5th February 2013
Mr. Tam Chun Sing
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
Pokfulam Road
Hong Kong
Dear Mr. Tam,
Validity of the Union Council Meeting and Union Elections Committee Meeting on 2nd and 3rd January 2013 respectively
I refer to your emails to all Union Members on 9th January, 31st January, 1st February, 2nd February and 4th February 2013 in relation to the above matter.
I write to reiterate my disagreement with your continued assertions that the 9th Emergency Council Meeting (“ECM9”) was validly adjourned in the morning on 2nd January 2013 and that the removal of the original members of the Union Elections Committee was invalid and unconstitutional.
With respect, these assertions were arrived at as a result of your repeated misinterpretations of the By-laws (“By-laws”) and the Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”) of the Union Council. I shall emphasise that contrary to your understanding, your purported adjournment of ECM9 was invalid and unconstitutional and the Union Councillors present at ECM9 after your purported adjournment of ECM9 were entitled to transact the remaining business of ECM9. The resolutions passed at ECM9, including the resolution to re-establish a Union Elections Committee, were therefore valid and constitutional.
In support of your assertions, you expressed new opinions in your email of 9th January 2013 (“Email”).
You alleged that: “[…] I have repeatedly asked if councillors can reach consent or agreement as to arrangement of subsequent meaning [sic]. However, no such conclusion was reached during that time. After resolution on the motion of Election Commission was reached (a procedural motion to withdraw the motion was passed and all procedural motion behind was deemed withdrawn as well), without further motion to be handled, the Meeting had to end at [sic] sharp.” (extracted from paragraph 4 in your Email).
You also alleged that ““adjournment” motion was not and could not be put for Council’s discussion” (extracted from paragraph 11 of your email), and that ““Adjournment” motion shall only be a procedural motion” (extracted from subtitle B of your Email). You have overlooked Clause 2 in Section J – Adjournment of Meeting in the Standing Orders:
“Section J – ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING (amended in CM6 1996)
2. A Councillor may move a motion that the Council adjourned either between two items of business or at the conclusion of all the business on the Agenda Paper. If such a motion shall be agreed to, the Council shall stand adjourned.”
Your statements are misleading and contradictory. If there was no further motion(s), you should have adjourned the meeting in accordance with Clause 1 in Section J – Adjournment of Meeting in the Standing Orders:
“Section J – ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING (amended in CM6 1996)
1. The Council Chairperson shall close the meeting when all the business on the Agenda Paper has been concluded, or adjourn the meeting when a quorum is not present (see section E) or when in his judgment it is not possible to transact business because of disorder.”
However, in both of your email of 4th January 2013 and the Email, you repeatedly asserted that your decision on your purported adjournment was based on the interruption addressed by certain Union Councillors. You were also in the opinion that all the business on the Agenda Paper in ECM9 was not concluded before your purported adjournment. With the eagerness of a majority of the Union Councillors to have ECM9 in progress, evidenced by the quorum present after your early departure, your immature conclusion that there would be no further motion in ECM9 was groundless.
When ECM9 was interrupted by certain Union Councillors, you should have acted in accordance with the By-laws and the Standing Orders. The correct way, in my view, was already illustrated in my letter to you of 4th January 2013 and shall be as follows:
1. The Council Chairperson should ensure that interruption was conducted in according with Clause IV 22 “Interruptions" in Section G of the Standing Orders;
2. The Council Chairperson should decide whether the business, agendum or motion under consideration shall be interrupted immediately or defer in interruption; (This is the original essence of the Clause mentioned in your email of 4th January 2013 which you failed to grasp);
3. When the Council Chairperson decides to deal with the interruption, he should ask if all Union Councillors (including the Council Chairperson and the Honorary Secretary) agree to extend the meeting by an hour;
4. With the common consensus of all Union Councillors, the Union Council meeting should be extended by an hour, during which no other “six-hour” interruption should be entertained;
5. Step 3 should be repeated every sixty minutes until any Union Councillor disagrees to extend the meeting, then motions for the adjournment of the Union Council, deferment of agenda items and resolutions on date(s) of meeting(s), could be entered. Only after such motion(s) are dealt with can the meeting be concluded in a proper way.
You alleged that step 5 mentioned above was optional but not mandatory, and “If the Union Council can only be interrupted and stopped upon a resolution on date of meeting, the Meeting might be further unreasonably extended for hours before councillors can finish discussion on the deferment or adjournment, which is likely not the legislative intention of the Union Council By-laws (imposing a 6-hour limit to prevent Union Council By-laws [sic] from being [sic] unless consent [sic] by ALL Council members).” (extracted from paragraph 5 in your Email).
Your statement is speculative and reckless. The coexistence of Paragraphs V. 3) to V. 5) in Section III of the By-laws clearly demonstrates the legislation intention: reasonable Union Councillors should have properly deferred the agenda items not discussed to another meeting, whose date should have been resolved, before adjourning the meeting in progress. It is foreseeable that resolving the date of the next meeting will not involve much time, since it is dealt with by a resolution, which is decided by voting. Allowing a Union Council Meeting to end abruptly with the interruption of only ONE Union Councillor is NOT the original intention of these paragraphs in the By-laws. If the Council Chairperson could declare any adjournment on his/her own, it would be inexplicable in terms of the coexistence of the other provisions in the By-laws and the Standing Orders.
You also alleged that ECM9 shall be stopped because there was no motion dealing with adjournment or resolution of date of meeting during the deferment period. But such statement contradicted with paragraph 9 in your Email, which you alleged that “during the “deferment period”, there was a motion which proposed to adjourn the meeting to a specified later time.” Yours statements are paradoxical and false. Paragraph V. 5) in Section III of the By-laws clearly states that “After the interruption, the Union Council Meeting can only be extended hour by hour with common consensus of all Councillors present (including Council Chairperson and Hon. Secretary); otherwise only motions for the adjournment of the Union Council, deferment of agenda items and resolutions on date(s) of meeting(s), could be entered upon after the interruption of business under V (3)." Motions for the adjournment of the meeting and resolution of date of meeting could only be entered upon AFTER you have dealt with the interruption, NOT in the deferment period. You deferred the interruption. Your purported adjournment of, and premature departure from, ECM9 was invalid and improper, and your mishandling of the interruption had caused disruption to the normal proceedings of the meeting. As a result, Union Councillors’ right to raise motions concerning deferment of agenda items and adjournment could only be handled by another chairperson. Motions for adjournment may only be passed by the Union Council in the absence of common consensus of all Union Councillors present to extend the meeting. No such motion of adjournment had been considered by the Union Council at ECM9 before your departure. A Union Council Meeting never ends by the abrupt departure of the Council Chairperson.
You are also again reminded that "the interpretation of the By-laws shall rest with the Union Council" (Clause IV in section 1 of the By-laws), and even the Council Chairperson is the sole interpreter of the Standing Orders, his ruling can be challenged by not less than 3 Union Councillors, and voted to the contrary by two-thirds of Union Councillors present (clause 3 in section E of the Standing Orders). YOUR SELF-PROCLAIMED “RULE
For the reasons set out above, I still take the view that your purported adjournment of ECM9 was invalid and unconstitutional. ECM9 was not concluded nor adjourned by your departure. The remaining Union Councillors present at ECM9 were entitled to transact the remaining business. They had acted rightly in accordance with Clause 2., Section A of the Standing Orders to elect among themselves Ms. Vivian LI Wai-yan to act as the Chairperson of ECM9 so that the meeting could be continued. Therefore, the resolutions passed at ECM9 after your early departure are valid and binding upon the Union Council. Your continuous self-proclaimed “rule” mentioned in your emails on 31st January, 1st February, 2nd February and 4th February 2013 is farcical.
Yours sincerely,
FOO Chun Ngai Redford
(Year 2, postgraduate student, Faculty of Arts)
University number: 1993146950
Member number: F2012-001
沒有留言:
張貼留言