Revoting on an adopted Motion

[Guest Nancy]

Recently, our county government passed a Motion to deny a resolution to support a scenic byways initiative in our county. The chairman (county judge) was not happy with the outcome of this event and we have been informed intends to bring the issue up for a vote again. The circumstances surrounding the resolution have not changed in any significant way. No committess have been formed and no further research concerning the issue has been done. The quorum court has adopted Robert's Rules of Order as their rules of procedure for all county proceedings.

Our question is: Can the judge bring the denied resolution back up and just try to obtain a vote again when a motion to deny the resolution was just passed on August 9th. We believe the intent is to bring it back for a vote on September 13th. The vote to deny the Motion to support scenic byways initiative was 6 in favor and 2 abstaining and 1 absentee member.

Any light you can shed would be helpful

[Robert B Fish]

Recently, our county government passed a Motion to deny a resolution to support a scenic byways initiative in our county. The chairman (county judge) was not happy with the outcome of this event and we have been informed intends to bring the issue up for a vote again. The circumstances surrounding the resolution have not changed in any significant way. No committess have been formed and no further research concerning the issue has been done. The quorum court has adopted Robert's Rules of Order as their rules of procedure for all county proceedings.

Our question is: Can the judge bring the denied resolution back up and just try to obtain a vote again when a motion to deny the resolution was just passed on August 9th. We believe the intent is to bring it back for a vote on September 13th. The vote to deny the Motion to support scenic byways initiative was 6 in favor and 2 abstaining and 1 absentee member.

Any light you can shed would be helpful

The required vote to rescind a previous action is 2/3 vote without notice, majority vote with notice, or a majority of the entire board. In your case, as a government body, I expect you must provide notice of actions at a meeting. Therefore, a majority vote could rescind the previous action. (Even without notice, a vote of 5 members would be sufficient to rescind the previous actions.)

Finally, we don't generally like negative motions since the same result occurs by doing nothing.

-Bob

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Recently, our county government passed a Motion to deny a resolution to support [X].

The chairman ... was not happy with the outcome of this event and we have been informed intends to bring the issue up for a vote again.

Okay.

Whatever was rejected can be re-entertained.

X was denied.

Maybe now X will be approved.

The circumstances surrounding the resolution have not changed in any significant way.

No committees have been formed and no further research concerning the issue has been done.

Irrelevant, and irrelevant.

Can the judge bring the denied resolution back up and just try to obtain a vote again when a motion to deny the resolution was just passed on August 9th.

Yes.

A rejected motion ("To not do X" or "To deny X") adopts nothing.

A motion which was rejected may be "renewed" (the technical term) in a new "session" (i.e., a new "order of business").

***

The original motion was poorly put.

It is improper to word a motion so that an affirmative vote is equal to never making the motion at all.

See RONR, where the book refers to "negatively worded" motions.

You never are to move "To not do X," or here, "To deny X."

Defeat of the motion (where the negative vote prevails) never implies "That we do X" or "To approve X."

You would have to vote again, to see if the affirmative vote (to approve X) prevails.

Voting twice on the same question is not allowed. - It is dilatory.

That is why the original motion was poorly put.

That is why negatively worded motions are to be avoided. - You are never to vote so that the affirmative vote is equal to no action, i.e., no change in the status quo.

[Gary c Tesser]

Well!

Mr Fish thinks that a motion to deny was adopted.

Mr Goldsworthy thinks that a motion was denied.

It looks as if Guest Nancy thinks that the motion was adopted, but I bet all three of us agree that the procedural structure -- the assembly "passed a Motion to deny a resolution to support ... [an] initiative" -- is much more complicated than most of the 70,000-odd issues we've seen discussed on this nonpariel parliamentary website forum. Perhaps the county might think about simplifying that stuff some. Or plenty.

[Edit:]

... I should have said, "all four of us."

[Edited to reflect improved ability to count to four.]