今天 (2011年4月4日) 英皇書院學校管理委員會開會，但是主席拒絕把校友代表提出的議題 (見3月23日本網誌文章) 列入議程，他的所謂解釋祇是重複強調：校管會必須執行教育局的政策，以及教育局已經決定了英皇書院減班，校管會無權過問。
可惜他忘記了是局長本人於2010年11月18日宣佈「自願優化班級結構計劃」時，在記者會公開和明確地說：「我們希望所有中學都能本�校本精神及個別情況決定是否參加。」完全沒有官校必須減班的立場。
在減班這件事情上，公開的政策內容是：「自願」、「校本」和「個別情況」，肯定沒有「英皇書院必須參加減班」一條，教育局執著英皇書院必須減班一事，令人大惑不解，也是毫無道理的。
所謂「教育局已經決定了英皇書院減班」等於說英皇書院沒有按校本精神決定是否減班，違反局長本人11月18日的說法。要就是局長說謊，要就是後來教育局人員行事有錯，請政府告訴香港市民，究竟是局長說謊還是局方人員做錯事。
至於所謂「校管會無權過問」，這是不正確的。官校的校管會相當於津校的法團校董會。2004年為了推行法團校董會而修訂教育條例時，政府向立法會申明「官校的運作及管理，與條例草案的建議有不少相同之處，例如: 所有官校均由其各自成立的學校管理委員會(校管會)管理及制定學校發展計劃。」此處提到的「草案的建議」就是「法團校董會」。此外政府還申明，除了因為官校是政府一部份所以豁免在《教育條例》下註冊，「官立學校會參照《教育條例》的規定，管理學校的運作」，此處所提的規定包括規範法團校董會的第40條，這些都清楚記載在立法會文件中。
特別要指出，根據教育條例40AE條，辦學團體不能給法團校董會直接發出有關學校運作和發展計劃的指令，辦學團體的角色祇在訂定學校的抱負和使命，其實這正正就是為甚麼個別的大辦學團體多年來反對成立法團校董會的原因。今天教育局這個官校的「辦學團體」自己就是要面對這個問題，可惜它選擇了偏離法制，粗暴地強行以指令取代校管會依法作出校本決定，是十分錯誤的。
我們嘗試在校管會內糾正上次會議中發生的嚴重錯誤，很可惜，教育局官員沒有好好掌握這個改錯的機會，繼續以軟弱無力的歪理去堅持錯下去。校友代表在會上逼於無奈提出了對主席的不信任議案，但是主席沒有讓會議處理議案，現在是懸而未決的事，謹把議案附於文章之後，立此存照。
現在中一收生的程序已經到了一個幾乎無法改變的階段，英皇書院的電腦派位名額相對去年大減四成(見3月24日網誌文章)，對中西區同學是一個很大的損失。我們盡了力，始終無法阻止大錯鑄成，令人惋惜。
官員的錯失，我們不會忘記。
The School Management Committee of King’s College (SMC/KC)
Noting that:
(a) School Management Committees (SMCs) are set up to manage government schools and to develop school management plans in the manner of Incorporated Management Committees established under Education (Amendment) Ordinance 2004 (refs. Legislative Council Papers CB(2)2601/03-04(03) and CB(2)2967/03-04);
(b) Article 3.5 of the constitution of the SMC/KC states that “The SMC … shall uphold the rule of law”;
(c) Article 22.2 loc. cit. states that “… every question to be resolved during a meeting shall be determined by a majority of votes of the Members present and voting”;
(d) Article 5.1 loc. cit. states that the Chairman of the SMC is a Member of the SMC;
(e) Article 14.2 loc. cit. states that “A Member of any category shall act in their personal capacity …”;
(f) The Secretary for Education publicly and explicitly stated as the position of the Education Bureau that “我們希望所有中學都能本�校本精神及個別情況決定是否參加” the Voluntary Optimisation of Class Structure Scheme (the Scheme) (ref. http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201011/18/P201011180237.htm );
Considering that Mr Tam Koon-che, Chairman of SMC/KC at the SMC meeting on 24 February 2011:
(a) Failed to comply with the requirements of articles 3.5 and 22.2 loc. cit. by not allowing voting to proceed on the question of whether KC was to join the Scheme;
(b) Failed to comply with the requirement of article 14.2 loc. cit. by allowing instructions from an external source to influence his actions so that he was no longer acting in his personal capacity;
(c) By announcing as a “decision” by an external source of non-documented authority that KC was to join the Scheme and then not allowing voting by the SMC to proceed:
(i) failed to run the SMC/KC in conformity with the School-based Management policy established by Education (Amendment) Ordinance 2004;
(ii) inappropriately forced upon the SMC an action which ran against the publicly and explicitly stated position of the Secretary for Education in regard to “school-based decision” and “individual circumstances”;
Resolved that:
(a) A vote of no confidence be passed on Mr Tam Koon-che, Chairman of SMC/KC;
(b) The Permanent Secretary for Education be requested to substitute another officer who understands School-based Management and who pledges to comply with the rule of law and the constitution of the SMC/KC for Mr Tam Koon-che as chairman of SMC/KC.
http://www.eastweek.com.hk/index.php?aid=11469
