|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Quorum of Legal Aid Services Council
In October 2000 the Council proposed to amend the quorum requirement from six members plus the Chairman (70% of total Council membership) to five members plus the Chairman to enable the Council to operate more efficiently and effectively. To ensure that there was broad representation, it further proposed that the five members should comprise Director of Legal Aid (DLA) or his representative, two lawyer members and two non-lawyer members. The Administration pointed out in February 2002 that as both the composition and the quorum of the Council were carefully devised, it would not be appropriate to change one without considering its impact upon the other. To address the problem of not achieving the necessary quorum however, the Administration suggested the Council to continue to have committees, working parties or groups to look into specific issues and report their findings to the full Council for decision. The Administration further advised that the existing quorum requirement was designed in such a way as to help ensure a balanced representation of membership at full Council's meeting, i.e. there would not be a complete absence of members drawn from the profession or lay members at the meeting.
The Council appreciated the thinking behind the composition of the Council but hoped that this could be balanced with a reasonable quorum to facilitate Council deliberations. The Council did make use of working parties, or other forum to explore specific issues, but excessive deployment of such for full Council purposes might run the risk of diluting the authority of the Council as well as the quality of its output.
Having considered the matter further, the Council proposed, in November 2004, that the quorum requirement be reduced from seven members to six members, with the requirement that the quorum will consist of the Chairman, DLA, at least one lawyer members and at least one lay member. In this way, Council's effectiveness could be enhanced while a balanced representation of membership at full Council's meetings could be maintained.
While acknowledging the Council's concern about the quorum requirement, the Director of Administration advised, in September 2005, that the legislative intent for setting out the specific quorum and composition in legislation was to ensure a major attendance of Council members at its formal meetings and with a stipulated balanced representation of views at the Council discussions. She further advised that the statutory specification in respect of Council was not unique.
At the Council meeting held on 11 November 2005, members noted the position of the Administration. In view of other more pressing issues in hand, members agreed that the matter be shelved for the time being.
|
|
|
|
|
