A Rebuttal to “The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote” Weldon L. Merritt, PRP

“The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote” By Weldon L. Merritt, PRP

The Winter 2021 issue of the National Parliamentarian® included an article by Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP, entitled, “The Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Vote.” It is my belief that Mr. Cuesta has stretched the meaning of “intrinsically irrelevant” well beyond its meaning in RONR. Accordingly, this article is submitted as a rebuttal.

The term “intrinsically irrelevant” appears only three times in RONR (12th ed.): at 4:35, 37:10(a), and 44:9(a). The reference in 37:10(a) refers to 44:9(a), which in turn refers to 4:35. The controlling language is in 4:35, which first states, “The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of noncontroversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote.” That sentence is followed immediately by the statement, “A further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant, as, for example, when ‘a vote of one fifth of the members present’ is required, and the number who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than one fifth of those present ….” (Emphasis added.)

While the italicized phrase in the preceding quote is only an example, not an exhaustive list, the clear implication is that a negative vote is “intrinsically irrelevant” only when the voting threshold is based on some fixed base, such as “those present” or “the entire membership,” rather than the more usual base of “those present and voting.” Using the RONR example quoted above, the affirmative vote either is or is not greater than one fifth of those present. Either way, the outcome is determined by the size of the affirmative vote alone. The negative vote cannot make a difference.1

This article will discuss Mr. Cuesta’s examples, in the same order and with the same headings as in his article, and why I believe he is mistaken.

1. “Intrinsically Irrelevant” Negative Vote: Robert’s words: RONR (12th ed.) 4:35.

Mr. Cuesta’s first example is a bit confusing. He posits a convention in which the bylaws require a specified number of days’ notice for consideration of an amendment, but allow an amendment that did not meet the notice requirement to be considered “if a specified number of members propose or second the motion.” Thus, he is not referring to a vote at all (affirmative or

1 See also, Kim Goldsworthy, CP, PRP. “Intrinsically Irrelevant Negative Votes,” Parliamentary

Journal, LVI, No. 3 (July 2015), 73.

negative), but to a fixed number of members required to propose or second consideration of the amendment.

If the above scenario were referring, instead, to the vote required to allow the amendment to be either considered or adopted, and if that requirement were stated as a proportion of those present or of the entire membership, I would agree that the negative vote would be intrinsically irrelevant and should not be taken. But in the more usual case, such as an unqualified nine-tenths vote (of those present and voting), the negative vote should be taken, “no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear.” RONR (12th ed.) 4:35. The negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

2. A Negative Vote on a Resignation:

In his second scenario, Mr. Cuesta correctly cites RONR (12th ed.) 32:8, which provides, “A member in good standing with his dues paid cannot be compelled to continue his membership ….” He fails to acknowledge, however, that the same section includes examples of when a society might wish to reject a member’s resignation, including when the member’s dues are in arrears or when the member wants to resign to avoid disciplinary procedures.

In the case of dues being in arrears, the society may first want to try to persuade the member to pay the dues that are in arrears, and if unsuccessful, then expel him. And in the case of pending disciplinary procedures, the society may wish to proceed with the trial. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

3. A Negative Vote in an Election:

I have a minor quibble with the statement in Scenario 3 that “an election is not a question.” An election is a question; not whether to elect a specific individual to an office, but whom to elect. That quibble aside, Mr. Cuesta correctly quotes

RONR (12th ed.) 46:1, which provides, “a form of ballot on which provision is made for voting ‘for’ or ‘against’ a candidate or candidates … is not proper.”

If that advice is adhered to in an election, the issue of how to treat negative votes would not arise. But Mr. Cuesta himself acknowledges having observed some societies ignore that advice and use ballots with “for” and “against” options. The question then becomes how to treat negative votes.

RONR itself does not provide advice on what to do if, despite the provision in 46:1, a society uses ballots with “for” and “against” options. Official

Interpretation 2006-5 on the RONR web site,2 however, advises, “When voters are led to understand that they can vote against candidates in this fashion, their doing so must obviously be credited.” Therefore, it seems that both affirmative and negative votes must be counted. If the negative vote prevails, the society has an incomplete election to be handled as any other incomplete election. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

4. Adopting the Meeting’s Agenda:

I agree with much of what is stated in Scenario 4 about adoption of the agenda, including that “[t]here is no reason for voting negatively when deciding on the agenda.” Indeed, once any proposed changes to the agenda are settled, the agenda should be adopted by unanimous consent. (See Scenario 8, below, for discussion of unanimous consent.)

Where I disagree with Mr. Cuesta in his answer to the question, “If the vote to adopt an agenda is defeated, is it possible to have an efficient and productive meeting?” His answer is, “No.” I contend, however, that while it may be more difficult, it certainly is possible. The assembly may simply follow the standard order of business at RONR (12th ed.) 3:16, omitting any obviously inapplicable items. So while members should have no good reason to vote against adoption of the agenda, if they insist on doing so, they have that right. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

5. Accepting the Minutes:

In Scenario 5, Mr. Cuesta correctly notes that “[a] formal motion to approve the minutes is not necessary,” citing RONR (12th ed.) 41:10. Indeed, RONR (12th ed.) 41:11 goes further, providing that after any proposed corrections have been resolved, “[t]he minutes are … approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made.” Thus neither vote, affirmative nor negative, is taken.

RONR (12th ed.) 41:11 further provides, “The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary’s draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it.” If an unsophisticated chair nevertheless calls for a vote, and no one objects or raises a Point of Order, I contend that both the affirmative and negative votes must be taken. What would be the effect if the negative vote prevailed? Simply that the offered draft of the minutes is not approved, and the secretary must try again with another draft. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

6. Adopt a Report:

In Scenario 6, Mr. Cuesta states that “adopting [a] report means that the association will accept every word and punctuation as a new rule!” I disagree that the report would necessarily become “a new rule” (emphasis added).

But his statement is essentially a paraphrase of the statement in RONR that

“an affirmative vote on such a motion [to adopt a report] has the effect of the assembly’s endorsement of every word of the report—including the indicated facts and the reasoning—as its own statement ….” RONR (12th ed.) 51:13.

RONR (12th ed.) 51:13 further notes that “[a]doption of an entire report is seldom wise except when it is to be issued or published in the name of the whole organization.” But if there is a motion to adopt the entire report, members opposed to doing so certainly have the right to vote against the motion and to have their votes counted. Mr. Cuesta rhetorically asks, “If the negative vote prevails, do we unhear the report?” Of course not! Hearing the

report and adopting it are two separate and distinct events. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

7. Motions of a Complimentary or Courtesy Nature:

I agree with most of what is stated in Scenario 7 concerning complimentary or courtesy motions, including that ‘[a] negative vote insults the individual receiving the appreciation or recognition.” The disagreement is with Mr.

Cuesta’s conclusion. Although correctly stating that “[a] negative vote is not taken unless a member objects to omitting the negative vote” (emphasis added), he leaps to the conclusion that the negative vote therefore is “intrinsically irrelevant.” No! If a member demands the negative vote be taken, it must be taken. A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

8. Assumed Motions:

In Scenario 8, Mr. Cuesta confuses assumed motions, with unanimous consent.

Assumed motions may or may not involve taking an actual vote. Unanimous consent can be used with any motion for which the chair believes there is likely to be no opposition, regardless to whether the motion is assumed by the chair or actually made by a member. This rebuttal addresses the use of unanimous consent.

I agree with Mr. Cuesta that a motion for which the chair seeks unanimous consent “is adopted unless someone objects.” (Emphasis added.) And while disagreeing that unanimous consent necessarily should be used “for most of the meeting decisions” (emphasis added), I do agree that a society failing to use unanimous consent when appropriate “is wasting a great deal of the members’ time.” Nevertheless, “[i]f any member objects, the chair must state the question on the motion, allow any desired debate (unless it is an “undebatable” parliamentary motion …), and put the question in the regular manner.”

RONR (12th ed.) 4:59. And in that event, both the affirmative and the negative vote must be taken.” A negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant.

Finally, in many of the scenarios posited by Mr. Cuesta, no vote at all normally should be taken. But if a vote is taken, it must include the negative, as well as the affirmative, vote. I agree with him that “[i]n each of these cases, a negative vote would not be illegal.” In contrast to him, however, I contend that a negative vote would not be intrinsically irrelevant. NP

Weldon L. Merritt, JD, PRP, CPP, has been a member of NAP since 2003 and a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians since 2006. A retired lawyer residing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, he has served as president of the New Mexico State Association of Parliamentarians, the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians, and the Electronic Association of Parliamentarians. He currently serves as chair of NAP’s Professional Standards Committee.