RE: SUO: RE: Motion to resolve the impasse
John,
> The fundamental principle is that the SUO assembly as a whole
> has the basic power to make decisions. When a question is left
> to be resolved "at the chair level", then the chair might make
> a suggestion, but the ultimate authority is up to the assembly.
I do not disagree with this. However, it is not clear to me that the
question was left to be resolved at the chair level...(see below)
> > I'm concerned that it may not be appropriate for the SUO
> working group to
> > vote on whether to accept the advice of the IEEE
> parliamentarian. Besides
> > the recursive voting question I pointed out, there is the
> problem that if
> > the outcome of such a vote were to be "no", then the SUO
> working group would
> > be in the position of having itself formally decided to
> disregard the IEEE
> > parliamentarian's advice, which could place all of the SUO
> working group's
> > future decisions in jeopardy, outside the scope of IEEE, etc.
>
> If you are concerned about those issues, then you should be even
> more concerned that the chair made the decision unilaterally.
> The power of the chair is subordinate to the SUO assembly.
As I said earlier, my understanding from Jim is that he did not make the
decision (to disregard the parliamentarian's answer) unilaterally. He says
he was told by his IEEE leadership that the IEEE parliamentarian's guidance
(which is thought to be contrary to the voting practice of apparently all
IEEE working groups) is not applicable because it was not obtained through
an appeals process that went through Lowell. Jim says that his IEEE
leadership are asking him to insist that any disgreements on this matter be
appealed to Lowell.
Unfortunately, this was not stated in the letter that Lowell sent to SUO,
which placed Jim in the position of appearing to make decisions
unilaterally. If this is the decision of IEEE leadership, then I think it
needs to be clearly stated.
> Rather than explore all the possible ramifications 20 ply ahead
> of the game, we can reach closure simply by taking a vote. If you
> have some concerns about the wording of my motion, then let's
> restate it to avoid recursion.
I think it would be important to restate your motion to avoid recursion.
Obviously you can reword to avoid recursion without my help, though I am
willing to help.
The decision of how to proceed with your motion (either in rewording or in
acting on it) is not mine of course. I've expressed my concern that we
should get a clarification of this issue from IEEE leadership, before
proceeding with a vote, to ensure that we remain within any applicable laws,
bylaws, etc.
To help ensure this, would you be willing to consider suspending or
withdrawing the motion pending a formal clarification of these matters from
IEEE leadership? -- it can always be resubmitted if necessary.
I'm concerned that the process be right -- Moreover, I'm concerned that the
process must *appear* to be right to all concerned -- we need to avoid the
appearance of possible improprieties, to avoid getting into these kinds of
endless squabbles in future.
The appearances that have developed thus far are unfortunate: We have the
appearance that one or more of those who lost a vote worked to overturn it
by questioning the rules which everyone had apparently agreed upon before
the vote; Also when guidance was given that the rules should be changed, the
chair was placed in the position of unilaterally appearing to disregard it,
without someone of appropriate authority giving a clear, public statement
that the guidance should be disregarded.
This combination of appearances allows people on both sides of the original
issue to feel unjustly treated. It ensures that the squabble will continue
until the process is straightened out and clarified, in a way that appears
right to all concerned.
Phil Jackson