The IANT Fiasco: Investigative Report on the IANT General Body Elections and the IANT Membership Lists of 2012 and 2014 April 2015Executive Summary IANT's membership system is a farce. Anyone with malicious intent and financial resources can easily hijack the IANT membership list to “buy” enough voting ballots to win the General Body elections for any set of nominees. IANT’s election process is dependent on the highly vulnerable membership list - and together with the archaic election rules - can be easily manipulated to win elections. IANT’s constitution is weak, with loopholes at every step that, at times, impede its smooth functioning. JANT’s organizational structure of two boards is fundamentally flawed, and is a powder keg for power struggle. In short, the IANT system is broken. Membership fee at IANT was reduced in May 2012, Soon after, 88 new memberships were acquired in large blocks - almost all of them for 6 years, in violation of IANT’s one-year membership rule, and were technically illegal. Memberships within this block, which effectively carried an entitlement of 169 voting ballots, had a strikingly identical profile - strongly suggesting a well-planned conspiracy from a common source to “buy” voting ballots. Care was taken to disperse the addresses of these new memberships over a set of “trusted” locations to ensure that the mailed voting ballots could be collected safely at election time. ‘These trusted locations comprise of residential addresses, commercial addresses, and even addresses from out of state. The [ANT membership list was effectively “bought” for six years to influence three cycles of, BOD and BOT elections for a gradual and complete takeover of IANT through nominees of choice. IANT elections of 2012 and 2014 were conducted using the membership list compromised in summer 2012. Asa result, both elections produced results that were highly suspicious. The election results of 2014, especially, correlate with the skewed membership list extremely well, leaving no doubt that block voting on a massive scale occurred. Both the 2012 and 2014 elections were fundamentally fraudulent. A deliberate and concerted conspiracy was behind the membership and election fraud. An incontrovertible trail of evidence leads specifically to one individual: Mr. Shehriyar Abdul Malik, the Principal of Salam ‘Academy and the sitting Secretary of the Board of Directors. Entities governed by Mr. Malik, including his business and school, were used as conduits to receive voting ballots for a number of family memberships that were initially acquired through block memberships. The sitting Chairman of the Board of Directors, Mr. Ahsan Mohammed, effectively protected Mr. Malik and the BOD team by refusing to investigate formal complaints from the Election Committee about evidence of election fraud. Names of some other BOD and BOT members ~ elected in 2014 - appear in membership irregularities. It is not known whether they were complicit in it, or were used by the perpetrators. It seems unlikely that they were entirely in the dark. IANT is in a mess at this time. IF JANT is to resurrect itself to its former position of leadership, it must take some very hard, drastic steps: annul the fraudulent elections; dissolve both boards; bar the perpetrators from office for life; set up a trusted interim committee; revamp the constitution; have one board only; wipe ‘out all memberships; set up strong rules for membership and elections; implement the rules strietly; and conduct new elections with in-person voting. Anything short of it will not remedy the malaise. IANT community is very strong and renowned. Everyone in the community must take responsibility to rebuild IANT. Everyone needs to get more involved, volunteer his/her time and energy for IANT, and bring it back to its former glory. IFIANT is to thrive again, the community must step up.Introduction This report investigates allegations of unscrupulous activities regarding ANT membership list and the subsequent IANT General Body Elections of 2012 and 2014. The facts in this investigative report are based primarily on “hard” data present in the [ANT membership lists, as of November 2012 and November 2014, which were the basis for the respective General Body elections of 2012 and 2014. The report is also based on election result data as put forth by the Election Committee for the two elections under consideration, as ‘well as information from public records. Elections ‘This section addresses issues related to the [ANT General Body Elections of 2014 and 2012 that, along with allegations of electoral fraud, triggered red flags and prompted deeper investigation into the issue. IANT General Body Elections are held every two years for seven positions for the Board of Directors (BOD), one of which is the office of the Chairman of BOD. Additionally, there are five positions for the Board of Trustees (BOT) who serve five-year staggering terms. IANT elections are held in December of even years for the BOD and relevant BOT positions. Ifneeded, they may be held in odd years for the staggering BOT positions. The new board members assume their role beginning 1* of January of the following year. 2014 Elections ‘There were eight positions open for elections in 2014 - six for BOD members, and two for BOT. There was only one candidate for the position for the Chairman of BOD, Mr. Ahsan Mohammed, who won uncontested. ‘There were 16 candidates for the 8 positions. Below is the voting summary, as posted on the IANT bulletin board by the Election Committee after the elections. The list is sorted in ascending order of votes obtained For the sake of clarity, candidates are divided into two groups of 8 candidates each. The losing candidates are in red; the winning candidates are in green.