Guest ross Posted July 31, 2014 at 01:45 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 at 01:45 PM A board of adjustments meeting to look at a variance, the motion was made to deny the variance ( yes a bad idea). 2 no votes 2 yes and 1 obstain so motion to deny fails, so is that approval for the variance?? No other motions occured other than motions to adjurn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 31, 2014 at 01:49 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 at 01:49 PM A board of adjustments meeting to look at a variance, the motion was made to deny the variance ( yes a bad idea). 2 no votes 2 yes and 1 obstain so motion to deny fails, so is that approval for the variance?? No other motions occured other than motions to adjurn No. "It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement even in cases where the effect of the motion is to propose that something be done, since members may become confused as to the effect of voting for or against such a motion. Rather than moving, for example, that the association go on record as "not in favor of the proposed public bond issue," it should be moved that the association "oppose" or "declare its opposition to" the bond issue. In this connection, it should be noted that voting down a motion or resolution that would express a particular opinion is not the same as adopting a motion expressing the opposite opinion, since—if the motion is voted down—neither opinion has been expressed. A member may be in complete agreement with the views contained in such a resolution yet feel that his organization should not speak out on the matter, and he might therefore vote against the resolution." RONR (11th ed.), p. 105 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 31, 2014 at 01:57 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 at 01:57 PM I've sometimes thought that such boards might have an obligation to affirmatively approve or affirmatively deny a request for a variance. If that's the case (and I'm going to try to ask some knowledgeable about it today), the board would presumably have a sense of which way the voting would go and then frame the motion (i.e. either to approve or deny) so that it would be adopted. Of course this goes beyond anything RONR says. And, of course a tie vote complicates this theory (of mine) since it appears the result would be the same (a tie) no matter how the motion was worded. So feel free to disregard this "thinking out loud". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 31, 2014 at 02:45 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 at 02:45 PM I am of the opinion that a failed motion to deny is not the same as a motion to approve. However, as Edgar Guest suggested, there are cases where a decision must be made one way or the other. If the motion were worded so as to ask whether the variance should be approved, I see no problem with saying that it was denied, since taking no action is the same as it being denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted July 31, 2014 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 at 03:00 PM I am of the opinion that a failed motion to deny is not the same as a motion to approve. However, as Edgar Guest suggested, there are cases where a decision must be made one way or the other. If the motion were worded so as to ask whether the variance should be approved, I see no problem with saying that it was denied, since taking no action is the same as it being denied. I feel the same way - but not approving a motion to deny something, it does not mean that the group supports the issue as no motion to approve the issue has been passed. And I hope Guest Edgar gets the additional information, I hope it helps clarify the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ross Posted July 31, 2014 at 03:50 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 at 03:50 PM Edger if this helps- In this case it is a County variance so Minnesota Statute 394.21-37 is mentioned in the county ordinance, and no mention of manditory answer to affirm or deny the request found anyplace in the ordinance under powers , procedure, or findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 31, 2014 at 04:33 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 at 04:33 PM Edger if this helps- In this case it is a County variance so Minnesota Statute 394.21-37 is mentioned in the county ordinance, and no mention of manditory answer to affirm or deny the request found anyplace in the ordinance under powers , procedure, or findings. Well, it helps only in the sense that it confirms the fact that your answer is not likely to be found in RONR, other than the previously noted observations that defeating a motion to deny is not the same as adopting a motion to approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 31, 2014 at 04:44 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 at 04:44 PM The board decided that it would not deny the variance. What this means under the rules applicable to this particular board is something that we don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 4, 2014 at 05:52 AM Report Share Posted August 4, 2014 at 05:52 AM A board of adjustments meeting to look at a variance, the motion was made to deny the variance ( yes a bad idea). 2 no votes 2 yes and 1 obstain so motion to deny fails, so is that approval for the variance?? No other motions occured other than motions to adjurn Yes, a bad idea, and now you see why. But no, it certainly does not mean they accepted it. This is why negative motions aren't allowed in the first place--approving them and defeating them has the same result--nothing happens. The proper procedure is always to vote on a motion to accept a givenvariance, even if most or all of the board is clearly opposed. Then, on the same 2-2 vote, the motion to accept fails, and the variance has been denied, without ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 5, 2014 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 at 01:34 AM Edger if this helps- In this case it is a County variance so Minnesota Statute 394.21-37 is mentioned in the county ordinance, and no mention of manditory answer to affirm or deny the request found anyplace in the ordinance under powers , procedure, or findings. I suspect you may need a lawyer more than a parliamentarian. The first response said it all so far as RONR is concerned, but as Edgar and Dan note, that may not be the last word in this board. If the motion were worded so as to ask whether the variance should be approved, I see no problem with saying that it was denied, since taking no action is the same as it being denied. The proper procedure is always to vote on a motion to accept a givenvariance, even if most or all of the board is clearly opposed. Then, on the same 2-2 vote, the motion to accept fails, and the variance has been denied, without ambiguity. This is how it works under RONR, but I share Edgar's concerns in Post #3. It is my understanding that in some organizations (particularly the sort that do things like "approving variances"), defeating a motion to approve and adopting a motion to deny are not the same thing. No, it doesn't make any sense to me either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.