SUO: The SUMO vote passed
At 18:49 2001-09-14 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>
> Jim,
> Aside from the SUMO motion losing the vote (after properly counting the abstains), it also lost because (answers from the IEEE Parliamentarian):
>
> (1) The motion was out of order in declaring a quorum unnecessary.
>
> May the chair declare that a quorum is unnecessary?
> Answer. NO
Bob-
The chair never said that the quorum was unnessary, he said that we already had quorum because he was able to contact a majority (the acknowledgement of receipt of the vote on the motion).
> (2) It was a rules motion and required a two thirds majority vote to succeed.
>
> May the rules on voting or quorums be changed without
> (a) a vote
> (b) a quorum
> (c) a two thirds vote in favor of the change(s)
> `
> Answer. No, no, and no. A quorum is established by law, or by
> Certificate of Incorporation, or in the IEEE Bylaws
It was not a rules motion. Since you are unfamiliar with the standards process, it is normal that a a ballot contain a reminder of the rules. The rules were not part of the motion, but simply a reminder, so just a simple majority will do.
> (3) It is also out of order because the motion changed the existing procedure on what is required to pass (a more general form of (1) above).
>
> Is a motion permitted (in order?) that contains within itself
> changes to the existing procedures on what is required for the
> motion to pass - e.g. declare a quorum unnecessary?
>
> Answer. No, a quorum is always needed.
>
> It is really hard to imagine a more poorly drafted motion. All of these issues were raised at the time. You (with others) drafted this motion, interpreted parliamentary rules within the motion, ruled on your own interpretation of the motion you drafted, ruled against points of order that objected to these blatant errors, incorrectly ruled on the motion to reconsider, refused to submit the question of your ruling to the judgment of the members, sought advice from parliamentary authority and have rejected that advice when it did not suit your purposes. This is more than simple incompetence.
Bob-
You are consistently trying to twist this: again, if you had been involved in any standards activity (or other formal processes where letter ballots are taken), they you might recognize the process and valid and normal. You've be consistently proven wrong on your Robert's interpretations because you don't provide the full context. Likewise with the request to the IEEE Parliamentarian (who turns out to himself to have faulty knowledge of Robert's ... an issue being raised elsewhere within IEEE) was also incomplete reporting of the situation, i.e., you didn't give Lyle the full context.
Regarding the decision-making:
- You weren't on the prevailing side so you can't move to reconsider.
- There is no need to submit the appeal to the judgment of the members when there can only be one reasonable interpretation (==> you aren't in the prevailing side).
- Seeking advice from the IEEE Parliamentarian is only one source. Presumably, Jim would want to get it right, especially having good knowledge from all the other standards activities that the IEEE Parliamentarian is wrong.
A simpler, more honest story is that you (Bob) are playing procedural games for your own benefit.
> Regardless of the outcome of your appeal (?) to the IEEE Board of Governors (Directors?), regarding how abstains are counted,
>
> Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
> This issue is now being raised to the highest authority in IEEE, the Board of Governors. I'll keep the group posted as I get more information.
> The SUMO motion is defective and out of order. It also failed because it did not receive a two thirds majority vote required of a rules motion.
>
> The SUMO motion failed. Let's move on.
The SUMO motion passed and Bob you are dragging this on and being disruptive to this process. You have asked questions in an incomplete manner (not to mention, we've discovered that the IEEE Parliamentarian is not qualified in Robert's, law, or standards), which does not reveal the complete context of the questions at hand. Please stop playing games and participate constructively.
-FF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure