SUO: Le't be patient

[jim.s3@juno.com]

Bob,

 

           I have been seeking some clarification on this guidance from IEEE (they are very slow to repond), so please be patient.  In the end, we will follow applicable rules, and if you believe otherwise, you'll be able to appeal this up the chain.

 

        I know you have numerous issues, but the one I feel is most critical is the definition of 'majority.'  I believe (and I'm seeking guidance on this) the Lyle Smith's, IEEE parliamentarian, guidance may be incorrect on this one.  He total ignored the fact that IEEE has over 800 standards working groups, none of which follow this rule.  Other Standards Developing Organizations chartered in New York (including National Committee on Information Technology Standardization. NCITS) also do not follow this rule.  I believe there is a principle in law that if everyone follows one law or rule, and ignores another, it is OK to continue ignoring it.  I have asked the attorney (who supposedly concurred with Lyle's guidance) for his opinion on this, but have not received a response.

 

        I have also asked IEEE standards staff if they plan to direct their other 800 working groups to start following this.  I am awaiting an answer. 

 

        On another point, I agree that where RRO applies, a quorum is required.  I asserted this rule has no meaning in an email letter ballot.  Since you continue to harp on this, please explain how this applies.  Mr. Smith merely said a quorum is required, but did not say this applies to an email ballot. 

 

Jim Schoening

 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:49:50 -0700 Robert Grayson Spillers <skydog@postoffice.pacbell.net> writes:

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

(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

(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.

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.

Bob