______________________________________________ Puerto Peñasco, Sonora, Mexico; December 20th, 2007
Resolution number: BPWI 080/2007
Resolution date: October 5, 2007
Act containing the resolution:
“Change in condition of affiliation of BPW Mexico” among others.
Issuer: President of BPW International 2005-2008.
Issue: Appeal and/or retort
Honorable International Federation of Business
and Professional Women (BPW International)
By means of its Board of Directors,
President Dr. Chonchanok Viravan
and the respectable Executive Committee of BPW International,
I, GUADALUPE VIRGINIA MORALES GASTELUM DE CUADRAS, in my role as current President of the Federation of Professional and Business Women of Mexico, A.C. (heretofore BPW Mexico), as well as GUADALUPE VIRGINIA MORALES GASTELUM DE CUADRAS, President; Atty. MARÍA ESTHER OZUNA GUTIÉRREZ, First Vicepresident; Public Accountant MARÍA PATRICIA GONZÁLEZ DE SERRANO, Second Vicepresident; Psychologist GRACIELA ROJAS DE MARTÍNEZ, Secretary of Minutes; Professor NORMA HAYDEE VEGA QUIJADA DE SANGER, Correspondence Secretary; GLORIA MA. ARIAS ARBALLO, Assistant Correspondence Secretary; Public Accountant ALMA LORENIA REYNA MARTINEZ DE MORALES, Treasurer, and Mrs. BERTHA JARAMILLO DE RAMÍREZ, Assistant treasurer, in our roles as members of the Executive Committee of BPW Mexico, pursuant to the act of assembly dated August 5 (fifth) of 2006 (two thousand six), held in the city of Ensenada, Baja California, formalized under public deed number 6,960 (six thousand nine hundred sixty), volume 110 (one hundred ten), dated October 18 (eighteenth) of 2006 (two thousand six), attested to by Attorney OSVALDO RENÉ ORTEGA FELIZ, Notary Public number 42, with practice and residence in the city of Puerto Peñasco, Sonora, duly recorded in the Public Registry of Property and Commerce in this same city under number 235 (two hundred thirty five), volume 21 (twenty one), Corporation registry section, book one, dated January 3 (third) of 2007 (two thousand seven), copy of which is added hereunder as Annexation 1, with all the faculties as indicated in articles 32 and 33 of the internal statutes of BPW Mexico, affiliated and with valid membership and recognized by BPW International, with due respect and diligence, direct ourselves to you to set forth the following:
(I)
Appeal/report interposed:
Page number: 1BPW México
______________________________________________ Page number: 2
By means of the present document, and given the legal uncertainty that resolution BPWI 080/2007, dated October 5 (fifth) of 2007 (two thousand seven) – heretofore the Resolution – has left with BPW Mexico, with foundation on section 10 (ten), of article IV (Roman numeral four), of the Statutes of the International Federation of Women Business Professionals, Version XXV1 (heretofore the Constitution) 2, we hereby formally present an appeal and/or retort against the Resolution, based on the following background of facts and grievances.
Why is their legal uncertainty concerning the Resolution?
Primarily because it intends to sanction BPW Mexico with “sanctions”, noting the redundancy, which are not foreseen either in the Constitution or the Bylaws of BPW International, as following a comprehensive review of the same there were no sanctions found corresponding to:
(i) “removal of affiliation”,
(ii) that derived from the removal of the condition of affiliation “prohibition of the use of the name BPW and logo” 3
(iii) that derived from the removal of the condition “suspension of correspondence between BPW International and BPW Mexico,” and
(iv) that derived from the removal of the condition, the “barring of those responsible for BPW Mexico from holding any role within BPW International.”
Given said legal uncertainty and unconstitutional action of the President4 of BPW International, BPW Mexico is unable to accurately address the corresponding resolution, pursuant to the Constitution and the Bylaws to which BPW International should hold to.
(II)
Background of facts and grievances:
1 Sole foundation of the Constitution which appears to be applicable.
2 Sole foundation of the Constitution which appears to be applicable.
3 Rather, said sanction fits within that stipulated in Section 11, of Article IV, of the Constitution, concerning the “abrogation of membership”.
4 It would appear that the President of BPW International made the decision and issued the Resolution set forth in the document, though within the text this is never stated, as signed by the Executive Board (which in fact is not clear if such refers to the Board of Directors, or rather the Executive Committee of BPW International), nor does such accredit the votes of the “voting college”, nor as to whether said vote took place. BPW México ______________________________________________
1st.- On October 5 (fifth) of 2007 (two thousand seven), BPW Mexico, by means of its President received the Resolution, same which is added hereunder as Annexation 2, which textually determined the following:
PRIOR NOTE: The use of bold letters that may be used on some words or phrases in the following transcript is for the effect of stressing parts considered to be significant within the document, without the intent of affirming that the entire document is not important, which to the contrary it is.
October 5 2007
BPW México
Blvd. Benito Juárez, No. 133,
MX-83550 Puerto Peñasco,
Sonora, México
Issue: Change in the condition of BPW Mexico affiliation.
Dear President of BPW Mexico, Virgina Morales de Cuadras,
In our last official letter to BPW Mexico, dated August 19, 2007, we urged that BPW Mexico respect the individual rights of members of BPW Mexico wishing to attend the BPW International Congress or that wished to help, on their own will, BPW International in the organization of the XXVI International Congress.
Sadly, members of the Executive Board of BPW International continue to receive complaints and statements and have also been personal witnesses where members of BPW Mexico have been threatened with expulsion if they were to help BPW International in organization of the Congress in Mexico City or if they refused to sign a letter stating that the Congress should be held in Merida.
These recent complaints are added to a collection of complaints that BPW International has received since 2004 from clubs and members of BPW Mexico with respect to unjustified expulsions, sanctions and threats of expulsion. Despite the advice and mediation of past international Presidents and the current International President, these practices continue to persist. The Executive of BPW International has known and/or has been witness to victims of expulsion including that of a former national president, a former candidate for the national presidency
Page number: 3BPW México ______________________________________________
and members of the first Host Planning Committee for the Merida Congress; [furthermore] cases of sanctions/expulsion and threats of expulsion have included members that have reported or expressed their opinions concerning the manner in which BPW Mexico has been managed. BPW International has also received statements from clubs and members that decided to resign or implicitly abandon their membership in ceasing to pay their dues.
BPW Mexico could state that these sanctions of expulsions and threats of expulsion are legitimate with respect to the Constitution of BPW Mexico, which through its “Board of Conduct and Justice” gives BPW Mexico the power to sanction or expel members from BPW Mexico that “do not agree.” Nevertheless, the Executive Committee of BPW International finds that these actions go against the inherent philosophy of BPW International, and go against the constitution of BPW International. The International Executive [Board] finds that these actions and other recent actions of BPW Mexico are detrimental to BPW International.
In order to protect the rights of each member of BPW Mexico, in order to protect the reputation of BPW International and in order to end this unconstitutional conduct of the National Federation of BPW Mexico, the Executive Board of BPW International has voted to remove the condition of Federal affiliation of BPW Mexico.
Therefore you are informed that as of October 5, 2007, the condition of Federation of BPW Mexico shall be removed from you (sic) and well as any and all privileges that BPW had, including, but not limited to, the use of the name and logo of BPW shall be revoked. The members of the executive committee of BPW Mexico involved in this ill conduct shall be barred from holding any position in BPW International. Any correspondence of BPW International with BPW Mexico, as it is currently known, shall cease.
This action is not an abrogation. Therefore, all of the BPW clubs in Mexico shall be granted, if they so wish, the condition of associate club of BPW International. In order to achieve this, any interested club must meet the basic requirements of an associate club of BPW International.
Page number: 4BPW México ______________________________________________
2nd.- Following an analysis of the aforementioned document – the Resolution – we state that there are diverse situations which we consider do not adhere to the Constitution nor to the same Bylaws to which BPW International must respect, obey and submit to.
Firstly, there should be consideration and appreciation for the terms used in the Resolution, such as:
“unjustified expulsions”,
“sanctions” and
“threats of expulsion”
Concerning the first two terms, it is important to mention that the statutes of BPW Mexico, in order to be valid were previously approved by BPW International, pursuant to article IV, section 8 of the Constitution; or rather, the validity and effectiveness of our statutes are and were backed by prior approval of BPW International.
Therefore, in adherence to the legal framework that governs us, if the individuals you mentioned were object of said actions on behalf of BPW Mexico, in such a case those possibly affected may take the steps as contained in the Statutes of our organization in order to address such and defend themselves.
If the application of the legal framework that governs us is detrimental to BPW International, there would be no reason for its existence or for the independence and status of each federation, nor its freedom to apply regulations.
Concerning the third of the terms, “threats of expulsion”; it is inconceivable and sad that a resolution of such magnitude could be taken – the Resolution – based on hearsay and ramblings without any statutory support or investigation to confirm such. I believe that damage to BPW International would stem not from the actions imputed to BPW Mexico, but rather by the actions now taken against us, which, in addition to being unjustified, are beyond the legal framework that governs this Honorable International Federation, as is done here and shall be noted.
Hereunder are comments concerning specific parts of the Resolution, under the following terms:
1st part:
“5 October 2007
BPW México
Blvd. Benito Juárez, No. 133,
MX-83550 Puerto Peñasco,
Sonora, México
Page number: 5BPW México ______________________________________________ Page number: 6
5 The uncertainty is clarified in virtue that the body appearing in the document states to be the “Executive Board”, nevertheless neither the Constitution nor the Bylaws set forth a body under this name, therefore it could be the “Executive Committee” or rather the “Board of Directors.” It appears a hybrid term was made, taking one word from each of the collegiate bodies causing legal uncertainty as to whom supposedly issued the Resolution; the foregoing, without considering that such had been done. I remit to that set forth in the footnote on the foregoing page.
Issue: Change in the condition of BPW Mexico affiliation.
In relation to this first part, it must be stated that within the body of the Constitution and the Bylaws of BPW International, in no part does there appear a sanction that authorizes the Executive Committee and/or the President of this International Federation and/or the Board of Directors, to impose said measure against any Federation member, who are the bodies that make up such.
In fact, with respect to the Executive Committee or the Board of Directors5 of BPW International, who adjudicates along with the President in issuing the Resolution, only the former has the faculties to set sanctions pursuant to subsections a) and b) of section 7, of article IV of the Bylaws, to which we fully remit as if hereby reproduced, and that as can be seen, none of which set forth that it has the faculties to “change the condition of affiliation of any federation member” as is intended against us.
The former in itself is a clear violation of the Constitution as well as the Bylaws that regulate the function of BPW International on behalf of its President or by whomever issued the Resolution, motive for which I ask that the Resolution be revoked and that things remain in the same state they were prior to its issue.
Continuing:
2nd part:
“BPW Mexico could state that these sanctions of expulsions and threats of expulsion are legitimate with respect to the Constitution of BPW Mexico, which through its “Board of Conduct and Justice” gives BPW Mexico the power to sanction or expel members from BPW Mexico that “do not agree.” Nevertheless, the Executive Committee of BPW International finds that these actions go against the inherent philosophy of BPW International, and go against the constitution of BPW International. The International Executive [Board] finds that these actions and other recent actions of BPW Mexico are detrimental to BPW International.”
Concerning this paragraph located in the final part of the first page of the Resolution, once again it is important to mention that the statutes of BPW Mexico, in order to be valid, were approved previously by BPW International, pursuant to BPW México ______________________________________________
article IV, Section 8 of the Constitution; or rather, the validity and effectiveness of our statutes are and were backed through prior approval of BPW International.
Therefore, in adherence to the framework that governs us, if the individuals you state were object of said actions on behalf of BPW Mexico, if such occurred, those possibly affected may take the steps contained within the Statutes of our organization to address these and defend themselves.
If the application of the legal framework which governs us were to discredit BPW International, there would be no reason for its existence or for the independence and status of each Federation, nor the liberty to apply regulations.
Concerning the “threats of expulsion”; it is inconceivable and sad that a resolution of such magnitude could be taken – the Resolution – based on hearsay and ramblings without any statutory support or investigation to confirm such. I believe that damage to BPW International would stem not from the actions imputed to BPW Mexico, but rather by the actions now taken against us, which, in addition to being unjustified, are beyond the legal framework that governs this Honorable International Federation, as is done here and shall be noted.
3rd part:
Concerning the first paragraph of the second page of the Resolution:
In order to protect the rights of each member of BPW Mexico, in order to protect the reputation of BPW International and in order to end this unconstitutional conduct of the National Federation of BPW Mexico, the Executive Board of BPW International has voted to remove the condition of Federal affiliation of BPW Mexico.
Concerning the faculties of the Executive Board in issuing the Resolution and the type of sanction imposed on BPW Mexico, we fully remit to that set forth in the 1st Part of the present comments, as if reinserted herein.
With respect to the faculty to [impose the] sanction to “remove the condition of Federal affiliation of BPW Mexico” we remit to that set forth in the 1st part of the present document.
In addition, in the first line of the paragraph in question it states: “In order to protect the rights of each member of BPW Mexico,...”, attention is drawn that the rights of BPW Mexico are in effect, and given that the issue of the Resolution is to “protect rights”; or rather, without accepting the validation of this resolution, BPW International contradicts itself within the same, in intending to protect the rights of BPW Mexico and subsequently taking them away in the same document.
Page number: 7BPW México ______________________________________________ Page number: 8
6 See section 11, article IV, of the Constitution.
4th part:
“Therefore you are informed that as of October 5, 2007, the condition of Federation of BPW Mexico shall be removed from you (sic) and any and all privileges that BPW had, including, but not limited to, the use of the name and logo of BPW shall be revoked. The members of the executive committee of BPW Mexico involved in this ill conduct shall be barred from holding any position in BPW International. Any correspondence of BPW International with BPW Mexico, as it is currently known, shall cease.
From the foregoing text of the Resolution, it is seen that as of October 5, 2007, BPW Mexico will be bound to:
The removal of its condition as Federation and any of the privileges that BPW had;
Revoking the right to use the name and logo of BPW6;
Barring the members of the Executive Committee of BPW Mexico involved in the ill conduct, from holding any post within BPW International, and
Suspension of correspondence between BPW International and BPW Mexico.
Concerning the subsection a. “removal of condition of Federation,” we remit to that set forth in the 1st part of the present document.
Concerning: “...and any and all of the privileges that BPW had”, let me state that it appears that we are faced not with the removal of a condition as intended, which furthermore is not contemplated either in the Constitution nor in the Bylaws of BPW International, but rather an ABROGATION of the Federation of BPW Mexico.
To begin with, as a synonym for removal we have “separation,” “elimination,” destitution,” “exclusion,” “expulsion,” [and] “subtraction”
In accordance to this, BPW Mexico was object of a “separation,” “elimination,” “destitution,” “exclusion,” “expulsion,” “subtraction” from BPW International; or rather, upon excluding it, expelling it, subtracting it, removing it, it ceases to form part of BPW International, and in ceasing to form part of the same there does not exist any recognition as such and therefore in not being recognized means that its state has been invalidated, revoked, cancelled, abolished, eliminated, and all other terms that are synonymous with abrogate. BPW México ______________________________________________
While it is true the sanction was named, though is inexistent both in the Constitution as in the Bylaws, as removal of condition of Federation, by which the President of BPW International really intended to “abrogate” BPW Mexico, upon taking away all the privileges that it had held, use of the name of BPW and logo, and the suspension of correspondence between both Federations.
The foregoing arises from the content of Article IV, section 10, subsection b) of the Constitution, which states:
ARTICLE IV
Membership
…
Section 10.
…
The Board of Directors shall have the right to abrogate the membership of any affiliate if a complaint has been made to the Executive Committee concerning the ill conduct related to the affairs of BPW International by this Affiliate and an allegation is made that the Affiliate is acting in a manner that may give a bad reputation to BPW International. The Executive Committee shall give said Affiliate three months notice from the moment of receiving the complaint or allegation in order to allow the Affiliate the right to reply in writing or in person prior to reaching the decision to abolish membership.
Why do we state that the Resolution is or intends to be an abrogation, and not a removal of the condition of affiliation?
Firstly, because the removal of the condition of affiliation as Federation does not exist as a sanction either in the Statutes or in the Bylaws of BPW International.
Furthermore, we see that the reasons given by the President of BPW International were precisely the causes foreseen in the transcribed mechanism, same which are mentioned in the first and second paragraph of page two of the Resolution, which are hereby transcribed:
In order to protect the rights of each member of BPW Mexico, in order to protect the reputation of BPW International and in order to end this
Page number: 9BPW México ______________________________________________ Page number: 10
7 Or rather, membership is abolished.
unconstitutional conduct of the National Federation of BPW Mexico, the Executive Board of BPW International has voted to remove the condition of Federal affiliation of BPW Mexico.
The first paragraph transcribed above speaks to protecting the reputation of BPW International, while the article cited above foresees: “The Board of Directors shall have the right to abrogate membership of any affiliate if... the affiliate is acting in a manner that could bring about a bad reputation of BPW International.”
As can be seen, we are faced with the abrogation of membership, although it states to be to the contrary and is named otherwise. In such case, the only authority to do such is the Board of Directors, and with the right of rebuttal provided to the federation on behalf of the Executive Committee of BPW International.
With regards to subsection b), “revocation of the right to use the name and logo of BPW.”
Said sanction is foreseen solely in section 11, article IV, of the Constitution, same which is intimately related to the faculty of abrogation on behalf of the Board of Directors, which literally states:
ARTICLE IV
Membership
…
Section 11. Any member of BPW International including any Federation, State Federation, Associated Club or Individual Associate or General Member shall cease to be a member and an organization shall cease to use the name of BPW in their title, immediately upon the suspension of membership with BPW International whatever the reason may be. BPW International shall be the sole arbitrator as to who may be a member in any form.
Once again the question arises: Why do we state that the Resolution is or intends to be an abrogation, and not a removal of the condition of affiliation?
Because one of the sanctions imposed on BPW Mexico, was that of revoking the right to use the name of BPW and obviously therefore its logo. The foregoing sanction may only occur when the affiliate ceases to be a member7 of BPW BPW México ______________________________________________
International. The foregoing as can be seen, fits within the sanctions of which the Board of Directors has the faculty to impose in abrogating membership (See subsection b), section 10, article IV, of the Constitution).
Therefore, independently as to how the Resolution has been titled, pursuant to the foregoing we are faced with sanctions that are imposed once an affiliate has been abrogated; nevertheless, [these were] issued by a person without said faculties and moreover in failing to follow the legal procedure indicated to such effect.
Therefore, without conceding that the Resolution had been duly founded on the motives to issue it, we see that the only one authorized to do such is the Board of Directors, not the President nor the Executive Committee of BPW International. Given the foregoing, the content of the Resolution should be revoked. It should not be looked over that prior to the abrogation of membership, a procedure should take place providing the right of rebuttal for whomever the complaint has been lodged. (See article IV, section 11, of the Constitution).
In light of all the foregoing, the question arises: Who is it that is committing these unconstitutional acts? What stand does BPW International intend to take with such actions?
Continuing with the outline and study of the second to last paragraph of the second page of the Resolution, I set forth:
Concerning subsections c) and d), “The barring of the members of the executive committee of BPW Mexico involved in ill conduct from holding any position within BPW International,” and “the suspension of correspondence between BPW International and BPW Mexico,” illegality of which is derived from [the fact] that these are not sanctions stipulated either in the Constitution or in the Bylaws of BPW International, therefore those invented sanctions cannot exist, rather only those previously authorized for such.
The Executive Committee, pursuant to subsections a) and b) of section 7, article IV, of the Bylaws of BPW International, previously subjected to the approval of the Board of Directors, shall have the power to dismiss any member of the Executive Committee, President of a Permanent Committee, President of an Ad Hoc Committee, person of any Special Committee or members of said committees from any role, but never that of members of Federations.
In addition to not having the faculty to bar members from the type of Federation to which I belong from holding a role within BPW International, the faculties that you have to dismiss do not apply to BPW Mexico.
5th part:
This action is not an abrogation. Therefore, all of the BPW clubs in Mexico shall be granted, if they so wish, the condition of associate club of BPW
Page number: 11BPW México ______________________________________________
International. In order to achieve this, any interested club must meet the basic requirements of an associate club of BPW International.
With respect to the comment that this is not an abrogation, we remit to that set forth in the 4th part, concerning the arguments that denote that such intends to be an abrogation.
The last part of the aforementioned paragraph, mentions that: “...all of the BPW clubs in Mexico shall be granted, if they so wish, the condition of associate club of BPW International. In order to achieve this, any interested club must meet the basic requirements of an associate club of BPW International.”
In a contradictory manner, it intends to remove the condition of Federation affiliation – which is nothing more than the abrogation of membership of BPW Mexico – according to the criteria respectfully set forth herein, while, on the other side recognizing the clubs that conform. The recognition of all the clubs means just that, all of them. Nevertheless, pursuant to Section 4, article IV, of the Constitution, Associate Clubs are defined as follows:
ARTICLE IV
Membership
…
Section 4. Associate Clubs. A club whose membership is at least 75 per cent business women and professionals or both and where there is no affiliated Federation in the country or state, or where within the province or entity there does not exist a Federation State, there may be an Associate Club provided that there are no more than 4 other Associate Clubs in said country, state province or entity.
Therefore, intending to recognize the status of Associate Clubs first implies that in Mexico there is no affiliated Federation, which reiterates the reasons set forth in the content of the Resolution noting its intent to be an abrogation of our membership. Thus the content of the Resolution may not be qualified in any other manner, if it is contextually interpreted within the legal framework set forth in the Constitution.
In addition to such, it is worth mentioning that in recognizing the clubs that are part of BPW Mexico, implicitly recognizes the existence of the same, as this is made up by these clubs; or rather, the Resolution has too many contradictions and its technical drafting and application of the Constitution and of the Bylaws leaves much to be desired, without discarding the aberrant level of unconstitutionality
Page number: 12BPW México ______________________________________________
which permeates it in firstly inventing sanctions that do not exist, and secondly intending to impose sanctions and attribute faculties that correspond to the Board of Directors, all under the same heading of the Resolution (see 1st part).
Furthermore, declaring in the Resolution that ...all of the BPW clubs in Mexico shall be granted, if they so wish, the condition of associate club of BPW International, is in clear violation and contradictory to the content of section 4, written above, that states that “...provided that there are no more than 4 other Associate Clubs in said country...,” and in the particular case in Mexico there exist nearly 32 (thirty two) clubs, therefore constitutionally the affiliation of all of them [as associate clubs] would be impossible, as the indicated document intends to affirm.
Uncertainty concerning the type of resources to present in order to combat the Resolution.
Lastly, I would like to mention that it is not clear nor truthfully known what name exactly to give to the present document, in virtue that it is addressing an act that contains sanctions that to begin with do not exist, issued by someone without faculties for such, as it is not known exactly who issued it along with the President, which leads us to believe that it cannot be addressed by any measure that does not exist within the Constitution and the Bylaws of BPW International.
Furthermore, if the cited act refers precisely to the intended abrogation of the membership of BPW Mexico, same which in accordance to the analysis set forth in the present document, both from the content of the Resolution in relation to the Constitution and the Bylaws, we are lead to the conclusion that we are confronted with an appeal, and the Resolution must cease to have any effect based on the unconstitutionality with which it was issued, in clear and eminent harm to BPW Mexico and consequently to BPW International and the entire community of the latter affiliate, for each and every one of the arguments set forth in the present document.
Within the Constitution there exists a similar figure that is intended to be applied in the last paragraph of the Resolution, nevertheless, it is not applicable to the case in question. This figure consists of the suspension of a Federation.
ARTICLE IV
Membership
…
Section 2.
a)…
b)…
Page number: 13BPW México ______________________________________________
c) If the totality of the members of a Federation were less than 100 then the Federation shall be suspended from BPW International until the number of members were to increase to 100 or more and the clubs that form part of the Federation shall be Associate Clubs.
In this case, the suspension of the Federation is addressed, but concerning a very particular case which is not the matter at hand, therefore, it could not be considered that we are confronting such because it is not so. The suspension is something temporary, until certain specific conditions are met, with the lifting of the suspension and return of such to the state of a normal affiliate member.
Therefore, there does not exist in the Constitution nor in the Bylaws, foundation and reasons to issue the Resolution under the terms in which it was done.
Finally, it is important to mention that the Resolution is signed solely by the current President of BPW International, Dr. CHONCHANOK VIRAVAN, not by the members of the Executive Committee, nor by the members of the Board of Directors, although it is assumed this was a resolution taken by the Executive Board.
Does the Executive Board refer to the Executive Committee or Board of Directors?
Even in noting the collegiate body there is uncertainty.
With the foregoing, it is important to mention that the President alone does not have the faculty to issue The Resolution, and among those that may issue such is the Executive Committee yet this is not at issue; furthermore, there is no note of the process of quorum nor of voting as provided in Section 4, 5, and 6 of Article XIII, of the Bylaws of BPW International; with respect to the Board of Directors, article XI, section 2 and 3, of the Constitution in relation to section 1, of article IV, of the Bylaws, it is clear that this Board shall meet immediately prior and immediately after in the same place of the Congress, therefore it can be deduced that the Resolution was issued solely by the President, and in the event it was approved and voted upon by the Executive Committee, it cannot be seen that the statutory or regulatory process provided for such was followed, and it is assured it was not issued by the Board of Directors, in virtue that the date has not come for this to meet.
With foundation on Section 11, of article IV, of the Constitution, I ask that BPW International, as the sole permissible arbitrator legally authorized to do such, respond to the question of: Does BPW Mexico conserve its affiliation and membership within BPW International?
With respect to the foregoing question, the following is stated with full respect, I ask that the response granted to BPW Mexico be considered with basis on the present document, in its entire context and the harmonious interpretation of the Constitution as well as the Bylaws of BPW International.
Page number: 14BPW México ______________________________________________
A copy of the present document shall be sent to the office of International Human Rights and to representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of the Organization of the United Nations, in order to inform them of such.
For all that set forth above and founded on the Constitution and the Bylaws that govern BPW International, I sincerely and respectfully request:
Sole request: To acknowledge the present document we have presented and invalidate the Resolution due to its lack of legality and minimum validity for its existence, agreeing with all that requested, consequently confirming the full recognition of BPW Mexico as a Federation member of BPW International, and therefore, each and every one of the legal consequences thereof pursuant to the legal statutes that govern us.
Sincerely
Puerto Peñasco, Sonora; December 20th, 2007
President of BPW México
AND THE SIGNATURE OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITEE
|