Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: SUO: Chair Ruling on Point of Order

Jim,
See the comments below.

Bob

"Schooling, James R CECIL DCSC4I" wrote:

 Bob,

      The point of order is not accepted because,

      a. RRO applies to in-person meetings.  Since SUO does all its business
via email, we must do our best to interpret and apply RRO.

RGS: Jim, is the "we" the plural, the editorial or the imperial "we"?

IEEE-SA has recently confirmed that it operates under RRO.  One may amend RRO to suit the circumstances (such as email), but only by the RRO procedures for amending the rules.  These are fairly straightforward but do require a quorum and a two thirds majority vote.  I believe this could be achieved but the chair is not permitted to decide for himself what the procedures will be and how they will be applied.

I interpreted
that a quorum does not apply to email letter ballots, and stated so in the
ballot.
RGS:  Yes, you did.  You interpreted the ballot you drafted and now you are ruling on points of order regarding your own interpretation.  Does this seem peculiar in an organization supposedly operated in an open, democratic and transparent manner?

They are numerous violations of RRO in your statement but enough have been pointed out  to show how flawed your "interpretations" are.

The purpose of the quorum rule is to make sure at least half the
members have a chance to vote, but has nothing to do with how many people
actually do cast votes.  In our case, ALL voting members are sent ballots,
plus a concerted effort was made to reach people who did not acknoweldge
receipt of their ballots.  This is the widely accepted interpretation
throughout the standards community.


RGS:  Few standards committees operate exclusively by email - so from that standpoint there is no widely accepted interpretation.  New York and California law governing not-for-profit organizations (e.g. IEEE) have special provisions regarding voting procedures where the members do not vote in face to face meetings.  These provisions are much more strict regarding quorums and required majorities than for votes in face to face meetings.

In a similar vote (i.e. a roll call vote) at a face to face meeting only those who vote are considered - one may vote present (the rough equivalent of abstain) but if one does not vote they are not considered present for purposes of determining the outcome of the vote or if a quorum is present.  In a more general sense being present at a physical meeting indicates a different level of awareness and commitment than receiving a ballot in the mail - either by post or by email.

 
      b. The reference to quorum in the ballot made no attempt to change any
rules, only to interpret existing rules.
RGS:  The only existing rules are RRO.  A motion that address rules is a rules motion.  It requires a quorum and a two thirds majority vote.  Of course in your interpretation the rules are what you decide they are.
 
      c. A point of order must be made at the time of infraction.  You did
raise this issue during motion discussion, but there was no consensus for it
in the SUO P&P subgroup, and it was denied.  As this ballot has been
released, I believe this action is no longer timely.
RGS:  I did raise this issue.  If it was denied in the P&P it would be a ruling by the P&P chair, not the SUO chair.  Since I am the P&P chair, I am quite sure it was not denied.
 
Jim Schoening
Chair, SUO

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Grayson Spillers
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Sent: 8/13/01 2:17 PM
Subject: SUO: Point of Order
 

Jim,
I make the point of order that the motion before the SUO (on the SUMO)
is out of order in that it declares a quorum unnecessary.

Robert's Rules of Order state that

(1) "In the absence of a quorum, any business transacted ... is null and
void."  (Robert' s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) 10th edition
October 2000,  ISBN 0-7382-0307-6 page 336 lines, lines 26 -28).

(2) "The prohibition against transacting business in the absence of a
quorum cannot be waived even by unanimous consent..."  (RONR page 337,
lines 14-16).

Bob

 <<Card for Robert Grayson Spillers>>

begin:vcard 
n:Spillers;Robert Grayson
tel;work:650-851-1135
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:skydog@pacbell.net
fn:Robert Grayson Spillers
end:vcard