Fellow Toronto chapter members and old boys community at large:
I am writing to follow up on my email to all Toronto members on April 30, regarding membership eligibility, voting and nomination rights, proxies, and potential legal implications. As the matter emerges, public interest is at stake. Please treat this as an open letter.
My April 30 email explained the abnormalities of the 140+ applications, constitutional/legal risks, implications for the Toronto community and beyond. Since then, Bill Chau (98) has started the petition (out of the 91 signed petitions, only 7 of them are from Toronto including 1 director). We have also exchanged emails with Jevons Au (98) and Alexander Cheung (82). Jevons Au wrote on behalf of the 155+ applicants, and Alexander Cheung wrote on behalf of the “committee of candidates”.
The Board held an emergency meeting on May 1, and issued a statement afterwards about the applications. The statements are available on our website (https://lscobator.org/). Accordingly, Jevons’s application should have been processed soon. At the same time, Jevons has emailed us again, stating that if his application is not approved immediately, “the board pause any elections or decisions at the upcoming AGM until this matter is resolved according to the bylaws and ONCA.”.
Anyone with a reasonable mind would find Jevons’s demand appalling and unacceptable. Further, such demand without substantiating proof may constitute a threat or insult to our members at large.
By now, all reasonable channels have been exhausted. The possibility remains that those directors who have co-signed the letter of condemnation against me, and those who have submitted the applications on their behalf, may call for a requisition Board meeting again, picking a date/time that is most self-serving for them to rubber-stamp Jevons’ applications with a minimal quorum. This would thereby allow them to overturn any decisions made to date. It follows that once they have secured a sufficient quorum of directors for the May 15 election, they may whimsically dictate or reverse any decisions.
I am baffled by the condemnation letter co-signed by a few ex-presidents. I cannot help but reckon that it must have been an orchestrated scheme of groundless allegations spread against me in Hong Kong and elsewhere, before the 140+ applications were submitted. Should there be wrongs on my part, they should have voiced their grievances earlier at Board meetings. I will not comment on their intent, but the harmony of the Toronto old boys community has been completely shattered.
The situation will come to a head on May 15, a crucial moment for all of us, as a community, to make our voices heard. The future of our Toronto Chapter, as well as the legacy of the alumni who have built it, will rest on the actions we take now. I have served to the best of my ability, though not without oversights. I am proud to have made friendships during my office and trust that we all will stand together in ensuring that our Chapter will remain strong and true to its founding values.
Kevin Kwok (88)
Outgoing President
Hong Kong La Salle College Old Boys’ Association – Toronto
________________________________________________________
於 2025年4月30日 週三 上午1:56寫道：
Dear Members,
Today, April 30, 2025, marks the deadline under our bylaw to issue notice for the Annual General Meeting (AGM), traditionally held on May 15 each year. Regrettably, I, as the outgoing President and chief operating officer, must inform you that several serious matters remain unresolved on the election of 2025-27 election of Board of Directors: membership eligibility, voting and nomination rights, proxies, and potential legal issues.
Unprecedented Magnitude and Nature of Membership Applications
April 14, 2025 was the final Board of Directors meeting before the AGM and is the cut off time for approval of new members to be eligible to vote and be nominated as directors at the upcoming AGM. During the meeting Directors Jimmy Chang (’66) and Michael Chow (’89) submitted 140+ new membership applications with fees. The followings are noted:
- – We have never received one time applications of such magnitude
- – Most of the applications show non-Toronto addresses and/or provide incomplete contact information.
- – Many appear to have been generated electronically in bulk, with similar formatting and minimal details.
- – All of them are for one-year or student memberships, diverging from the longstanding norms of our Chapter.
While these applications appear constitutional (non Toronto old boys may apply for membership according to our patent), such magnitude and nature raises eyebrows. I have been in the community for over 20 years and have recruited old boys to attend our events/gatherings, official or unofficial. Some chose to apply for life membership to show loyalty, but most are for the mingling experience. I have never seen intentional and well planned one time admission of such scale and nature. While a lot of old boys locally and beyond know me, most of the names among the 140 are unfamiliar to me.
If admitted en masse, these new 140 applicants would be eligible to vote and be nominated as directors in the upcoming AGM. Note that our AGM is usually attended by 80-100 local old boys and know each other.
Disagreement among directors
In light of the above, over half of the Board voted to defer and further investigate the applications. It is not rejection – we are just unable to process all of them right away. We need more time to think this through, at least to confirm their identity and authenticity. While Michael Chow (89) and Jimmy Chang (66) may know them in some way, are all of these applicants aware that a one year/student (not life) membership was made on their behalf, and their names can be used for proxies for the purpose of voting and being nominated?
In addition to Jimmy Chang (66), Michael Chow (89), Peter Chan (72) also strongly disagreed with the deferral.More pressure
Within days, Peter Chan (72), current director, signed a petition which advocates for the voting rights of these applicants. The petition quotes “misleading directives by the President”.
Within days, the Board received emails from Jevons Au Man Kit (98) and Alexander Cheung (82). Mr Au claims to write on behalf of the applicants, and Mr Cheung wrote on behalf of “a committee of candidates” who “intend to run for office for 2025-2027 in the upcoming election at the AGM scheduled for May 15, 2025”. The following words were in their email:
- – remonstrance
- – stifling competition
- – condemning the board’s decision
- – invidious practice
- – seeking independent legal review
- – unfair discriminatory decision
- – informing the broader alumni community and relevant stakeholders including LSCOBA Hong Kong
There has been numerous pressure to accept these applications. I am not a lawyer or investigator, but it looks like an orchestrated election maneuver of some sort to me, to say the least. If I approve right away, I could be prosecuted. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Why does it matter to you?
Some may argue that these applications are “constitutional.” But: Does this sound right to you?
As I said before, AGM is usually attended by 80-100 old boys, most are local and know each other. How does it feel to be outnumbered, constitutionally, by those who show little ties with Toronto?
You may remember in the good old days when things were much more casual and informal. Every old boy attending AGM was entitled to vote and be nominated, membership fees can be paid retrospectively upon directorship. Voting in AGM has conventionally been held as show-of-hands, so everyone can see the votes, no cheating. Now, as most of these applicants are outside Toronto, any local members are entitled to receive proxies from them and vote on their behalf. In addition, our membership database, maintained since the beginning of the chapter in the 80s, comprises a lot of inactive members, i.e. have not attended events for a long time, and perhaps have little information to verify. As a result, the number of proxies can significantly outnumber attending old boys’ vote.
Who can we rely on for impartiality, as far as membership rights, ballots and potential misuse of proxies, etc are concerned?
While a lot of you have voted for me before (and I sincerely thank you), no presidency is intended to be forever. But this time it is not only about me. What precedent does this incident set for other local chapter matters across North America and beyond?
What now?
To date, little consensus has been reached within the Board on the unprecedented matters above. And a number of us have full time work, we are simply unable to attend a call for a meeting by Peter Chan (72) and Michael Chow (89) on a weekday at 9am. We are tired of arguing. Having said that, I am still working with directors who share my vision to explore solutions, including consultation with impartial third parties. I will keep you informed as the situation develops.
The Board will meet on May 1; while I do not intend to change the AGM date, should there be a change of AGM date as a result of the Board meeting, it will be re-noticed in accordance with the bylaw.
Feel free to share your thoughts with other old boys. Your voice matters.
This message represents my personal observations as the outgoing President and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of other directors.
Yours truly,
Kevin Kwok (88)
Outgoing President
Hong Kong La Salle College Old Boys’ Association – Toronto
