Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Votes from the Winter 2021 National Parliamentarian

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On page 16 it is noted that:

There is no reason for voting negatively when deciding the agenda.  If a vote to adopt an agenda is defeated, is it possible to have an efficient and productive meeting?  No.  A negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant.

I don't understand this.... what if someone doesn't approve of the agenda?  Do they mean that this is similar to minutes, that an objection is not appropriate, but a different suggestion for the agenda is?

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

I suggest that you pay no attention to that article in the NP, at least not if you're trying to learn how RONR applies to such situations.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Aren't these articles vetted?

[Shmuel Gerber]

6 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Aren't these articles vetted?

Yes. But then an additional layer of vetting takes place when it reaches the public. 🙂

[J. J.]

It is certainly possible to have a meeting without

1 minute ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Aren't these articles vetted?

Peer reviewed, and occasionally rejected.

It is certainly possible to have a meeting without an agenda or order of business.  An agenda may be used (or misused) to limit consideration of certain subjects.  Failing to adopt one, in meetings happening  less often than quarterly, would mean that there was no limitation.

I take a dim view of an intrinsically irrelevant vote because of the possibility of reconsideration.  The assembly, part way through the meeting, might decide that a limitation is appropriate.

I believe the sole context where it is used in RONR is when a certain threshold is reached.  If a majority of the entire membership is needed, and that that threshold is met, the negative vote is needed.  That is not case in situation described.

And, your mamma. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Quote

And, your mamma.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.   It took me a minute.

Well played sir, well played.

[J. J.]

48 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.   It took me a minute.

Well played sir, well played.

I have been waiting to do that. 

Edited February 22, 2021 at 03:54 PM by J. J.

[Weldon Merritt]

For whatever it may be worth, I think that none of the examples in that article are "intrinsically irrelevant negative votes," as the term is used in RONR.  Watch for the next issue in which, I hope, my rebuttal will be published.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I look forward to it.

[J. J.]

I also look forward to it. 

I would note that there are situations where the negative need not be called, e.g. a courtesy resolution and where unanimous consent is used.  That does not make the negative intrinsically irrelevant.  To use the unanimous consent example, anyone that was present when the vote was taken can move to reconsider.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 at 03:45 PM by J. J.