Help interpreting this sentence

I think more context would make the question far easier to answer.

Here we could confirm that at least Madelle Shirek's word of disapproval helped pass the ordinance, and together, Condition A (some changes of the original ordinance) and Condition B (her word of disapproval) constituted the sufficiency to make the ordinance pass.
Thus obviously she is for the ordinance.
Her word of disapproval is just like one of the changes that assisted the ordinance to pass.

Could be, without further context.

I'm inclined to think she disapproved of the ordinance, which was the issue at hand. That would make her against the issue. Her statement that she couldn't believe they were even discussing it convinces me she was actually against it, though the sentence doesn't actually so state.

In other words, I believed her disapproval had no effect.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

"The Berkeley City Council decided Tuesday night [July 13, 1993] that the amount of opposition to Berkeley's au naturel citizens is strong enough to warrant a ban on public nudity. The ordinance passed 6-3 after some changes and a word of disapproval from Councilmember Maudelle Shirek, who said she couldn't believe they were even discussing the issue.

Councilmember Mary Wainwright first presented the ordinace on June 8, after she said she was offended by Andrew Martinez's unclothed appearance at the earlier meeting of the council. [Martinez, known as 'the Naked Guy,' is a former UC Berkeley student who was expelled after refusing to wear clothes to class last year.]"

Thank you. Even with the context, it isn't crystal clear whether she disapproved of the public nudity or the ordinance.

I wish I could help. It's a darn interesting question.

I also feel that it is not clear.

Here is the main question I was asked to answer:

Whose ballot on the city council canceled each other other during the July 13 vote concerning public nudity in Berkeley?

The answer, according to the book is Shirek (first paragrpah) and Wainwright (second paragraph).

I don't see how one can come to this conclusion without being clear of whether she disapproved of the public nudity or the ordinance. What are your thoughts on this question and answer?

That helps!

Wainwright presented the ordinace, therefore she must be in favor of her own ordinace. By elimination, Shirek must have opposed, canceling the vote of Wainwright.

This is how I understand it:

The ordinance to prohibit people from walking naked was approved 6 votes against 3.

Councilmember Maudelle Shirek complained/protested about the councilmembers having to waste their time voting if people could go around naked since it should be obvious that people should not go around naked. This is the issue at hand, people walking around naked.

The "word of disapproval" was the act of her complaining/protesting that they (councilmembers) had to waste their time discussing such an issue.

I agree with Doubtful.

If this is in the Minutes, then they are poorly written. Only the facts should have been stated.

It looks like a newspaper article.

The way it's written can be interpreted in several ways, so it's really not clear by what's been provided.