Final Report on an Investigation on Travel Expenses Reimbursement to 6th IFCSS Congress Participants The IFCSS Supervisory Committee (March 12th, 1995) On October 12th, 1994, Mr. Liu Yuhe, of the University of Oklahoma formally appealed to the Supervisory Committee of IFCSS (SVC) on the IFCSS Headquarters' possible mishandling of travel expenses reimbursement to the participants of the Sixth Congress of IFCSS. Specifically, Mr. Liu appealed to the SVC to "investigate whether there were violations of the IFCSS rules and abuses of the power and public fund; If the investigation proves any violation of rules and misuse of the fund, the IFCSS shall take proper actions to correct the wrongdoing and seek the misused fund return to the IFCSS." After accepting Mr. Liu's appeal, the SVC immediately engaged in an investigation. After a few months' hard work, we now present to you, the constituents of IFCSS, a report. With a deep sense of grief, we realize that there is indeed abuse of power, there is indeed misuse of public funds, there is indeed corruption, and there is indeed negligence committed in the executive branch of IFCSS -- the office of the Headquarters. Thousands of dollars of public funds have been lost as a result of negligence, power abuse and corruption. Undoubtably, the integrity and reputation of IFCSS have been seriously tainted and damaged. In what follows, we shall reveal in full the process and outcomes of the investigation the SVC has conducted since last October. The entire reimbursement process was handled by both the 5th and 6th term Headquarters. Accordingly, we shall report our findings concerning the two administrations separately. Before the 6th Congress, the 5th term Headquarters announced the reimbursement standards. The standards set by the 5th term IFCSS Headquarters are as follows (see HQ NR5032, May 9th, 1994): "Each school/organization will have one delegate entitled to travel subsidy in the scale listed below: By driving: approximately 10 cents per mile By airplane: within 500 miles: Maximum $100 500-1,000 miles : Maximum $200 1,000 miles and up: Maximum $300 Hawaii and Alaska: Maximum $500 In order to reduce the costs, we encourage the local CSS organizations and delegates to do the following to help cut down travel expenses: * Apply for student activity fund from your school * Plan early and buy airline ticket at its discount rate * Use your American Express Card (if you have) to buy the low priced ticket. * Share the ride with other delegates. * The major airlines usually will reduce airfare in May. Compare the price s and buy the cheapest one." In the following analysis, we shall strictly follow the standards set by the Headquarters. Another important guideline the SVC has been relying upon is "The IFCSS Financial Regulations," which was first adopted by the third term Council, and has since been amended by the Council of later terms, and has been accepted and followed by the Headquarters since the third term. The part of the regulations relevant to this case is quoted as follows: "Article 15. Travel Advance and Reimbursement: "(1) A written request of cash advance has to be approved by the Treasurer or the President. The request should include: description of the activities, date(s), destination(s), projected itemized expenditure, source(s) of funding, and any other relevant information. The approved amount of cash advance should be no more than 80% of total projected expense; "(2) Any request of reimbursement has to be submitted to the Treasurer in written form. The request should include: description of the activities, date(s), destination(s), itemized spending with original receipts attached, any other relevant information, and the signature of applicant, the request should be approved by the Treasurer. "(3) Reimbursement for airline ticket may not exceed the price of economy class ticket of the shortest distance between the destinations; Reimbursement for private car travel may not exceed the rate at $0.2/mile; In general, the lodging reimbursement is not recommended unless it is approved by the President or the Treasurer, the rate for lodging reimbursement should not exceed the rate at $60.0 per day. "Article 16. Violation of these regulations may result in starting the process of impeachment if it is recommended by the Council." We would like to emphasize that, in our judgment, we uniformly apply the aforementioned rules and standards to every case without any exceptions. We do not accept double standards. In what follows, as we discuss specific cases, there are many names involved. The SVC would like to make a statement here clearly: Just because some individuals' names appear in the report does not in any way imply that we are accusing them of any wrongdoing. It is clearly the responsibility of the Headquarters of IFCSS for all the errors, mistakes, and wrong-doings committed in this incident. With a great concern for these individuals, the SVC has repeatedly requested the Headquarters, via internal memos and phone calls, to take actions to correct the mistakes, so that the SVC does not have to release the names of these involved individuals. However, the Headquarters insists on the view point that every thing they have done is correct in principle, showing no sign of its willingness to admit any mistakes or wrongdoing, and to retrieve the lost funds. This leaves us no other choice but to reveal the whole investigation with detailed facts to the public. We hope that the public would understand how difficult it is for the SVC to come to this decision. I. Reimbursement Processed by the 5th Term Headquarters The SVC has received some canceled checks which were written out by the 5th term Headquarters. All these checks were signed by both Mr. Lin Changsheng and Mr. Shi Heping, the 5th term President and Vice President of IFCSS. In what follows, the SVC provides a list, based upon the list released by the 6th term Headquarters (HQ News Release No. 6011, October 6, 1994), which includes names, status (D for delegate, R for those who were refused to participate in the meeting), destinations, the amount they have received from the 5th term Headquarters (Reimb), and the correct amount they should have received according to the standards, of each participant. We have omitted the information of those who had been reimbursed according to the standards. Due to lack of information, we do not even know where some of those who have received reimbursements from IFCSS came from. In such cases, we indicate "unknown" in the appropriate places, and leave a question mark in the places where we have unanswered questions. NAME STATUS Destination Reimb Standard ________________________________________________________ Bao, Xian Sen R unknown $655 $300.00 max Cai, Mao Hua R unknown $655 $300.00 max Cao, Li Qun R Salem, MA? $250 $200.00 Cheng, Qing Qi R Newark, DE $165 $100.00 Guo, Yan Hua D-179 El Monte, CA $460 $300.00 Hong, Jin Xin R unknown $274 unknown Huang, Chun D-098 DC area $304 $200.00 max (for 2) Kai, Peng R unknown $210 unknown Liu, Lucia R unknown $247 unknown Liu, Ze Ming D-101 Pittsburgh, PA $248 $100.00 Lu, Qi Xiang R Detroit MI $207 $200.00 Pan, Joseph R Alexandria, VA? $129 $100.00 max Pan, Perry R Iowa City, IA? $411 $300.00 max Shao, Hua Qiang R St. Louis, MO $350 $200.00 Situ, Su Mei R unknown $187 unknown Sun, Yun R unknown $100 unknown Wang, Wei Ming R unknown $204 unknown Wu, Li Fei R Portland, OR $496 $300.00 Wu, Tao D-105 Tempe, AZ $413 $300.00 (see note below) Xiao, Jian Guo R unknown $596 $300.00 max Zhang, Da Wei R unknown $150 unknown Zhang, Jie R unknown $711 $300.00 max Zhang, Li D-062 Chicago, IL $284 $200.00 Zhang, Mo R unknown $385 $300.00 max Zhang, Wu Hua R unknown $185 unknown Zhong, Wei Qing R unknown $210 unknown Zhu, Jian R New York, NY $207 $200 (Note: Mr. Wu Tao's case shall be discussed later in the section concerning working staff.) The 5th term Headquarters also issued a number of checks for several groups of people. For instance, there were three checks, of the amount $1650.00, $1500.00, and $835.00, respectively, for three groups of people from New York (twenty six people all together). Basically, each of them received $150.00 ($65.00 for refund of registration fee and $85.00 for travel expenses). On Feb. 7th, 1995, we spoke to Mr. Lin Changsheng, asking him about the decisions on these reimbursement processings. Mr. Lin told us he discussed the matter with Mr. Shi Heping, 5th term Vice President, and Mr. Ge Xun, a 6th term Council member, and had their consent. As to the amount of reimbursement, Mr. Lin told us that he tried to follow the rules set by the 4th term Headquarters, that is, going over the limit by $100.00. Then, we asked why some people were reimbursed over $600, Mr. Lin said he could not remember the details. The SVC talked to Mr. Shi Heping on Feb. 9th, 1995. Mr. Shi confirmed that Mr. Lin did discuss with him during the 6th Congress about reimbursement to those WHO were refused to participate in the meeting. He agreed in principle that IFCSS should reimburse them in some way. However, Mr. Shi did not know the details of how Mr. Lin reimbursed them -- he signed the checks during a meeting and stayed in the meeting while Mr. Lin went to process the reimbursement. We also talked to Mr. Ge Xun. Mr. Ge stated to the SVC clearly that he believed IFCSS should properly reimburse those people who were refused to join the meeting when he was asked by Mr. Lin Changsheng. But, he did not know, nor speak of, the details. Mr. Ge did not think he himself was making the decision on how these reimbursements should be processed technically; he was only speaking of his personal opinions on the matter. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the 5th term Headquarters processed the reimbursement in an arbitrary fashion -- there were not rules to follow whatsoever. As a result, thousands of dollar were lost. Mr. Lin Changsheng certainly is the one who should bear the responsibility, and should be accountable for the losses. Based upon the information available to us, we arrived at a rough estimate of the losses caused by the 5th term Headquarters, which is in the order of four to five thousand dollars ($4,000.00 -- $5,000.00). In the first week of the 6th term IFCSS administration, Mr. Luo Ning, the 6th term IFCSS President, made several phone calls to Mr. Li Jinghong, Chairman of the Council, and Mr. Luo Li-Shi, Coordinator of the SVC. Mr. Luo Ning told both Mr. Li Jinghong and Mr. Luo Li-Shi that the Headquarters had found out that Mr. Lin Changsheng had written checks worth more than ten thousand dollars during the 6th Congress, and he asked for advice from both. Both Mr. Li Jinghong and Mr. Luo Li-Shi gave Mr. Luo Ning their support he asked for, and suggested that the Headquarters could go to the bank to cancel the checks if it was deemed necessary, Mr. Luo Ning agreed to take immediate action on the matter. He also asked Mr. Li Jinghong and Mr. Luo Li-Shi to gain support for him from the Council and the SVC. Mr. Li Jinghong and Mr. Luo Li-Shi made phone calls to their colleagues in the Council and the SVC, informing them of the situation. However, months went by, and nothing heppened. Although Mr. Luo Ning promised to give a report on the matter. It has not been seen up to this date, yet. II. Reimbursement Processed by the 6th Term Headquarters The problems with the reimbursement processed by the 6th term Headquarters are quite different on the surface from those processed by the 5th term. They are more complicated. But, by no means there is a slight difference in their nature: They unvaryingly speak of negligence, corruption, and power abuse. In what follows, we will reveal to you the facts, and reason with you why we have come to the above conclusions. A. Over-reimbursed Cases: The reimbursement to two groups of delegates attracts our attention especially. The first group is the nine delegates from the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY-Buffalo): NAME STATUS Destination Reimb ________________________________________________ Chen, Xi D-096 Buffalo, NY $144.00 Du, Zheng Dong D-052 Buffalo, NY $144.00 Guo, Yu Jin D-082 Buffalo, NY $144.00 Hu, Hai D-051 Buffalo, NY $144.00 Hu, Jian D-084 Buffalo, NY $144.00 Kang, Hua D-050 Buffalo, NY $144.00 Lin, Guo Qing D-170 Buffalo, NY $144.00 Ma, Li Zhi D-066 Buffalo, NY $144.00 Sun, Yi Ping D-090 Buffalo, NY $144.00 They rented two cars for transportation. On their reimbursement application form, they put down the actual cost for the trip. The total expenses were about $570.00, according to the reimbursement forms they submitted. However, the Headquarters reimbursed each of these nine delegates $144.00 regardless how much the actual expenses were. The total amount of these nine delegates received was $1296.00, exceeding the actual cost incurred by a staggering $726.00. The second group includes three delegates from SUNY-Albany and one delegate from Hudson Valley College. NAME STATUS Destination Reimb ________________________________________________ Guo, Tai Liang D-144 Albany, NY $150.00 Jin, Bei Qing D-143 Albany, NY $150.00 Yan, Bin D-145 Albany, NY $150.00 Zhou, Yu D-142 Albany, NY $0.00 Similar to the previous group, these delegates rented a car and the total expenses were about $175.00. The Headquarters gave $150.00 apiece to three of them, again, regardless what the actual expenses were. The total of $450.00 exceeds the actual cost incurred by $275.00. We were able to speak to six delegates from SUNY-Buffalo and one delegate from SUNY-Albany. They all confirmed the aforementioned facts, that is, they confirmed the amount of their actual cost and the amount of their reimbursement. The SVC also found that some delegates have been reimbursed more than what they had asked for (or not even asked for). The following list shows what we have found: NAME STATUS Destination Asked Reimb -------------------------------------------------------- Chen, Xin D-008 Washington, DC $0.00 $70.00 Huang, Lin D-092 Bronx, NY $120.00 $130.00 Li, Hong Kuan D-107 Bronx, NY $122.00 $130.00 Ni, Tao D-120 Washington, DC $57.00 $60.00 Tang, C. D-110 New York, NY $125.00 $130.00 Ye, Ning D-055 Washington, DC $207.99 $208.00 The next and last case maybe more revealing than any of the above. On his reimbursement application form, Mr. Yang Jie, Headquarters office manager, claimed he rented a car to go to Chapel Hill. In fact, Mr. Yang shared ride with eight other people with a rental van. According to a written statement from a witness who car-pooled with Mr. Yang, the cost for each head was $64.00. (This was verified by Mr. Yang Jie himself: Mr. Yang told us the total expenses for the trip were about $590.77.) However, Mr. Yang Jie reimbursed himself $70.00 (which is more than his actual expenses), as a "subsidy", while he reimbursed Mr. Zhang Kaichang who car-pooled with him for only $60.00. (The check to Mr. Zhang was paid in order of Mr. Chen Dong.) Moreover, we have no official record whatsoever about Mr. Zhang's reimbursement. The SVC questioned the Headquarters about some of the above facts. The following is the Headquarters' response to us, delivered by Mr. Yang Jie: "First, 'reimburse' may be an inaccurate word for us to use as far as 6da is concerned. We in fact did not reimburse or cover the expenses participants (including both delegates and non-delegates) spent according to the invoices they provided. What we did is actually accommodating those participants with certain amount of 'subsidies' which is determined mainly by the distance between Chapel Hill and his/her local affiliations." We then sought out Mr. Luo Ning for a personal answer. Mr. Luo repeated the above interpretation of the reimbursement process, and he firmly insisted on that view point. We sent a memo again to the Headquarters to ask why some of the aforementioned people were over-reimbursed. The Headquarters did not answer our question. Instead, they asked us to specify more details, although we have given the Headquarters detailed information of the aforementioned people. B. Under-reimbursed Cases We found there are cases in which delegates were under-reimbursed. Mr. Zhang Yun Fei, of Harvard University, was qualified for $200.00 in reimbursement, and his travel expenses were $235.42. But he had only received $159.00. The travel expenses of Mr. Sherman Zhang, a delegate from the Detroit area, were $218.50, and he was qualified to be reimbursed $200.00. However, Mr. Zhang only received $142.00 in reimbursement. Mr. Mou Pu, of Auburn University, asked for $98.40, he was given $98.00 (he was qualified to receive $100.00). Mr. Li Ke Yi, of the Ford Motor Co. in the Detroit area, asked to be reimbursed $168.40; he was only reimbursed $168.00. All of the above facts have been confirmed by the Headquarters to be true. C. Inconsistency in Mileage Calculations We have also noticed that there were some errors in the mileage calculations. We made inquiries with the Headquarters specifically in this regard. We put the following questions to the Headquarters: Is there a standardized, systematic way the Headquarters used to determine the distance (mileage) between the destinations for each delegate? How did the Headquarters determine the mileage? The answers from the Headquarters are: "Yes. We had a triple A map handy when we checked the mileage reported by individual delegates. Please help us find out errors that are of substantial magnitude so that we can make necessary corrections. Otherwise, please allow to occur reasonable roundings or even justifiable mistakes." In what follows, we shall point out some errors in the mileage calculations the Headquarters has made. And we let the public judge whether or not these mistakes are justifiable. The distances between Raleigh, NC (about 20 miles S.E. of Chapel Hill) and other destinations are quoted from the American Automobile Association Road Atlas, 1990 edition. The distances are, usually, not the shortest ones, but they represent the route considered the easiest drive for general travel. We list the differences in mileage calculations between that of Headquarters and that of the AAA: Destination Headquarters AAA Error ------------------------------------------------------ Albany, NY 750 664 13% Buffalo, NY 720 674 6.8% Cleveland, OH 650 552 17.8% Gainesville, FL 800 600 33.3% Newark, DE 500 400 25% New York, NY 650 528 23.1% Philadelphia, PA 800 427 93.3% Pittsburgh, PA 750 364 106% Washington, DC 350 283 23.7% The reason we list these destinations specially is that there were a number of delegates from these places. We can see that it makes a difference in reimbursement if the mileage calculation is not done properly. We have found cases in which delegates from exactly the same place were reimbursed different amounts of money. Here are some examples: The delegates from both Albany and Buffalo, NY, were all over-reimbursed, according to the announced standards. Four delegates from Cleveland, Ohio, were all over-reimbursed (they should have been reimbursed $110.40 only). NAME STATUS Destination Reimb Standard -------------------------------------------------------- Liu, Zhiwai D-048 Cleveland, OH $123.00 $110.40 Rao, Wei D-053 Cleveland, OH $128.00 $110.40 Wang, Yaxin D-186 Cleveland, OH $130.00 $110.40 Zhao, Wei D-180 Cleveland, OH $130.00 $110.40 Furthermore, three out of these four delegates (Mr. Wang Yaxin was the lone exception) claimed they rented a car for transportation. However, no receipts for expenses have been produced for verification. We do not know what the actual expenses were, let alone the mis-calculations in the mileage. Mr. Zhang Zhihui (D-022), of Gainesville, Florida, was reimbursed for $160.00, $40.00 in excess of the reimbursement standards-justified amount of $120.00. Four people from the Pittsburgh area, and three others from Philadelphia area, Pennsylvania, were all over-reimbursed by various amounts (see the following table; they were only entitled to $100.00 or less in reimbursement). NAME STATUS Destination Reimb Standard -------------------------------------------------------- Hou, Lei D-195 Philadelphia, PA $130.00 $85.40 Sun, Xin Yuan D-131 Pittsburgh, PA $200.00 $100.00 Xiao, Yun Jiang D-071 Pittsburgh, PA $171.00 $100.00 Xu, Hong Yu R Philadelphia, PA $200.00 $100.00 Yan, Wang D-173 Pittsburgh, PA $171.00 $100.00 Yu, Chun R Philadelphia, PA $200.00 $100.00 Zhen, Xiao Fan D-054 Philadelphia, PA $160.00 $85.40 Mr. Dai Kai Yuan, of Newark, Delaware, was reimbursed $200.00, which was $100.00 more than what he should get. Delegates from New York City who drove to Chapel Hill and back should get $105.60 only, but the Headquarters gave all of them $130.00, even though some of them asked for less (see the previous section). There were twenty-two people from the Washington D.C. area, and they were reimbursed either $60.00 or $70.00, both exceeding the justified amount. The Headquarters reimbursed Mr. Hong Zhaohui (D-037), of Savannah, Georgia, $147.00, although he should have been reimbursed no more than $100.00. (The distance between Savannah, GA, and Chapel Hill, NC is about 380 miles, according to AAA Road Atlas.) Here, we only try to demonstrate one point: The way the Headquarters did the mileage calculation is by no means satisfactory by any legitimate standard. The arrogant attitude they have shown in their answers to the SVC's questions also presents us a clear reflection on their working ethics. In commenting on an earlier draft of this report (in which we did not disclose all the names of the aforementioned people), the Headquarters wrote to the SVC: "The whole section on the 'inconsistency in mileage calculation' is too unspecified to allow me to present accurate data so as to provide my answers to your questions or explanations of the problems involved. You were too rush to reach a general conclusion with 'evidence' pulled out in a wholesale manner that seems to be careless at least." D. Arbitrary Decisions on Reimbursement to Working Staff In the past, the Headquarters gives full reimbursement to the working staff of the Congress. This time is no exception. The question we have to ask is: Who consisted of the working staff, and who determined the qualifications of the working staff? The 6th term Headquarters fully reimbursed the following five people as working staff: Mr. Deng Yan Pei, of Oak Ridge National Lab., Mr. Ding Yungui, from the Chicago area, Ms. Fan Hongran, of the University of Miami, Mr. Liu Cheng, of SUNY-Albany, and Mr. Qi Bing, of Rochester University. Mr. Deng Yan Pei was an editor of the Congress News Letter, and Mr. Qi Bing was a member of the Congress task force. We did not find any problems with their qualifications for being on the working staff, as well as their reimbursement. Mr. Liu Cheng was a member of the Congress task force. He was reimbursed for an amount of $428.50, including a $69.50 charge for delay. However, there was no explanation for the reasons causing this delay from the Headquarters. There was no reimbursement application form filed by Mr. Liu available to us either. When we spoke to the Headquarters, Mr. Yang Jie clearly told the SVC that, for those who were an official delegate as well as a working staff member, they should be reimbursed according to the standards set for the delegates. However, Mr. Liu Cheng was the only exception. When we informed Mr. Liu Cheng about this exception and the rules the Headquarters had applied to others, his reaction was "This is news to me!" When we questioned the Headquarters again about this exceptional case and asked for an explanation, they simply ignored the question completely. Mr. Ding Yungui was the Chairman of the Council and he was entitled to be on the working staff, as he had to present the 5th term Council's work report to the Congress. His travel expenses were $362.89. He was reimbursed $339.00 (excluding a parking fee of $24.00). The only information about Mr. Ding available to us is a personal note of Mr. Ding to Mr. Luo Ning and Mr. Liu Chengyan, stating the total amount of his travel expenses. Ms. Fan Hongran was a 5th term Council member. When she came to the Congress, she did not have sufficient documents required to prove her delegate qualifications. The decision making body at the Congress decided not to let her register as an official delegate. So, she became an observer who had to pay all the expenses out of her own pocket. No one invited her to be a working staff member either. When the SVC spoke to Mr. Lin Changsheng about the matter, he told us that Ms. Fan talked to him to enlist her as a working staff member. Mr. Lin refused at first. Later, Mr. Lin saw her helping take notes in a meeting session. Mr. Lin thought that, so he told us, Ms. Fan was asked by the Council to be a working staff member. Therefore, when Ms. Fan asked him for the favor again and again, Mr. Lin wrote a note on a piece of registration form for her on July 23rd, 1994: "Please reimburse as a working staff." On account of this note, and of this note only, the 6th term Headquarters gave her a full reimbursement of $161.00. When we questioned Mr. Lin Changsheng about this case, Mr. Lin told the SVC that's a misunderstanding. Mr. Lin clearly stated to us that there was no way he would accept for the blame, although he admitted that he could have made a mistake in signing on Ms. Fan's registration form. But, he said, the Headquarters should verify Ms. Fan's qualifications in any event. The problems did not stop there. We found ore disturbing problems. Mr. Shi Heping was the one from the 5th term Headquarters organizing the working staff. We talked to him regarding this matter. Mr. Shi told the SVC that he left Mr. Yang Jie a list that recorded the names of those on the working staff. However, the Headquarters did not provide Mr. Shi's list to the SVC. Rather, Mr. Yang gave us a list dated Oct. 27th, 1994, which seemed to be a record of a telephone conversation with Mr. Shi on the matter. The names on Mr. Yang's list are: Task Force: Mr. Lin Changsheng Mr. Luo Li-Shi Mr. Ding Yungui Mr. Liu Xiang Mr. Liu Cheng Mr. Chen Dong Mr. Liang Er Mr. Shao Qing Mr. Qi Bing News Letters: Mr. Deng Yan Pai Mr. Lu Chengdong Meeting Place Arrangement: Mr. Xu Datong Drivers: Mr. Wong Min (Peter) Mr. Yang Weiwen Mr. Shi told us that he did not include Mr. Ding Yungui on his list, although he definitely thought Mr. Ding ought to be qualified as a working staff member, because he was the Council Chairman. Mr. Shi also told us he definitely told Mr. Yang Jie that Ms. Wang Jing, of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst should be on the list. We will discuss each of these cases in turn. Mr. Chen Dong, Mr. Lin Changsheng, and Mr. Liu Xiang all car-pooled with the Headquarters staff from DC to Chapel Hill, therefore, they did not ask for any reimbursement. (A check of $60.00 to Mr. Chen Dong was actually for another student from the University of Maryland, Mr. Zhang Kaichang, whose name is not on the list of delegates the Headquarters released.) Mr. Lu Chengdong and Mr. Shao Qing drove to Chapel Hill, and they have been reimbursed according to the standards. Mr. Wong Min (Peter) and Mr. Yang Wei Wen, both were official delegates from the Bay area in California, worked diligently during the Congress. At the beginning of the Congress, they drove back and forth between the meeting site and the airport to pick up arriving delegates. After the Congress ended, they were the ones responsible for sending departing delegates to the airport. They almost had no chance to participate in the meeting because they spent most of their time on the road. Mr. Shi Heping specifically told the SVC that he specifically informed Mr. Yang Jie about these two gentlemen, and hoped that the Headquarters would take care of this matter. However, so far neither of these gentlemen has received full reimbursement, which they certainly deserve. Invited by the 5th term Headquarters, Ms. Wang Jing, a member of the 5th term Council, came to DC to work at the Headquarters to help with the preparation of the Congress. She then car-pooled with the Headquarters staff to Chapel Hill. During the meeting, she worked at the registration desk for days. Mr. Shi Heping clearly stated to the SVC that he certainly did list Ms. Wang as a working staff member, because it was he himself asked her to come to DC to help. But, Ms. Wang was not reimbursed as a working staff member. Mr. Liang Er, a member of the 5th term Council, stayed up at least for two nights working at the registration desk to take care of those who came in very late. He continuously worked at the registration desk during the meeting. He was on Mr. Shi's list of working staff, and, so far, he has not been fully reimbursed as a working staff member. Requested by Mr. Shi Heping, Mr. Luo Li-Shi, 5th term SVC coordinator, arrived at Chapel Hill on July 20th, 1994, two days before the meeting started. He worked at the registration desk before the meeting started. Mr. Luo was responsible to deliver the SVC's annual report to the Congress. He was also a member of the decision-making body overseeing delegate qualifications. On his registration form, there is a note "Working staff, no registration fee" by registration desk working staff, and a note indicating the date of his arrival 7/20/94. Nevertheless, Mr. Luo was not reimbursed as a working staff member, for unknown reasons. Mr. Xu Datong, a member of the 5th term Council, was asked by the Headquarters to come to Chapel Hill before the meeting started. He was responsible, specifically, to arrange the meeting site. Mr. Xu decorated the meeting hall, and helped with the preparations of the meeting. He was also on Mr. Shi's working staff list. When he sent in his air ticket receipts, Mr. Huang Song Yun, a 5th Headquarters staff member, wrote a letter to Mr. Luo Ning, explaining Mr. Xu's situation and asked the Headquarters to fully reimburse Mr. Xu's travel expenses according to the standard set for the working staff. Up to this date, Mr. Xu has not been fully reimbursed. Mr. Shi also told us that Mr. Wu Tao, of Arizona State University, was a working staff member. Mr. Wu was supposed to be an editor for the Congress News Letters. He was fully reimbursed by Mr. Lin Changsheng during the meeting. The last case concerns Ms. Chen Xin, a 5th term Headquarters staff member. Since she was a Headquarters staff, naturally she car-pooled with other Headquarters staff members to Chapel Hill. During the meeting she worked at the registration desk. After the Congress adjourned, she returned to Washington D.C., again car-pooling with other Headquarters staff members. She clearly stated to us, she never asked for any reimbursement. Indeed, she did not even submit a reimbursement application form. However, the 6th term Headquarters sent Ms. Chen a check of $70.00 for unknown reasons. When we noticed all above problems, we sent the Headquarters an official memo, asking "Who determines the reimbursement standard for the working staff? What are the qualifications of a working staff member?" The Headquarters simply answered: "Set by 6da Task Force." However, the aforementioned facts prove otherwise. After repeated requests from the SVC to question the inconsistencies, Mr. Yang Jie wrote to the SVC, telling us that after the 6th Congress, quite a few people called the Headquarters, claiming themselves to be on the working staff at the Congress, but Mr. Yang did not tell us who these people were. Mr. Yang also told us that because he only got the list from Mr. Shi Heping in late October, by which time all the reimbursements were processed, he simply would not want to make changes. We realize that this is an explanation. But, we do not believe this is a justified explanation to those who have worked selflessly for IFCSS. After the SVC presented this report to the Headquarters, Mr. Luo Ning and Mr. Yang Jie wrote us a response in this regard: "The concept of working staff were very elusive as far as 6da reimbursement was concerned. Anyone who had worked for 6da as voluntary worker, or any standard by which we can clearly define? First, we reimbursed people as working staff as long as there was a piece of written evidence or to the best of our knowledge. This was the case for Fan Hongran, Qi Bing, Deng Yanpei and Ding Yungui, who was reimbursed $339 for his air ticket excluding parking fee $24." We would like to point out the following facts: There was no written indications on their registration or reimbursement application forms indicating that Mr. Ding Yungui (except his own words), Mr. Liu Cheng, and Mr. Qi Bing were the working staff of the 6th Congress. On the other hand, there is clear written evidence to prove that Mr. Luo Li-Shi, Ms. Wang Jing, and Mr. Xu Datong were indeed on the working staff. Regardless how elusive the concept of working staff can be, the Headquarters did not seem to show any reservations when they applied the concept in the way they felt like. E. The Headquarters' Resistance to the SVC's Investigation Since last October, the SVC has engaged itself in the investigation of the reimbursement process. We went through about two hundred fifty people's registration and reimbursement application forms. After reviewing the forms, we started to ask for cooperation from the Headquarters. Unfortunately, people at the Headquarters has never intended to cooperate with the SVC. Instead, they resisted the investigation in every way they could as soon as they realized they themselves were also the object being investigated. The Headquarters even questioned the intention of the SVC investigation. In a memo to the SVC, Mr. Yang Jie wrote: "Second, after I carefully read Liu, Yuhe's appeal just re-sent to me through SVC, I found that there are some discrepancies between Liu's original appeal letter and the re-statement of which by Mr. Luo, Li-Shi in his letter to Ning Luo dated February 6, 1995. While Yuhe was most concerned about the checks issued by former President Lin, Changsheng to people who were neither 'Congress delegates, nor those who were blocked to participate in final voting due to not granting delegate ID, nor working Staff', Li-shi's re-statement dramatically changed the focus as saying "Mr. Liu Yuhe of University of Oklahoma has appealed to the SVC, indicating that there might be some problems and possible unfair treatment in the reimbursement process for the 6th IFCSS Congress delegates". Such a gross deviation from the original appeal demonstrates itself to be an obvious misuse or abuse of an appeal process for purposes unknown and yet to be explained." However, in Mr. Liu's appeal, he certainly made no specific limits of his accusations on any individuals or any administrations of IFCSS. Rather, Mr. Liu wanted the SVC to find out if there was anything wrong with the reimbursement process, regardless which term of the Headquarters handled the process. After we found out that there might be some problems with the reimbursement of some delegates, we asked the Headquarters to provide us with copies of original receipts of these delegates in January. (The IFCSS Financial Regulations clearly stipulate that all the original receipts must be submitted in order to process reimbursement.) The Headquarters simply refused the SVC's request for the reason that the receipts are private information and the SVC is not allowed access to them. Mr. Yang also said the receipts were irrelevant to the SVC's official work, therefore he refused to provided them to the SVC. After the SVC and the Council exerted the pressure on the Headquarters, Mr. Yang yielded and agreed to provide to the SVC with copies of receipts we had been asking for. However, the receipts never come to us, because, as Mr. Yang admitted to us later, the Headquarters simply does not have them. This whole process took the SVC more than a month. In answering the SVC's repeated requests, Mr. Yang Jie wrote to the SVC in an official memo from the Headquarters: "I have explained to all of you who called me, as said above, distance rather than value on invoices or receipts was taken into account when the subsidies amount were determined. For those traveling by air, air ticket was required in order to make sure he was really coming by air and in a way to get a better estimate of the mileage. For those by car(car rental or own car), receipts were not asked to submit and many of them don't have any. My concern is that information irrelevant of subsidy amount determination is confusing to the public and may very well be misleading if such information is presented out of context and without proper explanation. I have no problems providing those information if they are available, however, I do think that you owe an explanation that justifies your request as such. "I also want to know why you particularly singled out those individuals rather than others. Is there any systematic and fair criteria involved? I am concerned about people on your list who may unduly experience public exposure they don't like. In this regard, I need an explanation from you so that when asked I can share with individuals concerned a fair explanation. Put it simply, why those coming by car need invoice or receipt where their subsidies are not a function of the face value on invoices, or if any at all." Mr. Yang's rebuttal certainly reflects on the Headquarters' attitude toward cooperating with the SVC on the investigation. When the SVC sent an inquiry to the Headquarters, the memo was directly addressed to Mr. Luo Ning. Mr. Luo Ning specifically told us in a phone conversation that he had personally assigned the task (to assist the SVC's investigation) to Mr. Yang Jie. We informed Mr. Luo of the problems we had with Mr. Yang Jie. So far we have not received any comments from Mr. Luo Ning. We do appreciate the point the Headquarters has been trying to make: The word "reimbursement" is not appropriate, and "subsidy" is a better word. However, regardless what word is used, there must a uniform and explicit standard which is fairly applied to all. The problem we have with Headquarters is that there is no such a standard. What we have seen is a "standard" with imexplicit exceptions and flexibilities, which is in control of the Headquarters. After seeing the draft of this report, which has all the facts in it, the Headquarters again sent a rebuttal memo to the SVC, which has been quoted in part in this report. We shall release all the related memos from the Headquarters to the public, so the constituents of IFCSS can have complete and unbiased information. In summary, in the memo, the Headquarters repeats their "subsidy" philosophy, and avoids some questions entirely. A rough estimate tells us that the mistakes made by the 6th term Headquarters, have cost IFCSS between three and four thousand dollars ($3,00.00 -- $4,000.00). III. Recommendations from the SVC Based upon all the facts shown above, the SVC makes the following recommendations: A. IFCSS should produce report to reevaluate the entire reimbursement process strictly according the standards, to recalculate the mileages accurately, to clearly indicate all the errors and mistakes made in the reimbursement process; B. IFCSS should take proper action to retrieve the funds which were given out by mistakes, or to fully reimburse those who have been mistakenly under-reimbursed by the Headquarters; C. To expel Mr. Yang Jie from the Headquarters; D. To initiate an impeachment process against the Headquarters officers who are responsible for the mishandling of the reimbursement process if necessary; and to prepare to take legal actions against the IFCSS officers who committed the wrongdoing, in either the 5th term or the 6th term Headquarters office, if necessary; E. To stipulate a set of stricter reimbursement rules for future IFCSS Congresses. IV. Closing Statement The problems we have revealed in this report are indeed massive: IFCSS has lost thousands of dollars of public funds. And such an incident is by no means accidental. The pattern and the magnitude of the problems clearly demonstrate the root of the problems: negligence, corruption, and power abuse -- we could not have come to any other rational conclusions. IFCSS, as an organization to serve the Chinese students and scholars in this country, does have established rules. What we have found in this case is that the Headquarters has repeatedly ignored and blatantly trampled on the rules -- they indeed place themselves above the rules. If we ignore or tolerate such wrongdoing, then we are, in essence, encouraging more wrongdoing to be committed in the future. Therefore, to prevent future occurrence of any unfortunate incident as this, we must enforce the existing rules by taking bold and decisive actions. We cannot claim that we have found all the problems. But the problems we have discovered so far are indeed serious and unmistakable. We realize that discovering problems is only the first step toward eliminating the problems. We have a long way to go before we solve the problems. This is only a beginning -- a beginning to fight the enemy within: Corruption and power abuse. The SVC has the determination to uphold the principles, and to fight corruption and power abuse within IFCSS. In demonstrating our determination, the SVC has made several recommendations. It is now up to the Headquarters and the Council to specifically implement these recommendations. And it is up to the public to exert pressure on the Headquarters and the Council to make sure that they adopt certain measures and take certain actions to prevent similar incidents from happening again in the future. We painfully realize that, what IFCSS has lost is not just the money; also at stake are the invaluable integrity IFCSS has been striving to maintain, and the precious public trust that history has shown that no democratic organization can live without. The lost IFCSS has made is simply invaluable. We also fully realize what impact this report will make in the public. We are elected officers of IFCSS. When we accept the position in the office and the trust from our constituents, we take the responsibility to protect the public interests. In doing what we are doing, we firmly believe that we are faithfully fulfilling our responsibility. The public has the right to know, and deserves to know, the truth, nothing but the truth. Since its establishment, IFCSS has been perfecting its organizational structure. New rules are being set up constantly. Our observations tell us, however, existing rules have not been enforced vigorously enough. An unenforced rule means no rule. This is the very problem IFCSS suffers right now. In her history, IFCSS has encountered difficulties and crises. But, IFCSS has not only survived, but also grown maturer and stronger. We can hope that this time IFCSS shall also overcome the difficulties and become a better, and stronger organization. IFCSS will continuously strive to improve herself and to provide better services to her constituents and the community. We hope you will continue to support IFCSS, for our common cause -- to build a better community among us. We sincerely appreciate your concern and support to IFCSS. The Supervisory Committee of IFCSS Li-Shi Luo (signed) SVC Coordinator A Postscript Some time on Monday, February 27th, 1995, after the Council had its third regular meeting, Mr. Geng Xiao, 4th term IFCSS President, received a phone call from Mr. Yuan Wei, of the Los Angeles, California, area. (Mr. Yuan We was nominated by Mr. Luo Ning to serve as a special assistant to the IFCSS President.) In the conversation, Mr. Yuan told Mr. Geng the following: 1. He (Mr. Yuan) admits that Mr. Luo Ning has made some mistakes, but no big deal; 2. If the impeachment against Mr. Luo Ning is to be adopted by the Council and the SVC, then CCC (Columbia Communication Club) should be held responsible for it; 3. If the impeachment goes through, Mr. Luo Ning and his supporters will split IFCSS; 4. He (Mr. Yuan) hopes to talk to someone in CCC who is in control of this matter to make some deals and work things out. He (Mr. Yuan) asked Mr. Geng to pass the message to Mr. Li Jinghong, Chairman of the Council. In response to Mr. Yuan's request, Mr. Geng told Mr. Yuan that he personally had not been involved in IFCSS business since he left the office. He personally did not believe that CCC had any influence on the Council or the SVC. Mr. Geng said he himself as a member of CCC did not even know what exactly was going on in IFCSS. However, Mr. Geng agreed to pass the message to Mr. Li Jinghong. Mr. Geng Xiao verified to us the above content of the conversation he had with Mr. Yuan Wei. With Mr. Geng's kind permission, we would like to share this information with the public -- our constituents. The SVC would like to make a public statement here: Among the five members of the Supervisory Committee of IFCSS, only Mr. Ren Songlin is a member of CCC. Mr. Ren was invited to join the CCC in the winter of 1993, and he has remained a member of CCC since then. The other four members are not associated with either CCC or Tempo in any way, although some of them have been solicited by one group or the other. In the process of making its decisions and judgments, the SVC has not been, and will not be influenced by any groups, inside or outside IFCSS, be the group CCC or Tempo. The only foundation our deliberation is based upon is the body of the established IFCSS rules. We, members of the SVC, believe it is in the public's interest that we release the information disclosed in this note.