Home | Contact Us

Board of Directors Meeting Dockets

Physical Meeting Docket for October 20, 2001

AGENDA for Oct. 20, 2001 (Saturday):

9:00 - 9:20 a.m.  Self Introduction (About 2 minutes for each person)

9:20 - 9:30 a.m.  Approval of the agenda, electing a meeting chair, &
                             signing the incorporation document

9:30 - 9:45 a.m.  80-20 Update – S.B. Woo

9:45 - 12:30 p.m.  Discussion/Revision/ Approval of 80-20's Interim
   a. 9:45 - 10 a.m.  Background briefing about the unique demands
                                 on 80-20's bylaws --  Peter Suzuki, Chair of   
                                 Permanent Structures Committee & S. B. Woo

   b. 10 - 10:30 a.m.  Preamble, and articles 1 to 5

   c. 10:30 - 10: 45 a.m.   BREAK

   d. 10:45 - 12:30 p.m.   Articles 6 to 14

12:30 - 2 p.m.  LUNCH

2 - 2:45 p.m.  Membership dues & future revenue

2:45 - 3:00 p.m. Should 80-20 try to set up an endowment fund of at
                             least $5 million?

3:00 - 3:30 p.m.  Should 80-20 express APA's displeasure towards
                             politicians who denigrate us for their political
                             expedience, by unseating the most offensive one?

3:30 - 3:45 p.m.  BREAK

3:45 - 4:30 p.m.  To do away with “internment by racial
                             profiling —the Korematsu Decision?”

4:30 - 5:30 p.m.   Unfinished business for agenda items listed above.

6:30 - 9 p.m.  AWARD DINNER (Suite 1101), cocktail at 6:30 p.m. and
                        dinner at 7 p.m.




           AGENDA for October 21, 2001 (Sunday):


9 - 10 a.m. Should 80-20 fulfill its promise to win equal opportunity
                   in workplaces for non-elite APAs?  80-20 has already
                   helped shatter the glass ceiling in the federal gov’t.!
                   (Organizing a great citizens’ lobbying force; overcoming turf
                   considerations of sister APA organizations, etc.)

10 - 10:30 a.m. Should we add a few new members to the Steering
                           Committee for the remainder of its tenure which will
                           be a year or less?  We need female members.

10:30 - 11 a.m.  Going over the press release & a photo session.

11 - 11:30 a.m.  New business & adjournment

11:30 - 12:30 p.m.  Press Conference ???

  9:30 – 9:45 a.m. Topic:  80-20 Update

MAJOR ACTIVITIES since our last meeting of 9/25/00 in LA:

  • Presidential Election Of 2000:


  • Made radio and TV ads promoting Gore that were used in California – 3 languages.  Created Ch. language newspaper ads that covered the following states:  CA, WA, OR, TX, & NY, because all large Ch-Am newspapers endorsed Gore or 80-20. Our staff deserve a big round of applause from us.
  • Stopped in one day the infamous “Daisy” TV ad modified to spread fear on “Yellow Peril,” aired by supporters of Bush.
  • Tried to arrange but didn’t materialize a $500,000 fundraiser for Gore in Silicon Valley.  Reasons: Too late for Gore to appear; and creating a different institutional image in DNC for APAs.  The RNC already knows that we are tough.
  • Result:  80-20 delivered 70/28 to Gore in CA, and 66/32 nationally.  In response, President Bush appointed 2 APAs to his cabinet. 
  • Subjecting 80-20 to the toughest audit possible.

That is, the auditor was authorized to check income sources and expenditures independently.  We got a clean bill of health.  Larry Ho and Chun Wa Wong are to be thanked.

  • Parrying an attack from MAPS on our ability to communicate.  David Chu made a big contribution on that front.


  • Cleaning up our e-mailing lists, improving our e-mail system & setting up two e-mail lines.  Prof. Shangyou Zhang of U. of Del., the first person to receive an award from 80-20, was indispensable in this project.
  • Created a draft of bylaws.  Members of the Permanent Structure Comm., especially Chun Wa Wong (the first chair), Peter Suzuki (the second chair) and Shaie-Mei Temple who coordinated responses from our Chapters and Friends deserve our grateful acknowledgement.


  • The Flag Project.  Radio, Newspaper ads in three languages were sent to quite a few states. Paper flags were made and distributed in CA.  This project was very popular with the APA community.

(Jenny Yang was the first person, probably nationwide, to approach merchants to display flags in their shop-fronts.  She realized that 80-20’s proposal had not anticipated field conditions correctly ....)

  2 - 2:45 p.m. Topic:  Membership Dues & Revenue


     Five types of dues are proposed:

  • Basic Member -- $35


  • Family member(two votes) -- $50
  • Life Member -- $1000


  • Family Life Member (2 votes) -- $1,500
  • Honorary Family Member (1 or 2 votes) -- $10K



(1) The decision on $35 and $50 was poll driven.  Those numbers optimize the two parameters we care about most (number of members and total revenue).

(2) The total income from such a dues structure is estimated to be from $250 K to $500 K.  The total number of members will be from 4000 to 7500 within one year of the adoption of the above dues structure.  The above predictions are based on polls taken by S. B., Chun Wa, and Larry, which independently verified my lower limit.

(3) In terms of membership, the proportions will likely be as follows, while the number in parenthesis gives the proportion of dollars:

  • family member:     68% of total members; (15% of total dollars)
  • single member:      25%; (7%)
  • life members :         7%; (62%)
  • honorary member: 0.2%; (16%)

(4) All members have the SAME RIGHTS.  But the Life and Honorary Life members will enjoy BETTER SERVICE.  Decisions of the Executive Committee and Board of Directors will be e-mailed such members after the same has been posted on our web site.

(5) Will the income in subsequent years be much less?  NO.  Mind you that in the second year of our existence, we didn’t have a single dues-paying member, but we raised more than $300K/yr.

   2:45 - 3:00 p.m. Topic:  Need a big endowment?

A big endowment is a stabilizing element for an organization.  It serves as a magnet that will attract warring internal political factions to stay together.

There are two huge centrifugal forces at work within 80-20. 

  • 80-20, being the first and largest pan-Asian grass-roots organization, faces the immense pressure coming from the immense diversity of the APA community, and
  • 80-20 is extremely political.  However, it must operate in a community that lacks political experience and maturity.


These factors are time bombs waiting to blow 80-20 apart.  Once it gathers a significant endowment, 80-20 will still experience internal explosions periodically, but the losing faction(s) will be unlikely to pick up its marbles and leave 80-20 for one certain reason – not wanting to leave all that money to the sole control of their “contemptible” opponents.”

    3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Topic:  To Fire A Warning Shot?

Leverage is the currency of politics.  80-20’s political clout is somewhat proven via the presidential election of 2000.  But that’s not enough.  We need to show that we can punish a politician who has taken advantages of our political naiveté and weakness for his/her political expedience. 

Has there been such a politician?  Many in our community felt that Congressmen Cox has crossed the line and therefore deserves our censorship.  John Fugh’s letter to the editor of the LA Times makes the case as follows:

“As a Chinese American veteran with 33 years of service, I am deeply chagrined to learn that Representative Christopher Cox is being considered for the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

In 1999 the Cox committee report concluded that there was widespread Chinese espionage against U.S. strategic weapons programs.  It further asserts that citizens, tourists, and visitors from the Peoples Republic of China are possible suspects for espionage, but that a
nyone of Chinese descent, including American citizens, might be corruptible.  The impact of this inflammatory report has created an environment in which many Chinese and Asian Americans have had their loyalty questioned based on their ethnicity, especially in the defense sector.

The Cox Report has been repeatedly discredited. In June 1999, ABC News reporter James Oberg expressed  ‘dismay and concern over the large number of factual errors’ in the report.  In December 1999, five Stanford experts issued a review concluding that the report was inflammatory, inaccurate and damaging to US-China relations.

Whatever his motivations, Congressman Cox certainly has fanned the flames of anti-Chinese American sentiment in this country.  Such deplorable behavior renders him unfit for the judicial appointment he seeks.  He clearly lacks balance, impartiality and objectivity, all of which are indispensable qualities for a federal judge.

John L. Fugh
Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Former The Judge Advocate General of the Army

cc: Senator Diane Feinstein & Senator Barbara Boxer”

Do we have the capability to pass such a message?  Most likely.  Let’s take Mr. Cox’s next election as a concrete example.  He is from California’s 47 Congressional Dist.

BASIC FACTS relevant to his 2002 election: 15.5% APA residents in CA 47 in 2000; a 5.9% increase in one year from its 1999 figure of 9.6% (Source: Political Almanac, 2000-01, p. 49, UCLA As. Am. Studies Ctr.); election result in 2000 is 66% vs. 31% in favor of Cox.   


  • APAs also voted 66/31 for Cox in 2000,
  • the voting % of APAs is only half of the population %,
  • APA population will continue to increase at 6% per year of the district population, reaching 30% by 2002,
  • APAs will vote 70/30 against Cox in 2002,
  • The rest of his constituents will still vote 66/31 for Cox in 2202.

RESULTS IN 2002:  Combining the above facts and assumptions, it implies that the APA population in Cox's district in 2002 will be about 30%, while APA voters will be only 15%.  The vote for Cox will be:

     From the rest of his constituents  66% x .85 (of voters) = 56.1%
     From the APA voters                    30% x .15 (of voters) = 4.5%

     Total: 60.6%  --  Victory for Mr. Cox & humiliation for 80-20

Our efforts will NOT be enough to give him a message.  Instead we’ll be laughed at as amateurs. Additional efforts is needed, which leads to the additional assumption (B).

A MORE STRICT ASSUMPTIONS:  Under this scenario, we'll recruit a more formidable candidate to oppose Cox.  A candidate who will do 40% vs. 60% against Cox in non-APA constituents.  Such a candidate is normally not too hard to find – a candidate who will lose by 20 points to an incumbent.

RESULTS IN 2002:  Now Mr. Cox will get

     From the rest of his constituents  60% x .85 (of voters) = 51%
     From the APA voters                    30% x .15 (of voters) = 4.5%

Total:   55.5%  --  Still not enough.

A DEMANDING ASSUMPTIONS :  Recruit a GOOD candidate who can do 45% against an incumbent in the non-APA voters.  Such a candidate is NOT easy to find.  He/she will lose by only 10 point.  But with the encouragement of money and votes from the APA community, finding such a candidate is doable but not guaranteed.  We need to know much more about CA-47’s political leaning and Mr. Cox, before making a firm decision.



RESULT IN 2002:  Now Mr. Cox will get

     From the rest of his constituents  55% x .85 (of voters) = 46.75%
     From the APA voters                    30% x .15 (of voters) = 4.5%

Total:   51.25%  -- Victory for the APA community, regardless of whether Mr. Cox actually wins or loses.  APA's political clout will be greatly respected from that election on.  We can begin doing significant things on behalf of our community.

Politics is much more complicated than the above presentation has indicated.  There are many different ways to affect the outcome of an election.  One can not only increase votes and money for “our” candidate, we can also decrease votes and money for the “targeted politician.”  Examples will be creating a primary for the “targeted politician” and circulating negative but truthful information about that candidate.  However, we don't need to go into the details at this juncture.
                                       - - - - - - - - - -

Can we verify some of the above assumption?   YES.

We could (1) find out the zip codes of people residing in Mr. Cox's district, (2) Send out an e-mail to our 250,000 supporting families to get those who reside In CA-27 to send us their e-mail addresses, & (3) poll those folks to check our assumptions. 

Finally, if and when we decide to go with a decision, then those folks will also become the nucleus of our “defeating X campaign.”

CAUTION:  We must NOT get into this game unless we don’t have a better alternative that includes having a polite but firm conversation with Mr. Cox.



   3:45 - 4:30 p.m. TOPIC:  MAKING INTERMENT BY RACE

A courageous Japanese American, Fred Korematsu, a 23-year old welder from Oakland, CA, challenged the legality of the federal government’s order to intern Japanese Americans during WWII.  The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the order.  As a result, Korematsu was not only interned but also convicted of resisting a government order.  The criminal conviction was eventually reversed by a lower court after WWII on a narrow technical point of “government misconduct.”  The Supreme Court decision that a whole race of people can be interned if they represent a threat to the security of the nation IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

Our research yielded the following point of view:

  • A poll taken in NY after the 9/11 tragedy found 34% New Yorker were for interning Arab Americans and Arabs.


  • Most educated Caucasians, whom I’ve talked to, don’t think today’s Supreme Court will ever accept a government argument that a whole race of US citizens is a threat to national security, although the court may view permanent residents and immigrants differently.
  • The APA lawyers and judges whom I have talked to naturally take the Supreme Court precedent much more seriously and think it’ll be a great service if 80-20 could use its political clout to induce legislation that makes internment by racial profiling impossible.  That is, the government must prove that a citizen deserves to be interned.


One APA judge who wishes to remain anonymous suggested:

“What is needed is a law passed by Congress which would bar internment based solely on a person's race or ethnicity.”