| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
The parliamentarian also states in his note to you that "These questions have also been discussed with the Standards staff." In any event, since the parliamentarian, legal counsel and Director Emeritus are staff to the IEEE Board of Directors (the highest policy making body in IEEE) and the parent of the IEEE Standards Association, this is the authoritative source - not the standards staff or "the standards process".
Regarding your novel interpretation of NY Law, I am not an attorney but I think it is sometimes a subject for appeal in criminal cases that the law has not been evenly enforced (denial of due process). I don't believe this rises to that level and I don't think this applies to civil procedure. If "the standards process" has not been following the applicable law it will have to change.
Bob
jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
Bob, you said to Frank Farance,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".
Bob, I have sought and failed to receive verification of whether these other inidividuals concured, or even saw this ruling, or whether they considered the material fact that nobody in the standards business (under NY law) follows this rule. Mr. Smith only repeated that he talked or coordinated with them, which is quite different than formal concurrence.
Jim
Jim Schoening wrote
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
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