On September 28, the Deliberative Council held its final meeting on the revision of the Bylaws proposed by the Bylaws Committee. This followed months of debate and voting on all amendments proposed by Council members, each of which was considered individually. Once all amendments had been voted on, all articles that had not been amended were voted on as a block. The new Bylaws were approved by an overwhelming majority of the Deliberative Council, with the Council’s presiding officers tasked with emailing Council members the consolidated text of what had been approved so that they could identify any inconsistencies. That text was duly sent on October 21 for review, and access to audio recordings of all meetings was also made available to clear up any questions. Only one Council member requested the link. At the end of the final meeting, Council members were congratulated on approving the Bylaws and on the work they had carried out over several months for the benefit of the club. The procedure for addressing any inconsistencies in the text was clearly explained, and none of them raised any objection. It is therefore surprising that, at this stage before notice is issued for the General Meeting of members, some should express surprise at something already approved by the full Deliberative Council, particularly when many of the approved amendments were their own proposals. It should also be noted that there will be a period of 19 (nineteen) days between the circulation of the consolidated text and the scheduled date of the General Meeting of members—more than enough time to identify any corrections needed in the text circulated. A few Council members are already doing so: rather than taking inaccurate information to news outlets and social media, they are doing what was agreed, namely reviewing the text and identifying any inconsistencies so that, once corrected, the text can be sent to Council members again and subsequently made available to club members. The presiding officers of the Deliberative Council have no interest whatsoever in changing the approved text, and the audio recordings and their transcripts leave no room for dispute. Regarding the irresponsible allegation that the presiding officers are violating provisions of the current Bylaws and the Deliberative Council’s Rules of Procedure, we offer the following clarifications. Article 163, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Procedure establishes that, following approval of an amendment to or revision of the Bylaws, notice of a General Meeting to review and decide on the proposal must be ISSUED within 30 (thirty) days. The final meeting took place on September 28, as noted above, which means that the Council President has until October 28 to ISSUE NOTICE of the General Meeting. Furthermore, the main provision of Article 26 of the current Bylaws states that “notice of General Meetings shall be issued by the President of the Deliberative Council: (a) 30 (thirty) days in advance for Ordinary General Meetings and for an Extraordinary General Meeting convened to decide on the matter provided for in subparagraph ‘a’, item II, of Article 25 of these Bylaws; and (b) 15 (fifteen) days in advance for all other Extraordinary General Meetings.” Item II of Article 25 concerns Extraordinary General Meetings, and subparagraph “a”, the only provision requiring 30 (thirty) days’ advance notice, concerns submitting the following matter to members: “filling vacancies in the offices of President and Vice-President of the Management Committee should they arise during the term of office, in the circumstances provided for in these Bylaws.” Amendments to the Bylaws are covered by subparagraph “b”, meaning that 15 (fifteen) days’ advance notice is required.
Nor is it valid to argue, as has been reported, that the main provision of Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure requires 30 (thirty) days’ notice, since it cannot override what is established in the Bylaws. That would be like a decree containing a provision contrary to the law it implements. On that point, the decree would be deemed unlawful, as it is a lower-ranking legal instrument. Confident that the presiding officers of the Deliberative Council are acting in accordance with the current Bylaws and its Rules of Procedure, they reiterate that the sovereignty of the club’s members will prevail.
This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.