【學苑專訊】評議會主席譚振聲今日早上5時36分發出題為「【HKUSU】Re: Adjournment of the Ninth Union Council Emergency Meeting and invalidity of vacation of duties of the Union Elections Committee」的電郵，再次回應評議會第九次緊急會議續會及新任選委會之有效性。電郵分四部分，譚首先援引評議會附例及議事規則解釋「中止」(interruption)及「休會」(adjournment)機制、然後宣稱其於1月2日早上之休會有效；再指「休會」僅屬程序議案；故此其後之「續會」無效及所有相關決議無效，最後一部分則是總結。譚於電郵中，亦再度單方面解釋評議會附例。此電郵為譚於離席後一周內第二封電郵，惟譚至今時上午9時20分，距離其當日離席已逾170小時仍未另擇日期續會，亦未有回應現存兩項召會要求。
爭議源起為譚振聲第九次緊急會議期間散會是否有效
第九次評議會緊急會議召開至1月2日早上4時45分左右，有評議員按評議會附例提出「中止」，時值評議會討論委Election Commission之議案。評議員在該項議案爭持不下，未達共識，最終有評議員提出「程序議案」（Procedural motion，受議事規則Section G) 19)管轄）「撒回議案」（Motion that to withdraw a motion，受Section G) 19) a)管轄，屬最優先處理議案），在表決前再有評議員提出另一項「程序議案」「休會至稍後時間/日子」（Motion that to withdraw a motion，受Section G) 19) b)管轄，優先次序僅次於撒回議案）。最終評議會表決並通過「撒回議案」後，譚宣布再無議案需要處理並可散會，譚當時指「休會至稍後時間/日子」已在 「撒回議案」通過下一併撒回。及後有評議員再撰「休會至稍後時間/日子」議案，惟譚在反對聲下「扑搥」散會。該項舉動引發爭議，並有評議員質疑其違反評議會附例及議事規則之嫌。
譚振聲：休會有效
譚解釋「中止」機制時援引評議會會附例Section III) V) 3) At a time 6 hours after the commencement of the meeting, the proceedings on any business, agendum or motion under consideration shall be interrupted, and if the Union Council is in committee, the Union Council shall resume: provided that, if the Council Chairman is of the opinion that the proceedings on which the Union Council is engaged could be concluded by a short deferment of the moment of interruption, he may in his discretion defer interrupting the business.及Section III) V) 4) If a voting is in progress at the moment of interruption, the business shall not be interrupted until after the declaration of the results of the voting. 譚認為，條文指評議會會議召開六小時後，所有程序均應「中止」，除非出現以下情況：一、評議會主席認為剩餘的程序可以在短暫延遲(Short deferment)中止下總結及二、議案進入表決程序。譚解釋，當日早上約4時45分，有評議員提出中止，他認為餘下議程在短暫延遲下不能總結，故只准評議會完成有關Election Commission的委任議案。
不過，譚指同一條分節（即Section III V) 5) After the interruption, the Union Council Meeting can only be extended hour by hour with common consensus of all Councillors present (including Council Chairman 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).）則只屬選擇性(Optional)，而非強制性(Mandatory)。 譚指，上述條文中「Could be」二字反映有關選項如休會議案僅屬選擇性，否則，若會議只能在決議另一日期再續後通過，會令會議不合理地延續，有違「立法原意」。電郵中，譚未有解釋為何不接納上述「選擇性」的建議，更未有交代何以單方面解釋評議會附例「立法原意」，決定某部分條文只屬「選擇性」（按照評議會附例，附例的解釋權在評議會，而非評議會主席）。
譚援引議事規則Section E) 2) The Council Chairman shall declare the opening, adjourning or closing of the meeting, direct the discussion, ensure observance of the Standing Orders and other statutory regulations governing procedure of the Council, accord the right to speak, put motions to the vote and declare decisions. He shall rule on points of order.，解釋其休會之權利，並指其散會有效。
至於已提出休會議案的爭議，譚並未有全新論點（參考上文）。
譚振聲：續會無效
譚又指，因為評議會已休會，故所謂續會無效。譚援引議事規則Section A) 1) b) In the absence of the Council Chairman, Councillors present at the meeting may elect one among themselves to act as Council Chairman of that particular meeting; the person so elected shall enjoy all powers conferred by these Standing Orders on the Council Chairman at that particular meeting.，指有關條文僅在會議期間賦予評議員權力另選主席，在會議正式散會後，評議員不具有關權力。不過，評議員在譚於1月2日提出散會決定時，已多次提出挑戰，按議事規則，評議會主席當屬議事規則的全權詮釋人(Sole interpreter)，唯其裁決可由在席三分之二議員推翻，此亦為評議員連日提出的質疑，譚亦未有回應。譚於文末指，由於休會有效及續會無效，故續會期間通過的新任選委會無效。
以下為電郵原文：
Dear Union Members,
In respect of the Ninth Emergency Council Meeting (the “Meeting”) of the Union Council on 1 January 2013, I wish to clarify on my decision as to the adjournment of the Meeting and the invalidity on any so-called motion or resolution on vacating official members of the Union Elections Committee.
A. Interruption and Adjournment
1. At around 0445 on 2 January 2013, some members of the Union Council addressed me that the Meeting has taken place up to 6 hours.
Under Union Council By-laws Section III Sub-section V Article 3, the proceedings of the Union Council shall, at that moment, be interrupted unless:
i. Council Chairperson is at that moment of the
opinion that proceedings can be concluded by short deferment of moment of interruption and thus exercises; or
ii. At the moment of interruption a voting is in
progress (Article 4 in the same Sub-section).
“3. At a time 6 hours after the commencement of the meeting, the proceedings on any business, agendum or motion under consideration shall be interrupted, and if the Union Council is in committee, the Union Council shall resume: provided that, if the Council Chairperson is of the
opinion that the proceedings on which the Union Council is engaged could be concluded by a short deferment of the moment of interruption, he may in his discretion defer interrupting the business”
“4. If a voting is in progress at the moment of interruption, the business shall not be interrupted until after the declaration of the results of the voting”
2. At the moment of the said interruption by a councillor, I regarded that the matter in hand could be resolved after short deferment since the motion in discussion was about the establishment of the Election Commission for Annual Election 2013 and the Election to the Undergraduate Student Membership to the Board of Faculties 2013.
3. However, out of the estimation of me, the discussion lasted for more than an hour, which was actually not short deferment. Therefore, I decided after resolving the motion on the Election Commission and related procedural motion, the Meeting shall be interrupted, in accordance with the Union Council By-laws.
4. Before resolution was made as to the Election Commission and the accompanying procedural motions, during the so-called “short deferment” (which actually lasted for more than an hour), I have repeatedly asked if councillors can reach consent or agreement as to arrangement of subsequent meaning. 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 sharp.
5. Someone argues that the Meeting could not end until the Council has resolved about the date of subsequent meeting. According to Union Council By-laws Section III Sub-section V (5), after the interruption, only motions on adjournment or deferment COULD BE entered upon the interruption. Based on the wordings used, it is therefore OPTIONAL BUT NOT MANDATORY for the Union Council to
consider the motion. 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 from being unless consent by ALL Council members). Since there was no motion dealing with adjournment or resolution of date of meeting during the deferment period, the Union Council Ninth Emergency Meeting shall be stopped and any further meeting shall be regarded as another meeting session.
6. I exercised the power of adjournment conferred under Union Council Standing Orders Section E, Article 2:
“The Council Chairperson shall declare … adjourning or closing of the meeting, direct the discussion, ensure observance of the Standing Orders and other statutory regulations governing procedure of the Council, accord the right to speak, put motions to the vote and declare decisions. He shall rule on points of order.”
7. I have the obligation to ensure the Union Council meetings are in observance of all statutory regulations as to Council procedures, including both Union Council By-laws and Standing Orders. Therefore, authorized under the aforesaid Section E Article 2, Council Chairperson is authorized and under the necessity to apply the Union Council By-
laws and Standing Orders as to closing and adjournment of the Meeting. It is therefore wrong for some councillors to only refer to the Standing Orders when determining how the Meeting shall be ended. The provisions in the Union Council By-laws shall also be taken into account and read in conjunction with the Standing Orders.
8. The adjournment of the Meeting was valid under the Union Council By-laws and Standing Orders.
B. “Adjournment” motion shall only be a procedural motion
9. During the “deferment” period, there was a motion which proposed to adjourn the meeting to a specified later time. However this motion was proposed when the motion on the Election Commission was in discussion and after a motion proposed to withdraw the said motion.
10. At the time when this motion was proposed, I announced it to be handled. Affirmed by the proposer of this “adjournment” motion, it shall be regarded as a procedural motion under Union Council Standing Orders Section G (III)
“19. The Council Chairman shall allow the following procedural motions to be put when there is already a motion or amendment on table in the following order or precedence(i.e. Motion (a) is of the highest rank
whereas Motion (n) is the lowest): (amended in CM6 1996)
a. Motion to withdraw a motion;
b. Motion to adjourn the meeting to a later time/date;
11. Clearly stipulated in the above provisions of the Standing Orders, with a motion to withdraw a motion already on table for discussion, that “adjournment” motion shall in principle not be put as the priority or ranking of the latter is lower.As the procedural motion to withdraw the Election Commission was passed without objection, the
“adjournment” motion shall also be withdrawn long with the original motion concerning the establishment of the Election Commission. At the end, the “adjournment” motion was not and could not be put for Council’s discussion.
C. Invalidity of the so-called “extension” of the Meeting
12. The constitutional ground that some councillors used to support their “election of acting Council Chairperson” (i.e. Ms. LI Wai Yan Vivian, Representative of Education Society, HKUSU) is without grounds, since in Union Council Standing Orders Article 2 of Section A, that:
“In the absence of the Council Chairperson, Councillors present at the meeting may elect one among themselves to act as Council Chairperson of that particular meeting; the person so elected shall enjoy all powers conferred by these Standing Orders on the Council Chairperson at that particular meeting.”
13. It is only the power given to the Councillors when the Council is in progress, but not after the adjournment is formally declared. Therefore this part of so-called “extension” of the Meeting is invalid and all alleged “resolutions carried” were not binding or formally recognized.
D. Conclusion
14. As the “extension” part of the Meeting is invalid, there has not been any change of the composition of the Union Elections Committee. Any of the alleged vacation of duty of the Union Elections Committee members in the said unrecognized “extension” is ineffective and invalid. Thank you for your kind attention.
With warmest regards,
Tam Chun Sing
Chairperson of the Union Council
