tie vote

[Guest rockhill]

If a motion to approve a request results in a tie vote, my understanding is that the motion fails due to lack of majority. But does that also automatically mean that the request is denied? Or could other motions (motion to deny, motion to approve with conditions, etc.) be made and voted on?

Thanks!

[Chris Harrison]

If a motion to approve a request results in a tie vote, my understanding is that the motion fails due to lack of majority.

Correct.

But does that also automatically mean that the request is denied?

No. It just means that the request wasn't approved.

Or could other motions

(motion to deny,

Generally not because RONR prefers positive motions rather than negative ones.

motion to approve with conditions, etc.) be made and voted on?

The motion can be Reconsidered (with very strict time limits which are discussed on RONR p. 316 and someone who voted with the prevailing side would need to make that motion) and can be amended to include whatever conditions you all wish.

[Josh Martin]

If a motion to approve a request results in a tie vote, my understanding is that the motion fails due to lack of majority.

Correct.

But does that also automatically mean that the request is denied?

Well, no, it simply means that the request has not been approved at this time... although there's not a particularly meaningful distinction between that and "denial" in an ordinary assembly.

Or could other motions (motion to deny, motion to approve with conditions, etc.) be made and voted on?

A motion "to deny" generally serves no useful purpose as the same result can be accomplished by voting down a motion to approve (or doing nothing). An exception might be if applicable laws or rules require some proposal to be either approved or denied, such as in zoning boards. A motion to approve "with conditions" may or may not be in order at the same session depending on whether it constitutes a substantially different question from the motion that was voted down. In any case, a motion to approve (with or without conditions) would be in order at a later session. As noted, there are also time limits within which the vote on the motion may be Reconsidered.

[Guest rock hill]

Thanks for the response. Sorry for the repost--I got an error message last night and did not see my question posted properly this morning.

At any rate, this is a Zoning Board of Appeals' situation related to a special exception. State law is silent about whether a special exception must be "approved or denied." But our Zoning Ordinance states that "after the close of the public hearing, the ZBA shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application ..."

So, based on your statement above, am I to understand that one of these must be done actively--that is, a motion to approve must receive a majority vote, or a motion to approve with conditions must receive a majority vote, or a motion to deny must receive a majority vote? And thus that the tie vote resulting in the failed motion to approve did NOT constitute proper dispensation of the request ... that the board members should have continued debating the issue until one side resulted in a majority vote?

Thanks.

[jstackpo]

Well... yes and no (sorta)

A tie vote, as you know, does not adopt, or "defeats", the motion, so a tie in either of the two variations of "approve" clearly means that the zoning appeal was "not approved", leaving the existing zoning rules in place for whatever the "special exception" wanted to accomplish. Job done. Decision reached. Y'all can move on to other issues. The developer can't put up his shopping center in the RR (or whatever) zone.

The problem comes in the logical consequences of "not adopting" a motion to "dissaprove" (a double negative). RONR avoids the problem by urging groups to avoid making "negative" motions - for the most part. See p. 104, 105.

Whether your Zoning Ordinance does impute any specific consequence to not adopting a motion to deny, is, I fear, up to you and your lawyers.

Good luck!

[Josh Martin]

At any rate, this is a Zoning Board of Appeals' situation related to a special exception.

Yes, when I saw you asking whether an assembly could deny an application after it had not been approved, I had a feeling that might be the case.

So, based on your statement above, am I to understand that one of these must be done actively--that is, a motion to approve must receive a majority vote, or a motion to approve with conditions must receive a majority vote, or a motion to deny must receive a majority vote? And thus that the tie vote resulting in the failed motion to approve did NOT constitute proper dispensation of the request ... that the board members should have continued debating the issue until one side resulted in a majority vote?

So far as RONR is concerned, a tie vote means the motion is defeated and this is sufficient to dispose of the motion. Whether this is sufficient under the law you have cited is a question for a lawyer.

[Gary Novosielski]

So, based on your statement above, am I to understand that one of these must be done actively--that is, a motion to approve must receive a majority vote, or a motion to approve with conditions must receive a majority vote, or a motion to deny must receive a majority vote? And thus that the tie vote resulting in the failed motion to approve did NOT constitute proper dispensation of the request ... that the board members should have continued debating the issue until one side resulted in a majority vote?

I would think not.

In adopting a motion to approve, with or without conditions, the matter is clearly disposed of. (This could be handled by moving approval of the application and, if appropriate, adding conditions through the normal process of amendment--or not, followed by a final vote on the application (with conditions if any).

But If the final vote in favor is less than a majority, no parliamentarian would have a problem referring to the motion as having been "rejected".

Unless we are prepared to distinguish between rejecting an application and denying it (which would be a distinction without a difference), I would suggest that a zoning board which rejects an application by a tie vote or worse could correctly inform the applicant that his application had been denied.

Requiring a majority vote for either outcome is unworkable. The presumption is that the existing code is to remain in force unless and until a variance is actively approved by the board. As such, a tie vote constitutes a denial (or "rejection" if you prefer) of the application.

[Guest Edgar]

Unless we are prepared to distinguish between rejecting an application and denying it (which would be a distinction without a difference), I would suggest that a zoning board which rejects an application by a tie vote or worse could correctly inform the applicant that his application had been denied.

While your position appears quite reasonable, I suspect it is inconsistent with the rules governing many zoning boards of appeal which, as far as I can tell, seem to require either the "affirmative approval" or the "affirmative denial" of an application. In practical terms, this means determining the outcome of the vote before the motion is made so that, for example, in anticipation of denial, a motion to deny can be made (and adopted). Perhaps it's analogous to the approval of minutes where failure to approve it not an option so the minutes must be worded such that approval is a given.

[Gary Novosielski]

While your position appears quite reasonable, I suspect it is inconsistent with the rules governing many zoning boards of appeal which, as far as I can tell, seem to require either the "affirmative approval" or the "affirmative denial" of an application. In practical terms, this means determining the outcome of the vote before the motion is made so that, for example, in anticipation of denial, a motion to deny can be made (and adopted). Perhaps it's analogous to the approval of minutes where failure to approve it not an option so the minutes must be worded such that approval is a given.

It's also possible that there are a number of zoning boards out there that don't understand their own rules.

I wouldn't care to hazard a guess in any particular instance, and I won't affirm or deny a belief in such a concept as "affirmative denial". If it exists, it may be related to non-denial denial, or perhaps plausible deniability.

[Josh Martin]

Unless we are prepared to distinguish between rejecting an application and denying it (which would be a distinction without a difference), I would suggest that a zoning board which rejects an application by a tie vote or worse could correctly inform the applicant that his application had been denied.

This is entirely correct so far as the rules of RONR are concerned, but zoning boards often have weird rules (typically contained in local law) on this subject, so I think the original poster should consult with the city attorney for a definitive answer.