Interdisciplinary Symmetry
Ted Goranson

The following is tesimony submitted to the Hungarian court system July 2002.

A Complete History of the Secession

To Whom it may Concern:
From Harold T. Goranson

OVERVIEW

The former secretary of the International Society for the Interdisciplinary Study of Symmetry is ignoring the wishes of the membership and governing board. The purpose of this document is to survey the history of this situation by presenting the copious email documentation.

The intended audience is the relevant legal authority, but members will find the review interesting as well.

This review is from email traffic, originals of which are available for inspection. No editing has been done except for selection, snipping (denoted by brackets [...]), and an occasional clarification of a pronoun (also noted with brackets). The history is in four threads:

• History until mid 1999, primarily concerning negotiations for a book series. (Because this is background only, much of the email material is summarized in a narrative. The later threads rely more on direct email quotes.)

After that, three parallel threads are presented:

• Activity associated with the establishment of a curatory and the claim of suspending the president. This thread includes remarks on the involvement of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

• Activity associated with the printing of the Journal

• Activity associated with the planning for the Fifth General Assembly in Sydney in 2001. The history presented here ends with that event. A separate sworn document details the extraordinary attention given to the conduct of the election at that General Assembly.

Both documents (this one and that concerning the election) are available in hard copies, notarized and sworn by me in the Commonwealth of Virginia, complete with all supporting documents. (This is suitable under US law for evidence.)

My name is Harold Theodore Goranson. I live at 1976 Munden Point Road, Virginia Beach Virginia, USA, 23457-1227. Phone number is 757/426-6704. I have been a senior research manager for the US government. In that capacity, I have served as the White House appointed “Action Officer” for major collaboration between the research establishments of the US and European Commission. During this period, I was considered skilled in successfully negotiating solutions among international parties, even those with unreasonable starting positions. Though now retired, I still advise the Commission and US Laboratories on tricky collaboration issues. No doubt, that is why I was appointed to attempt a solution over many months between the Board and Mr Darvas.

I believe I am the only member of the Society who is a founding member, who has served on the advisory and governing boards, who has attended all Congresses, and who has published in both the print and electronic journals. For many years, I was Mr. Darvas’ friend.

BACKGROUND

From the founding of the Society until the Fifth Congress in 2001, it has been run by Denes Nagy as President and Gyorgy Darvas as Secretary. Darvas is based in Budapest, while Nagy has been based in the Pacific since shortly after the society’s founding. Darvas has generally managed the money and the printing of the journal while Nagy has organized the Congresses, provided the scholarly editing and most of the contact with members.

In 1996 there was already some friction between the two. Those of us active in the Society noticed 1) that a four month scholarly visit of Darvas to Japan arranged by Nagy appeared to disappoint the Japanese hosts; 2) that some small disagreements surfaced over the organization of the third Congress in Washington DC including the fact that Darvas was able to attract no Hungarian to the 1996 Congress; and 3) that Darvas was unable to respond to simple paperwork needs in over six months for a proposal for a significant research contract ($50,000). (I am intimately familiar with this last event.) However until the period covered by this email history, the Society functioned more or less smoothly.

Every two or three years, the Society has a Congress which by charter hosts a General Assembly in which the officers and board are elected. At the 1996 Third Congress -- as in the past -- Darvas and Nagy were re-elected, but this time with a more active Board and regional secretaries. Small problems began to appear starting at this time. In January of 1997, there was a notable shift in Darvas’ personality, possibly related to reverses in the symmetry institutes he established and certainly related to heart problems -- he would have major surgery within a year.

In January of 1997, Darvas and Nagy refused to cooperate on the production of the society’s journal, each blaming the other. The organization of the 1998 Fourth Congress in Haifa was shaky but things went well enough. During that Congress, the General Assembly again re-elected Nagy and Darvas, changed the Boards (technical and governing) a little and voted to hold the following Fifth Congress in Sydney. Darvas promoted an alternative site in Budapest, but this was soundly defeated (coming in third). In early 1999, an electronic journal was launched. This was edited between Nagy and Slavik Jablan (of Belgrade, visiting the US). Darvas seemed unhappy with this and impeded progress in minor ways. However, up to this period (except for the troubling delay in the journal), the members of the Board worked well with both Nagy and Darvas. Everyone collaborated as friends.

The first real problems surfaced in May 1999:

Darvas (7 May 99): “As you know, we decided to launch a book series on Symmetry. I negotiated with several book publishers and finally we are close to an agreement with the Springer.”

However, no one on the Board recalled discussing the book series, and no vote was ever taken. When queried, Darvas said

Darvas (11 May 99): “We decided to complete the publications of the society, and parallel with the journal (to be edited by Denes), I will edit a book series on Symmetry. My capacity what I devoted up to 1997 to the journal is transferred to this field. (You may remember, I declined to co-edit the journal with Denes).”

It seemed that Darvas had decided to move in the name and with the funds of the Society to establish himself as editor without any public discussion. A rather confusing period followed. Nagy, the President, proposed that an editorial board be established and that (following the Society’s charter) that the Board officially approve this. Some -- but not all -- Board members were contacted privately by Darvas and asked if it was all right with them for him to proceed with the publication, but he did not give details of the controversy. Some surely agreed, assuming that it had been discusssed and thinking that a book series would be good for the Society.

Darvas (11 June 99): “I have the letters of confirmation from all the 8 members of the Board in which they confirmed both my authorisation to negoitiate and sign the contract with the Springer, and the book series project with the Springer.I discussed the question and got the support from most members of the Advisory Board, who showed enthusiasm. You must consider: either to accept the unanimous decision of the board, or resign as a President.”

Nagy to the Board (14 June 99): “The Secretary did not share with me any details and I am afraid that he also did not give you all details on his personal interests. [...] I am sorry that a former friend and colleague went into this direction. ... Not a long ago, he insisted to me, that we should not support Slavik Jablan and the "VM" project, because Slavik is in America and he has there "too good" connections (sic!). [...] WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST IN THE CASE OF SUCH ACTIONS BY THE SECRETARY? SHOULD WE TOLARATE IT OR YOU SUGGEST PARTICULAR STEPS?”

In the above: VM = “Visual Mathematics,” the electronic journal.

On 18 June 99, Darvas sent the first official explanation to the Board:

Darvas to the Board (18 June 99): “Some time ago I turned to you with the project of the planned Symmetry book series. [Goranson note: see message of 7 May above] [...] To make the situation clear, I need to remember in short to the history of this project. Two years ago, or some earlier, Denes and I concluded that we no more agree in several principles of the editing practice of the journal. [...] I declined to edit the quarterly further together with him. [...] Denes will continue to edit the journal, and I start negotiatons to launch a book series (for what there existed a demand), and in case of success to edit it. Thus none of us earns or loses prestige. [...] I told this in my report at the 15 September 1998 plenary session of the Society in Haifa.”

The above was the first mention of the book project to the Board. No one recalled this having been mentioned in Washington. He goes on:

Darvas (18 June 99): “The only person who opposed [Nagy], did not accept the majority decision. [...] Now they doubt in the democratic functioning of the Society, and in the reliability of its board decisions. [...] I do not agree to rediscuss once closed decisions, just because a single member of the board opposed it. This would cause infinite useless debates and we could never make decisions.”

But in this case, there had been no Board decision, though some members did provide encouragement for the project privately. A typical private message to a Board member was this one:

Darvas to Guerri on (10 May 99): “Dear Claudio, As you know, we decided to launch a book series on Symmetry. I negotiated with several book publishers and finally we are close to an agreement with the Springer. This agreement seems the best among all offers I got from the contacted publisher companies. Before signing the contract, (what I sign as series editor in my personal capacity) I would like to ask your agreement in a return e-mail. Looking forward to your response soon, symmetrely, Gyuri Darvas”

Springer dropped the project. At this point, rancor from Darvas against Nagy became severe and threatened the Society as a whole. In the ensuing discussion, I offered (23 June 99) to try to find an acceptable solution between these two friends. Darvas welcomed the offer (24 June 99). By 5 July 99 the President addressed the Board and asked for an open vote on what to do about the rogue Secretary. That message included some examples of problems. This was followed by a very long and personal letter to the Board from Darvas

Darvas (7 July 99): “I am not sure what can or must I do in such a situation. I was accused in several charges, what are all pity lies.”

He refutes all complaints in great detail. Clearly, the two men are at war. That message included three statements that will become important to the discussion noted below.The first concerns the members’ vote in Haifa for the next Congress to be in Sydney;

Darvas (7 July 99): “And I can accept when my opinion is not accepted. (E.g., you remember that before the Haifa Congress, when two places were proposed for the next Congress: Australia and Europe, I argued for Europe. Some of you asked me to propose an alternative, because Australia is too far for many. I accepted your proposal and prepared the plan for a European meeting, but later Denes' and Liz's argument convinced you to vote for Australia. I accepted the majority decision, and Liz witness, how much I support her efforts to organise the next congress in Sydney.)”

The other two solidly confirm Darvas’ understanding that the Board’s votes are binding on the governance of the Society:

Darvas (7 July 99):“Just this was the reason why I inititated the democratization of the processes within ISIS-Symmetry, what he disliked, because he feels for a long time, that only he has the right to decide in any question concerning symmetry and related activities. [...] However, now I really think, that an elected leader of a Society either accepts a majority confirmation, or in other case he must resign. I think all of you agree in this alternative. However, this is not a call for resignation, but a call to accept the majority decisions.”

As the following three threads show, Darvas’ was very hurt by the termination of the book project and apparently resolved to oust the President, Nagy.

The following represent three parallel threads that follow this.

Thread 1) concerns changes prompted by Darvas in how the Society is organized.

Thread 2) concerns the Society’s Journal which up to this point had been co-edited by Darvas and Nagy

Thread 3) concerns the official nature of the Fifth General Assembly in Sydney. As already noted, Darvas contests the outcome of those elections, details of which are in a separate sworn statement.

THREAD 1): THE “CURATORY” AND THE “SUSPENSION”

Darvas announced to the Board in July that Hungarian law had “unregistered” the Society and required the establishment of a “Curatory” that would serve as a sort of trusteeship to ensure that funds were spent ethically.

Darvas (30 July 99): “According to a Hungarian law, all foundations registered in this country and what wish to enjoy further the advantages (tax exemption, duty free status, right to accept tax-free donations (sponsorship), right to award tax-free scholarships), should renew their registration at the Court and make themselves registered as a "public use foundation". For this reason the founding document including the list of the Board of Trustees (BoT) should be signed by the President of the founding organisation and an accompanying letter asking for the renewal of the registration should be signed by the head of the BoT (chief curator).”

At this point, the Board became aware of a complex, interrelated set of organizations set up by Darvas.

Darvas (30 July 99): “To remember: The Symmetry Foundation was founded by the ISIS-Symmetry in 1991 to run the affairs of the society in the most advantegeous way [...], according to the Hungarian law. The SF collects the membership fee, arranges the finances of the triennial congresses and exhibitons, finances the publication of the journal, run the affairs of the Symmetrion, receives sponsorships if any, runs the administration of the Society, applys for grants to its different projects, etc. The SF has fulfilled successfully its function. Without the mentioned advantages, the publicaton of the journal could have not been performed [...], the grants awarded to the SF made possible to buy the own server for the Society, and to start the bibliographic project. The Symmetrion offered opportunity to a few members to make studies in the Symmetrotheca, e.g., during their sabbatical, etc.”

Note that the Symmetry Foundation is an organiization under Hungarian law and partly under the sponsorship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The Board was baffled. No one on the Board other than Darvas and Nagy were remotely familiar with Hungarian law. No one was aware of the complex network of organizations that had been set up. This prompted many emails among the Board with Nagy arguing against confusing the Society with all these independent corporate organizations. Darvas confirmed that funds do move among these organizations according to his determinations.

Darvas (2 August 99): “in 1998 I was awarded a grant by the Hungarian Research Fund, for the Symmetrion's bibliographic project. As a part of this project and thanks to the grant we will be able to put this bibliography to the new sever of ISIS-Symmetry, to be read by all, as an extension of the VisMath page and the other bibliographic informations.”

That same day I sent a private message to both Darvas and Nagy asking for cooperation toward resolution of problems on the curatory, journal and book series. The next day, Slavik Jablan sent a similar, public proposal. But Darvas had started an escalation in the battle between the two.

Darvas (2 August 99): “Recently, I've got evidence, that - before he left Budapest last week [...] D. Nagy commissioned an attorney of law to make legal actions to remove me from my positions in the Symmetry Foundation and ISIS-Symmetry.”

Gould (2 August 99): “In the interests of the well being of the ISIS Society, any actions taken against Gyuri Darvas by any members of the Board or their associates must stop IMMEDIATELY.”

My own subsequent, detailed investigations revealed that no such action was ever taken by Nagy, and that the above proposal, though formally entered by Board member Larry Gould, was initiated by Darvas. Most of the Board immediately acted against any destabilizing action. Though proposed as a vote, most just expressed their personal concern that no action be taken with permanent consequence. The general tenor was to preserve the Society rather than in “choosing sides” between Darvas or Nagy.

During this time, each Board member received messages from Darvas “explaining” Nagy’s mental illness

Darvas to Goranson (3 August 99): “He is in a very bad situation [...] feels professional jealousy of his former colleagues [...] caused a strange complex in him [...] he can mentally not well process his present situation [...] these all formed in him an inferiority complex [...] you see, the main problem is no more the book series.”

Nagy (1 January 00): “In mid-November, we - together with Slavik - had many discussions with the Hungarian delegation at the "Katachi U Symmetry" symposium here in Tsukuba (Berczi, Vasarhelyi, Farkas). During these meetings there was a consensus for a 3 + 3 member curatory [..] If the Foundation has more than ca. $19,800 (5 million Hungarian Forints) income in a year, we need a Supervisory Committee by law. [...] Unfortunately, none of these [required] events happened. Slavik made more recently a final trial for solving the problem...”

Darvas (3 January 00): “there occured problems, because the fully prepared documents were not signed in time by our president and he did not asked the authorisation from the Board in time. [...] You remember, that the problems started, when our president questioned the legality of the curatory [...] and tried to remove me from the head of the curatory. In that situation my honour demanded to have it demonstrated that I had the curatory functioned legally. I turned to the court and the court confirmed my right and replaced my honour.”

This message continued with a long legal argument for why Nagy cannot be on the curatory, and some confusing history on tentative decisions and discussions, and continued with:

Darvas (3 January 00): “I suggest to close endlsess and sensless debates. [...] no need to continue endless (over 6 months now!!!) debate on the curatory, let it confirm, sign the document and let us work in quiet.”

The next day a similarly long proposal from Darvas was sent to the Board:

Darvas (4 January 00): “We must renew our leadership both in composition and style [...] the internal democracy in decision-making must be strengthened. More shared decisions should be made [...] I will be the first to offer my position to be filled in by rotation.”

Nagy (15 February 00): “According to an airmail letter from Budapest, I should declare to the Hungarian Court, obviously with CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, that the Symmetry Foundation (where the money of the Society is) never had more than 5 million Hungarian Forints (today ca. $19,800) incoming money in a year. [...] Since there was no detailed financial report in Haifa or since Haifa, I asked the data from Gyuri [Darvas] [...]”

He then quotes messages from Darvas indicating that more than that was received and concludes

Nagy (15 February 00): “Obviously, I cannot make a declaration with criminal responsibility if I am almost sure that the statement is incorrect.”

Requests by the Board to Darvas to clarify the financial relationship among the Society, the Symmetrion, the Symmetry Foundation and the Symmetrotheca were ignored.

Darvas (26 June 00): “The [curatory] legal papers had been prepared [...] and it was mailed to Denes to sign it officially. He never sent back those signed documents. Please note: it is not difficult to register a Foundation in Budapest. The only criterion is, that our president should sign the document. The court is expecting his signature for a year. This is so simple. [..] Right now ISIS-Symmetry is not directly in charge of ts own finance, because the Hungarian law requires a Board of Curators in Hungary. [...] As regards the Symm. Foundation, really, the law (not only the Hungarian) requires a Board of Curators.” Note the relationship between the Society and the Foundation (the Foundation administers the money). “As regards the Society, it needs no curatoy. It has a Board, i.e. the addressees of this letter, and it is in charge to make decisions. The Society is registered as an International Association according to the law on associations in Hungary, and this status will not be changed by the court until this Society will be dissolved and/or another (new) formed.”

Darvas (28 October 00): “If the Board can not join its forces for the renewal, ISIS-Symmetry will cease very soon. I do not think, my proposals are the only way to renewal. I will be happy to accept any other proposal, if one sees a better outcome. But I am sure, if we insist to all the old business we cannot renew within this framework. I presented to the Board the most moderate alternative. Believe me, there are more radical plans, too.”

On, Larry Gould (with the signatures of Darvas and Loeb) proposed that the Board adopt a strong demand of Nagy:

Gould (11 November 00): “The patience of the Board has come to an end. If the head of the Curatory, S. Berczi, does not receive your signature to be submitted to the court in an immediate air mail [by 20 December] then it will be considered that you cannot fulfill your presidential function. In that, unexpected, case you should resign from the presidency.”

Siglind Bruhn (20 November 00): “I agree with and support the demand”

Claudio Guerri (20 November 00): “I agree that Denes has to fulfil his functions as President”

Sergei Petoukhov (21 November 00): “I agree with and support the demands”

Ted Goranson (21 November 00): “I add my vote to the growing uninamity”

At the end of the month I [Goranson] travelled to Australia and conferred with Lugosi, Ashburn and Nagy at which point I underscored my meaning as to take action. I did not endorse an automatic suspension.

Liz Ashburn (22 November 00): “I would like to hear Denes Nagy's position before commenting.”

Claudio Guerri (22 November 00): “ [In response to Ashurn’s: ‘I would like to hear Denes Nagy's position before commenting. I believe he is contacting all the Board] That's what a really would like to see and that's why a wrote the 11-20-00:”

Darvas (22 November 00): “A few words on the 1999 exhibitions. (((They were not organized by the Society. The Foundation was one of the organizers (we invited the foreign exhibitors). This activity was honored, that following the exhibitions a moderate profit was left at the account of the Foundation (while our partner could not realize any profit from the events). (If the Foundation - a non-profit organization - were the main organizer, and the addressee of all sponsorships, we could not keep any cent for our further expenses.)

Really, we received in total HUFt 6M from a state agency, through the Ministry of Culture, and really, a part of this was a result of my personal intervention at the (that time) minister, who is a well known symmetrist (in brain asymmetries). Our partner organizer was the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The Academy is a state budget financed institution, and the ministry (more precisely, its funding agency) found it easier to transfer the money to another state budget institution, than to a civil foundation. (That would require from us to submit many documentation, guaranty letters, etc., for what we had no administrative staff). On the other hand, in that case (if we were the primary addressee) we would need to account on each cent (HUFt) with invoices immediately, and (as subcontractors) could not save money for the publication of the journal, and for the support of the VisMath. This way we could save a moderate cca. 5 per cent of the whole budget. The interests of the Symmetry Foundation rode first. But these applied such budgetary and accounting practices, what needed the advices of experts, specialized in Hungarian budgeting. Other supports, e.g., from the municipality of Budapest, were transferred directly to our Foundation.)))”

Darvas (22 November 00): “As regards the role of the HAS, we receive the space, infrastructure (institute facilities, logistics) free of charge from this time-honored institution, (and I am paid primarily by them, while spend much time for the Society). In this sense it is our main sponsor. I give my lectures at the new faculty campus, but students visit me here to consult, use the Symmetrotheca, give the exams here, submit essays, etc. (But does anyone know, why is the student attendence here an aspect?)”

Darvas (23 November 00): ”the Foundation was one of the organizers [...] our partner organizer was the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.”

Nagy (1 December 00): “Earlier I believed that we should find a solution at the Board Meetings in Sydney, but the recent developments (Liz's request), as well as the letters by some members (Arthur, Gyorgy, Larry), make clear that I cannot wait any more. [...] Arthur and Larry never consulted with me and Mihaly (Prof. Szoboszlai, Editor in Budapest), as well as disregarded Slavik's proof (January 2000) that Gyorgy reported incorrect information on me to the Board in connection with the curatory.”

Darvas (1 December 00): “Let me first calm down before reacting to this ignominious madness”

Darvas (1 December 00): “This "mistery" reached its climax. What we were need-to-read today [...] could be born only in a totally foolish mind. I must say our president is either mad or lies (probably both). I must tell you, if the Board further tolerates this attitude, this is the end of the Society. I never before could imagine, that a person who had so much merit in the creation of this Society may destroy it himself. DN must resign immediately or this Society is over!!!!!!!!!”

Nagy (5 December 00): “I authorize Arthur Loeb, as the Chairman of the Advisory Board, to substitute me in this case, represent the view of the Board, and sign the document.”

Nagy (5 December 00): “I remind all of you that a large part of my report was based on the statements and quotes by Liz (Sydney Congress), Danny Shechtman (Haifa Congress), Ted (journal), as well as reports by Mihaly (journal). Moreover, Liz red (and occasionally corrected) the text on the Sydney Congress before sending you, and she added that "I confirm that the summary by Denes is correct and represents the views presented at committee meetings" (signature). [..] I do request that Gyorgy should transfer the LIST OF MEMBERS, who paid the membership fee in the year of the Haifa Congress and afterwards, IMMEDIATELY TO LIZ.”

Darvas (6 December 00): “My opinion is, that either he signs the document (he refused), or he passed his rights to Arthur, but in this latter case he passed also the right to decide what he signs.”

Loeb (6 December 00): “I do not feel qualified to sign the curatory document, as I am ignorant of Hungarian law and of the details of the document.”

Nagy (15 December 00): “ [I] authorize Board Member Larry Gould to sign the curatory document.

Gould (15 December 00): “I will not sign the Curatory agreement. My reasons are the same as Arthur's.”

Darvas (26 January 01): “I have the pleasure to inform you, that the Budapest municipal court has registered the modified Founding Document and Curatory of the International Symmetry Foundation. ( - Following the termination of the deadline [...] I made the necessary measures at the court.) [...] The new curatory (headed by S. Berczi) started its work immediately.”

Darvas would later claim that the above was notification to the Board of the firing of the president.

Darvas (15 May 01): “Please, in the future, let us consider the tasks of the membrs of the board, and the tasks of the secretary general (actually substituting also the suspended president). In question, please consult the Articles. Let us discuss problems, finally involving everybody, but to make the conclusions, consequences, to decide when the results are mature for full publication and voting, let us leave for the elected leader, until he is in his function.

Rebielak (16 May 01): “I am enormously surprised by the question - who is actually leading the Society. I was even more surprised by this - "suspended president". I never agree with this statement!!! To me it was, and now is still very clear, that only the President of ISIS-Symmetry, Prof. D. Nagy - elected by the General Assembly in the last Congress in Haifa - is the person who leads the Society and we all the Board members, including The General Secretary, as elected officers of the Society, are obliged to help him in his duties.”

Loeb (19 May 01): “The quibbbling and infighting in isis-s are taking too much of my time and energy from overwhelming professional commitmemts, so that I have reluctantly decided to [...] resign from the isis-s board, hence also from the advisoty council.”

Rebielak (3 June 01): “Referring to Larry's e-mails that the President was suspended by six votes (majority of 11), including me I have to clearly state once more that my vote is misinterpreted, I did not vote for suspending the President, and even the whole idea is against the "Acts" that does not refer to "suspension" at all. Thus, I declare that - considering my vote as the sixth one - the whole move is void and illegal. Of course, the remaining five Members should also explain their views, but the move - without my vote - has no majority.”

Goranson (4 June 01): “I propose that the Board clarify the status of Denes Nagy as the President of the Society in full standing, to serve until the next Congress.

Bruhn (4 June 01): “I gladly support Denes' presidency until the Sydney congress.”

Rebielak (3 June 01): “I also vote yes!”

Gould (6 June 01): “For goodness sake, WHAT ARE SOME OF YOU DOING?! The vote on the Demands to suspend Denes was taken and Gyuri has now gotten the Journal started again. Please stop persecuting him for his efforts to regenerate ISIS-S!”

Guerri (6 June 01): “...and I vote yes too.”

Jablan (9 June 01): “I support the presidency of Denes until the Sydney Congress.”

THREAD 2): THE JOURNAL

Because of the inability of Nagy and Darvas to cooperate, by mid 99, the Journal had been delayed almost two years.

Gould (24 July 99): “I am glad that Denes is working on the back issues [...] Could we take a VOTE, by E-MAIL, on the following proposal assuming it is acceptable. If it is not acceptable then please suggest any changes. (Arthur Loeb has already agreed with the essentials of the proposal.) The journal must be published beginning with the 1996/4 issue on or before the end of September 1999. Any article accepted but not completed before that time is to be withdrawn for possible publication in a future issue of the journal. [...] (I only hope that we have not lost members because they have not received the journal for such a long time.)’

Gould (19 November 99): “I am dismayed and disgusted that the journal is still not sent out. I understand that we have already lost members from the society because some of them have not received the journal. We really *must* get the journal back issues published and sent out by those who agreed to send them out.”

Nagy (23 June 00): “It is NOT ACCEPTABLE that the printed journal is still not available. As you may remember, Mihaly Szoboszlai (Dept. Chair, Technical Univ. of Budapest) agreed to act as the Editor in charge of organizing the technical editing at his department. Right now I am visiting his department and understood that he is not able to perform these duties [...] George Lugosi (Melbourne) [...] offered that he will take over M. Szoboszlai’s current responsibilities.”

Szoboszlai (23 June 00): “I agree with Denes and I maximally support his effort to renew the journal. As much as I can I help George Lugosi to continue the editing process.”

Darvas (26 June 00): “Great. Any solution, what can save the journal is welcome. If Mihaly agrees, I will support too. I know George, and am ready to cooperate with him.”

Loeb (26 June 00): “I feel that dividing the operations between Australia and Budapest at this time would be a terrible mistake, as it would add to the existing chaos. [...] The first order of business is for Denes to get the journal back on track, and that will require all his wherewithal. So let us leave any further grandiose plans for the next governing board.

Nagy (30 June 00): “Restart the printed journal in Melbourne, together with G. Lugosi My proposal was supported by SIX BOARD MEMBERS (Siglind, Ted, Claudio, Slavik, Sergei, and Janusz) and by Mihaly (the current Editor in Budapest), while I did not get a response from Liz and Larry. You also have Gyuri's detailed letter on various topics. We should appreciate very much Arthur's suggestion. In a personal letter to him I clarified my suggestion. Indeed, we should not have any chaos and confusion with two cities. My suggestion was to move ALL journal-related activities to Melbourne. Since no single issue was finalized for printing at the current Editorial Office in Budapest and I considered all of the difficulties here at Mihaly, my only hope is to restart the journal at another place. Since the majority supported my proposal, I am very glad to see that we have a reasonable solution. I kindly ask- Mihaly to help to transfer all materials for technical editing to Melbourne, - Gyuri to transfer the available financial sources for the journal to a new account in Melbourne (G. Lugosi will open it). Let us work out the technical details urgently and report to the Board. Since Mihaly made all of the style-sheets that we used in the past, he made great contributions; I hope that he will help the work as associate editor in the future, too. On the other hand, all technical editing will be done at G. Lugosi's office in Melbourne. ‘

Darvas never sent materials or funds.

Goranson (23 April 2001): “My proposal to them both [Darvas and Nagy] was to: Not take any Society-wide action until we meet at the Congress. If changes are to be made, this is the correct venue. In particular, delay any decision on the Journal.”

Ashburn (23 April 2001): “I totally agree with [Goranson’s] email”

Darvas (24 April 2001): “No final decision was made by the board, only a temporary decision. The submitted and accepted papers for the years 1997-2001 must be printed, and the board majority decision in January-February made possible to prepare these issues for print, even before Sydney. This is not against the interests of the Society. On the other hand, it is a hard work of a full team here. The results will be in your hands in a few weeks. It is impossible to postpone the publication of a journal for which many subscribed and paid, for years, for further months. This is for the benefit of all. [...] One other thing, what belongs here: It is the interest of most of us, to avoid unprepared, not reconciled decisions to be made in Sydney in the absence of most authentic leaders of the Society. Then it is better to postpone decisions. You were the first to stress, not to threaten the scholarly program in Sydney by procedural debates. You were right. One must concentrate in Sydney on art and science, scholarly program, this is the key of the success. In this case the participants were invited not by a contraselection process, by a criterion who would support to reinforce DN in his former position, but on a quality basis. It would help the success, if no decision on the future of the Society and no election of new officers woult taken place there. There is a real fear, that if DN does not understand the neccessity of this measure, he can not only jeopardise the efforts of Liz for the success of the meeting, but may lead to the split of the Society. The stake and the risk are great. We must avoid it!!!”

Goranson to the Board (6 May 2001): “may I have your forbearance on another official vote: "Recognizing that the Board is the governing body, the Board directs the Secretary to make no expenditure of Society funds between this date and the Sydney Congress without the specific approval of the Board."”

Guerri (6 May 2001): “I aggree with you” (9 May 2001): “I aggree with Ted moves’

Ashburn (6 May 2001): “I also support your recommendation”

Rebielak (6 May 2001): “In order to be clear : I vote for this!”

Jablan (12 May 2001): “I support the proposal by Ted Goranson”

Darvas (4 June 01): “Last week we posted an issue (Vol. 8, No. 2) of the journal. Another issue (Vol. 8, No. 1) will follow this week, and hopefully 3 others in this month yet. We hope no one will consider, that these products were *against* any interest.”

In spite of the Board votes to delay the Journal until the new Sydney Board was elected, and the more pointed vote to not spend any money, Darvas published and mailed several issues of the Journal. The first of those contained this editorial signed by Darvas:

Darvas (Summer 00): “All journals have their fate. It did not depend on Siglind Bruhn that this issue has been left in camera ready prepared on a bookshelf for over 4 years. One of the editors of Symmetry: Culture and Science decided to write a paper on golden section to explain to the reader what was this phenomenon and how it had been applied in music. The project was decided to be brought to perfection. [...] The two editors of this journal disagreed on this editorial policy. I decided to decline to (co)edit this journal under the conditions further. In 1997 we agreed that this will be the last issue what we have edited together. Future is unpredictable. Maybe you are keeping in your hands the last issue of Symmetry: Culture and Science. Having (co)edited 7 volumes of this journal I say a good-bye to the readers in the hope that I will have the opportunity to serve you with other publications.”

THE SYDNEY CONGRESS AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY

It has been noted above that Darvas accepted the decision of the membership in Haifa concerning the Congress in Sydney:

Darvas (7 July 99): “Some of you asked me to propose an alternative [to Australia], because Australia is too far for many. I accepted your proposal and prepared the plan for a European meeting, but later Denes' and Liz's argument convinced you to vote for Australia. I accepted the majority decision, and Liz witness, how much I support her efforts to organise the next congress in Sydney.)”

Over time this position changed. At first he supported the Congress:

Darvas (25 November 99): “Concerning the next Congress, planned in Sydney, looking at their file presented in Haifa, I have no doubts, they will arrange the technical organisation well.”

Darvas (20 December 99): “Thank you for your inspiring ideas [...] we must discuss these questions to prepare a better framework for our next Congress and Exhibition. [...] For the plenary lecutres I also propose to invite only broad interdisciplinary papers with new topics, following a selection process, where all members of the Board take part, and interested members of the Advisory Board are asked too. [...] I propose, let the Board set up, discuss and acceopt a list of session topics. [...] We must also make the art exhibitions and the exhibition related lecture programs a more integrated part of the Congress program, than we did last time.”

But on the 10th and 12th of April, Darvas forwarded to the Board two letters from European cities expressing interest in hosting a Society Congress. When queried about these letters, Darvas responded that he was only looking to a meeting after Sydney:

But there were some hints of trouble:

Darvas (13 April 00): “The preparations for the next year Congress proceed well. [...] Some Board members mentioned me, that we should consider a next meeting long before 2004, where our membership could be better represented and legal decisions can be made. [...] Please note, with [Nagy’s] present problems and mental state he will never more be the same as he was. [...] Athough, I am not sure that I can obtain a grant to be personally there in Sydney. Liz, her colleague Elisabeth and me do our best to organise a good meeting in Sydney next year [...] We did not change any previous decision. We look further ahead.”

Darvas (26 June 00): “I am worrying, whether the board will be present in enough percentage to make legal decisions in Sydney [...] changes can be decided in a year, when a new Board, new President, new Secretary General will be elected, if and only if enough members can gether to make legal decisions.”

This was the first indication that Darvas was having qualms about the Sydney Congress. But he still endorsed it:

Darvas (26 June 00): “...next year, (or at latest in another year) we must elect new President and new Secretary General (and Board)”

When it became clear that the Board voted against him on moving the Journal to Australia, Darvas position on the Congress started to change. See the evolution below:

Darvas (3 July 00): “We need a Board meeting (11 people). Since in Sydney can gather forseenable only a minority of the Board, another venue should be considered. [...] Maybe we should postpone this Board meeting to 2002?”

Darvas (24 July 00): “Less than a year before electing our new president, it would be a great mistake on our side [...] to introduce such a radical change in the control over our common finances...”

Darvas (8 August 00): “we have got a series of proposals to organise a meeting in Europe in 2002 [...] at any probability, there will be no General Assembly meeting, Board meeting, election, and discussion on the organisation issues of the society in Sydney. [...] According to my present information, 3-4 members of the 11 members of the board can be present in Sydney. [...] I see the earliest possibility to convene a General Assembly in Europe, 2002.”

In fact, the entire Board was present in Sydney except Darvas and two others. This was expected already in August 2000. but it should be noted that in fact a majority of attending Board members had never been the case in prior congresses.

Darvas (8 August 00): “You are right, the Articles of the Society do not specify, how many members, representing how many regions, nations should minimally be present to make a General Assembly authorised to bring decisions. One could define a minimum, but there is a danger: if this will be a low figure plus combined with one's right to dispose over a similar magnitude of grants to get in Sydney, one can manipulate the composition of the participation, and by this way the outcome of any voting on the future of the society. I would not like to take part in such a circus.”

Darvas (25 August 00): “[...] even DN did not disclose in Haifa, that we will have a meeting in Sydney, but in certain situation, the General Assembly will be held at another place at a close later date. It is too early to decide on it now.”

Darvas (27 October 00): “We need some time to prepare [a July 2002 European meeting], so we need to start the work soon, it would be late after Sydney. At the moment it looks, really, that it will not be an official Congress of ISIS-Symmetry, but this status may be changed after Sydney.”

Darvas (28 October 00): “if there will come not enough members of the Society together in Sydney, 2001 [...] in that unexpected case, let's not wait until 2004, but make a meeting in Europe, 2002. (That time it was not important how to call it, conference or congress. If it will be successful, it can be named a congress, of course, and if there will be not enough foreign members in Sydney, it will not be called a congress.) [...] several others proposed the same in the recent months: an interim meeting in 2002.”

Liz Ashburn (Board Member and Sydney Organizer) (22 November 00): “1 I confirm that the summary by Denes is correct and represents the views presented at committee meetings.

2 It is totally impossible to organise an ISIS-Symmetry Congress if Gyorgy, who collected the application forms and membership fees, is not able to give a list of members, beyond an1996 list. 3 Gyorgy's "actions" also delayed and made much more difficult the fund raising. 4 Following a very difficult beginning of year when no contact was possible with Denes, Denes and George Lugosi have been offering valuable energy to keep the project alive. 5 I endorse the concerns of Denes to return to scholarly debates, but recognise that deeper arguments and exchanges are not able to take place whilst the organisation is in disarray. I urge reforms of transparency, accountability and cooperation in the administration of ISIS-Symmetry.”

Nagy (1 December 00): “After the latest Committee Meeting in Sydney, Liz declared that - she finds working with Gyorgy extremely difficult; he appears to have no commitment to the Congress in Australia; - and requested that we should solve this problem so that the Sydney Committee can move with some degree of confidence to finalising the 5th Congress and Exhibition.

[...] The main trouble is that Gyorgy, despite his very many e-mails, does not cooperate in the case of some basic questions, while produces new problems and undermines the whole congress. Of course, UNDERMINING THE CONGRESS, the main forum of the Society, also means UNDERMINING THE VERY EXISTENCE OF ISIS-Symmetry. Here I summarize some of the problems that Liz described during the Committee meetings in Sydney:....- (f) On October 13, 2000 Gyorgy in a circular with attachments (did you read this 23-page document?) proposes that "IN SYDNEY NO ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES SHOULD BE DISCUSSED, AND NO DECISIONS WILL BE MADE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE SOCIETY AND ITS MANAGEMENT". Moreover, "THERE WILL BE NO GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SOCIETY" in Sydney. He initiates an alternative meeting in Europe ("LET'S HOPE, THAT AT LEAST IN 2002 WE MAY CONVENE AS A GENERAL ASSEMBLY"). This is a violation of the common sense and the traditions of ISIS-Symmetry. We always had a General Assembly Meeting during each congress and we never had it at other events. Article 6 also specifies that the "Board is elected by the General Assembly (...)" and the officers are elected for "the period between two Interdisciplinary Symmetry Congresses (usually for three years)". Indeed, Gyorgy immediately tries to modify the Articles.”

Darvas (1 December 00): “DN must resign immediately or this Society is over!!!!!!!!! [...] I wish all of us he will disappear from our correspondence, executing our common plans, our professional activity, our further life. A chapter is closed. Let's continue without him.”

Nagy (5 December 00): “I remind all of you that a large part of my report was based on the statements and quotes by Liz (Sydney Congress), Danny Shechtman (Haifa Congress), Ted (journal), as well as reports by Mihaly (journal). Moreover, Liz red (and occasionally corrected) the text on the Sydney Congress before sending you, and she added that "I confirm that the summary by Denes is correct and represents the views presented at committee meetings" (signature). [..] I do request that Gyorgy should transfer the LIST OF MEMBERS, who paid the membership fee in the year of the Haifa Congress and afterwards, IMMEDIATELY TO LIZ.”

Darvas (5 December 00): “It is obvious, that he decided to collect a minority in Sydney who will vote everything what he wants, and then declare the "decisions:-)))" as a "renewed" Symmetry Soc.

Darvas (15 December 00): “What I am worrying, there will be a meeting in Sydney, where and absolutely new society will be formed. Obviously the old membeship (or at least its majority) does not share the policy of the president, but he will compose the participants in Sydney from such newcomers, who will vote everything what he proposes. He will probably form in Sydney an absolutely new Society, with a new membership.”

Darvas (18 December 00): “According to my views, certain decisions should not be prolonged until the Sydney meeting (such is among others e.g., the journal), while others should be made in the presence of the majority of the Board and the Advisory Board (such is e.g., the modification of the Articles and election of new officers). Until that temporary decisions should be made by the board.”

Ashburn (21 December 00): “we were given no budgets from previous congresses, received no list of current members, were offered no firm names for international speakers until mid-December and no support from the organisation [meaning Darvas in Budapest] in attending the congress. This lack of information and more explicitly absence of willing cooperation affected our chances to apply for additional funding”

Darvas (24 April 01): “One other thing, what belongs here: It is the interest of most of us, to avoid unprepared, not reconciled decisions to be made in Sydney in the absence of most authentic leaders of the Society. Then it is better to postpone decisions.[...] The stake and the risk are great. We must avoid it!!!

In April, Darvas posted the “official” Society web page which indicated that the Sydney meeting was not to host the General Assembly. When queried on this, he said:

Darvas (27 April 01): “As regards the status of the Sydney congress, the Articles nowhere state, that the Congresses must coincide with the General Assemblies. It says also that "generally" in 3 years. (Of course, it was reasonable to combine the two, when we were all together, but there are extraordinary situations, like now.) A congress does not need a quorum. A General Assembly needs. By the way, the lack of definition of a quorum (and the process of decision making) in the Articles were criticized also by the court, where the society is registered. (To include this in the articles is prescribed by law.) Thus I agree with those, who proposed to postpone the general assembly for the next year. Please, before you accuse me that we undermine the success of the Sydney congress with this proposal, realize, that all who proposed and support this procedure are worrying for the scholarly success of the Sydney meeting and for the future of the Society: According to our opinion only this measure can ensure the success of the Sydney meeting and save the unity of the society. Such a measure does not contradict either to the Articles or to the former decisions.

Darvas (28 April 01): “In Haifa, the membership voted for Sydney. [...] I changed my mind, when I realized, that other honorable members of the B and the AB did so, and following some steps by Denes (stopping the publciation of the journal; jeopardizing the book series project at the Springer by a letter what contained false facts, what were clear for the Springer's leaders, so much, that they told me, they "will never cooperate with a society, what elected a leader, who lies", thus undemining the respect of the full society, then stating me a pitfall by making an illegal bill sent me, and instructing to pay from the society's budget). Most of the board agrees now, that the conditions (contraselected composition of the participants) in Sydney will not be given to make impartial decisions on the society and elect new leaders. Therefore, we must save the scholarly value of the meeting (by keeping far procedural debates), and save or replace the unity of the society (the latter needs time). [...] What would you gain, if you insist on old decisions, brought in a different situation? Why to insist on it, when others who made that decision changed their mind? Please see, I was ready to certain compromises. The limits of the compromises are where they do not threaten the future of the society, to keep a group of scholars for common intellectual goals together.

Darvas (30 April 01): “([...]I proposed Budapest, because a few weeks before we met in Haifa, - and it was known already that Australia will be the next candidate - a few members of the Society asked me to state an other candidate city, and give a chance to the membership to choose between alternatives, because they did not supported a venue in Australia. In the short period I could not prepare another proposal, than to propose my home, where I can arrange it at any time. The proposal by Dirk - who was a new member among us - was a surprise for all of us, and then I made a mistake: I did not withdraw my proposal for Budapest immediately.) If you compare these figures, you see, that the majority (30+27) voted for a European spot!!!! In my ydy remark I meant this. [...] the majority of the General Assembly voted for Europe”

When confronted that the Board never discussed changing the status of the Sydney Congress, Darvas said:

Darvas (30 April 01): “You are right. There has never been put for voting by the Board. I know the opinions from private communication. I had different reasons not to initiate a voting on this question earlier. First, we must have given the chance to Liz and DN to change the causes, what could justify this decision. Second, I did not want to disturb the allocation of abstract before the deadline of submitting them to the congress. (A too early decision to change the status of the congress could keep back several applicants. This would not help the scholarly success of the meeting. In this case Liz could really feel, that we undermine her efforts.) At third, recently I did not want to disturb the processes with new debates, what divide further the membership. Anyway, the decision on the question whether to initiate a ballot in this question or not, must be taken soon. I did not want to decide myself alone, and am making consultations, involving not only the board members, also some AB members, and the honorary presidents of the Society too.”

Goranson (29 April 01): “You can call for an official Board vote to change the members' vote for the Congress in Sydney. I suppose the Board can do so, even though there may be questions on why the honest vote or the members was cancelled. I would not want to answer this. There may also be liabilities from breach of contract with UNSW.”

Goranson (29 April 01): “You decided to demote the Congress on the official website. That was without authorization. You decided to publish the journal without a vote. That was without authorization. I think it is better to remind you not to do anything else without authorization.”

To which he responded (30 April 01): “You are alone with this opinion.”

I (Goranson) immediately proposed to the Board (30 April 01); “I call for an official and immediate vote on the status of the Congress. The general membership voted in Haifa to have the Society's next Congress in Sydney. Under normal circumstances, this would include a general assembly for major Society decisions including the election of future Board and Officers of the Society. Only the Board by official vote could change the clear decision of the members. I call for that vote.”

Ashburn (2 May 01): “I totally agree with your actions [...] you have my firm support for your request for a vote and I will vote for Sydney as the officially sanctioned venue for the 5th”

Nagy (2 May 01): “About Ted's proposal: I would favour his move [...] Of course I support ANY MOVE that saves the Congress. In this sense, my answer is YES”

Rebielak (2 May 01): “I fully support the resolution sent by Ted Goranson!”

Jablan (2 May 01): “I fully support all the proposals of Ted Goranson”

Bruhn (2 May 01): “I fully support the suggestions made by Ted Goranson, both in principle and in detail”

Darvas (2 May 01): “In principle, I agree with the proposal by Ted, which is supported by several further Board members. However, I see procedural problems. First these problems must be solved. Only then can we decide on Ted's proposal.”

Goranson (2 May 01): “We now have a firm Board decision. At this writing, the vote is seven to nothing [...] [Darvas] has a specific charter to cease organizing a competing Congress.”

Guerri (5 May 01): “Of corse you have my vote, I am just arriving today from Santa Fe.”

Goranson to Darvas (6 May 01): “The resolution has been passed. It stands. Only if you propose another that reverses it, and get a majority, will it be changed. I remind you that there were NO votes against. Take this following very seriously: the Board runs the Society. There has been a unanimous vote. If you ignore this, you will be breaking the law. Period. Tread very carefully here. I took this action only because I was surprised to see how you listed the Congress on the web site. Then you told me that indeed you hadn't brought your plans up for a Board vote but that you had the backing of "most members of the Board." Why I was excluded from Board discussion puzzled me. You said "you are alone in this." So I asked around and in two days had a unanimous vote against you.”

Darvas (6 May 01): “Plese, stop to act as a new, self-made president of the Society. Nobody asked you to do so, and it is not in line with the Articles. [...] There is no court, whcih could legitimate your action. Please, keep youself back from such immoral actions. [...] You refer on your democratic experiences. You must know the best, that what you did is antidemocratic, and violates the minimal moral rules. I do not like to turn to court with internal affairs of a society, but you must know, if I did, ti were not without legal consequences for you. The minimum were, to terminate your membership in that society. You must apologise for the whole board for your disgraceful action. I did not expeted this from you. I am surprised. This is a shame. Stop.

Darvas (7 May 01): “I do not know what problem did you have with my opinion on the cancellation of a General Assembly from the program in Sydney. I never stated, that the old decisions of the Board are not valid yet, I never put it for voting to the board. However, I expressed my opinion, what is my right, and what is not only my opinion. I am in correspondence with over hundred symmetrists”

Darvas (8 May 01): “according to my informations, and evidences, the equal rights of the members to be inivted to the Sydney Congress were violated. Some old members, who are by no doubt members of the Society inquired at me in the recent 2 months, when (and partly did know) where the next Congress will be held. Some received the invitation long after the deadline of submitting the abstracts (only very recently), and more many only after they missed to submit a grant application at home for their participation. I do not mean more, than only those, who were on the list, what I sent last year to Liz. I have good reason, that the composition of the Sydney meeting was manipulated. [...] Please, see, what may happen in Sydney is less-less-less democratic, than a Board decision in advance to avoid that.

Goranson (12 May 01): “Your last message was very disturbing. I think at best you are not taking this seriously, at worst you are deliberately stalling. So I will make a simple request -- you must concur now as I will not spend additional time arguing with you. [...] We must have a general assembly in Sydney where new officers are elected. If you help, we can make this a more representative vote among absentee members and have competitive slates. If you continue to obstruct, there will be a general assembly anyway [...] The facts are simple and quite unattached to any issues concerning Denes, the journal or the curatory. --The members voted for a Congress in Sydney. --The Board affirmed this, and directed you to take certain actions. You have so far refused.”

Darvas to Goranson (12 May 01): “I do not accept menaces. In the lack of a president i have the responsibility for the processes in the society. I will not accept from you any action what could disturb that quiet and constructive working climate, what characterised the society in the recent 4 months. I ask you very kindly, but firmly, to keep yourself back from all actions, what can jeopardise the process of consolidation.”

Darvas to Goranson (15 May 01): “You made an elephant from a mouse. And that mouse is louder than all creations together in this forest. According to my meaning, it is DN who is crippling with the Sydney Congress. What more evidence do you need to acknowledge, that it was a mistake to choose Australia for the next Congress? (The decision is valid, but please, admit, it was a mistake) As regards competing congress, I refuse. I can offer, that at a meeting what I will organise the society can make a GA, if it fails in Sydney. This is quite different, what you state. Ted, please, deal with, what is your job. Not with mine.”

Darvas to the Board (15 May 01): “I asked Ted also to decide, who is actually leading the Society, he or me. I am open to discuss all issues, every idea, proposal with everybody, but I am against to initiating voting on a first-comes-first basis, and will restrain myself from circulating inmature proposals. (Especially such, whose legitimity is not controlled yet.) I am thankful, if Ted - or any other of you - tries to help in the common tasks. At the same time, nobody asked him to take over the President's or the Secretary General's tasks. This way would lead only to an anarchy in the Society. This way may lead only to confusion in the minds, makes the appearence, like there were a chaos in the society, makes appearance, that processes were out of control, if he voluntarily does not act. Fortunately it is not the case. Please, in the future, let us consider the tasks of the membrs of the board, and the tasks of the secretary general (actually substituting also the suspended president).”

Darvas to Rebielak (4 June 2001): “The Board voted to have a Congress in Sydney. There will be a Congress. However. This does not mean automatically, that there must be a General Assembly during the Congress.”

Darvas (4 June 2001): “I would continue my work, for maximum a year, until I can finish the work of consolidatiting the society, but as I see this Board does not acknowledge work, rather evaluates the activity of those, who only promise, correspond, criticise tohers, but never produce anything. I do not want to belong to such a Board, and I want no more belong to a Society, where these are the values. If such values will prevail in Sydney, I will rather leave this Society in July. Until that I hope. [...] Unfortunately there is a minority in our Board, who considers his opinion indisputable, the only true one. Their loud voice prevails the correspondence among the members of the Board. They try to force their opinion, by calls for often immediate voting, on the others. Those, who do not share these opinions, and hate this style, are in majority in number, but the share of the volume of their correspondence is minor. In most cases they even do not respond. They express their opinion in this way. (My full sympathy is with them.) This makes the appearence, like that loud minoritiy's voice would determine the Board's opinion. I call your attention, that this is not true.

Gould (6 July 01): “Below is the slate of candidates for the Board that I propose for the elections at the Sydney meeting. [...] President G. Darvas [...] Secretary General S. Jablan”

Darvas (11 July 01): “I accept and warmly support the slate sent out by Larry Gould.”

Darvas to Jablan (23 July 01): “Of course, I knew already the results of the tragicomic comedy held in Sydney previous week, called by some a "General Assembly". [...]I consider you a serious scholar. Otherwise I would not urge you to accept the nomination for the position of ISIS-Symmetry's secretarary general. (But not for a 15 members puppet show. You worth more!)I don't think you take seriously that comedy. [...] I hope you will become the secretary general of ISIS-Symmetry, but I hope it in a legitime process. Sorry, that this time that was not the case. I am anxioulsy looking forward, whether these issues could be registered anywhere. (Until that, the elections cannot be considered legitime.) As regards myself, I am waiting for the legal decision. “

[Another document records the extremes the Board went through to ensure a fair, orderly election. Darvas was not elected to the presidency. His candidate S. Jablan, was elected to fill his position as Secretary. As of this writing, July 2002, Darvas has refused to transfer documents and funds to the new secretary.]

Attested to by myself, Ted Goranson. Sworn hardcopies available. Original complete emails available.

LowerBanner