Re: SUO: Quorum
Jim,
I would suggest that you remind voters that an "abstain" is
effectively equivalent to a "no" under the proposed rules.
Therefore a member who is truly neutral on an issue should
not vote at all, until the chair has informed us that a
quorum has not been reached. The chair may inform us of the
progress of the ballot YES/NO as the end of the balloting
period nears and tell whether additional votes are required
for a quorum. At that point, I would recommend that those
who are neutral cast votes with the majority sentiment.
This would be consistent with neutral parties choosing
to let others decide the issue.
Of course, if one is against the motion but prefers to
phrase a negative vote as an "abstain" rather than a "NO",
there is no reason to delay voting.
Pat
=======================
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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
--
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
internet: cassidy@micra.com
=============================================