Result of a motion that fails to carry

[Guest Denise Schenvair]

I have a question. We had a petition for variance at our local Zoning board meeting last week.

There were three board members present (a quorum). With only three members, any motion must have unanimous consent to carry.

One board member made a motion to approve our request. It was seconded and two of the three voted for it, one against.

We were told that our variance was denied, as the positive motion failed to carry.

However, shouldn't they have made a motion to deny our request? Had that motion been made, it would have either died due to lack of a second, or been voted down.

It doesn't seem right that a denial be issued merely because the positive motion failed.

I would appreciate anyone's input on this situation.....I know you can't comment on the variance itself, but we are wondering if the correct procedure was followed.

[George Mervosh]

The motion to approve was not improper as far as Robert's Rules are concerned.

[JayW]

Is there a difference between your variance being "not approved" and being "denied"?

[tctheatc]

see pp 104-105 of RONR (wording of a main motion). Motions containing a negative statement (e.g, to deny your request) are to be avoided. A motion is a formal proposal that the assembly take certain action (RONR p 17).

It seems proper procedure was applied in your case. The motion was worded properly.

I'd think you'd have more heartache over the rule requiring a unanimous vote, as absent it, your request would've been approved.

[Tim Wynn]

I have a question. We had a petition for variance at our local Zoning board meeting last week.

There were three board members present (a quorum). With only three members, any motion must have unanimous consent to carry.

One board member made a motion to approve our request. It was seconded and two of the three voted for it, one against.

We were told that our variance was denied, as the positive motion failed to carry.

However, shouldn't they have made a motion to deny our request? Had that motion been made, it would have either died due to lack of a second, or been voted down.

It doesn't seem right that a denial be issued merely because the positive motion failed.

I would appreciate anyone's input on this situation.....I know you can't comment on the variance itself, but we are wondering if the correct procedure was followed.

Okay, say the motion, instead, was to deny your request and that motion was lost. You'd still be in the same situation. The request was not denied but not approved either.

Absent some particular rule requiring requests to be automatically approved unless they are denied, I don't see that you'd be in any better position the other way around.