Statement from the Council Chairperson Regarding the Arrangement of Business to Convene an Extraordinary General Meeting 1.
The Court, from 10th November, has issued several notices in regard to receiving a
requisition to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting to resolve on impeaching several office bearers, condemn and suspend affiliated student status [sic] and to amend Constitution of the Union. 2.
The Council has received the same email at on 9th November, attached with a scanned
copy of the requisition form. The email also demanded the requisition be handled by Court instead. 3.
The Court has then processed the application and the notice of the meeting is served
by email on 15th November, stating ‘received a written requisition for convening an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) signed by 180 verified members’. 4.
The cover of the requisition form by the Council has stated that all blanks of the
requisition form are required to be completely filled, and the hard copy is to be delivered to the SU General Office for verification. However, the proposer had never submitted the form to the General Office, meaning the verification of membership has not been conducted. 5.
The email, in addition to the details of the meeting, has also included the following
paragraph: ‘The Court acknowledges the conflict of interest of the Council Chairperson and the Council Chief Secretary, thus rules that they should not hold the meeting. Article 7.2 and 7.3 of the Constitution should be referred to regarding the alternative candidates for the chairperson and the secretary of the meeting’.
1
6.
The Court has misinterpreted the wordings of the above-mentioned articles. The two
articles quoted are dealing with the situation when the Chairperson or the Secretary of the General Meeting are not attending the Meeting. In accordance to Article 7.2 the Council Chairperson shall always be regarded as the ex-officio Chairperson of the Meeting, unless the meeting so orders by a procedural motion to select a Chair pro tempore (temporary chairperson). 7.
Also, the scanned document as received on 9th November, the proposed resolution
has only been filled on the first page, and the space was left blank on all the remaining pages. It is therefore not possible to ascertain the proposed resolutions on the blank form. 8.
Without the verification and only one page of the requisition contains proposed
resolution, it is safe to assume the requirement to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting has not been met. 9.
During this period, the Council has never been approached by the Court stating any
fresh case has been received in challenging the qualification of me and the Council Chief Secretary as the Chairperson and the Secretary of the Extraordinary General Meeting. 10. However, on the 20th November, the Court, whilst sending the reminder of the meeting, has also included a document named ‘The Court Resolution’. The document stated that the Court of First Instance has delivered a resolution on 10th November, with no plaintiff and defendant, case reference, and no particulars of the Designated Judge delivering such resolution. 11. The action has clearly violated Article 14, regarding the operation of the Court of First Instance in 14.10, the notice for Court Meeting to be served to on Public Notice Area in 14.12, and issuance of the resolution in 14.17. 12. The most regrettable fact is that, the Court has acted in a manner that stripped away the natural justice, procedural due process, and the right to receive a fair trial.
2
13. The Extraordinary General Meeting, with such breaches stated above, has not be arranged in accordance with our Constitution. All resolutions made in the meeting should be null, void, and of no force. 14. It is particularly disturbing that the actions taken by the Court has voided the constitutionality of the meeting, and such involvement has put the Court into a political thicket, with conflicts of interest that should be prohibiting in hearing cases regarding this proposed meeting. 15. I urge the Court to stop meddling with the administration of the Union, and to retrieve and reverse all decisions regarding this issue. Only if we have Statutory Bodies that mutually respect the constitutional duties of others, could we have rule of law that protects the rights of each and individual members. 16. I have never had any intention to delegitimise the General Meeting, and in the contrary, has always been supportive for members to participate and exercise their rights. In this issue, I feel the moral responsibility to alert all members such intolerable deviation from our Constitution. My job as the Council Chairperson is to ensure the businesses are properly taken care of and met all statutory requirements. These are essential in creating a lawful platform for decisions of the majority, and democracy, be upheld and championed.
Barry CHOW Kwun Tung Council Chairperson The Council, HKUSTSU Session 2017-2018
20th November, 2017 3