统计与谎言

统计与谎言

 ————致中欧法学院合伙人院校代表(2012年10月31日)

 

(编者按:在2012年10月召开的中欧法学院合伙人会议上,欧洲法律人上演了一出排练多日的闹剧,发言人播放事先没有发给与会者的PPT,主持人提出直指本人的问题,二传手、三传受跟着起哄。我像已往一样轻松拆招,然后,当众承诺:书面回复汉堡方面提出的一切问题。以下是我在会后发给合伙人代表的中英文双语信件。根据信息公开原则,信件的PDF文本于2012年12月在中欧法学院网站公布http://www.cesl.edu.cn/upload/201212205774921.pdf 。)

 

Fang Liufang’s Comments on Annex II: “Source of Funding, Areas of Spending”

Provided by the Consortium Office at UHH to the 9th GA Meeting in Beijing

(Oct. 31, 2012)

方流芳对附件二“融资来源和使用范围”的评论

该附件为汉堡大学合伙人办公室在第九次合伙人大会(北京)提交的文件

2012 10 31 

 

When I was served with Annex II and the accompanying “comments” made by UHH staff at 3:20 pm, one hour and twenty minutes after the General Assembly restarted, I was cautious because Annex II could easily have been given to all participants two weeks before the meeting. My experience also shows that unusual arrangements indicate unusual purposes.

下午三点二十分,在合伙人大会重新开始后的一小时二十分钟,我拿到了附件二,也听到了汉堡大学工作人员随之做的评论。我很谨慎,因为有可能所有其他与会者已在会议开始前两周就得到了附件二。我的经验告诉我不同寻常的安排暗藏不同寻常的用心。

 

Generally speaking, Annex II is nothing more than a mixture of reinterpretation, reconstruction and reorganization of statistics created by UHH in its financial reports from 2008 to 2011. This kind of artful financial analysis can generate either meaningful information or chaos. However, financial analysis made by the same person who also controls the statistics, and generates them exclusively for the purpose of that specific piece of financial analysis, will not only bring added value to that person, but also expose inaccurate information that was previously hidden. Inconsistency is always the soft underbelly of storytellers.

总的来说,附件二不过是汉堡大学在其2008-2011 年财务报告中所创造的统计数据的再解释、再构建和再组织的混合物。这种艺术性的财务分析或者产生有意义的信息,或者产生混乱。然而,如果进行财务分析的人同时控制着数据,并且仅仅是为了财务分析而产生这些数据,那么这不仅为这个人带来好处,同时也暴露了之前被隐藏的信息的不准确性。不一致往往是讲故事者的软肋。

 

It is surprising to me that Annex II seems in every respect to deprive its author of all credibility:

附件二似乎在任一方面都使其作者丧失可信度,这让我感到吃惊。

 

1. UHH’s contribution to the project from 2008 to 2011.

2008-2011 年汉堡大学的项目出资

 

In Annex II UHH stated that its total contribution to the CESL project from 2008 to 2011 was 981,852 Euros. However, according to a previous document (called Annex III Contributions CESL) created by the same author and distributed to partners at the 6th GA in April 2011, from 2008 to 2010 UHH’s total contribution was 1,617,122 Euros. Therefore, how could UHH’s alleged contribution accumulated from 2008 to 2010 possibly be less than that from 2008 to 2011?

附件二提到,2008-2011 年汉堡大学对中欧法学院项目的总出资为981,852 元。然而,根据之前出自同一作者的文件(名为附件三:对中欧法学院的出资),2008-2010 年汉堡大学的总出资为1,617,122 欧元。该文件在2011 年四月的第六次合伙人大会上被分发给各合伙人。因此,汉堡大学怎能宣称其2008-2011年的出资比2008-2010 年的出资还要少?

 

In another story told in its report to the Chinese auditor in 2011, UHH stated that, from 2008 to 2010, its total contribution to CESL amounted to 1,608,504 Euros. Which one of three stories made by the same author is true? Or, why is UHH unwilling to tell the truth?

另外,汉堡大学在2011 年提交给中国审计师的报告中称,2008-2010 年对中欧法学院的总出资为1,608,504 欧元。这三个说法都出自同一作者,究竟哪一个是真的?或者说,为什么汉堡大学不愿意说真话?

 

2. The definition and categorization of Julius’ salary are highlyquestionable. 

尤翰林工资的定义和分类是存在很大疑问的

 

Question one: Contribution or spending?

问题一:出资或支出?

 

In Annex II, the salary of the project coordinator (Julius’s title) is counted as an expense of the consortium office. But in its report to the Chinese auditor in 2011, Julius’s salary was counted as a contribution of UHH, indicating that it should be considered a part of the “source of funding” in Annex II. As long as the source of Julius’s salary is beyond the EU grant, it seems no problem to consider it as a contribution of UHH. Unfortunately, the “source of funding” in Annex II indicates otherwise. Annex II distinguishes between sources of income and spending. Each category of spending is supposed to have a counterpart in the sources of funding. However, the sources of funding for Julius salary can be found neither in UHH’s contribution nor in “partners’ teaching hours”. Therefore, where is Julius’ salary from?

附件二中,项目协调人(尤翰林的职位)的工资被算成合伙人办公室的开支。但是在汉堡大学2011 年给中国审计师的报告中,尤翰林的工资被算成汉堡大学的出资,意味着它应该被看成是附件二中“融资来源”的一部分。只要尤翰林的工资不是来自欧盟资助,将它算作汉堡大学的出资似乎也没有问题。不幸的是,附件二中“融资来源”的部分表明了相反的事实。附件二区分了收入和支出来源。每一项支出都应该有一项收入相对应。然而,尤翰林工资的融资来源既非源自汉堡大学的出资,又非源自合伙人的授课投入。那么,尤翰林的工资是从哪里来的呢?

 

If Annex II is correct, Julius is paid through the EU Grant. I would not like to pre-empt the EU in making a decision over whether this action of counting services bought by the EU Grant as co-financing in an EU funded project violates EU Regulations.

如果附件二是正确的,那么尤翰林的工资就是由欧盟资助支付的。我不想先发制人地迫使欧盟做出决定,看看用欧盟资助款购买的服务算作是欧盟资助项目的合作融资是不是违背了欧盟规则。

 

Question 2: What budget rate is applied to Julius’ salary?

问题二:尤翰林的工资适用什么标准?

 

Julius’s salary, either contribution or spending, needs to find a budget heading.

不管尤翰林的工资是出资还是支出,都需要为此找到一个预算项。

 

In UHH’s financial report of 2010, cost 1.1.3.3 under the heading “10% Dean of the applicant” was for a total of 127,025.52 Euros. This covered Julius’ work for CESL for a period of 11.8 months, twice the five year budget of CESL for this expenditure and nine times higher than its ceiling in the CESL budget forecast for 2010!

在汉堡大学2010 年的财务报告中,1.1.3.3 项“10%的院长申请人”的开支为127,025.52 欧元。这包括尤翰林为中欧法学院工作的11.8 个月,相当于中欧法学院五年预算同一支出的两倍,中欧法学院2010 年预算中此项预算上限的九倍!

 

On March 24, 2011, I questioned how Julius could possibly work for CESL for 11.8 months in 2010 after he only quit his job at GIZ in March 2010 and also worked for UHH as a full-time professor, a job which requires much time and energy. If that is true, how much time did he spend as a full-time professor at UHH?

2011 3 24 日,我质问尤翰林怎么可能在2010 年为中欧法学院工作了11.8个月,2010 3 月他刚刚辞去GIZ 的工作,并在汉堡大学做全职教授,这是一份很花时间和精力的工作。如果这个情况属实,那么他作为汉堡大学的全职教授,到底花了多少时间在上面呢?

 

The reply surprised me again. Julius claimed his service to CESL as his “overtime work” for the work he assigned to himself and free from reporting to anyone. How can a full time professor of UHH count his casual service to CESL as his “over time work”?

得到的回复再次让我吃惊。尤翰林声称他对中欧法学院的服务是“超时工作”,这些工作是他给自己布置的并且不用向任何人汇报。汉堡大学一个全职教授怎么能说他对中欧法学院的临时服务是“超时工作”呢?

 

More interesting, on August 8, 2011, in his letter to the Chinese auditor, Julius himself changed the monetary value of his contribution from 127, 025, 52 to 117, 274, 43 due to “an error resulting from copying the relevant number in the final list”. The question is how he could change the number already verified by PWC in January 2011 and accepted by the EU in March 2011 without corresponding confirmation? The facts indicate that statistics were created, recreated and changed by the same person without any effective supervision.

更有意思的是,2011 8 8 日,在尤翰林给中国审计师的信中,他把自己人力出资的货币价值从127, 025, 52 欧元改为117, 274, 43 欧元,说这是“由于从最终清单上拷贝相关数据时发生的错误”。问题是,未经确认,他怎么能够擅自修改2011 1 月已被普华永道会计师事务所核查,并于2011 3 月经欧盟接受的数据呢?事实表明,统计数据不过是被同一个人在没有任何有效监督的情况下制造、再制造并改变的。

 

After the five year budget heading “10% Dean of the applicant” was exhausted in 2010 fiscal year, Julius started to use a new title of “project coordination” or “UHH Dean / project coordinator” which is under budget heading 1.1.1. The exact rate for Mr Julius’ valuable contribution has, however, never been disclosed. Did UHH count Julius’ contribution at a salary rate for a “project coordinator” or at the rate of a full-time professor of UHH?

在五年制预算的预算项“10%的院长申请人”的数额在2010 年财政年度耗尽后,尤翰林开始启用一个名为“项目协调”或者“汉堡大学院长/项目协调人” 的新名称,将其放在1.1.1 项下。尤翰林先生人力出资的确切标准却从没有披露过。汉堡大学计算尤翰林的人力出资时是按照“项目协调人”的工资标准,还是汉堡大学全职教授的工资标准?

 

3. Few statistics in Annex II are consistent with UHH’s financial reports from 2008 to 2011 as verified by PWC, or its financial reports to the Chinese auditor in 2011 or its reports presented at previous GAMs. For example, according to Annex II, the total cost of the Consortium Office from 2008 to 2011 was 1,533,388 Euros including “salaries for the administrative staff (including project coordinator and European co-dean of CESL) as well as consumables.” According to the financial report, the equivalent of the cost of “salaries for the administrative staff”, “project coordinator (Prof. Julius)”, “European co-dean” and “consumables” was 1,648,640 Euros.

附件二中的数据,与经过普华永道会计师事务所审核的2008-2011 年汉堡大学的财务报告,或者是汉堡大学在2011 年给中国审计师的财务报告,或者是呈交给之前的合伙人大会的报告的数据,很少是一致的。比如说,根据附件二,合伙人办公室从2008-2011 年的总开支为1,533,388 欧元,包括“行政人员(包括项目协调人和中欧法学院欧方联席院长)工资和消耗品”。而根据财务报告,“行政人员工资”、“项目协调人(尤翰林教授)”、“欧方联席院长”和“消耗品”共相当于1,648,640 欧元。

 

Comments in Annex II state that “UHH has fund-raised 854.714 EUR from the German Ministry of Research and the government of the City of Hamburg.” However, according to the document sent by UHH for the 6th GAM on May 19, 2011, the total amount of funds UHH raised from FHH and BMBF was 2,048,625 Euros from 2008 to 2011, a gap of 1,193,911 Euros.

附件二中的评论说“汉堡大学从德国联邦科教部和汉堡市政府共筹资854.714欧元”。然而,根据汉堡大学2011 5 19 日呈送给第六次合伙人大会的文件,2008-2011 年汉堡大学从汉堡市政府和德国联邦科教部筹集的资金共为2,048,625 欧元,存在1,193,911 欧元的缺口。

 

4. None of the information in Annex II regarding CESL at CUPL or CUPL is true.

附件二中关于中国政法大学中欧法学院或中国政法大学的信息都不是真实的。

 

For all financial information concerning CESL at CUPL, please read Grant Thomton’s verification reports on UHH and CUPL’s financial report for CESL’s finances from 2008 to 2010 and CUPL’s financial report for CESL’s finances in 2011 by clicking the links at http://www.cesl.edu.cn/eng/idxnewsview.asp?id=1371 and http://www.cesl.edu.cn/eng/idxnewsview.asp?id=1369. Instead of influencing partners by making a similar charter, I sincerely believe every partner is able to make its own independent financial analysis by comparing the documents above with UHH’s financial reports from 2008 to 2011.

所有关于中国政法大学中欧法学院的财务信息, 请点击链接 http://www.cesl.edu.cn/eng/idxnewsview.asp?id=1371 http://www.cesl.edu.cn/eng/idxnewsview.asp?id=1369,查阅京都天华会计师事务所出具的2008-2010 年汉堡大学与中国政法大学对中欧法学院出资的财务报告的核查报告,以及2011 年中国政法大学对中欧法学院的出资的财务报告的核查报告。我不会采用同样的手段来影响合伙人,相反,我真诚地相信,将上述文件与汉堡大学2008-2011 年财务报告作对比后,每位合伙人都会得出自己独立的财务分析。

 

5. The weakness of this “overview ” is not due to UHH’s inability to find competent personnel. It is because the financial data compiled by the consortium office can be created, changed and changed again so easily, without referring to original documents and financial rules, that its creator can't keep so many different versions of his story in consistent with each other.

这份“概况”的弱点并不在于汉堡大学无法找到能胜任工作的人选。而是因为由合伙人办公室编制的这些财务数据,在没有参考原始文件和财务规则的情况下,可以被轻易地制造、修改并再修改,以致其编造者不能够保持各个版本的故事相互一致。

 

Without access to original documents held by the consortium office, what I can pick up are no more than inconsistencies of figures emerging from two or more misstatements. Even if I had that access, I would still face two obstacles: the first, the contractual requirement to prepare financial documents in English and Chinese was simply disregarded by UHH; second, PWC, the auditor, was appointed by UHH alone without agreement of partners.

由于无法接触到合伙人办公室的原始文件,我能做的只不过是从两份或多份错误的声明中挑出不一致的数据。就算我能接触到那些文件,我也仍面临两个障碍:首先,汉堡大学无视财务文件需要用中英文进行制作的合同要求;其次,作为审计机构的普华永道会计师事务所是在未经合伙人同意的情况下由汉堡大学单方任命的。

 

6. For the good of all of stakeholders, the CESL partners should organize an additional committee to evaluate UHH’s compliance with financial regulations and the reliability of its financial supervision and then give the EU a recommendation on whether an investigation plus public audit is necessary.

为了各参与方的利益,中欧法学院各合伙人应该组织一个额外的委员会,评估汉堡大学遵守财务规则及其财务监督的可信度,然后向欧盟提出是否有必要进行调查及公开审计的建议。

 

7. Mark Twain said, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.” Being somewhat more optimistic, I would like to say that statistics themselves reflect neither truth nor lies but only the wishes of their creator.

马克·吐温说过,“谎言有三种:谎言,该死的谎言以及统计数据。”更乐观一点看,我想说统计数据本身既不反映事实也不反映谎言,它只反映制造者的意志。

 

( 本文由方流芳教授于2014-07-31 20:23:43公布在其本人新浪博客http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_bd8c458f0102uxyo.html 中)



版权所有:方流芳 2014-2017

邮箱:fangliufang@hotmail.com

链接: 方流芳微博 方流芳博客 公司法与投资保护研究所 中国政法大学 中欧法学院