SUO: Disclosure
Dear Mr. Eastman:
No, you have not answered my question, which was quite specific and
factually oriented: whether amidst all the excellent documents to which
you referred there are guidelines for voluntary disclosure by chairmen of
IEEE standards groups that would help those operating under a 501(c)(3)
charitable discipline, including the IEEE itself, to ascertain that the
group is not conducted for private advantage. This is a factual question
with a yes or no answer. I would appreciate a factual reply based on the
content of the documents to which you have referred.
If this point is not addressed in the documents, but if the IEEE has
reviewed and updated its procedures for compliance with 501(c)(3)
standards and has a legal opinion to that effect, the legal opinion or
other evidence of an internal review and changes should suffice for my
purpose. I gather that many of the careful standards procedures to which
you refer were drafted before there was any problem with charitable--
(c)(3)-- versus business league -- (c)(6)-- forms of organization, so that
it is, again, a specific and factual question whether and when the IEEE
has updated its standards procedures to comply with the law on charitable
organizations.
I would respectfully remind you that the openness of the groups, however
admirable it may be, is irrelevant to the charitable integrity of the work
unless the openness extends to disclosure relevant to the issue of private
inurement, including inurement to a given firm, consortium of firms or
some area of for-profit business activity per se. Nor do the voluntary
character of the groups or the the well worked out IEEE regulations on
patent and copyright provide sufficient guarantee of the charitable
character of the work. For example, a business league or grass roots
social action group or political party may be openly conducted, may be
based on volunteer work, and may put all publication in the public domain
and yet not qualify as a tax-deductible charitable activity.
The technical issue, which as I understand it is now recognized by IEEE in
its own legal organization of standards work, is between a consortium of
private interests, which may conduct tax-exempt (but not tax-deductible)
standards activity for a collective business interest as a business league
under a 501(c)(6) rubric, and a 501(c)(3) charitable rubric, where a
larger public interest beyond the collective interests of the participants
must be served at all times and by design, rather than as an indirect or
optional consequence of the work. Certain IEEE standards work is, as I
understand it, still conducted under a (c)(6) rubric, because it is tipped
in the direction of a consortium of private firms; indeed, I was of the
view initially, as were some people quite experienced in IEEE standards
work (yourself perhaps included?), that the SUO was under a (c)(6),
business league rubric. Some of this misunderstanding derived from IEEE's
own web-based (and perhaps outdated) information. I have been reliably
informed by Judy Gorman of IEEE-- though not yet in writing with the legal
specifics-- that SUO is definitely under the discipline of the laws and
regulations relating to 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organizations.
I should mention that in raising this issue, which has a direct bearing on
the terms of my own participation, I have encountered the exaggeratedly
defensive view that *any* disclosure guidelines for anyone participating
in any IEEE standards work would open a Pandora's Box of demands for the
complete record of all business interrelations among all members of all
groups. I do not view this rhetoric as a substitute for the careful
thinking required to find those precise points of disclosure that will
provide reasonable assurance of compliance with the law under which IEEE
has chosen to organize this work. I should also perhaps state the
obvious: that disclosure is a minimal act, tied to specific statements of
fact, quite distinct from any judgement about qualification or
disqualification, participation or recusal of those making the
disclosures.
I should also mention that the raising of the disclosure issue is in no
sense unanticipated. It was posed with regard to SUO as early as July of
2000, and has been specifically flagged as an issue that would be raised
again at the appropriate time, before a formal vote on the chairmanship.
Yours very truly,
Josiah Lee Auspitz
Fri, 4 May 2001, Paul Eastman wrote:
> I'm not sure that I understand the nature of your question. Meetings
> are open, membership is open, meeting minutes or e-mail reflector are
> available to the public. IEEE has about a half inch of manuals
> regarding the operation of their sub-organizations. The Computer
> Society (CS) and the SAB similarly have guidelines which I believe are
> all accessable via the web. The SUO should also have it's own
> guidelines. The entire hierarchy of guidelines apply to any work or
> actions by the members. Chair persons are not compensated until they
> are elected to positions with in the IEEE or CS (none below these
> levels) and rely on the support of their current employers.
>
> If I have not answered you question, please ask it again in a more
> specific manner.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Eastman
>
> --
> ==================================================
>
> Paul Eastman
> RF Networks, Inc.
> 10201 N. 21st Avenue, Unit 9
> Phoenix, AZ 85021
> (602) 861-3652
> Fax: (602) 861-0251
>
> "Worrying about what's right is always more
> important than worrying about who's right."
>
> ==================================================
>
>
Josiah Lee Auspitz
17 Chapel Street
Somerville, MA 02144
617-628-6228
fax -9441
email: lee@sabre.org
Please send all attachments in ASCII/Plain Text