Taiwan Ministry of Education

6/6/2001 6:57 AM



To: The Minister of Education,
Dr. Ovid Tzeng
c/o Ministry of Education



In complete defiance of the law and of specific instructions from the
Ministry of Education to "issue a contract immediately," based on the legal
authority of the Ministry of Education Appeal decision, the Department of
Foreign Languages and Literature has held yet another Review meeting and
again concluded not to renew the contract of Professor Richard de Canio.
Based on lawful directives and legal actions already taken by the
Ministry of Education, as stated above, this meeting of the Department of
Foreign Languages and Literature review committee should be considered to be
in violation of the law, of the legal authority of the law, and of all the
guaranteed protections of the law, including the legally binding conclusion
of an appeal process that has favored the plaintiff.
Apart from these compelling reasons, this most recent decision by the
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Cheng Kung
University not to renew a contract to a faculty member without a current
contract, and therefore no current employment status, is legally absurd,
like most of the other actions of the the Department of Foreign Languages
and Literature over the last two years.
Because of these reasons, the plaintiff feels that he is not legally
compelled to reply to any directive or notice from the university, or any
branch of the university, so long as it continues in defiance of Ministry of
Education directives, and therefore of the Law, to issue the contract.
Moreover, the plaintiff feels that, even after the issuance of a
contract, any actions that contradict or nullify the legal effect of the
Minstiry of Education appeal decision is similarly illegal, since, in law,
an appeal decision that favors the plaintiff is considered final regarding
the issues raised in that appeal.
Finally, in light of the chronic actions of the Review Committee at the
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of National Cheng Kung
University, in defiance of all laws and directives of both Taiwan and the
Ministry of Education, there is compelling legal reason to find that review
committee in contempt of law; either negligently or willfully, and, on this
basis, dissolve it and establish, by lawful procedures, a new Review
committee. Only such an action will sufficiently protect National Cheng
Kung University under the rule of law and, moreover, avoid similar legal
violations in the future.
Sincerely,