RE: SUO: RE: Motion to resolve the impasse
John,
Thanks for your reply -- I think that we are converging.
JS:
> I agree with most of your basic points, but I would draw
> somewhat different conclusions about what to do.
>
> PJ:
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps it is true that the guidance is not legally binding, but
> that only means that it is not absolutely required. It can still
> be applied, if the SUO assembly votes to do so. What bothers me
> is that the chair unilaterally decided to ignore it without asking
> for the opinion of the SUO voters.
It is a quibble, but as I understand it, some IEEE leadership decided the
parliamentarian's guidance was not applicable, without asking the opinion of
the SUO voters.
I would agree that their decision and its reasoning should be clearly
communicated.
I would also agree that if there were any optionality to the decision, then
the opinion of the SUO voters should have been sought, and should have
guided the decision.
What is not clear is whether there is any optionality to the decision, and
if so, which way it goes. That is one point on which I would like to get
further information and clarification from IEEE leadership.
> My motion simply says that
> the decision to follow that guidance or to ignore it should be
> made by the SUO assembly rather than by the chair.
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree. The current process has a distinctly disagreeable smell.
> The rules, regulations, and laws of NY State and the IEEE should
> certainly be considered. In case of dispute, the guidance of the
> IEEE parliamentarian is certainly more applicable (no matter how
> it was transmitted) than a unilateral decision by the chair.
> If some judgement is needed to decide between different positions,
> then the authority to make that decision resides in the SUO
> assembly, not the chair.
>
> Bottom line: Unless further appeals provide a different
> interpretation, the guidance from the IEEE Parliamentarian
> should be considered the most authoritative information we
> have about this matter.
I agree that to date, the guidance from the IEEE Parliamentarian is the most
authoritative information we have received. His guidance also seems very
absolute -- it is not clear to me whether there is any room for us to vote
on whether to accept it.
So I would agree that unless we get some very clear, authoritative
information to the contrary, we should follow the IEEE Parliamentarian's
guidance.
> If the chair wants to disregard it,
> he should request a vote from the SUO assembly to give him
> that authority.
I would agree that if there is any optionality to the decision, then we
could and should vote on how to count votes. If there is not optionality,
then we should follow the required rule, whatever it is -- and we need some
clearcut explanation of why the parliamentarian's advice should not prevail,
and why some other rule is required.
Phil Jackson