Subject: FWD: RE: the rules

From: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Jan 1994 14:03:16 -0500 (CDT)

>From:	IN%"[email-masked]" 20-JAN-1994 13:49:06.42
To:	IN%"[email-masked]"
CC:	
Subj:	RE: the Rules

Date: 20 Jan 1994 14:47:41 -0500 (EST)
>From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: the Rules
To: [email-masked]
Message-id: <[email-masked]>
X-Envelope-to: DING
X-VMS-To: IN%"[email-masked]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Dear Mr. Ding:

Would you please FWD this msg to council-net (if you see it fit) ?

Thanks.

-----------

>As a council member, I expressed my unsatisfaction of some of their
>actions. However, as I pointed out yesterday, I did not find any direct
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>rule violentions of HQ's behavior. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This kind of puzzled me, Mr. Dong. In my view, HQ did so "violently",
"directly" and *brazenly* in the two of the most important episodes (again, 
in my view) in the whole IT event: 

	a. HQ refused to receive (openly announced) the IT which, as a 
	   representive of council, can only be abolished by council
	   or SVC as I know; 

	b. HQ refused to open some of its financial records (also 
	   openly stated, --- in a number of occasions, e.g., the 
	   treasurer's "Q & A", --- don't tell me that it is her 
	   *personal* article), knowing that it has to "provide 
	   all the financial documents upon receiving the written 
	   request of IT" (quote the HQ quoted rule).

I have no problem that HQ's disagreement to the formation of the Council-IT,
and its appeal to SVC as well. What I have a *serious* problem with is HQ's 
ability to take the above actions prior to the conclusion of SVC or Council.

>Sure, we know Bai Yan helped, as I know other people helped also.
               ^^^^^^^
>Did we have the procedure or not ?
                 ^^^^^^^^^

This puzzled me even worse, because:

	a. It looks to me the only mistake of Bai Yan is that he naively 
	   trusted you guys', --- your calls for "participation", not just 
	   the general ones you have been making ever since you came on 
	   board, but the particular one this time for joining the IT.

	b. The IT inclusion of him was never a problem until its inspection
	   went beyond the *allowance*, --- as far as I see it on your net.

And now, since there is this thing, everyone (including SVC as in its 
"questionaire") is looking for "procedure", questioning whether there 
is a resolution in which FC is "authorized" to hire BY. It sounded good, 
and it demonstrated once more the "democratic" nature of our IFCSS. But
wait a minute, isn't it logically true that you should look up just the 
opposite, i.e., whether FC is forbiden to hire Bai Yan (though no pay ??), 
because, unless that happened, it means that it is FC's right to do so in
conducting its IT business ????? Isn't it also natural to wonder why very
few of you questioned about the "procedure" for HQ to refuse IT, assuming
that all of you guys are intelligent and fair-minded ??

>Dong,

Jing Zhang
Univ of TN

P.S. ---

One more point about the HQ's CPA bidding. I think it is illegal unless
Council has such a resolution. The most obvious reason for this is that 
the money needed for it was not included in HQ's Council approved buget,
in which the spending for accounting has been specified. I also think 
that it is a mis-conception to confuse between the Council inspection and 
the CPA (in case Council does enforce one), because the latter can at most
provide an accurate recording of the in-out-come, whereas, the Council has
the responsibility of supervising whether the in-out-come abides by the 
bugget.