"Were you in the plenary?" I asked. I was sitting outside the exhibition hall, charging my laptop and getting in a little Kingdom of Loathing before the next workshop. I had called over a minister of whom I'm fond.
"Yes," she said.
"When that person asked if the UUA would keep working on an issue even if the body voted it down, and the UUA folks loudly cheered that they would, did that happen like I thought it happened?"
"You mean, was it rehearsed?"
"No, I did the UUA folks just say, in effect, 'Even if the body votes that they don't care about this thing, we're going to keep working on it."
"Sort of, but the body obviously did care," she said.
"But the question assumed that the body didn't care. It disturbed me that even if we didn't care, they were still going to work on it."
"I can understand that, but I doubt they would have responded that way to an assembly that less obviously cared about it."
I hope she's right.
CC
2 comments:
I was there too, and that surprised me. But my surprise was more about the fact that this issue was even up for vote in the first place, as it had been an action item from 13 years ago, and it wasn't a referendum on whether or not to continue that work -- it was a "new" action item that would direct the committee to start work on the issue if work was not already started.
As it was a valuable item with no opposition (including no opposition by me), I went along with it, but it was an interesting point -- the committee would continue their work regardless of the outcome of the vote, since the resolution at hand was (supposedly) unrelated to the resolution previously passed 13 years ago.
I just found out the deal with that and will be posting it within ten minutes or so.
Grab your voting card and head back to the plenary.
CC
Post a Comment