Lyle,
I've never heard of counting ABSTAINS in determining a majority.
I'm quite sure nobody does this. Have you run this past the Standards
Association?. Thanks.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: l.m.smith@ieee.org [mailto:l.m.smith@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:39 AM
To: James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
Cc: skydog@postoffice.pacbell.net; j.gorman@ieee.org;
s.tatiner@ieee.org; e.herz@ieee.org; dwyer.robert@dorseylaw.com
Subject: Request for Rules advice.
Mr. Schoening,
I have reviewed your questions with IEEE Legal counsel Robert Dwyer of
Dorsey & Whitney, and Director Emeritus Eric Herz who is commissioned by
the IEEE President to be the liason with governance and legal issues.
Following included in your original text in red are our answers.
In addition, regarding your ruling that the working group is an assembly,
we find that under New York Law an Assembly is a meeting of the members
called for specific reasons, and must be comprised of members. Since
working groups were never intended to be assemblies, and since working
groups contain both members and non-members of IEEE, a working group was
never meant to be and cannot be an assembly.
Since you and Mr. Spillars are asking questions about the same incident, I
am copying each of you on the other's response in an effort to promote a
team approach to colving the problems raised by you both.
These questions have also been discussed with the Standards staff.
Lyle Smith
> Lyle,
>
> I understand you can help me with some rules. I chair P1600.1
> Standard Upper Ontology (SUO) WG, http://suo.ieee.org. Here are the
salient
> facts and postings.
>
> a. SUO WG conducted an email ballot of whether a document should
become a
> base document. The ballot was open for 3-weeks. It passed 17-16, with 9
> ABSTAINS.
Answer: New York Not-for-Profit Law and the IEEE Bylaws state that to pass
a motion
requires a majority of those present, and not a majority of those present
and voting. If 42 voting members were involved, then a majority of 22. was
required for passage of the motion, and therefore the motion failed.
>
> b. I announced the results on Aug 16th, then two people (who had voted
to
> ABSTAIN) said they wanted to change their votes to NO.
Answer: You do not say exactly what was announced, but it should have been
that the
vote failed, due to a lack of a majority.
>
> c. Bob Spillers, a SUO voting member, made a motion to reconsider. It
> arrived at 12:07 AM on 18 Aug, but was sent from a later time zone on Aug
> 17th. I believe RRO says such a motion can only be made on the day or
the
> day after the decision. Question: Was this timely, or is it my judgment?
> I'm inclined to accept this as timely, unless you suggest otherwise.
Answer: The Standards BOG with the specific permission of the IEEE Board of
Directors should
clarify what the timing rules to be ussed by their working committees
should be when voting in different time zones. Were the so called rules of
time zones to be used clearly announced to the members prior to any action
being taken? Further under the concept of fair play and not Robert's Rules,
we believe that a certain amount of flexibility should be used in an effort
to achive an equatible result.>
> d. Bob Spillers originally voted NO. Is he permitted to make a motion
to
> reconsider? If not, does this settles the matter? He claims he can if
SUO
> is considered a 'Standing Committee,' but indicates he can't if SUO is an
> Assembly. When I found his motion out of order, I asserted SUO was an
> Assembly.
Answer: Yes, since he was actually a member of the prevailing, or in this
case the
losing side.
>
> f. He then appealed my ruling to the SUO membership and it was
seconded
> by Lee Auspitz. Can he appeal something like this?
Answer: Yes, any member of a committee may appeal a ruling of the Chair.
> Your timely guidance would be most appreciated.
>
> Jim Schoening
> 732-532-5812
>
Lyle M. Smith
Staff Director - Corporate Activities
732 981-3447