【學苑專訊】評議會將於晚上7時30分於李國賢堂外空地復會，繼續第九次緊急會議議程，不過現時仍未及法定人數，暫未能復會。原評議會主席譚振聲於下午6時47分發出題為「Adjournment of ECM 9 and invalid meeting notice」的電郵，聲稱第九次緊急會議在召開後8小時「散會」，並指其後所有決議及稍後的續會當屬違憲 。
譚在電郵中引用評議會附例Section III V.“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”，指會議開始後六個小時，任何進行中的事務、議程、議案應被打斷。評議會主席可視情況行使酌情權，延遲「interruption」的要求。譚指早上有評議員提出「interruption」，譚個人認為會議不能在短時間內完成，遂宣布休會。
譚指，沒有任何議程上的議案或決議可以在會議休會後提出。譚又稱，邏輯上，沒有評議會主席、榮譽秘書或其他議員應被視為缺席（absence） 。故此，也不能選出署理評議會主席或榮譽秘書。不過，譚沒有解釋其所謂「邏輯」。
譚續指，憲章指出評議會應由主席召開，而評議會以外，只有主席或榮譽秘書（在主席缺席時）可以召開。因此，由教育學會代表處理評議會主席的職務屬於違憲。而由教育學會代表所恢復的會議亦應因違憲而視作無效。最後，開會的通知應於會議開始24小時前，知會所有評議員。譚振聲最後重申，復會通知無效及違憲，並宣稱保留追究評議員違憲行徑之權利。
根據電郵內容，譚振聲試圖再以一己之力推翻評議會決議，法理效力成疑。此外，譚又涉違反承諾，譚於早上約6時20分遭原榮譽秘書沈顯龍拉上小巴，在上車前向尾隨會眾表示12小時內回覆復會安排，但譚於下午6時47分，逾時近半小時後方履行承諾，譚亦未有於電郵中交代所謂「復會安排」。
電郵原文如下：
“Dear all,
CC is writing to clarify that ECM9 was adjourned this morning, more than 8 hours after its commencement.
According to V, Section III, Union Council By-laws, “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”. Upon the request of interruption by Councillors, considering the meeting could not be concluded by a short deferment, CC had to adjourn the meeting in accordance to Union Council By-laws.
Please note that no motions on agenda discussion could be entered and no resolutions on the agenda could be derived after the adjournment of meeting. Logically, CC, HS and all other Councillors shall not be considered as “absence”. No acting CC and HS could be elected.
Further, the Union Constitution provides that the Union Council Meeting shall be convened by CC and outside the Council Meeting only CC or HS (in my absence) can call the Meeting. It is therefore invalid for a ‘so-called’ unconstitutional fake ‘CC’ (EDSR) to act in my capacity. Therefore, the notice so-called issued by EDSR on ended ECM9 is invalid due to contravention to the Union Constitution.
Last but not least, notice of the Meetings shall be sent to all Councillors at least 24 hours beforehand. Clearly the ‘resumption’ (which is not constitutionally recognized by me) is another new Meeting session which requires prior sufficient notice.
Base on the facts as stated above, the so-called notice of the resumption of ECM9 at 7:30 pm tonight is invalid and unconstitutional. Moreover, the rights for actions against the unconstitutional acts done by some Councillors are preserved.
Regards,
CC”
