WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1988
19
DISTRICT BOARDS (AMENDMENT} BILL SUPPORTED
THE DISTRICT BOARDS (AMENDMENT} BILL 1988 WAS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, PROF THE HON C.K. POON SAID TODAY
(WEDNESDAY).
SPEAKING IN THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE BILL IN THE COUNCIL, PROF POON NOTED THAT THE BILL STIPULATED THAT A DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BOARD AUTOMATICALLY IF HE FAILED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE BOARD, TO ATTEND MEETINGS OF THE
FOR A PERIOD OF SIX CONSECUTIVE MONTHS, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF PROLONGED 1LLNESS.
BOARD
"THE OPPORTUNITY HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN TO DEFINE MORE CLEARLY WHAT 15 MEANT BY A DISTRICT BOARD MEETING AND TO INCLUDE SOME OTHER TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
"WE UNDERSTAND THAT MEMBERS OF THE 19 DISTRICT BOARDS WERE CONSULTED ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, HE SAID.
+
FROM
PROF POON CONCEDED THAT UNDER THE PRESENT DISTRICT BOARDS ORDINANCE, A DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER COULD BE ABSENT
MEETINGS OF THE BOARD FOR SIX CONSECUTIVE MONTHS WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH ABSENCE.
BOARD "HE CAN OBTAIN THE APPROVAL OF THE THAT
RETROSPECTIVELY.
WE
AGRER
ABSENCE OF THIS NATURE COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE BOARD, HE SAID.
PROF POON, HOWEVER, POINTED OUT TWO AREAS IN THE BILL WHICH THE LRGCO AD HOC GROUP FORMED TO STUDY IT HAD CONSIDERED TO BE UNCLEAR.
"SINCE THE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF THE SIX-MONTH ABSENCE PERIOD IS NOT CLEARLY SPELT OUT IN THE BILL, IT IS ENVISAGED THAT UNNECESSARY LEGAL ARGUMENTS MAY ARISE AT A LATER DATE, HE SAID.
*
"THE BILL., AS IT STANDS NOW, PERMITS A PERSON то APPLY FOR LEAVE, BY REASON OF PROLONGED ILLNESS, WITHIN A REASONABLE HIS HAVING RECOVERED OR SUBSTANTIVELY RECOVERED FROM ILLNESS.
PERIOD OF
IS RATHER "THE USE OF THE WORD 'REASONABLE
LOOSE AND [T IS
APPLYING ENVISAGED THAT IN
THIS RULE DIFFERENT BOARDS MAY ADOPT DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND AS A RESULT THE SITUATION COULD CONFUSING,' HE ADDED.
"
BECOME
QUITE
TO RECTIFY THE ABOVE PROBLEMS, HE SAID
OF THE
LEGCO
LEAVE
MEETING
MEMBERS COMMENCEMENT DATE OF THE AD HOC GROUP HAD PROPOSED THAT THE PERIOD SHOULD START ON THE DAY NEXT FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THE OF THE BOARD AT WHICH THE BOARD MEMBER WAS FIRST ABSENT.
THE GROUP