Dear all,
In response to AAR’s further emails to all, I would like to hereby further clarify the following:
1. Section VII Article 8(d) of the Union Constitution only applies if Council Chairperson does not convene the Council Meeting within 14 days after receipt of the notice intimating the proposed motion of no confidence against CC. The word ‘convene’ does not mean the meeting to be held but only for it to be called, as explained under Union Constitution Section VII Article 9(b). The period of 24 hour notice is a different matter which is unrelated to the said Article 8(d). Since the 14-day notice has not passed when CC issued the previous email on lapse of the ECM request, there is no point to accuse CC for failure to fulfill your constitutional responsibility to convene the ECM dealing with the motion of no-confidence.
2. Although the ECM request was substantiated on 4 February 2013, it lapsed before CC handled it for convening the ECM before the deadline. As on 18 February 2013, both ECM requests shall no longer survive since the proposer of each has lost the identity as a Union Council Member. If CC still handles the two requests to convene the meeting, it is arguably a violation to Section VII Article 9 of the Union Constitution, sub-article (b) as the meeting may be convened without request of a valid member of the Union Council. In short, the Council Chairperson regarded the requests by Mr. Adrian Wu and Ms. Jennifer Chan lapsed based on the Union Constitution.
3. There is no constitutional or procedural requirement for CC to convene the meeting earlier by considering the proposers’ status. On the contrary, the proposers shall have realized that their terms of office would expire on 17 February 2013. They shall indeed be responsible for the request and bear the risks and impacts after finish of their terms of office.
4. Last but not least, as PP has rightly pointed out, even if some councilors regarded the already lapsed requests as valid, they failed to make formal request to PP for convening the CM for considering the motion of no-confidence in the manner as required under Section VII Article 8(d). There is no written requisition SIGNED by any member of the Union Council and there is even no name but just a list of posts at the end of the email sent out by AAR.
Regards,
CC
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
陳冠康電郵全文如下：
Re: Restating the validity of the ECM 11 request
Dear Oscar,
I have noticed Mr. Tam's email concerning the invalidity of the meeting request. Regarding your email, please note that I have not received any requisition in accordance to the constitutional procedure, even if the meeting request is claimed to be valid.
Thank you for your kind attention.
With warmest regards,
Dan
沒有留言:
張貼留言