Motions

[Guest Mike]

Is there any time that a negative motion is permissible?

[Joshua Katz]

Well, certainly when a higher-ranking rule requires it, as in some land use cases. But there are also some cases where a negatively-framed motion nonetheless calls for action. The key is that a motion with no effect is out of order. Do you have a case in mind?

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:40 PM, Guest Mike said:

Is there any time that a negative motion is permissible?

    "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 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."    RONR, 12th ed., 10:11

[laser158689]

In CT, municipal legislative bodies only have authority to reject tentative labor contracts.  As such, motions on contracts are phrased as rejections.
 

I'm sure there other subjects where that's the only way to properly phrase the desired action, but I expect that's a very small set.