Minutes of the 7Th Meeting of the Vetting Committee Eastern District Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Minutes of the 7th Meeting of the Vetting Committee Eastern District Council Date : 28 February 2017 (Tuesday) Time : 2:30 pm Venue: Eastern District Council (EDC) Conference Room Present Time of Arrival Time of Departure (pm) (pm) Mr TING Kong-ho, Eddie 2:30 end of meeting Mr WONG Chi-chung, Dominic 2:30 end of meeting Mr WONG Chun-sing, Patrick 2:30 end of meeting Mr KU Kwai-yiu 2:30 end of meeting Mr HO Ngai-kam, Stanley 2:30 end of meeting Mr LAM Sum-lim 2:30 end of meeting Mr LAM Kei-tung, George 2:30 3:30 Mr HUNG Lin-cham 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHUI Chi-kin 2:45 end of meeting Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong, Howard 2:35 end of meeting Mr LEUNG Siu-sun, Patrick 2:30 end of meeting Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, David 2:30 end of meeting Mr MAK Tak-ching 2:30 end of meeting Mr WONG Kin-pan, BBS, MH, JP 2:30 4:10 Mr YEUNG Sze-chun 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHIU Ka-yin, Andrew 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHIU Chi-keung 2:30 end of meeting Mr LAU Hing-yeung 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHENG Chi-sing 2:30 end of meeting Mr LAI Chi-keong, Joseph 2:30 end of meeting Mr NGAN Chun-lim, MH 2:30 end of meeting Mr LO Wing-kwan, Frankie, MH (Chairman) 2:30 end of meeting Mr FAN Hai-tai (Co-opted Member) 2:30 end of meeting Absent with Apologies Mr HUI Lam-hing (Vice-chairman) (absent with consent) Mr NG Kwan-yuk (Co-opted Member) 1 In Regular Attendance (Government Representatives) Miss NGAI Lai-ying, Angora Assistant District Officer (Eastern)1, Eastern District Office Miss WAH Pui-yee, Vivian Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Eastern District Office Miss HAU Tsun-tsun, Kenix Executive Officer I (District Council)1, (Secretary) Eastern District Office In Attendance by Invitation (Representatives from the Government and Organisations) Miss TANG Wai-yan, Zoe Manager (Hong Kong East) Marketing, Programme and District Activities, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Opening Remarks The Chairman welcomed all Members and Government representatives to the meeting. I. Confirmation of the draft minutes of the 6th meeting of the Vetting Committee (“VC”) 2. VC confirmed the above draft minutes without any amendments. II. Review of the Guidelines on the “Eastern District Community Involvement Project Subsidy Scheme” under District Council Funds (VC Paper No. 8/17) 3. The Secretary briefed the meeting on Paper No. 8/17. 4. The Chairman invited Members to declare their interests. (i) Suggestions made by VC and its working group (Annex 1) Standards for Reviewing Individual Activity Fund Applications which might be Duplicated 2 Action 5. The Chairman added that VC had considered Paragraph 6.3.9 (n) of the Guidelines on the “Eastern District Community Involvement Project Subsidy Scheme” under District Council Funds (“Guidelines”) in the past year in vetting the funding applications by individual organisations which carried out similar activities and that future applications could still be vetted according to the relevant standards. 6. After discussion, VC resolved to keep the original provisions unchanged. Arrangements for Sale / Distribution of Tickets 7. The Chairman added that with regards to the concern of Member(s) over the arrangements for the sale/distribution of tickets in private housing estates in the past year, the Secretariat suggested requesting applicant organisations to provide, in their funding applications, an account of the arrangements for the sale/distribution of tickets, publicity and promotion, including whether or not it was not necessary to apply for permission for the sale/distribution or such application had been approved (refer to item (X) of Annex 2 of this Paper). He also used those “three-nil” buildings (i.e. buildings which do not have an owners’ corporation or any form of residents groups and have not engaged any property management company) as an example and pointed out that it was not necessary to apply for permission in some of the places where tickets were sold or distributed. 8. The views and queries of 15 Members about the issue are summarised as follows: (a) Mr NGAN Chun-lim pointed out that participants who were interested in the activities might be able to visit the addresses of the organisations situated in units of private housing estates in the capacity of visitors to buy and collect tickets. In addition, he pointed out that should the addresses of the organisations situated in units of private housing estates not be permitted to sell or distribute tickets, the organisations could still arrange for the distribution of tickets by other means, such as by post etc. (b) Mr KU Kwai-yiu concurred with the amendment proposal. In addition, he proposed to require applicant organisations to provide relevant reasons for not having to apply for permission for VC’s consideration. 3 Action (c) Mr WONG Kin-pan indicated that Paragraph 9.2 of the Guidelines was intended to oversee whether the organisations could sell or distribute not less than 80 % of the participation or admission tickets publicly and if the organisations were in breach of the requirements of the Guidelines, VC could consider not reimbursing the organisations. He deemed that requiring the applicant organisations to provide, in their funding applications, an account of the arrangements for the sale/distribution of tickets, publicity and promotion and of whether the necessary permission had been obtained could regulate the organisations. He also agreed that the organisations should be required to provide reasons for not having to apply for permission. He also indicated that the organisations could promote their activities through distributing pamphlets and dealing with the sale/distribution of tickets by means such as by post and so forth. (d) Mr Joseph LAI was worried that if organisations could not obtain the approval of related management units to sell or distribute tickets in private housing estate units, it would render participants interested in the activities unable to buy or obtain participation tickets or admission tickets easily and thus making it difficult for the organisation to comply with the provision of Paragraph 9.2 of the Guidelines that 80 % of the participation or admission tickets had to be sold or distributed at the designated places for the sale/distribution of tickets. Therefore, he was in favour of the proposal. (e) Mr CHENG Chi-sing was concerned with the organisations’ arrangements in selling or distributing tickets in commercial cum residential buildings. (f) Mr Dominic WONG thought that VC did not have the authority to interfere with the organisations’ sale/distribution of tickets in private housing estate units. He was worried that the above proposal might cause inconvenience to applicant organisations. (g) Mr Stanley HO thought that where participants visited the addresses of the organisations situated in units of private housing estates in the capacity of visitors to buy and collect tickets, it was not necessary for them to obtain approval of the management units and if the arrangements of the organisations were in breach of the provisions of the mutual covenants of the estates, related management units could 4 Action take legal action and such breach should not be dealt with by the District Council. He reiterated that VC should vet whether the organisations would comply with the requirements in the Guidelines for sale/distribution of tickets publicly and ensure that the activities would not only benefit a small group of people. (h) Mr Andrew CHIU indicated that the practice of individual District Councils to provide guidelines specifying the selling or distribution of tickets must be done at places where the local residents were free to come and go was preferable. He also thought that if it was necessary to pass by the management offices before entering the addresses of the organisations situated in units of private housing estates to buy and collect tickets, it would be difficult for intending participants to buy and collect tickets and in turn making it difficult to meet the requirements of the Guidelines that tickets had to be sold or distributed publicly. He agreed with the related amendment proposal and concurred that the organisations should be required to provide reasons for not having to apply for permission. He concurred that it would not be necessary to obtain permission for sale/distribution of tickets in “three-nil” buildings and that supplementary information submitted would be helpful to the consideration as to whether the requirements of selling or distributing tickets publicly could be met. In addition, he hoped that the Guidelines would provide a more concrete definition of the term “management units” in the proposed amendments so that the organisations could fill in the related items in the application forms correctly. (i) Mr CHUI Chi-kin indicated that there were different views among VC Members on the definition of “selling or distributing publicly” in the Guidelines. He thought that it was necessary to obtain legal advice. (j) Mr LAM Sum-lim indicated that whether participants could visit the addresses of the organisations situated in units of private housing estate in the capacity of visitors to buy and collect tickets often depended on whether they would be permitted by the residents of the units rather than on the approval of the management units. It would be unreasonable, in the absence of sufficient grounds, to question the organisations’ inability to comply with the requirement of the Guidelines on selling or distributing tickets publicly. 5 Action (k) Mr HUNG Lin-cham indicated that the current guidelines were based on the “Manual on the Use of DC Funds” of the Home Affairs Department and would be amended in due course.