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

SUO: Re: IEEE By-Laws

Title:
What a nice illustration of my previous remark about the ubiquity of ambiguity the cited passage is. It  can clearly be interpreted in two ways [probably, the ambiguity could be explicated as a scope problem] , depending upon how one defines 'vote'; one of those ways is consistent with the standard interpretation of Robert's Rules, which is that abstentions are not  counted as votes. That is what the word means -- I abstain (from voting), I do not vote. So the Robert's interpretation is: 'a majority of *the votes* of those ...'.
 
I did some research on Robert's Rules, BTW. They are almost always interpreted by parliamentarians and the courts as not considering abstentions to be votes, and the rules are explicit about this in several places. Humans  being what they are, though, there are always a few variant views, and of course the rules can be altered by amendment to them. Citations available on request.
 
Jay
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 19:10
Subject: SUO: IEEE By-Laws


Jim,
As we approach the end of the balloting period I would like to remind you that the IEEE By-Laws provide that in order for a motion to pass it must have "the vote of a majority of the votes of the members present and entitled to vote, at the time of the vote, provided a quorum is present".  It is worth noting that this differs from Robert's Rules and is a requirement of New York State Law.  

Bob