if negative motion is adopted

[Trina]

In this recent thread, the original poster described a motion to deny a certain resolution which had been presented to an assembly:

One of the responses indicated that, although the negative motion wasn't really the right way to approach the decision, nonetheless a motion had been adopted. Therefore, should the assembly later wish to approve the resolution, they would need to do so by the vote necessary to rescind the first motion.

This doesn't seem to make sense.

version 1)

"I move that we accept the resolution." Debate, eventual vote, motion fails. The resolution is not accepted. The motion can later be renewed, and passed by majority vote.

version 2)

"I move that we deny the resolution." Debate, eventual vote, motion passes. The resolution is not accepted. Now they have to attain a two-thirds vote (or one of the other thresholds for rescind) in order to accept the resolution at a future meeting??

Logically that just doesn't make sense -- using mirror image language to achieve exactly the same result shouldn't leave the assembly in two different parliamentary situations at the next meeting, should they then wish to (essentially) renew their consideration of the resolution.

Can one argue that the motion to deny doesn't have ongoing force, since it didn't change the status quo in any way? Therefore, there would be nothing to rescind. Is that the way out of the puzzle?

Or is the parliamentary situation really different in the two versions (as the response in the other thread claimed)?

[Dan Honemann]

The difficulties caused by various kinds of negative motions can be difficult if not impossible to unravel, but there is no hope at all for having a sensible discussion about anything so sloppy and meaningless as "I move that we deny the resolution."

[Trina]

The difficulties caused by various kinds of negative motions can be difficult if not impossible to unravel, but there is no hope at all for having a sensible discussion about anything so sloppy and meaningless as "I move that we deny the resolution."

The statement that gave rise to the discussion in the other thread was:

"Recently, our county government passed a Motion to deny a resolution to support a scenic byways initiative in our county."

I'm not sure if that really helps to focus the question though.

If the (passed) motion to deny a resolution does not lead to any change in the status quo, is it valid to argue there is nothing to rescind?

[Gary c Tesser]

Agreeing with Mr Honemann, on the merits as well as a well-trained and obliging fear of some of his punctuation marks and moods (remember when I confused his service as a drill instructor somebody else's being a doilies trainer? They could feel the temblors in the Solomon Islands, or somethin), and accepting the difficulty if not impossibility of unravelling the mess without being there (being there, doing that; often used in the past-perfect tense), it remains that some governments seem to have an option, and sometimes a duty, to deny things, in the parliamentaryly active sense (as we have seem from a few discussion threads for a few years). (Oh I see ... discussion "threads," "unravelling" -- neat, Dan! ) It seems to me that, opaque as it may be as to what was accomplished or what the resulting situation is, in that thread of Guest Nancy's, it is ineluctable that, as Nancy said, "our county government passed a Motion ...," and "The vote ... was 6 in favor and 2 abstaining...."

This means that the denial, whatever it means, is what is ongoing; and it is that which must be addressed, unless it can be established that, even in Guest Nancy's scenario, they actually did do nothing whatsoever becasue, even in their context, what they purported to do was meaningless gibberish.

[Dan Honemann]

Meaningless gibberish is right.

I can just hear it now -- "Mr. President, I move the rejection of the following resolution: ... "

[Robert B Fish]

If the (passed) motion to deny a resolution does not lead to any change in the status quo, is it valid to argue there is nothing to rescind?

Because the motion DID pass. As Dan notes, they've caused a mess but they DID pass a motion and the motion was that the permit be denied. If they wish to undo that action, the proper motion is rescind.

However, if the applicant wishes to reapply for the permit, IMO, he/she is free to do so and the board could grant that permit by majority vote...after review by an attorney, of course.

-Bob

[Dan Honemann]

Because the motion DID pass. As Dan notes, they've caused a mess but they DID pass a motion and the motion was that the permit be denied. If they wish to undo that action, the proper motion is rescind.

-Bob

No, they did not pass a motion that a permit be denied. According to the facts as stated, they passed a motion that a resolution be denied.