Observations on the documents and discussions about 

the Amendment of art 13.2 of the AMASC Statutes 

 

 

1. The proposal for the amendment of article 13.2 of the Statutes has been sent to the 
Chairwoman of AMASC by Cristina Castro, national president of Colombia on Dec. 
7th, 2009, at the occasion of the nominations of herself and three other candidates for 
the AMASC Board. One of these three is Ana Drisaldi, nominated for Deputy 
Chairwoman. As Ana had already served two full terms on the Board of AMASC she 
could only be re-elected if article 12.3 were changed as proposed. 


2. In the Statutes art. 31.1 is written by whom and how proposals for amendment of the 
Statutes should come about. One of them being that the Board proposes an 
amendment, the other that 2/3 of the members propose an amendment. As the 
agenda for the General Meeting (G.M.) had to be sent out before January 7th, 2010 it 
would have been impossible for Cristina Castro to procure a support of 2/3 of the 
members of AMASC in time. 


3. the Administrative Office( Adm. Off.), wanting to accommodate the possibility of the 
nomination of the Colombian team, decided to propose to the Board of AMASC to 
take over this proposal so that it could be put on the agenda of the G.M.. And, as has 
been done in years past the Chairwoman of AMASC consulted with the Board 
members by email, fully informing them about the proposal of the amendment and of 
the proposal to be taken on by the Board and consequently put it on the Agenda of 
the G. M. and she asked for their votes. The Board voted 10 to 4 in favour and so the 
subject was put on the Agenda. 


The members of the Ad. Off. also took into consideration that, once the amendment 
had been accepted, also the election of Ana Drisaldi might go through. It is generally 
accepted in many legal systems that even though an amendment of Statues has not 
been published in official registers an Association may act upon the new article(s) in 
Statutes immediately after they have properly been accepted in their organization. So 
the nomination of Ana Drisaldi, being conditionally until the Statutes have been 
changed, becomes legitimate at the moment this amendment has been accepted. Legal 
advice from several sides confirmed this, the opinion of the Adm. Off. 


4. Kathleen Dor, as co-opted member of the Board, wrote to our Chairwoman that what 
we were doing was in violation of Belgian Law. She, Kathleen Dor was then asked to 
procure us with the specific law and articles in that law. 


5. Around New Years’ Eve members of the Adm. Off. were approached by both 
Kathleen Dor and Jacqueline de Montjoye , who had on their own initiative, 
consulted with Mme Gilberte Raucq, public notary in Brussels. Mme Raucq has, in 
the past, taken care of the putting together of the AMASC statutes between 1998 and 
2000 and the changes in these Statutes in 2005. Again the Adm. Off. members were 
advised to desist from putting the subject on the agenda of the G. M. as serious legal 
mistakes were made. The threat was even uttered that we would endanger the legal 
status of AMASC. But no legal proof was received. 


6. As time was running out the Adm. Off. decided to put the subject on the Agenda of 
the G.M. with a proviso, so that it could always be withdrawn. 


7. On January 6th, 2010 a letter from the Belgian ANASC to the Board of AMASC was 
received in which under I, among others, serious reproaches to the Administrative 
Office were uttered. It, the Adm. Off., so the letter, had with superficiality ( légèreté) 
stubbornly sustained in putting the subject on the Agenda……etcetera. And then the 
members of the Board were warned ‘against the dangers which could seriously 





damage the future of AMASC AISBL registered in Brussels….’etcetera . Further on in 
this letter, - the full text of the letter as of other documents cited in this note is 
available -, the Board members were again confronted with possible risks of legal 
actions ( against AMASC , jkv) if the Statutes in force were not followed. 


And finally in the letter it says that the consultation of the Board, done by email in 
December 2009, was not a proper meeting of the Board. 


8. After more ample considerations the Adm. Off. decided mid- January to invite Mme 
Raucq with Kathleen Dor and Jacqueline de Montjoye to come to the meeting of the 
Adm. Off, to be held in Brussels on Feb 2-3, 2010, in order to clarify their objections. 
They were also asked to send us beforehand the specific law and articles of the 
Belgian laws so that the Adm. Off. could be prepared for this meeting. They were told 
that at the meeting this documentation would be brought along. 


9. The above mentioned meeting took place, the main discussion was about the fact that 
AMASC had made a mistake in procedure. The Agenda of a General Meeting should 
always be decided upon in a properly convened meeting of the Board. By consulting 
the Board by email without convening a – virtual – meeting it was not within legality 
to put this subject on the Agenda of the G.M. At the remark from one of the members 
of the Adm. Off. that consequently the whole Agenda of the G.M. was not valid, as it 
had been drawn up by the Adm. Off., as has been done in AMASC since its’ 
foundation the answer was that that was alright as it was tradition in AMASC to do it 
like this, but that that could not be the case for a proposal for the amendment of the 
Statutes. The suggestion of one of the members of the Adm. Off. that this mistake in 
procedure could be mended at the Board Meeting scheduled for April 6th in Malta 
was waved away. 


Furthermore it was stated by Mme Raucq, as already mentioned in the letter of the 
Belgian Association, the General Meeting could not take into account any amendment 
having been accepted in the same General Meeting as the amendment would have 
been voted on. This amendment should first be published in the Moniteur Belge 
before AMASC were allowed to act upon the new statutes. 


10. After this meeting the Adm. Off. deliberated and with much regret decided to 
withdraw the subject from the Agenda of the G.M. , keeping in mind that there was a 
proviso made about the subject at the sending out of the Agenda. Draft letters were 
sent to Mme Raucq that same day as she had offered to look at them. The Board was 
informed about the decision; the letter for the members of AMASC was delayed as 
there were uncertainties in the comments of Mme Raucq. Finally Mme Raucq sent a 
note in which she then gave as her opinion that the subject should not be removed 
from the agenda, as the agenda had been sent out and that it was up to the members 
at the General Meeting to come to the conclusion that they could not deliberate or 
vote upon the subject. 


11. Meanwhile two second opinions had been received by the Adm. Off., Both confirmed 
the opinion of the Adm. Off. uttered at the meeting on Feb. 2nd, that the mistake in 
procedure could be formally repaired at the Board Meeting of April 6th and also that 
in the same G. M. where the amendment would be accepted the members could take 
decisions, hold elections, under the new article 13.2. It would go too far in this note 
to cite the full advice, but the text of the advice of Mr. van Cauwenberghe is available. 


12. And so our Chairwoman came to the decision to maintain the subject on the Agenda 
of the G.M. and thus allow the members of AMASC to deliberate and eventually vote 
on the proposal of the amendment on April 7th, 2010. 




 

Jkv March 30,2010