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

RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions

Roger,    One suggestion:  if you reduce the advance notice time for
pre-scheduled interims to two months (instead of three), then interims
scheduled and announced at the previous plenary would be exempt from the
quorum requirement, and perhaps eliminate the need for the quorum waiver
authorization, which makes me a little nervous because it IS a complete
blank check and could be subject to abuse.  

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98124-2207
Ph:  (425) 865-2443
Fx:  (425) 865-6721

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks []
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions

Dear SEC,

I think that we should think about revising the 802 rules to clarify
the quorum situation for WG Interim Sessions. I think that WGs need
to know how to take actions that won't be later called into question
on quorum grounds. The extra uncertainty isn't good for anyone.

I think we have too many continuing question marks on this issue.
Some WGs have no Interim Sessions, though their Task Forces do meet.
In other cases, Interim WG meetings are held between all LMSC

Also, some WG's will arrange for a vote, at the WG Plenary, to
authorize a WG to meet and transact business, with our without a
quorum, at an upcoming Interim. My understanding has been that not
all SEC members accept the legitimacy of this practice.

We also face questions of what to in the absence of a quorum. Some go
by Robert, who says "The only business that can be transacted in the
absence of a quorum is to take measures to obtain a quorum, to fix
the time to which to adjourn, and to adjourn, or to take a recess."
Others are more liberal, to varying degrees.

Then we have the question of when the quorum applies. Does the Chair
need to check for it? Is it assumed, unless a quorum call arises?
What if no quorum call arises and someone later, after the session,
challenges the presence of a quorum? Does a quorum at any point in a
session, or in a meeting, suffice to cover the entire session?

I'd like to think about a rules change to resolve the problem. First,
however, I'd like to probe where people stand on this issue to see
what kind of rules change would be likely to pass.

To get things started, here is what I would propose. In, I
would change:

"No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the
Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
established well in advance. A quorum is required at other Working
Group meetings."


"No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the
Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
established well in advance. The same is true of other Working Group
sessions whose date and location are announced at least three months
in advance. In other cases, Working Groups are authorized to meet and
transact business. However, no technical vote at such a meeting is
valid unless quorum is established immediately before, after, or
during the vote, or unless Working Group action without a quorum has
been previously authorized by the Working Group."

Could you support a change like this?

I'm personally open to other ideas, but I would like an unambiguous
LMSC policy.