3.0.5.32.20020120231545.037da580@farance.com">
At 19:47 2002-01-20 -0800, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
Lowell,
The purpose of this note is to ask for your confirmation of two results of the legal opinion and the unanimous resolution of the IEEE SA Board of Governors. The two results (specifically stated in the legal opinion and BOG resolution) are:
1. It is clear that the vote taken in mid August regarding the SUMO failed. The SUMO enjoys no special status within the SUO WG as a result of that vote.
2. The interpretation of the IEEE Corporate Governance Office of Robert's Rules of Order is the interpretation that is required to be used by the SUO WG.
There may be other results from this opinion and resolution but the two listed above are unambiguous.
While this may be the opinion of IEEE BoG, it appears that they have acted improperly. Now that I have received official notification, I will follow up with an Audit for Cause at ANSI. Apparently, there following have occurred (among other things):
(1) significant process errors,
(2) due process and fairness were not followed (Bob, why are you only allowed to argue your side of the case and the rest of us ignored?),
(3) unfortunately, the firm of Dorsey and Whitney (and IEEE-SA's attorney Tom Wettach) gave poor/incomplete legal advice (they said, in essence, no specific statues apply ... had they simply search for voting in NPCL they'd have found an appropriate citation),
(4) the IEEE staff (Judy Gorman, Sue Tatiner) are untrained in the processing of appeals (they didn't follow the rules),
(5) Lyle Smith and Eric Herz appear to lack competence in Robert's Rules (the were unable to cite
Robert's, which provides a clear answer), and
(6) Lowell Johnson appears to lack appropriate knowledge in the processing of appeals (he is only aware of technical appeals, not other kinds, as described by IEEE-SA and CS P&Ps),
(7) Judy Gorman, Sue Tatiner, and Lowell Johnson require training on IEEE-SA ... they are unaware that the Computer Society has P&Ps on these topics
It appears Jim wishes to continue to dispute the legal opinion of Dorsey and Whitney (the IEEE Institute's outside counsel) and continue to debate the interpretation of Robert's Rules of Order as given by the IEEE Corporate Governance Office in September.
Yes, this is still in dispute and our company will pursue it, too ... not because of any particular support of Teknowledge per se, but because the IEEE opinions are faulty (which affect our company's activites here and elsewhere).
The legal opinion from Teknowledge is similar to the analysis that my company's attorney did around September. Effectively, IEEE and IEEE-SA don't know how to do legal research, Lyle and Smith and Eric Herz lack the competence to provide excertps from Robert's Rules, and Judy Gorman, Sue Tatiner, and Lowell Johnson are unfamiliar enough with P&Ps to cite any that are relevant. The Teknowledge memo makes all the citations that any competent person would make ... unfortunately, none of the IEEE and legal people acted competently in this matter.
Thus, this will now move to ANSI.
-FF
_______________________________________________________________________
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T:
+1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure