从没关，他敲啥门，他连走都没有走出来。郑琦在另外教室的门口在唐莉砸门时骂了唐莉一句，连唐莉都没听到，因为门声太响了，焦要是好好上课，会听到门外的响声吗？何况校委会的ＥＭＡＩＬ说焦的门是关着的，那他就更听不见啥声音了！）
造谣４：然后，我就回到自己的教室，当我正走进自己教室的时候，一位家长紧随我闯进了教室，并且突然大声骂道：“She is a son of bitch.” 瞬间，孩子们都愣住了。。。
（焦造谣－没走出来，就没有回到自己教室一说。从没有人闯进焦的教室， 焦门口的ＰＯＤ可作证。也从没有人说过“SHE is a SON of BITCH."
综上所述，焦师强是一个作伪证的骗子！！！
*******************************
看懂了，中文学校16年最大的一个冤案！此冤案是张明宝，唐莉，焦世强，黄岳，胡大鹏，李盛京，周箐和史尔钢一手导演的。
当时的POD 和 焦的学生知道谁在造谣。
Delete焦尸强，有种把POD，家长们和学生们叫来一起对质！郑琦一再要求你们为啥不敢？CHICKEN！
Delete因为家长们要为自己的孩子着想，不敢得罪强悍的副校长。除非分校了，这些家长都离开郑琦呆的学校。
Delete别造谣了。胡/刘不就想抢了钱就走人吗？！拿郑琦说啥事啊？
Delete因为家长们要为自己的孩子着想，不敢得罪强悍的副校长。除非分校了，这些家长都离开郑琦呆的学校。
Delete=====
胡不是搞了个学校吗？快去呀？搞不懂干吗还赖在华夏不走呢？郑琦肯定是在华夏的。
郑琦把“小鬼”都赶走了，太好了，太棒了，太酷了，太牛了，太亮了！
Delete将以学生在两边的注册情况决定如何分校。你懂吗？
Delete那俺当初不知道要分校已在学校的网站注册, 是不是那里就是指胡司令那边? 那俺不就被忽悠了?
Delete《胡/刘/三董的狼子野心，现在全校皆知》
ReplyDelete当胡/刘/黄岳等人霸占学校时，称要“保护学校”，如果由于混乱选不出新校长，自己就要主动两任；当家长排除万难，以合法程序选出新校长了，他们就露出原形，妄图“分裂学校”，不要脸面地要“钱”要“名”。他们一直谩骂是“分裂分子”，可是蔡女士比他们高尚多了！蔡筱迪是自己走的，也靠自己的力量新开了学校，并没有企图把华夏拆散啊？
一年以来，胡/刘控制舆论，决定newsletter的刊登内容，把校刊办成了自己的政治公告栏，只许自己的人发声（黄岳和LINDA HONG等人的公开信发往学校），不许别的会员发言。他们一再打击异己，在教学会上、在毕业典礼上，到处是黄岳等人手持话筒侃侃而谈的声音。他们可以得到了普通家长拿不到的全校邮址，所以敢于挑起起群众运动。
家长们虽然看起来弱势，但是正义在家长这边。由于胡/刘/黄岳等人的龌龊下作举动，激起了家长极大的反弹！一些家长在有限的资源里纷纷发出了独立的声音，揭露他们的丑行，终于唤醒了中间派家长的良知。
于是，胡/刘/黄岳等人的地位就岌岌可危了，就开始耍赖了，摇身一变，嚷嚷自己是弱势了，是“静静的一群”，指责别人搞“邮件群发”。其实普通家长究竟能接触到多少会员？看来几封在有限氛围里流传的公开信，就能令他们恐惧、出汗、心虚，这再次证明真相无敌，有理走遍天下。
这帮闹事的人，以来华夏2-5年的居多。前人种树，他们抢不到权力就处心积虑地想砍树！他们的狼子野心，现在全校皆知。这群人做人没有底线，绝对是为达目的不择手段。华夏需要纯洁群众队伍。你不喜欢新校班子，可以不去注册啊。不注册就不是会员。要走，自己走人，别打算分走大家16年来攒下的公款！
一句话：你们想走没人拦，我们欢送！想拿校产，没门！
《老马想对郑琦女士说一声“对不起”》
ReplyDelete郑琦女士：
这两天这边网上出现的填空题和对您的质疑都是来自老马。为此，老马在这里真诚地对您说一声“对不起”。
因为老马这两天正与两个大一点闹别扭，再加上老马的脸皮确实也有点薄，这不，被您一激，老马的脸就挂不住了，就与您较真起来。
昨天晚上，因为两个大一点不理俺，老马就躺在床上翻来覆去地睡不着，同时也在反省自己：“你不是想做和事佬吗？怎么被女生一骂，你就这么不淡定？什么素质！”“你不是说对人要宽容吗？怎么对这件事，你却这么较真？什么修养！”“看来，你的人品也不咋的，就不要用高标准来要求别人了。”
老马还想到了我们的华夏中文学校。“如果HXNY分裂了，我们的孩子去那里上学？”。老马多么期望我们有一个强大，和谐和欢乐的HXNY。但是我们的HXNY目前面临着分裂，还有双方的法律诉讼。作为在海外的华夏同胞，我们本应求同存异，同舟共济，让我们的下一代看到我们成功的一面；而不是兄弟相残，同室操戈，给世人留下丑陋中国人的笑柄。本是同根生，相煎何太急！实际上，我们的HXNY同仁都不是什么坏人。当然“金无足赤，人无完人”，如果大家都能多一点理解和包容，人与人之间的关系应该会很和谐。
在此老马想对您提一个小小的要求。您与黄岳老师，以及张明宝老师都是我们HXNY的人才。为了我们HXNY的美好未来，您们能否抛弃过去的恩怨，携起手来共同打拼？您能不能首先向黄岳老师伸出您那友善的手，让她回来负责马立平班的教学和老师培训工作？如果您能做到这点，我相信，我们的HXNY将出现和平的曙光。
好了，暂时写到这，今天晚上老马回家也要对两个大一点说声“对不起”
祝您署安！
老马 （Ma Houpao）
楼上，你是一个有良知的好人，一言中的，一针见血啊！
ReplyDelete他们就是打了几个官司，用了中文学校一大笔钱，拔腿就逃！
马后炮，
ReplyDelete别在那扮人样，你不把你的真名露出来，郑琦根本就不会理你，只当你放屁！“
一个为郑琦打抱不平的家长
你是郑琦吗？为什么那么激动？
Delete我不是，你是谁？
Delete我知道郑琦今晚陪小孩们演戏去了。看不到你的胡扯，出来说几句话。
你告诉我你是谁，我就告诉你我是谁，够公平的吧？
别装了，郑琦， 还今晚陪小孩们演戏去了。
Delete老马，你是真道歉哪，还是装样子？别赖着郑奇了，人家又看不上你。
Delete你怎么知道我是老马？
Delete老种马,
ReplyDelete你这臭不要脸的可真“性福”，晚上好好陪你那“两个大一点”玩。再不玩光上网骂人就成“两个小一点”咯？！
我看你再搞“两个小种马”出来，好接你匿名骂人的班！
抱不平
老马在网上骂过人？快点帮俺找出来！如果有，那就别怪俺不客气了。
Delete只能说“老马是一头被抛弃了的疯马”。。。。。。
ReplyDelete北美生活:在美国学校经历文化大革命式的恶斗http://www.creaders.net 2012-07-19 01:13:43 鲁鸣
ReplyDelete我任教的纽约华夏中文学校，继去年闹得满城风雨后，今年再次硝烟弥漫。去年结果是上法庭，校园警察维持会场。今年呢?再度打官司，争执中发生推人现象，911直拨，校外正统警察出动。
纽约华夏中文学校是纽约北郊华人孩子学中文的一所周末业余学校，校领导是家长担任志愿者，过去十多年虽有矛盾但属于正常，学校有600多学生，享有盛誉。连新泽西和康州的一些华人慕名前来，放弃本州离家近的中文学校不上，送孩子到这所学校。
然而，矛盾积累到一定年数后终于露出水面。去年因竞选校长，学校闹得乌烟瘴气，两派斗争，互不相让，民主选举行不通后，就花钱打官司。最后，马上就要离任的校长被迫辞职，被怨告的教务长实在孰不可忍，另办学校。
本以为今年的校领导会吸取去年的残痛教训。真没想到风波再起，其气势与去年不差上下。校长是投行管理总监，先下手为强，把几位董事告上法庭，这些董事再反告。官司一波接一波。
二.
不想凭我的耳闻目睹来讲故事。只想作为一位在这所学校任教了十几年的教师来叙述我的感受：这种恶斗让我仿佛在美国经历了中国当年的文化大革命。
首先是匿名信。两年内斗，都有不少匿名信通过电子邮件和网站到处发布，完全如同文革，只是过去是手写，如今电脑码字而凸显匿名特点，没法看出手写者笔迹。正因如此，匿名者更可肆无忌惮，有意无意地制造新的纠纷，咒骂或人身攻击就如同上卫生间，很方便很痛快。更有人建立匿名网站，更方便人身攻击或冷嘲热讽。
不断群发(group email)和转发给大批读者的电子邮件。这如同文革的大字报，目的是让不明真相的群众来批判，来评断，来看热闹。这简直就是大鸣大放大字报在美国的现代翻版。无论是匿名信还是公开署名的大字报，都有共同特点，既有群众运动的味道。把你的个人邮箱放进这样的群发里，意味着给你选择：你介入纷争成为运动一分子，还是做旁观者?做后者很可能被人指责：不积极参与民主，不珍惜手中的一票或不支持正义。如果这群发邮件者是你的熟人朋友，你不站出来就可能意味着你不拔刀相助而不再来往或失去朋友。
旧日邻友成了敌人，反目为仇。这在文革很普遍。如今这现象使这所华人学校的纷争成了文化大革命在美国重演的标志之一。既然分成两派斗争，不做旁观者，就必须支持一方。即使尽量保持中立，可投票时你只能投其中一方，哪怕这一方也有过错之处。同时，意见不同一旦成为两派纷争而又不能接受既定民主(选举)结果，相互指责便有情绪之战，而情绪一旦失控，伤人之言出口，邻友也会变成难堪的路人而不再来往。甚者不但不来往，公开为敌，相互开骂。真有“东风吹战鼓擂, 这个世界上究竟谁怕谁”的文革之风。
三.
收到那些群发电子信，阅读那些匿名信，我宛若穿梭在文化大革命中一栏栏的大字报中间。文革爆发时，我太小没有参与，但已识字很多。那情景至今在脑海里非常清晰。大字报上，匿名者和公开署名者以革命为理由，以造反派的名义，相互揭底，用最伤人的政治口号标签对方，侮辱对方。熟悉的邻居大人成了可怕的地富反坏右流氓。
这两年华夏学校的恶斗，不可能有文革的政治标签，却有了民主的标签。没有了革命的理由，却有了为了孩子的理由。没有了造反派组织的名义，却有了董事会和家长会的名义。平时温文恭让给学校做奉献的人，甚至老实巴结者，在恶斗中都让人大跌眼镜，互不相让，丧失理智。
这种恶斗，没有文化大革命的血腥场面。取而代之的是打官司，这种文明社会的战争需要用钱作为代价。正好，纽约华夏中文学校处于美国最富地区之一。拿出几万至十几万美元，不心痛，否则官司至少原告没法发生。
把这场恶斗视为华人在美国搞海外当代版的文化大革命，相当贴切。恶斗者大都是博士。如果说当年红卫兵只是知识青年，这些人即使谈不上是知识分子，怎么也算是有文化的人。文化人恶斗，的确可谓文革的缩影。
四.
那么，两年恶斗的目的是什么?不少人无法理解，议论纷纷，归纳如下。
(1)官瘾。毛发动文革为的是保住官位，拿不明真相的红卫兵当马前卒炮灰。华夏学校两派斗争不管动机名义如何，其目的是保住本派官位，煽动同样不明真相的家长们，犹如文革两派闹来闹去，一再选举，仍然免不了最后闹出要分离学校的官司。说起官瘾。恶斗者们如果不出国，正如一位老师说，“国内现在的官位至少有一半属于他们”。这些人大都有博士学位，拿着六七位数以上的年薪，投行者仅年底分红就有六七位数以上的美元。钱有了，可比起国内原来比自己差很多却当着本应属于自己的市长校长院长总裁甚至部长省长，心里很不是滋味。中文学校校长董事虽谈不上什么高官，且是自愿者，但这是一所完全有家长参与管理而陪读的学校，在如此众多的家长们面前展露头角，在心理上或多或少有所补偿，至少潜意识里缓减官瘾。
(2)自我膨胀。正因恶斗者大都属于出国成功者，自我意识特别强，都认为只有自己的办学理念和管理方法是最好的。当两派恶斗，这种自我因情绪化而膨胀起来。这跟夫妻吵架没什么两样。公说公有理，婆说婆有理。问题实质是各自都不能从对方角度着想，不肯让步，不能宽容谦让。非盈利组织是一个家庭，除了爱心，必须让步宽容谦让，否则这次恶斗即使结束了，还会产生而继续下去。
(3)派系。一旦形成派系，个人身不由己。站出来恶斗的人或改变主意的人，很可能不是自己本来的想法，而是为了派系。后者需要把某些人推到风口浪尖上。有人说，派系可互相监督，就像美国民主党和共和党。我不懂政治。但两党恶斗所付出的巨大代价连华盛顿先生们自己都承认，耗尽了纳税人的钱。一所中文学校经不起这样的折腾。这也是为什么很多非盈利组织把“不能打官司，只能调解”订为加入组织的条件之一，否则一场官司就可让它们倒闭。
(4)华人的毛病。很多人认为这是华人喜欢内斗不团结，哪里有华人，哪里就有内斗。我认为这是表面现象。其实，哪里有人哪里就有内斗。其它民族人种都有这现象。关键是现象的背后原因：华人普遍阳刚不足，这不只是外在的，更是内在的。说得具体一点，华人(这里主要指汉人)大都不tough(坚硬品质)，不敢对外强硬。所以从古到今，外人几乎都知道或认为华人软弱。这让华人很吃亏。到了海外，华人这种不阳刚的缺陷和外族一碰撞，暴露无遗。因为白人黑人不管来自哪个民族，大都比我们阳刚坚硬。而人的心理能量是守恒的。华人的这种缺陷便转化为了内斗，把对外不敢强硬的储存的能量释放到同胞身上。我绝对不是主张对外人不要宽容谦让，而是说碰到问题我们对外人不能坚持原则，太软弱。这是为什么即使中国今天如此富有强大，连菲律宾和越南这样的小国仍然敢对中国耀武扬威。东南亚华人这么多年来无论多么富有垄断当地经济，却一直被人小看或欺负，1998年印尼华人被集体枪杀强奸的惨案便是其中一例。
(5)为了孩子。对于不明真相的家长参与其中，的确宗旨是为了让孩子学点中文。对于恶斗者则如同美国政客们的口号“For Our Children”，很有吸引力。他们内心想让自己孩子更优秀, 虽然已够优秀的了。然而，恶斗给孩子带来负面印象，连学生因这恶斗也在网上相互攻击。
五.
本文肯定会引来很多非议，得罪人。作者声明，(1)本文针对事不对人。一家之言，难免有误，意在抛砖引玉，希望不再看到恶斗;(2)无意对他人进行伦理谴责，相反，对积极参与公益活动的志愿者一直怀有敬意;(3)所述范畴为群体概念，而任何群体都有例外，乃为常识。
最后，用林肯总统的一句话作为本文的结束：
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
在此老马想对您提一个小小的要求。您与黄岳老师，以及张明宝老师都是我们HXNY的人才。为了我们HXNY的美好未来，您们能否抛弃过去的恩怨，携起手来共同打拼？您能不能首先向黄岳老师伸出您那友善的手，让她回来负责马立平班的教学和老师培训工作？如果您能做到这点，我相信，我们的HXNY将出现和平的曙光。
ReplyDelete=====================================================================
要是等靠他们携起手让HXNY出现和平的曙光, 估计我们是看不到了.
就黄岳那没底线，啥都做得出来的人，它要先跪下来承认错误吧？
ReplyDelete还有张明宝，是不是先为考试迟到，老婆砸门，造谣惑师，污蔑家长先道歉啊？？
至于你老马，想让郑奇摇橄榄枝，你就先自报真名吧？？？
教师/志愿者迟到考场也不能作为郑琦扰乱HSK 考场的理由！
Delete教师/志愿者迟到是事实, 但是否郑琦扰乱HSK考场这还有不同看法呢, 为何没人为迟到道歉?
Delete这哪更哪啊？造谣的人威力就是大。HSK考场里就没有大人，郑奇帮看着，还看错了？焦胖子是旁边教室的，为了挣几个可怜的小钱，人格也不要了，出来作伪证。张明宝/唐李骚扰郑奇变成郑奇扰乱HSK 考场了? 跟你们这些流氓永远也说不清楚，快滚蛋吧.
Delete在此老马想对您提一个小小的要求。您与黄岳老师，以及张明宝老师都是我们HXNY的人才。为了我们HXNY的美好未来，您们能否抛弃过去的恩怨，携起手来共同打拼？您能不能首先向黄岳老师伸出您那友善的手，让她回来负责马立平班的教学和老师培训工作？
ReplyDelete====================================
您可以追随您的黄岳老师去一所聚集张明宝之类人才的学校。不必在华夏纽约折腾。人们不愿再见那些心胸狭窄，又自私的人。华夏不需要人品不好的人做老师。再说她也不是什么好老师。您如果那么喜欢她，就聘请她做私家老师好咯。
黄越的水平真的很差，他教过我们的孩子。但他会来假的骗人，人模人样的。最主要的是人品太差，做为老师，到处送匿名信，没有底线，他还是滚出花夏纽约为好！
Delete黄月上课上得不怎么迪。。。“绣花枕头一包草”。
Delete我代郑琦送封感谢信：
ReplyDelete感谢乡亲们对俺念念不忘，废寝忘食地惦记着俺。班也不上，觉也不睡地表扬俺，批评俺。俺的知名度是越来越大了，与ＯＢＡＭＡ可齐名。俺明年甭说选校长，选总统都可以了。
你们董事会几个人想做坏事，俺在台上你们就做不了，所以不让俺选校长。可你们太傻了。本来就俺几个人知道你们的狼子野心，你们这么一闹，全校家长都知道了。这叫“偷鸡不着输把米”。
你们在网上这样天天唱，月月唱，年年唱，时时唱，分分唱，秒秒唱，俺以后选校长可以拿５００票，本来不认识俺的人都认识俺了。去年与雷董一起选，俺能拿３００票，雷董拿５０票。都不需要拉票的。明年５００票也不需要拉票，因为你们天天在不辞辛劳地为俺拉票。俺谢谢你们。
黄岳老师，马捷老师，潘青老师，焦志强老师，你们为俺拉票这么辛苦，就把老师的位置辞了吧？！为人师表，不能一心二用，会怠慢眈误学生的，你们还是帮俺继续拉票吧！
不上班上网，不上课没钱，打电话要钱，上网要交钱，钱不够用，没关系，俺们董事会有李董周董雷董大款支助，校委会有胡司令刘会长买单，尽可不用担心。
万分感谢！磕头为敬！祝万寿无疆！
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
郑奇才不怕别人为她拉票， 哈哈，目标：800票， 马介，黄月，潘清，再努力一把。
还是要留50票给雷董的吗？要给他留点面子。
改错："偷鸡不着输把米"=========》“偷鸡不着蚀把米”
Delete在此老马想对您提一个小小的要求。您与黄岳老师，以及张明宝老师都是我们HXNY的人才。
ReplyDelete^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
俺知道“马后炮”是谁了？整个华夏纽约，也只有张明宝自己认为自己是“人才”了？！
你不愧是“人才”
Delete“人才”,“人才”,
Delete你不愧是“人才”!
黄岳屎“人才”，
张明宝也尸“人才”！
马后炮更噬“人才”！
连"相声 较劲" 都几百个贴子讲郑琦了, 咱们能不能换个更重要的话题?
ReplyDelete讲讲那个7/8发出的来自于39个家庭的78张选票吧, 这39封信发自同一个邮局, 其中38封(76张票)是对弹劾投"Yes", 一向让"Yes"的票数多于"No".
大家对这有何高见?
什么高见？如果被逮着是票箱作弊，那时严重违法行为，会坐牢的。看来，有人分校搞不成，要先带上手铐进班房了。
Delete我们做人一定要有原则，一定要严惩嚣张的犯罪分子。这类人更不能留在中文学校继续兴风作浪。
我们要求“罢免委员会”向第三方提供信封邮戳，由志愿者查询是否有会员是“被”投票了。
同意! 要是象传闻说的这39封信都在同一天发自同一个邮局, 就非常可疑了. 强烈要求PTA投票委员会在第三方监督下根据票号复查这些家庭是否被投票了.
Delete去问朱力。他最清楚。
ReplyDelete楼上的一看就是来捣乱的. 要是有那么高的比率, 怎么还是没过2/3啊? 弹劾以失败告终.
ReplyDelete俺觉得要是不把投票作弊的嫌疑去掉, 以后如何确保投票的公平? 这可是关系到学校存亡的大事.
Thanks for taking the time to answer a lot of the questions. I am still puzzled for a number of reasons:
ReplyDelete(1) If there are duplicated and yet conflicting votes, wouldn't you think it warrants some investigation?
(2) If you and Alan are both puzzled by the high volume of mail-in ballots and furthermore the suspicious voting results, has the VC done any investigation? If not, why not?
(3) Maybe I'm naive, but I thought by matching the ticket number with the member name, all you can know is that they voted via mail-in ballots, not how they voted. Why is there a privacy concern to start with? Even if there is a slight concern, it should not be used as a shield to tolerate potential fraud. Can Alan and you sit together to reach 50% of those mail-in voters so that only limited people can know the information?
(4) you didn't answer one of my original questions which is why many duplicated votes were disqualified even though the original voting rule stated that the onsite one will take precedence and be accepted.
Hi Zuojun,
ReplyDeleteAlthough the impeachment vote of Zhu Li has officially finished and failed, many parents and I feel that the entire process was rather opaque. For instance, the validation process of the petition signatures; how the mail-in ballots were handled; why the sudden surge in the mail-in ballots of "yes" votes on the last day before the vote etc.
As a result of the above-mentioned questions, we feel that the integrity of the entire process has been compromised and that the voting result should be examined and challenged. We appreciate the hard work and efforts you have put in during this process and we are happy it was over but it would be helpful if you could provide us with some details of the petition phrase and the voting phrase so the entire process can be more transparent.
Thank you.
Thank you for your prompt reply. Statistically, I find it incredible that almost all the mail-in ballots post-marked 7/7 were "yes" votes. Does that look right to you? During your previous collections of ballots, was this case of skewed distribution common? What's the average breakdown between "yes" and "no" ballots during each collection? What's the total breakdown of all mail-in ballots between "yes" and "no" votes?
ReplyDeleteWould really appreciate it if you could supply this information. Thanks.
the following email can tell you why almost all the mail-in ballots post-marted 7/7 were "yes" votes
Delete=================================================
Dear Parents,
The Parent Council is organizing an all parent meeting on 7/8 to impeach and to remove Zhu Li from the Board of the Directors. We are calling all parents to vote "NO" to stop this reckless and extreme action. If you have already provided the proxies to somebody, please disregard this message. This is essentially the same message sent to you last week by Ms Lijie Cheng who is traveling. We are here to follow up with proxy instructions.
To avoid processing fraud, we strongly suggest you NOT to mail in the ballots. To save you a trip to school on July 8th to cast your vote(s), please contact one of us to arrange for (1) signed proxies and copy of driver's licenses to be sent to one of us so that we can vote on your behalf (to protect your privacy, you can black out your license number when giving us the photocopy of the driver's license; proxy form is attached below), or (2) your sealed envelope with voted ballots to be picked up from your home or office. We would much prefer the first option for ease of gathering votes.
We feel strongly that this vote is nothing but another example of dirty politics (click). Together, we represent the conscience of HXNY and we CAN stop this madness. Please keep in mind that every vote counts especially since many families are away on vacation. Please help to spread the word if possible. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Haiwen Ma, CSL (haiwen.ma@yahoo.com)
Xusheng Tian, Kindergarden (xusheng.tian@gmail.com)
Lan Feng, Grade 1 (lanfeng@hotmail.com)
Qinghuang Lin, Grade 2
Zhiming Yu, Grade 3
Xiaopeng Ju, Grade 4
Judith Chang, Grade 5
Ying Zhou, Grade 6
Charles Chu, Grade 7
Aiping Zhou, Grade 8
Shirley Liu, Grade 9
Because most of "NO" votes have been collected by the above parents.
DeleteIt still could not explain that why there are so many mail-in ballots sent on the 7/7 from the same post office, by previous experience there were much less than ballots sent on the last day. It is better to check with those 39 families one by one in order to give the clear answer.
DeleteZuojun and Zhiming,
ReplyDeleteOn the voting day I discussed with Zuojun and Dachun on possible anomaly and had the concensus that we need to look into it if the volumn is high. I think the case mentioned here worth to be examined.
Beleive the new ballots had been separated for inspection purpose. Can you provide some details on the new ballots and its comparison to earlier ones? like the number of mail-in ballots received over days and the source zip codes? Facts like this shall be helpful to address people's concerns.
Gutuan
Gutuan:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your inquiry.
I can answer some of your questions(hopefully easy ones) as well as Lijie’s, Haiwen’s questions(from a separate email) to the best of my knowledge/memory. I hope that my answers can give you the feeling that we are trying our best to make the voting fair and transparent. Zuojun can correct me if my answers are not accurate.
1). Yes. The new ballots are separately sealed, as well as the envelopes. I am not sure if it’s in a safe or not.
2). We got 39 new envelopes on 07/10. I believe 1 or 2 of them was stamped 07/06; the rest of them were stamped 07/07.
3). Of the 39 mail-in ballots, 2 of them voted “NO” (therefore 4 “No” votes); 37 of them voted “YES” (therefore 74 “Yes” votes)
4). Of the 39 mail-in ballots, two of them duplicated the votes counted on 07/08. Specifically, one “YES” ballot duplicated a “YES” ballot counted on 07/08; another “YES” ballot duplicate a “No” ballot counted on 07/08. Shirley Liu was extremely careful. She noticed on that day that one pair of duplicated ballots actually have different font for the ticket numbers. It was explained that PTA did use two font systems when making ballots.
5). As to the number of mail-in ballots over the days. First of all, I have to admit that we did not fetch the mails every single day(You can blame us and we will accept your blame), so we do not have day-by-day statistics. Roughly, Zuojun and I fetched the mails once every 2-3 business days. And the details mail counts are below
06/29: 54
07/02: 33
07/05: 31
07/08: 12
07/10: 39
6). As to the source zipcode of the mails, we never checked the source zipcode for the mails we counted on 07/08 voting site because there were so many and we were very tight on schedule that day. However, we (especially Shirley Liu) did try to find the source zipcode for the last 39 mails. But I think we failed, we only see the destination zipcode at the bottom of the envelope. We do not see any source zip code at the upright corner close to the stamps for the majority of the envelopes. It did appear to me that the postmark at the upright corner of the majority of the envelopes are the same(I could have the wrong impression). BUT I have to admit that we are not expert at the postmark system so it’s hard to make any conclusion yet. I believe that people working in the post office can tell us more on that if we need that. I believe everyone of us were doing as careful jobs as possible. For example, Shirley Liu also questioned on that counting day that why almost all the envelopes on that day have “Liberty Bell” stamps, and Zuojun explained that we do use different stamps.
ReplyDelete7). Haiwen asked how the mails were handled. As stated in 5). We fetched the mails roughly once every 2-3 business days. And each time we sealed the mails in a big envelopes signed by both Zuojun and I, then finally sealed with tape.
8). Haiwen, in a separate email, asked why suddenly so many mail-in emerged on the last day. Well, to be honest, Zuojun and I were surprised (certainly we did not know that most of them were all “YES” votes) too on that day. We expected very few mails on that day. As a matter of fact, on 07/10, I was late from work so I called Zuojun asking him to fetch the mails himself because we believe that there will be very few mails and will not make any difference. Later on, Zuojun called me suggesting that I still should go to the post office because he found the mailbox was unexpectedly full. So Zuojun basically waited for me in the post office for quite some time until I went there and then we counted and sealed the mails, which also showed Zuojun’s responsibility and carefulness. But Zuojun later on had a good explanation: it could be that due to the July 4th holiday, so both sides have more time to call people to vote, therefore more mails came in last minute.9). I also suggested that maybe I should get a copy of “the ticket number to parents name mapping system” so that I can spot check with some families to double verification. We debated little bit and we finally did not reach agreement on whether this will violate parent’s privacy. But this shows how we tried hard to balance everything.
10). I just answer your questions to the best accuracy I can. It does not mean that there are fraud in it. These mails could all be genuine.
I hope that the above can give your guys some confidence. Again, we, by no means, can guarantee that this voting is fraud-free (actually nobody can). We can only assure you that we tried our best.
If you have any further questions, feel free to let us know. Thanks!
Zhiming
胡/刘告人，学校还给他们买单，太不像话了。
ReplyDelete这不是法官判决，而是法官协调的结果。如果没有Zhu/Zheng/He/Huang 的同意，就没有这个结果。
Delete你以为自己是谁啊？跟在后面瞎起哄。现在被出卖的感觉很爽吧？
Delete付湖/刘四万五打官司，你不要搞错噢？大家怎么看？
ReplyDelete胡大棚是强盗，把华夏的钱给抢走了。
Delete没有朱力不明不白的校章公投结果，就没有Hu/Liu 的法律诉讼， 也就没有HXNY的损失和分裂。
Delete钱花完了，大家也就消停了。
Delete当4/15日出现俩票箱，朱/李不顾民意强行要非法通过bylaw,就决定了华夏今天的分裂。分校对家长来说是好事。
Delete胡大鹏/刘雅文发起的官司，以华夏纽约9万美元买单而落幕，可笑之极。
ReplyDelete糊大盆真是一个败家子，做伪校亏了中文学校5万美元，打官司又用了华夏9万美元。一年就给他搞掉了14万美元。他不是吹牛MD吗？干吗要用中文学校的钱打官司？他不是给全校送EMAIL，他不用中文学校一分钱打官司吗？骗子！
ReplyDelete他可是一毛不拔的铁公鸡。 家长们现在知道他为什么要控制学校了吧， 他看中了学校的钱。
Delete胡从没为中文学校捐过一分钱。做了一年伪校长，用了华夏14万！
Delete俺就奇了怪了，他们集中火力在网上骂了郑琦二天。背后就在这二天签了分钱的决定。这些人真不道德，把郑琦推在风口浪尖上被骂，自己在背后偷偷搞交易，它们成了朋友，把校给分了。
ReplyDelete他们都是垃圾。
Delete老马只不过想还原真相而已。如果楼上能找出老马骂郑琦的任何证据，请一一亮出了。到时老马有奖！
Delete老马你造谣造够了？跟着胡司令走吧！
Delete别老马老马的了，我们都知道你是谁，现在还给你留点面子！
老马只不过想还原真相而已。如果有人能找出老马造谣或者骂郑琦女士的任何证据，请一一亮出了。到时老马有奖！
Delete如果分校，老马将不是一个人走，老马到时会拉走一队人马。信不信，由你。
老马 （Ma Houpao)
马捷黄岳，滚吧，带着你们的一队人马滚得越远越好，我们求之不得！
Delete这帮人把中文学校给整垮了, 胡校长, 俺以后见到你就打,你Y个败家子, 除非你他妈的别在这混了, 还有那李董周董的, XXXXX!
ReplyDelete你想进老美的监狱？小心！
DeleteHe should go to jail.
Delete$%#@&^%$#$ HU Dapeng, you sob.
ReplyDelete华夏中文学校最终分裂，戴扬也有很大的责任。因为从他挑选的团队可以看出，戴扬没准备做大家的校长。如果戴扬能虚心听从董事会某些成员的建议，调整他的团队，HXNY也许不会分。
ReplyDelete既然华夏中文学校已经分了，大家就各自去找自己归属吧。
楼上是胡家帮的口舌吧。 我最看不起的就是把责任全推别人， 把功劳流给自己。
Delete一颗老鼠屎会坏一锅粥。华夏中文学校之所以走到今天，就是被那几颗老鼠屎给整的。不是吗？那些喜欢出口成脏罗罗们？
Delete滚吧。
Delete戴扬为什么，凭什么要听董事会那三个人渣的话！三流氓！
Delete9万可能只是不得不透露的一部分。就那几颗硕鼠拉出的,再包装也是老鼠屎。一定还有更龌龊的。HXNY是否存在都还是一个问题
ReplyDeleteIndex No.: 58072/2012
ReplyDeleteNOTICE TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE HUAXIA CHINESE SCHOOL NEW YORK, INC.,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAPENG HU, YAWEN LIU, and HUAXIA CHINESE SCHOOL, NEW YORK,
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
-against-
LI ZHU, GUTUAN ZHENG, LIDA HE, and
SUE HUANG,
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of LI ZHU, GUTUAN ZHENG, LIDA HE, and SUE HUANG,
Counter-Petition Petitioners,
-against-
DAPENG HU, YAWEN LIU, and HUAXIA CHINESE SCHOOL, NEW YORK, INC.,
Counter-Petition Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LI ZHU, GUTUAN ZHENG, LIDA HE, and SUE HUANG,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
-against-
MINGUI LEI, SHENGJING LI and CHING ZHOU in their capacity as members of the Board of Directors of
the HUAXIA CHINESE SCHOOL, NEW YORK, INC.,
Third-Party Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PURSUANT to the July 19, 2012 directive of the Hon. Joan B. Lefkowitz, J.S.C. , Article 13 of the Bylaws of the Huaxia Chinese School, New York, Inc. and as one component of a mutually agreed settlement addressing all aspects of the dispute between all parties to the above-captioned litigation, who have reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation on terms that all parties believe are in the best interest of the School and its members, please be advised that Principal Dapeng Hu, P.C. Chair Yawen Liu and the seven (7) members of the Board of Directors, Chairman Li Zhu, Gutuan Zheng, Lida He, Sue Ying Huang, Mingui Lei, Shengjing Li and Ching Zhou, jointly announce to the Huaxia Chinese School, New York, Inc., and to all the members thereof, via email pursuant to the Court’s July 19, 2012 directive, that any member who so desires, may appear before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, Hon. Joan B. Lefkowitz, at the Courthouse located at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., White Plains, New York 10601, on the 24th day of July, 2012, promptly at 9:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as counsel and/or the members can be heard to show cause why an order should not be made, inter alia, authorizing the partial indemnification pursuant to Article 13 of the Bylaws and New York Not-for-Profit Law §§ 721-725 of Dapeng Hu and Yawen Liu in an amount not to exceed a total of $45,000, and likewise authorizing the partial indemnification of Li Zhu, Gutuan Zheng, Lida He and Sue Ying Huang in an amount not to exceed a total of $45,000, against the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, actually and necessarily incurred by said parties in connection with, inter alia, the litigation and settlement of this action and the defense of all claims, counter-claims, and counter-petitions asserted therein, upon the ground that said parties to this litigation, as unpaid volunteer directors and officers of the corporation, are entitled to such indemnity under the standards set forth in the Bylaws and New York Not-for-Profit Law, and collectively acted in good faith, for a purpose said parties each reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Huaxia Chinese School, New York, Inc.
Dated: White Plains, New York
July 19, 2012
这个声明只是一个协议。大家不满意的话可以在7/24去法庭上闹。最好呢，再来一个新的诉讼，直到把HXNY的钱花光为止。
ReplyDelete学校还没分，大家还可以在一起再折腾一阵子，只要你觉得爽，怎么闹，怎么行。爽死你！
你是胡大棚吧。 我们可喜欢跟你闹啦。
Delete胡大鹏现在没空来这跟你爽。
Delete那就是潘青在这里爽咯？拿了中文学校五万美元打官司，真爽！
DeleteIf the deal is off, He can come back to the school, and fight.
ReplyDelete作为原告，Hu/Liu 本来是无法要求HXNY付他们的律师费的。Zhu的反告帮了Hu/Liu 的忙。想必Zhu 和他的支持者现在悔得肠子都青了。傻了吧！
ReplyDelete胡大棚，你的了便宜还卖乖。 不要脸的垃圾。
Delete$90K gone! Both sides just wasted half of our kids' education fund that accumulated over school's 16-year history.
ReplyDeleteWhere are their consciences??? Shame on all of them!!!!
If Dai Yang still refuses to adjust his administration team, HXNY will be divided into two.
ReplyDeleteDai Yang has the rights to do what he think it's good for school. You jerks go hell.
Delete戴扬好样的。做的对，拨如反正，把坏人统统赶走！
Delete俺坚决反对HXNY为这些人买单。
ReplyDelete双方所谓的“大佬”和“精英" 们，你们要为自己的草率行为负责！请你们去分摊这些人的律师费吧！
9万可能只是不得不透露的一部分。就那几颗硕鼠拉出的,再怎么包装也是老鼠屎。一定还有更龌龊的。HXNY是否存在都还是一个问题
ReplyDelete我们坚决支持分校- 胡，刘，五恶董，林立，张明宝，应永毅，黄月，徐明，王亮，林君，谣大春，曹作军，统统滚蛋！！！
ReplyDelete哪五恶董？
DeleteZhu Li had to settle the case because if he doesn't he will not get a penny from the school. It is not true that only the ones that were sued by others can get indemnified and the ones who sued cannot. In the bylaws it was clear that only the principal can represent the school and Hu Dapeng sued in the name of the school. Therefore Hu Dapeng's legal fees are legal liabilities of the school and the school has to pay eventually. But since the lawsuit was in the name of the school, Zhu Li and the other three cannot be indemnified. That's also in the bylaws.
ReplyDeleteSo, why didn't Xiaodi get any indemnification from HXNY last year?
DeleteOnly the principal can represent the school.
DeleteOnly the principal can represent the school
Delete-----
Can you show us where bylaws says about it? Do you really understand English?
为了小孩能开学，有地方可去，好多人闭着眼睛把proxy交给了所谓的热心人去投不认识的戴校长，去保护“勇敢”的朱董事长。如真能分校，就一定不会让人代办了。睁大眼睛为自己的孩子找一所好一点的学校吧！
ReplyDelete反正我不会挑有周爱萍，郑琦及其悍将同伙的地方，吵了整一年，精力无穷。以后一有不满的地方，又闹起来，实在是吃不消。
走的越远越好。
Delete没人留你，滚得越远越好，马介黄月！总比你们匿名骂人一年要好！
ReplyDelete退一万步，草包胡司令，除了抢钱，根本开不出好学校。也没有好老师跟着他们走！
ReplyDelete