【學苑專訊】1996年度評議會主席傅俊毅（傅亦為1995年度普選評議員及1996年度署理評議會主席）致函時任評議會主席譚振聲，援引評議會附例及議事規則，反對譚聲稱於1月2日早上6時左右的散會合憲之說，並表示基於其做法違憲，評議會其後續會之所有決議均屬有效，信件亦列出如有提出「中止」（interruption）的正確處理手法。

以下為信件原文：

[Address undisclosed]
4th January 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 email to all Union Members on 4th January 2013 in relation to the above matter.

I write to express my disagreement with your assertions that the 9th Emergency Council Meeting (“ECM9”) was validly adjourned in the morning on 2nd January 2013 and that the “committee concerning the election” established by some of the Union Councillors and the other “resolutions” passed afterwards are invalid and unconstitutional.

With respect, these assertions were arrived at as a result of your misinterpretation of the By-laws (“By-laws”) and the Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”) of the Union Council. 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 set out in your email the provisions of Paragraph V. 3) in Section III of the By-laws as follows:

“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 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”

You alleged that as you considered the meeting could not be concluded by a short deferment, so upon the request of interruption by Union Councillors, you had to adjourn the meeting in accordance with the By-laws.

Contrary to your understanding, there is no express provision in the By-laws to entitle the Council Chairperson to adjourn a Union Council Meeting in the event of interruption.

You have overlooked Paragraphs V. 4) and V. 5) in the same Section III of the By-laws concerning interruption. These two paragraphs provide that:

“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;

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).”

Reading Paragraphs V. 3) to V. 5) together, one will conclude that (a) any Union Council Meeting must be interrupted after six hours’ meeting unless the Council Chairperson exercises his/her discretion to defer the interruption if he/she believes that the proceedings can be concluded shortly; and (b) after interruption, the Union Council Meeting may only deal with motions for the adjournment of the Union Council, deferment of agenda items and resolutions on date(s) of meeting(s), unless the Union Council Meeting is extended hour by hour by the common consensus of all Union Councillors present. Put it simply, the Council Chairperson is not at liberty to adjourn a Union Council Meeting after its interruption. 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. Your purported adjournment of, and premature departure from, ECM9 was invalid and improper, and had caused disruption to the normal proceedings of the meeting.

As far as the adjournment of Union Council Meeting is concerned, Clause 1 in Section J – Adjournment of Meeting in the Standing Orders clearly identifies when and how a Union Council Meeting can be adjourned by the Council Chairperson:

“Section J – ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING (amended in CM6 1996)
1. The Council Chairman 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.”

Apparently the Council Chairperson has the right to adjourn the meeting only under exceptional circumstances, i.e. when a quorum is not present or because of disorder. It is always the right of the Union Council to adjourn any meeting.

The correct way, in my view, to deal with any interruption made six hours after the commencement of any Union Council Meeting in accordance with the By-laws and the Standing Orders 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, 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 Chairman 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.

If the Council Chairperson could declare any adjournment on his/her own, it would be inexplicable in terms of the existence of the other provisions in the By-laws and the Standing Orders referred to in this letter.

A Union Council Meeting never ends by the abrupt departure of the Council Chairperson, and a Union Council meeting will only end abruptly by the departure of the majority of Union Councillors (i.e. a quorum is not present). You are also 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).

For the reasons set out above, I 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 Chairman 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.

Yours sincerely,

FOO Chun Ngai Redford
(Year 2, postgraduate student, Faculty of Arts)
University number: 1993146950
Member number: F2012-001