Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] 802.20 appeal panel action: plan for EC action


I'm thinking through the process to see if it is bullet-proof. I've 
come up with one issue:

*Regarding "Each non-confirmation vote must be accompanied by the 
rationale for the vote", what if it isn't? Is the vote disqualified? 
This could be considered implied in the statement, but I think we 
should be clear in advance. I propose that it be disqualified and not 
counted as a vote cast.

I'm also wondering, more generally, who has decided on this 
particular ballot mechanism? Was it an IEEE-SA team effort?


At 18:08 -0500 03/11/06, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear EC members,
>This note is intended to clarify the responsibliies and 
>indemnification rights of EC members regarding the 802.20 appeal 
>panel action. It also defines a process to implement the CS-SAB 
>appeal panel action.
>1) Geoff and I did not fully agree with with the appeal panel 
>findings and actions and asked the IEEE-SA if we (and the EC) could 
>get support to appeal the appeal.   We were notifyied that, as 
>officers of 802, we, nor any EC member, can appeal the panel's 
>findings or action.  The EC simply must implement the action.  This 
>directive was unexpected by me, hence may be unexpected by other 
>members of the EC.  If you require a more detailed, in depth 
>explanation, you must discuss it directly with Judy Gorman.
>2) As a result of the directive in (1) above,  the EC shall hold a 
>separate reconfirmation vote for each candidate. 
>3) The current slate of opening EC agenda items is scheduled to be 
>complete at 10AM.  I will place confirmation votes on the opening EC 
>meeting agenda to start at 10AM, which give us 30 minutes to 
>complete this as the last items on the agenda, (10 minutes per 
>4) To comply with the appeal panel direction to document the 
>rationale for non-confirmation,  the vote will be conducted via 
>secret paper ballot.  Each non-confirmation vote must be accompanied 
>by the rationale for the vote.  The ballot's will be tallied by an 
>IEEE staff person (probably Karen Kinne).  If the candidate is 
>confirmed, the ballots will be destroyed.   If the candidate is not 
>confirmed each non-confirmation vote rationale will be entered into 
>the minutes verbatim.    If confirmed, the candidates  take office 
>at the end of the plenary session, as per the customary process 
>followed in 802.
>5) Given that the EC must hold a re-confirmation vote, and the 
>outcome may be subject to appeal yet again,  I wanted be sure the EC 
>members are indemnified by the IEEE-SA.  To that end, I requested 
>the SA management unambigously define the terms and conditions under 
>which the EC members will be indemnified.  This is to ensure the EC 
>members fully understand any risks and liabilities associated with 
>their participation in the re-confirmation vote.  The response from 
>IEEE management is copied below.
>I believe the above points address the bulk of the concerns I am 
>aware of and is the best and proper way to move forward on this 
>--Paul Nikolich
>Chairman, IEEE 802
>"----- Original Message -----
>From: <<>>
>To: <<>>
>Cc: <<>>; 
>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:30 PM
>Subject: Indemnification wrt IEEE P802.20 activity
>>  Paul,
>  > Below please find an answer to your question about indemnification.
>>  The members of the 802 SEC are indemnified as long as they follow the
>>  rules. Further, while their discretion and care in how they formulate their
>>  rationales are matters of personal preference,  if they want to avoid any
>  > questions about indemnification, they should probably be very factual and
>>  not subjective in the way they craft their rationales. IEEE in the end
>>  makes choices about who and how much to insure. That is done by the IEEE
>  > Insurance Committee in concert with the Executive Committee. Bottom line:
>>  no one is absolutely assured of  full (meaning "insured through to the end
>>  of the issue and its resolution") indemnification, even if he or she is
>>  following all the rules and behaving completely ethically and perfectly. To
>>  further clarify the matter of indemnification, if the SEC,  in failing to
>>  confirm all or part of the slate of officers, acts in an arbitrary,
>>  illegal, or potentially defamatory fashion, indemnification would be
>>  questionable.  As officers, it is anticipated that they will carry out
>>  their duties responsibly and rationally.  These duties include whether or
>>  not to confirm a slate of officers, and their decision must be rational and
>>  not arbitrary, illegal, or defamatory.
>>  I hope this helps.
>>  Best,
>>  Judy