Re: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
Roger,
I believe I have stated my reasons, but perhaps in too general terms for
you to realize I was responding in part to you. I am aware of your view.
I haven't gone back to check the 2003 minutes.
My point of view is as follows:
We had written operating rules under which we were operating after the
March 2003 meeting.
Possibly there was an editing error that changed the meaning of one of
those rules from what was intended. There is a difference between what
is in the text of the P&P produced and what is in the minutes. I wasn't
on the EC at the time so I don't know which recording of the wording is
correct - the motion recorded in the minutes.
We executed multiple rules changes while under those rules including at
least one in Nov 2004 where the outcome would be affected by that error.
The result on that one came close to the threshold so there was some
examination of the result at the time so the EC chair examined the rules
and issued a ruling on whether it had passed.
At the time no one contested the wording of the rule. There were plenty
of people on the EC who were on the EC for both the change where there
may have been an error and the later vote. If there was an error in the
rules, that was the time to bring it up. If this same discussion was
taking place in Nov/Dec 2004 in response to the ruling, I would be more
open to it.
My position is that our ability to rewind our actions is limited. Three
years after the claimed error took place and over a year after the
action that would have been affected by that error is too late to alter
our actions. This is particularly true since we know the action was
questioned and the situation was examined at the time of the action.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 9:22 PM
To: Pat Thaler
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
Pat,
I disagree with your opinion. Moreover, I am finding myself feeling
frustrated in this discussion. I find that you have responded to a
number of the comments in this thread but that you have not yet
responded to me. So I would like to restate my views and request your
response to them. This way, I will be able to judge whether you have
considered my views in formulating your opinion on this issue.
As I understand, you have based your comments below on the assumption
that the applicable P&P language includes the phrase "'all voting' EC
members"? Am I correct in this assumption?
Then how would your position change if you came to the conclusion that
this phrase was NOT part of the P&P?
If you have read my notes of the topic, I think you will be aware that,
in my view, the applicable P&P of Nov 2004 did NOT include the phrase
"'all voting' EC members"? Are you aware that this is my position? You
have proceeded as if you disagree, but you have not said that you
disagree, so I am confused.
If you disagree, then could you please explain to me the fault you find
with my logic? In particular, can you please explain your interpretation
of the following motion text at the top of Page 98 of the EC minutes of
14 March 2003?:
"Motion: to approve the rule change for SEC Electronic Ballots with
instruction to change the text 'all voting members of the Executive
Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting rights' in
clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5. Moved: Mat Sherman/Buzz Rigsbee Passes:
10/0/2".
I believe that, if we can reach an understanding on this particular
issue, then we will be in a position to continue a discussion.
However, until we either agree with my logic, or reach an understanding
of why we disagree, then I think we will be at an impasse.
Regards,
Roger
At 11:56 AM -0800 06/03/20, Pat Thaler wrote:
>Bob,
>
>According to Robert's Rules, abstains are not votes. An earlier email
>quoted the specific refence text which basically says that there is no
>difference between a counted abstain and someone who didn't vote at
all.
>On that basis "all voting" EC members would be those voting yes or no
>and wouldn't include the abstain votes.
>
>In any case, this was thrashed out in 2004 when the ruling was made. I
>think we make a mistake to go back and try to reverse an action of over
>a year ago by our current understanding of the rules. The ruling wasn't
>contested at the time it was made. If we do that, how far do we go
back?
>
>I think it is time for Paul to give us his opinion on this.
>
>Regards,
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
>Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:43 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
>
>Steve,
>
>You must not be reading the words that you are typing. Let me provide
>some emphasis to the quote you provided.
>
>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.
>
>There are 15 votes recorded on the motion in question. There were 15
>Executive Committee members with voting rights at the time of the
>motion. So, the number of voting Executive Committee members with
>voting rights on this motion is 15. 8 is not equal to or greater than
>2/3 of 15. Is there some new math here with which I am not familiar?
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:19 AM
>To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
>
>Bob,
>
> The rule Roger is quoting is the new rules. I was quoting the
rules
>that were in force when the vote was taken. Actually, I thought I sent
>out the quote from the rules before, but here it is again.
>
> "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."
>
> This is why I have been saying the denominator, at that point is
time,
>was the number of EC members who voted. By the way, that was also the
>interpretation at that point in time. It would have been difficult
>then to base the vote on a future rule that had not been written yet.
>
> I am a little confused about the idea of applying new rules to
votes
>that were taken in the past under other rules.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 7:47 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
>
>Steve,
>
>If the P&P stated that a 2/3 majority was required to pass a rules
>change, you would be correct that abstentions do not count.
>
>But, that is not what the P&P in effect at the time of the November
>2004 session said. At that time and as Roger has quoted in an earlier
>email,
>2/3 of all EC members with voting rights are required for passage of a
>rules change. This does not require that any particular number of
>members vote on the issue, or whether any of them abstain.
>
>If an EC member does not vote in favor of a rules change, the effect is
>as if the member voted against the rules change. Very simple and very
>clear.
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 5:35 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
>
>802 EC,
>
>
>
> These rules discussions are so much fun. :-)
>
>
>
> There seems to be confusion about whether Abstains count
>in the denominator when a vote is held. In other words if someone
>abstains did they vote?
>
>
>
> So I thought I would look at Robert's Rules. Here is a
>quote from Robert's Rules on what it means to abstain.
>
>
>
> 'To "abstain" means not to vote at all, and a member who
>makes no response if "abstentions" are called for abstains just as much
>as one who responds to that effect (see also p. 394).'
>
>
>
> Based on Robert's Rules an "abstain" is not considered a
>vote and is not counted in the denominator.
>
>
>
>Clearly if we start to count Abstains in the denominator it will not
>only change the meaning of a super majority but also of majority. For
>example, a vote of 10 yes, 4 No and 10 abstains would not count as a
>majority if we start to include abstains in the denominator.
>
>
>
> Of course there are rules that explicitly set the
>denominator as "all members" and it that case the denominator is those
>that vote yes, those that vote no those that abstain, those who do not
>answer, those who are not in the room, those who did not attend the
>meeting.
>
>
>
> So unless the rule states that the denominator is "all
>members" then the denominator is the sum of those who vote yes and
>those who vote no. This is of course my humble opinion.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>----------
>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.
>
>----------
>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.