Motions

[Guest km]

In our organization, a motion to deny a grant was struck down by majority vote 4 to 3. Does this mean that the grant is approved or does this require a new motion and vote?

[jstackpo]

The problem was the motion being stated as a negative.  Defeating or adopting a simple negative motion is meaningless because the end result is the same no matter what:  you have not decided anything.

 

Do it again but state things positively: "I move we award [jstackpo] a grant of a gazillion bucks".   No question then as to what the two possible outcomes (adopt or defeat) mean.

[Richard Brown]

The problem was the motion being stated as a negative.  Defeating or adopting a simple negative motion is meaningless because the end result is the same no matter what:  you have not decided anything.

 

Do it again but state things positively: "I move we award [jstackpo] a grant of a gazillion bucks".   No question then as to what the two possible outcomes (adopt or defeat) mean.

I agree with Dr. Stackpole.  Motions stated as a negative (that we not do something) are almost always a bad idea....and primarily for just the reason that your situation presents.  Since the motion to not do something failed, it opens the door to the question, "Does that mean that we do do it?

 

I would say that in this case, no, it does not mean that you award the grant, but you see firsthand now the problems caused by wording the motion the way it was worded.  Unless you have a procedure that you haven't told us about, before the grant can be awarded, there must be a motion made and adopted to award the grant....which is the way it should have been phrased to start with.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

In our organization, a motion to deny a grant was struck down by majority vote 4 to 3.

 

Does this mean that

(a.) the grant is approved

or

(b.) does this require a new motion and vote?

Indeed, it "requires a new motion and vote."

 

***

 

Background on rationale:

Q. Why isn't a "grant to deny" which is defeated automatically considered a "grant to allow"?

A. Because both might be voted down.

 

Example.

* Imagine a motion, "To deny Mr. Jones permission to use the organization's name in Mr. Jones' advertising campaign."

* If this is voted down, and if a member were to re-word the motion positively (viz. "To allow Mr. Jones permission . . ."), then that motion, too, might be voted down.

* That is, the organization might want to go on record has neither granting nor denying anything, officially.

 

That is why a motion should never be worded to be equivalent to "taking no action at all."

 

Here, in this scenario, where permission must be obtained by Party P1 from Party P2, the status quo is, "Permission is denied." So you never vote to "leave the status quo as the status quo," since a defeat confuses the membership, who have not adopted any official action (yet). -- The keyword being, "adopted."

 

This tactic is most often seen where the members are deliberating trying to avoid taking a stand, either way, positive or negartive.

The classic example is a political statment. -- The members might reason, "Our tax-exampt status must not be put in jeopary by us advocating a political party or legislative position."

 

Summary:

To vote [issue X] down never assumes that the opposite-of-X is approved.

A negative vote is way of saying,

"The words in that motion are not our words"

or

"That statement is not an official statement of our organization."

 

***

[Dan Honemann]

I do not think that enough information has been provided in order to be sure of a correct response to this question.

 

By this I mean that it is too simplistic an answer to say that by defeating the motion "to deny a grant" the assembly did not decide anything. It decided that it would not deny the grant. What, exactly, this means may or may not become clearer with additional facts.

[Gary Novosielski]

In our organization, a motion to deny a grant was struck down by majority vote 4 to 3. Does this mean that the grant is approved or does this require a new motion and vote?

 

Well, the grant wasn't approved. And it wasn't denied, apparently.  But the result of a failed motion is a decision that nothing should change.  So things are much as they were before.

 

It does not require a new motion and vote, as long as the status quo is what you want.  

 

But a motion not to do something is usually not in order in the first place, as it would usually accomplish the same thing as doing nothing.  

 

In the future, it would be best to phrase your motions so as to approve a grant, so that the positions of Yes and No become clear.

[Edgar Guest]

The result of a failed motion is that nothing changes.  It does not require a new motion and vote, as long as the status quo is not what you want.  

 

One too many nots?

[Richard Brown]

I do not think that enough information has been provided in order to be sure of a correct response to this question.

 

By this I mean that it is too simplistic an answer to say that by defeating the motion "to deny a grant" the assembly did not decide anything. It decided that it would not deny the grant. What, exactly, this means may or may not become clearer with additional facts.

 

Well, the grant wasn't approved. And it wasn't denied, apparently.  But the result of a failed motion is a decision that nothing should change.  So things are much as they were before.

 

It does not require a new motion and vote, as long as the status quo is what you want.  

 

But a motion not to do something is usually not in order in the first place, as it would usually accomplish the same thing as doing nothing.  

 

In the future, it would be best to phrase your motions so as to approve a grant, so that the positions of Yes and No become clear.

Going out on a limb here, I suspect that one thing Mr. Honemann might have meant by his comment is that this particular organization might conceivably have a customized rule that says something to the effect that "Applications for grants that appear to meet the criteria established by Grant Rule XYZ and have been approved by the Grants Committee Chairman shall be paid by the treasurer after a delay of 30 days unless an objection thereto is filed by a member of the Board within said 30 day period.  If such an objection is filed, the Board shall review the grant application and make a determination whether to deny the grant".

 

That is the scenario I had in mind by my statement in post number 3 as follows:  "Unless you have a procedure that you haven't told us about, before the grant can be awarded, there must be a motion made and adopted to award the grant....which is the way it should have been phrased to start with."

 

If there is such a rule in place, then I believe that a rejection of the grant application by the Board is indeed a final rejection and it would be inappropriate for someone to then make a motion to approve the grant, unless it is done using the procedure to rescind or amend something previously adopted.

 

Correction:   Strike the above paragraph.  The motion to deny the grant application FAILED, it did not pass, as I incorrectly said above.  Since the hypothetical rule that I referred to says that the grant shall automatically be awarded unless the Board votes to deny the grant, the end result would be that failure of the Board to deny the grant amounts to automatic approval of the grant.

 

Note:  I realize that is an unlikely scenario, but it is still possible and would be an example where failure to deny something amounts to approval of the action.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Thinking on what Mr. Honemann said in Post #5, I can see how the opposite opinion of the provided responses could be a reasonable one. We are given that "a motion to deny a grant was struck down". Suppose the organization must decide on a grant. So the actions that can be taken are to approve a grant or to deny a grant. No matter the wording of the motion, one of those two actions must be taken. So if the organization decides to not deny the grant, I think it could be reasonable to conclude that the other action must be taken.

 

Of course, more info from Guest_km would be helpful.

[Tom Coronite]

...this particular organization might conceivably have a customized rule...

 

 

..suppose the organization must decide on a grant...

 

 

Or the assembly may have previously taken some action on or had a motion relating to this grant.  In that case, the decision "not to deny the grant" would mean something else.  That is what I thought of as far as "additional facts".