--------------------------------------- Part 1: My appeal letter to ARO and IH. --------------------------------------- Dear Sir/Madam,

　　On December 30, 2010, I received the Investigation Report made by Plan China’s deputy OIC about my appeal against my direct manager SGSM Liu xx, which I attached here with my response. The contents and conclusion drawn in the report is totally unacceptable for me, so here I formally appeal to ARO and IH against the decision. Firstly, I would request Plan China to renew my work contract based on my performance (my latest PEA result is 4 out 5) and relevantPlan’s HR policy and China labor law requirement. Secondly, I would request an investigation of Liu for his misconducts during my contract renewal and in many other occasions, I strongly request to conduct a 360 degree feedback for him.

　　After being forced to leave office on December 31, 2010, I created a personal blog describing my experience and unfair treatments I received in Plan China. Within 10 days, the visit to the blog exceeded 10,000. Many of our colleagues left angry comments against Liu, which reveal more misconducts of him, as well as point out many general management problems in Plan China. I urge Plan top management to look into case and listen to people’s voice.

　　My blog is at: http://blog.sina.com.cn/graceatngo

　　Best regards,

　　Grace -------------------------------------------------- ------------- Part 2: Investigation Report by Plan China and Grace's response -------------------------------------------------- ------------- Investigation Report on Grace appeal against SGSM Liu Peter By Plan China and Grace’s response (in blue) Appealing Subject

　　According to Grace, SGSM Liu Peter took advantage of his position, deceived his superiors and subordinates, refused to renew her working contract with PlanChina, and forced her to leave the office. The Appeal Digest On Nov.29, 2010, Grace was informed by the coordinator of HR that Plan China would not offer new contract to her after the present contract came due on Dec.31, 2010. Then on Dec.3, 2010, Grace asked Liu the reason. He replied that Plan needs no reason for refusal of new contract after her present contract came due, and it had nothing to do with her performance. But CMT of PlanChinasaid in the email to Grace that the reason for not renewing contract with Grace is her under performance, the comments from Liu. Grace also appealed that during the time from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 when she acted as the Communications Manager, Liu, as the SGSM and her direct supervisor, gave her 4 score for her PEA. So there is no proof that she was under performance. So Grace said Liu isdeceiving the superiors and subordinates, orLiu and Country Director both were deceiving the employees. Liu alleged that he confirms Grace’s contribution in the administrative work, such as arranging the printing and publishing work, preparing conference, etc, as well as Grace’s performance before April 2010. At the same time, Liu also has formally or informally reminded Grace of her weakness in basic professional skills and judgment as a senior communication consultant and her poor work efficiency. He also talked about this with Country Director for several times. Besides, he has required Grace to improve in the PEA clearly. His assessment was based not only on PlanChina’s internal comments, but also the external comments from cooperating parties.

　　1. Now that Liu confirmed my performance before April, 2010, why did he demote me from communication manager to communication consultant in June 2010 in just two months later, and why did he refuse to extent my working contract later in December 2010?

　　During the period of April, 2010 up till now, not only I have completed all my daily routine works, but also made more achievements, such as successfully brought PlanChina’s WES Project to Shanghai World Expo which got broad attention. Even just weeks before I knew PlanChinawould not renew my contract, I was on my assignment of accompanyingHong Kongphotographer visitingJiaxianCounty; during that trip, I was sick and hospitalized, but I was committed to completing my tasks, and received appreciation and recognition fromHong Kongcolleagues.

　　To say the least, according to Plan HR policy, even for real low performance employees, the company will still need to give him/her a chance to improve. So what’s the true intention of Liu to refuse renew contract with an employee with PEA of 4?

　　2. I quote here from report:Liu Zhongliang also has formally or informally reminded Grace of her weakness in basic professional skills and judgment as a senior communication consultant and her poor work efficiency.

　　 I was appraised as a good-performing manager before April 2010, then how can I even lose my basic professional skills and judgment two months later?

　　3. I quote here from the report:He (Peter) also talked about this (Grace's shortcomings) with Mark for several times.

　　 for this I believe, as we all know Liu is very good at playing this kind of tricks..

　　4. I quote here from the report:besides, he (Peter) has required Grace to improve in the PEA clearly. Nobody is perfect. Everyone needs to improve himself/herself in some way.But the good PEA result clearly shows that I have met the requirement and expectation of PlanChina.

　　5. I quote here:Peter’s assessment was based not only on PlanChina’s internal comments, but also the external comments from cooperating parties.

　　 My latest PEA rsult is 4. So, if I understand correctly, here it says that my good PEA result is based on the internal and external recognition of my works. Also, if you wish, I can collect more feedbacks for my works from both Plan China and it’s partners.

　　6. In my point of view, Liu’s misconduct not only violated Plan’s rules but alsoChinalabor law. From the comments from many PlanChinaemployees on my blog (http://blog.sina.com.cn/graceatngo), you will find more evidence and more cases against him, thus I require AOR and IH to investigate this and trigger 360 degree feedback for Liu Peter.

　　 As for the fact that Grace have 4 for her 10th-fiscal-year PEA, Liu argued that the period covered was from July 2009 to March 2010, instead of the period from July 2009 to June 2010 as indicated by Grace. The decision was made by Liu independently, without asking for any feedback assessment from relevant persons. But in this PEA, Liu stressed that Grace should improve her shortcomings. He also said his comments are based on the comments from several important persons, including her direct supervisor, especially Grace’s performance in recent several months.

　　Liu has a very famous saying widely spread in PlanChina: I signed it (the document) but that doesn’t mean I agree with it. (In this case, problem occurred and he denied his responsibility). In a way, it shows how reluctant for him to take responsibilities even after he signs his name under it. Again, it seemed he was playing the same kind of trick here.

　　May I ask if Liu’s assessment on me has effect?Sure, everyone has areas of improvement, and it should be part of standard PEA assessment, even for those who receives PEA 5. It is absurd that this report only focus on so called assessment comments instead of assessment result.

　　I wonder what's the latest PEA result for Liu? If it is lower than 5, or if there are some negative feedbacks, does it mean he should leave?

　　The Conclusion

　　Liu's comments on Grace are based on lots of sound proofs, such as email, memo, and PEA.

　　We are talking about assessment, but my PEA result is 4, which is a satisfied result. If it is not good enough, why did you give me 4? PEA result tells us the truth. I need not to waste time in such a trifle.

　　According to my examination and verification on these proofs, I believe that Grace does lack the key ability to be a senior communication consultant. To be emphasized, these proofs include not only the comments from PlanChina’s employees, but also the comments from relative parties outside PlanChina.

　　PEA 4 should be a good result, but you turned out to searching for the proof for my under performance. Are you trying to prove that I am not as excellent as those who gain PEA 5? How can such a contradictory conclusion be written in the investigation report! Tell us if you have any professionalism and conscience.

　　In my blog, there are a great deal of negative comments on Liu from our colleagues, which also reveals his serious problems & misconducts in different areas, and then what will Plan China do to him?

　　Decision

　　In the future PEA, the under performance should be informed with the presence of the HR, for the purpose of timely record and proper supervision.

　　In addition, to ensure the effectiveness of the PEA, PlanChinashould conduct PEA training to all staff in 2011.

　　Do you mean Liu’s assessment on me is not effective since he doesn’t know how to make assessment and he needs HR’s training? While on the other hand, his decision of refusing to renew my labor contract is regarded as valid? How absurd it is!

　　As a director, if Liu can’t even conduct PEA assessment effectively, is he qualified for his position? Meanwhile, I truly believe that Liu’s problem can’t be simply solved by HR training. What he lacks of are not only professional skills, but also professional ethics and integrity, the same to the person who produced such a report.

　　Suggested Resolution

　　PlanChinacan go on with the current scheme to deal with the contract relationship with Grace.

　　On Dec.3, 2010, right after I was being informed that plan would not renew contract with me in the coming year, I had a discussion with Liu and I recorded it for evidence. During the conversation, Liu mentioned few times (the record at 1’20’’, 7’30’’, 9’10’’, 11’50’’ and 13’) that the decision had nothing to do with my performance.From his viewpoint, whether my contract be extended or not is depend on him only. Do you believe such a person has the qualification to be a professional manager or a director? Does he know anything about the Articles of Association and the basic Labor Contract Law?

　　However, PlanChinaneglects the hard evidence I submitted against Liu,but believes in Liu personal remarks and drew such an absurd conclusion without investigation, this really disappointed me. Here I bring my case to AOR and IH and expect a fairly settlement. If the case can't be resolved at this level, I would take my escalation to top management; and if the case can't be settled within PLAN organization, I would ask for labor arbitration by third party as well as legal actions. This report is made byPlanChina’s deputy OIC (office in charge) onDecember 30, 2010.