RE: SUO: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Bob,
You still have not explained what part of your motion (to
reconsider) or my denial (or your motion) can possibly have two reasonable
opinions. Robert's says you (Bob) can't make this motion because you did
not vote on the prevailing side. Are you claiming you did vote on the
prevailing side? Are you claiming this rule doesn't apply? Are you claiming
the Chair should not have denied this motion? On what grounds? Please be
specific and please stick to the salient facts.
This rule has a purpose. If it didn't exist, members of the losing
side could continuously cause revotes in hopes of changing the outcome. The
SUMO vote was fair and should be allowed to stand.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Grayson Spillers
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: '''Standard-Upper-Ontology ' ' '; 'Lowell G Johnson (E-mail) '
Sent: 9/29/01 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Jim,
The standard imposed by the section you quoted from Robert's Rules is
not whether you can "see any reasonable basis", but that "there cannot
possibly be two reasonable opinions". Aside my obvious difference of
opinion (along with others in the SUO) the IEEE Parliamentarian (by
ruling against you on this issue) not only believes there is another
reasonable view but also believes that you are wrong.
Please submit the question to the members.
Bob
"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
Bob and SUO Working Group,
Bob's appeal is not allowed for the following reason.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th Edition) states:
"Chapter
VIII; Section 24. Appeal; Paragraph 2(b): "when the chair rules on a
question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions,
an
appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed."
Bob, I do not see any reasonable basis for a different ruling. If
you
do, please explain.
Jim Schoening
Chair,
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Grayson Spillers
To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Cc: ''Standard-Upper-Ontology ' '; Lowell G Johnson (E-mail)
Sent: 9/28/01 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
Jim,
Once again you have ruled against my motion to reconsider the SUMO vote.
I
appeal the chair's decision to the members of the SUO.
Bob
"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
> Bob and SUO WG,
>
> I have been advised by Mr. Lowell Johnson, Computer Society
(CS) VP
> for Standards (and Chair of CS Standards Activity Board, our next
higher
> body, and the person to whom appeals are made), to not wait for
further
> guidance from IEEE, but to proceed with an attempt to resolve the SUMO
vote
> issue at the Chair level.
>
> Therefore, I will backtrack to the point where I denied Bob
> Spiller's motion to reconsider the SUMO vote. I had given two
reasons, but
> will withdraw the one regarding the timeliness of his motion. But
this does
> not change the outcome, as the other reason still causes the motion to
be
> out of order.
>
> Background: On Aug 16, I posted the results of the SUMO vote (YES=17;
> NO=16; ABSTAIN=9) stating the motion passed. On Aug 17, Bob made the
> following motion:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Grayson Spillers
> To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
> Sent: 8/18/01 12:07 AM
> Subject: SUO: Motion to Reconsider the vote on SUMO motion
>
> Jim,
> I move to reconsider the vote on the SUMO motion.
>
> Bob
>
> =========End of Bob's message================
>
> My revised response is:
>
> Bob,
>
> Your motion to reconsider the SUMO vote is out of order
because you
> voted NO on this ballot, which was not "with the prevailing side."
Robert's
> Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th Edition) states:
>
> "Chapter IX,
> ~37. Reconsider
> Reconsider--a motion of America origin--enables a
majority
> in an assembly, within a limited time and without notice, to bring
back for
> further consideration a motion which has already been voted on. The
purpose
> of reconsidering a vote is to permit correction of hasty, ill-advised,
or
> erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a
changed
> situation that has developed since the taking of the vote.
> To provide both usefulness and protection against
abuse, the
> motion to Reconsider has the following unique characteristics:
> a) It can be made only by a member who voted with the
prevailing
> side. In other words, a reconsideration can be moved only by one who
voted
> aye if the motion involved was adopted, or no if the motion was lost.
(In
> standing and special committees, the motion to Reconsider can be made
by any
> member who did not vote on the losing side--including one who did not
vote
> at all."
>
>
> Please respond with any questions or issues
>
> Jim Schoening
> Chair, SUO WG
<<Card for Robert Grayson Spillers>>
<<Card for Robert Grayson Spillers>>