| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
It might interest you to note that answers were provided by a group lead by the official IEEE Parliamentarian (whose knowledge and expertise you have demeaned (see below). It also included the IEEE Legal Counsel (not an IEEE employee but a partner in an outside law firm who gave legal advice on New York State's Not-For-Profit law) and a Director Emeritus of IEEE appointed by the IEEE President to handle such questions. Perhaps this group does not have your expertise in "the standards process" but they were asked to rule on questions of parliamentary procedure, law (as it applies to IEEE) and governance of the IEEE - which includes "the standards process".
They have ruled - you don't like the answers.
The clearest statement of the SUMO vote's failure is in response to Jim's question (perhaps he doesn't understand "the standards process" or didn't provide the proper context either). Emphasis added.
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.You will note that this ruling is based on documents that take precedence over Robert's Rules and "the standards process". Perhaps the legal counsel doesn't understand the law or a Director Emeritus doesn't understand the by-laws. Or perhaps you don't.
The operative part of that answer to Jim's question is "the motion failed". It also failed for the reasons in my note.
Let's move on.
Bob
NOTES:
(1) Regarding your demeaning
of the IEEE Parliamentarian's abilities mentioned above, the relevant quotes
(from your note) are
(a) "...we've discovered that the IEEE Parliamentarian is not qualified in Robert's, law, or standards)..."It would be interesting to know who the "we" is in (a) and who determined that the IEEE Parliamentarian has "faulty knowledge" of RRO and who is raising the issue "elsewhere"?
(b) "...IEEE Parliamentarian (who turns out to himself to have faulty knowledge of Robert's...... an issue being raised elsewhere within IEEE)..."
(c) "...the IEEE Parliamentarian is wrong."
(2) You assert "The chair never said that the quorum was unnecessary, he said that we already had quorum because he was able to contact a majority (the acknowledgment of receipt of the vote on the motion)." I quote from the motion "there will be no quorum of votes required for this motion to be determined ".
(3) You assert (emphasis added) "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)."
These are Jim's questions and the IEEE Parliamentarian's answers.
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.At an absolute minimum there seems to be more than one reasonable opinion - unless, of course, your vast experience and expertise in "the standards process" entitles you to have the only reasonable opinion.
Answer: Yes, since he was actually a member of the prevailing, or in this case the losing side.
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.
begin:vcard n:Spillers;Robert Grayson tel;work:650-851-1135 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Spillers Consulting adr:;;136 Bardet Road ;Woodside;California;94062;USA version:2.1 email;internet:skydog@pacbell.net fn:Robert Grayson Spillers end:vcard