Re: SUO: Quorum
Jim,
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. This way, a member can abstain
without formally casting a vote of 'abstain,' which appears to
be a 'no' vote. It's a lot like saying 'present,' which seems
to be used in some meetings (either instead of or addition to
'abstain').
Best,
John Velman
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:02:00PM -0400, jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
> SUO WG,
>
> Regarding quaroum, I suggest the following:
>
> 1. For a motion to pass, a majority of voting members must either vote or
> acknowledge receipt of the ballot. If not initially achieved, the chair
> may extend the voting period and recontact non-responders.
>
> 2. If a voting member does not respond to two successive ballots, he or
> she will be listed as a non-active participant. These individuals will
> not be counted for purposes of determining a quorum. They may be
> reinstated as voting members at any time, even during a ballot, by making
> a request or by casting a ballot.
>
> Thoughts? Comments?
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 12:51:24 -0500 <richardm@tinwisle.com> writes:
> Jim,
>
> I distinguish letter ballots as those of the type I receive from IEEE for
> region representatives and IEEE officers. Enclosed I find a ballot and
> narrative describing the position of each candidate or bylaw question - I
> rarely know the candidate and have never seen the question. Such ballots
> are sent to the entire IEEE membership and no quorum is defined for
> determination of results because indeed achieving the quorum is not
> practical. It is kind of like going to the polling place to vote for
> public officials but in that case physical presence is required except
> for special personal situations.
>
> However, in this present case, I consider us to be participating in a
> meeting with open discussion and presentations. We are doing everything
> we would do in a face to face situation - it is just extended in time. We
> established a means to identify voting members and now a quorum of those
> members is necessary to validate a vote. You seem to think that to carry
> a motion requires a majority of the voting members to affirm and that is
> incorrect. We have not established a majority of voting membership to
> carry rule. The following is required: YES+NO+ABSTAIN>Voting_Members/2
> with YES>NO. I think we have the interest of enough voting members to
> achieve a response to the question call of 45 voting members. If someone
> has endured this effort for this long and responded to your inquiry
> regarding voting membership, I'd consider that an sign of active voters.
> We use an open voting period and ballots are not secret. You could post
> an ongoing total and ask non-voters to exercise their participatory
> obligation - we are voting members because we have voted in the past or
> are showing current interest. State the quorum needed, call the questions
> and let's get on with the vote.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 10:26 PM
> To: skydog@pacbell.net
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; pcassidy@bellatlantic.net
> Subject: SUO: Re: Voting rules - Quorum
>
>
> Bob,
>
> You say my interpretation is incorrect and you quote these other
> IEEE sources, but you don't explain what a quorum means in terms of an
> email ballot. Do you mean a majority of voters must vote YES? The
> directives below don't say anything like this. Even in an in-person
> meeting, a majority must only be present, not actually vote, or vote YES.
>
> So, please, explain to us how a quorum would work in an email
> ballot. We're sending this to everyone, except for a few who we haven't
> reached yet. Do you want to see a majority acknowledge receipt? I did
> that previously and will do so again. If you think a majority must vote
> YES, please provide your basis for this. But I ask, with about 88 voting
> membes, what if 44 drop out? How can the others proceed?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 20:02:04 -0700 Robert Grayson Spillers
> <skydog@pacbell.net> writes:
> In response to Pat Cassidy on 5/23/03 Jim Schoening wrote:
>
> Patrick,
>
> Some RRO clarifications on rules:
>
> 1. A quorum is only required for in-person meetings, to prevent a
> minority of voting members from making decisions. Email ballots are
> similar to letter ballots, which are sent to all voting members, so all
> (except those who have lost touch) have a chance to vote.
>
> 2. There is no requirement for a certain percentage of voting members to
> cast ballots. A vote could pass with YES=1, N0=0, ABSTAIN=0, and 85
> people not voting.
>
> 3. You do not need to vote to retain voting rights. The only voting rule
> we adopted was the 6-month waiting period.
>
> 4. Your idea for subgroups is good, but they would work via consensus or
> informal votes.
>
> Please correct me, anyone, if I'm incorrectly interpreting RRO.
> Jim Schoening
> Jim,
> Your interpretation of the nature and requirement for a quorum is
> incorrect.
>
> On Dec 10, 2001 the Manager of IEEE-SA Governance sent a message to you
> advising you
> that by unanimous vote:
> The IEEE-SA BOG considered the inquiries of the IEEE 1600.1 working group
> and the opinion of 7 November 2001 offered by Dorsey and Whitney and
> concurs with and reaffirms the opinion stated.
> ...
> Further, the IEEE-SA BOG encourages the IEEE-SA Standards Board to
> instruct
> the IEEE P1600.1 working group on the principles of consensus in the
> working group processes.
> A part of the opinion referenced was the response from the IEEE Corporate
> Governance Office to questions
> regarding (among other topics) a quorum. Lyle Smith, IEEE Institute
> Parliamentarian wrote:
>
> I have reviewed your questions with IEEE Legal counsel Robert Dwyer of
> Dorsey & Whitney, and Director Emeritus Eric Herz who is commissioned by
> the IEEE President to be the liason with governance and legal issues.
> The following questions about parliamentary procedure for the SUO were
> answered by the Parliamentarian:
> (6) What is the size (percent) of a quorum (assuming no parliamentary
> procedures - e.g. bylaws - other than RRO)
>
> Answer. A majority of voting members, (Specified in Ny Statute
> and IEEE Bylaws).
>
> (7) Is a quorum required to pass a motion?
>
> Answer. Yes, unless a quorum had been established, some members
> have left and nobody has questioned whether a quorum still exists It
> is then presumed to exist.
>
> (8) May the chair declare that a quorum is unnecessary?
>
> Answer. NO
>
> (9) 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
>
> Jim, none of this is new news to you. You have been specifically
> instructed on these matters and you are bound by those instructions.
>
> Bob Spillers