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

Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion

More Fuel for the fire:


Some of you may recall that very controversial vote we had on the 'Roll
Call' P&P revision.  If you recall, we couldn't decide if it was
approved given a vote of 8/4/1.  In the end, Paul ruled that it was
approved because abstains don't count in the denominator.  (see
rationale below)



The P&P in effect at that time read:


[from LMSC P&P Revised effective November 14, 2003] 'LMSC approval of
the revised text of the proposed Policies and Procedures change shall
require the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of all voting
Executive Committee members with voting rights.'


I believe this is identical to the P&P text 'posted' at the time that
Steve's motion was considered.  So if we accept the 'posted' text as
gospel (a point still in dispute) given Paul's interpretation, abstains
do not count in the denominator, and the vote passed.


I'll come back with another round on which version of the P&P should be
considered (the posted P&P or the P&P as it would have existed with the
approved rule change).






Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Senior Member Technical Staff 
Office: +1 973.633.6344 




From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET] 
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:19 AM
Subject: [802SEC] Decision on proposed Roll Call P&P change


Dear EC members,


After consulting with IEEE-SA staff (ML Nielson, D Ringle-see rationale
below) and the EC rules experts (M Sherman, B O'Hara), I have decided to
declare the decision on the motion "to adopt the proposed Roll Call P&P
change" as PASSED.  The motion was made at the closing EC meeting on
Friday March 19th, 2004, agenda item 10.03.  


March 2004 Closing EC Meeting Agenda Item 10.03
Motion: To adopt proposed Roll Call P&P change

Moved-Mike Takefman, Second-Tony Jeffree

Tally: 8 Approve, 4 Disapprove, 1 abstain


The rules change takes effect immediately.  Mat Sherman--please include
this change into your P&P reformating action item.




--Paul Nikolich




Rationale from ML NIELSON and DAVE RINGLE:


The IEEE Bylaws state that you need a majority of those present and able
to vote at the time of a vote, provided you have a quorum, to take an
action. That's for a F2F meeting, which your plenary was.

Your rules are more stringent, requiring a 2/3 approval of all voting EC
members with voting rights.

The vote was:

8 For
4 Against
1 Abstain

Dave and I believe that the question is whether the abstain counts as a
negative in this instance. Remember the existing rule of the IEEE Bylaws
[I-300.4 (1)]:

 "Unless otherwise provided in the Certificate of Incorporation, the
Constitution, these Bylaws, the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law of the
State of New York or the applicable governing documents of a board or
committee of any organizational unit of the IEEE (other than the Board
of Directors,  the Executive Committee, the Major Boards, the Standing
Committees and any  other board or committee reporting directly to the
Board of Directors), the vote of a majority of the votes cast, provided
a quorum is present, shall be the act of such board or committee."

 Because of this, the abstain does not count towards the 2/3 total need
to  approve.

 Therefore your vote stands at

 8 For
 4 Against

 which is exactly the 2/3 the EC needs to pass the motion.


---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.