Motion to Approve Fails....Is that a Denial?

[Guest Paul]

A motion to approve an ordinance failed to get the necessary votes. Is it thus construed as a denial action so that if the body wanted to revisit the issue at a later meeting it would need to move to rescind? Or, is it just that the nature of action is essentially nothing....not approved, but not denied?

[Josh Martin]

2 minutes ago, Guest Paul said:

A motion to approve an ordinance failed to get the necessary votes. Is it thus construed as a denial action so that if the body wanted to revisit the issue at a later meeting it would need to move to rescind? Or, is it just that the nature of action is essentially nothing....not approved, but not denied?

The latter. The assembly has not adopted anything, so there is no need to rescind anything. A member may simple reintroduce the motion at a future meeting, unless your rules provide otherwise.

[Shmuel Gerber]

21 hours ago, Guest Paul said:

A motion to approve an ordinance failed to get the necessary votes. Is it thus construed as a denial action so that if the body wanted to revisit the issue at a later meeting it would need to move to rescind? Or, is it just that the nature of action is essentially nothing....not approved, but not denied?

 

21 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The latter. The assembly has not adopted anything, so there is no need to rescind anything. A member may simple reintroduce the motion at a future meeting, unless your rules provide otherwise.

I'm not sure what a "motion to approve an ordinance" is, or why it matters whether there was a "denial action" involved if that motion fails to get the necessary votes. Certainly the rejection of the motion is some sort of denial of its approval, but we don't have enough information to know whether that matters. But regardless, I agree that there is nothing to rescind, and that a member may simply reintroduce the motion at a future meeting, unless the assembly's rules provide otherwise.

[SaintCad]

39 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

I'm not sure what a "motion to approve an ordinance" is, or why it matters whether there was a "denial action" involved if that motion fails to get the necessary votes.

I think the question boils down to: Is failure to pass a motion the equivalent of passing an opposite motion.  As an example if the motion "We will enter a float in the Annual Founders' Day Parade." fails is that equivalent to passing ""We will NOT enter a float in the Annual Founders' Day Parade.".  The answer is no - a failing motion to do something is not the same as a passing motion to not do that thing.

[Dan Honemann]

11 minutes ago, SaintCad said:

I think the question boils down to: Is failure to pass a motion the equivalent of passing an opposite motion.  As an example if the motion "We will enter a float in the Annual Founders' Day Parade." fails is that equivalent to passing ""We will NOT enter a float in the Annual Founders' Day Parade.".  The answer is no - a failing motion to do something is not the same as a passing motion to not do that thing.

If an assembly rejects a motion to enter a float in the Annual Parade it has decided not to enter a float in the Annual Parade (RONR, 11th ed., p. 32, ll. 31-34).

[Joshua Katz]

6 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If an assembly rejects a motion to enter a float in the Annual Parade it has decided not to enter a float in the Annual Parade (RONR, 11th ed., p. 32, ll. 31-34).

I continue to find this puzzling.

However, in this context, I just wanted to point out that what we're saying may not be of all that much help since the question appears to be about a public body, and likely there are some statutes imposing rules.

[Alexis Hunt]

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I continue to find this puzzling.

However, in this context, I just wanted to point out that what we're saying may not be of all that much help since the question appears to be about a public body, and likely there are some statutes imposing rules.

On this subject, my local city council has interpreted this so strongly that committees are not permitted to recommend not to proceed with the item, since all recommendations must be in the form of a motion for council to adopt.

[SaintCad]

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If an assembly rejects a motion to enter a float in the Annual Parade it has decided not to enter a float in the Annual Parade (RONR, 11th ed., p. 32, ll. 31-34).

True BUT if the motion to have a float in the parade fails it can be reintroduced and passed with majority vote.  If the motion to NOT have a float in the passes then to have a float in the parade the original motion needs to first be Rescinded with a 2/3 vote.  The effect of a motion failing and a motion to NOT do something passing may have the same practical effect but they are not the same motion.

 

In fact, would a motion to not enter a float even be in order in most cases?

[Dan Honemann]

6 hours ago, SaintCad said:

In fact, would a motion to not enter a float even be in order in most cases?

Well, let's just say that RONR frowns upon doing so (pp. 104-105)

[Richard Brown]

On 5/5/2017 at 10:20 PM, SaintCad said:

In fact, would a motion to not enter a float even be in order in most cases?

I can envision situations where I believe it would be in order. An example would be if the membership is hearing rumors that the board, which is authorized to act between meetings, is planning to adopt a resolution to enter a float in the parade but the  membership does not want to enter a float in the parade.  The membership could adopt a motion to not enter a float in the parade. The board within would then be prohibited from adopting a motion  to enter the float. 

As an alternative, the membership could probably adopt a motion directing the board not to enter a float in the parade.

Edited May 7, 2017 at 01:26 PM by Richard Brown
Corrected typo in last sentence of first paragraph.

[Alexis Hunt]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I can envision situations where I believe it would be in order. An example would be if the membership is hearing rumors that the board, which is authorized to act between meetings, is planning to adopt a resolution to enter a float in the parade but the  membership does not want to enter a float in the parade.  The membership could adopt a motion to not enter a float in the parade. The board within be prohibited from adopting a motion  to enter the float. 

As an alternative, the membership could probably adopt a motion directing the board not to enter a float in the parade.

I would rule the first out of order and the second in order. The effect of negativing the first is not clear: is the board now compelled to enter a float? But the second is clear that no direction was issued, and so the board retains discretion.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Alexis Hunt said:

I would rule the first out of order and the second in order. The effect of negativing the first is not clear: is the board now compelled to enter a float? But the second is clear that no direction was issued, and so the board retains discretion.

Did you read the language at the bottom of page 104 and top of 105?  Such a motion is clearly in order when made for the purpose I set out, namely to prevent the Board from going against the wishes of the membership.  Here's the applicable language:

"A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all. It is incorrect, for example, to move "that no response be made" to a request for a contribution to a fund, or "that [page 105] our delegates be given no instructions," unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken. "  (Emphasis added)

That is exactly the example I used.

[J. J.]

I would suggest that if it is necessary for the body to formally deny a motion, special rules should be adopted to deal with that.  You would basically have to rewrite how the question is stated by the chair. 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Isn't there already such a mechanism — amend to the opposite sense?

[Gary c Tesser]

6 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Isn't there already such a mechanism — amend to the opposite sense?

My book is not handy, but I don't think so, unless the effect would be different from voting down the original motion (in its original sense).  (But, um, that's what Guest is distinctly not addressing, I suspect, so maybe Bob's your uncle.)

[Dan Honemann]

If Mr. Tesser's book had been handy (and not all the way over there under his elbow where it customarily resides according to him) he would have referred you to (2) on page 138.

[Guest Zoning Board of Appels App]

A montion was made to approve an application. We were told a motion to approve was required in order to have discussion on the application. A motion to deny could not be made first.

The motion to approve the application failed.  This board considers the failed motion a denial of the application. 

We are bound by PA 110 of 2006, PA 33 of 2008,  and our Zoning Ordinance. 

Thoughts??

[Hieu H. Huynh]

2 minutes ago, Guest Zoning Board of Appels App said:

A montion was made to approve an application. We were told a motion to approve was required in order to have discussion on the application. A motion to deny could not be made first.

The motion to approve the application failed.  This board considers the failed motion a denial of the application. 

We are bound by PA 110 of 2006, PA 33 of 2008,  and our Zoning Ordinance. 

Thoughts??

Please post as a new topic.