Affirmative Motion Defeated

[Guest jim beam]

If an affirmative motion is defeated, does that mean that opposite of what the motion was to achieve goes into affect? Confusing question for sure, so here is an example.

During a discussion that involved whether or not to move an object from point A to point B, a motion is made to leave the object in its current position. During the discussion after the motion was made,it was very clear to all voting members that if the motion passed it meant that the object was staying put and would not be moved and if the motion failed it meant the object was moving. The motion was voted on and it failed. The voting group knew the object was going to be moved. Seven weeks later, the voting group's legal counsel advises the group that just because the motion failed, it did not automatically mean that the object was going to be moved, and that it would take another motion, this time stating that the group wanted the object to be moved, had to be voted on and approved before the object could be moved. Was the advice provided by the group's legal counsel correct?

By the way, this is a real life example. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

[Rob Elsman]

If an affirmative motion is defeated, does that mean that opposite of what the motion was to achieve goes into affect? Confusing question for sure, so here is an example.

During a discussion that involved whether or not to move an object from point A to point B, a motion is made to leave the object in its current position. During the discussion after the motion was made,it was very clear to all voting members that if the motion passed it meant that the object was staying put and would not be moved and if the motion failed it meant the object was moving. The motion was voted on and it failed. The voting group knew the object was going to be moved. Seven weeks later, the voting group's legal counsel advises the group that just because the motion failed, it did not automatically mean that the object was going to be moved, and that it would take another motion, this time stating that the group wanted the object to be moved, had to be voted on and approved before the object could be moved. Was the advice provided by the group's legal counsel correct?

By the way, this is a real life example. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

The rejection of a motion means that the assembly has decided against doing what the motion proposes. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 31, ll. 31-35.

[abcdave]

If an affirmative motion is defeated, does that mean that opposite of what the motion was to achieve goes into affect? Confusing question for sure, so here is an example.

During a discussion that involved whether or not to move an object from point A to point B, a motion is made to leave the object in its current position. During the discussion after the motion was made,it was very clear to all voting members that if the motion passed it meant that the object was staying put and would not be moved and if the motion failed it meant the object was moving. The motion was voted on and it failed. The voting group knew the object was going to be moved. Seven weeks later, the voting group's legal counsel advises the group that just because the motion failed, it did not automatically mean that the object was going to be moved, and that it would take another motion, this time stating that the group wanted the object to be moved, had to be voted on and approved before the object could be moved. Was the advice provided by the group's legal counsel correct?

By the way, this is a real life example. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

It sounds like you voted not to leave an object in its current location but you never voted to move it anywhere - certainly not to "location B".

Having said that, it's far beyond the scope of this forum to evaluate in any way legal counsel advice.

[Mr. J!]

...a motion is made to leave the object in its current position...

If the motion is to do nothing other than the status quo--if the same result is obtained by making no motion at all--it should be ruled dilatory and not entertained.

[Rob Elsman]

The rejection of a motion means that the assembly has decided against doing what the motion proposes. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 31, ll. 31-35.

In other words, the rejection of a motion to do X means that the assembly has decided against doing X.

[Shmuel Gerber]

During a discussion that involved whether or not to move an object from point A to point B, a motion is made to leave the object in its current position.

By the way, this is a real life example. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

If it's a real-life example, then why is it a motion about moving objects in relation to points? Is this some kind of geometry society?

[George Mervosh]

I agree with Mr. J......as usual.

[hmtcastle]

I agree with Mr. J......as usual.

I assume you're referring to the agitated Mr. J!, who did reply, and not to our own Mr. J. who, so far, hasn't.

[George Mervosh]

I assume you're referring to the agitated Mr. J!, who did reply, and not to our own Mr. J. who, so far, hasn't.

Yup.....

[David A Foulkes]

During a discussion that involved whether or not to move an object from point A to point B, a motion is made to leave the object in its current position.

The motion was voted on and it failed.

The rejection of a motion means that the assembly has decided against doing what the motion proposes. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 31, ll. 31-35.

So if you simply move the object from its current resting place (perhaps to point C, for now), the will of the majority will be fulfilled. As to whether it is where the majority does want it to be, you can decide that by adopting another motion to move it somewhere else, and to some specific other place, as you probably should have done in the first place.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... discussion ... involved whether or not to move an object from point A to point B.

Okay. I am imagining this kind of main motion:

"That we move the gazebo, from the the west (left) end of the garden, to the east (right) end of the garden."

A motion is made to leave the object in its current position.

"Wham!"

There is your error.

You are to never make a motion where an affirmative vote is equal to DOING NOTHING.

This is called "negative motion."

Negative motions are not allowed, except where they make sense, which ought to be a rare occasion, indeed.

During the discussion after the motion was made, it was very clear to all voting members that if the motion passed it meant that the object was staying put, and would not be moved and if the motion failed it meant the object was moving.

Half right.

Half wrong.

• If the motion IS ADOPTED, you will have decided to DO NOTHING AT ALL.

• If the motion IS REJECTED, you will have decided NOTHING AT ALL.

Using my example, you will have "decided" to leave the gazebo in its present west-end location. - NO MATTER WHAT THE RESULT IS REGARDING THE VOTE.

Negative motions tend to increase the population of insane asylums.

The motion was voted on and it failed.

A failed main motion implies that THE STATUS QUO REMAINS IN PLACE.

(Here, my gazebo remain in place!)

The voting group knew the object was going to be moved.

Wrong.

Mark Twain has a quote that most of the problems of the world are cause by people who know things to be true when they ain't.

Seven weeks later, the voting group's legal counsel advises the group that just because the motion failed, it did not automatically mean that the object was going to be moved.

And that it would take another motion, this time stating that the group wanted the object to be moved, had to be voted on and approved before the object could be moved.

Was the advice provided by the group's legal counsel correct?

The advice matches Robert's Rules of Order, in that you've got to vote affirmatively on "a thing to do," and avoid affirmative votes on "things remaining the same."

To repeat the theme:

If the same thing can be accomplished by not making any motion at all, then don't make that motion, because it is a negative motion, and its adoption and its rejection are meaningless, and identical in effect.

[Gary Novosielski]

If an affirmative motion is defeated, does that mean that opposite of what the motion was to achieve goes into affect? Confusing question for sure, so here is an example.

During a discussion that involved whether or not to move an object from point A to point B, a motion is made to leave the object in its current position. During the discussion after the motion was made,it was very clear to all voting members that if the motion passed it meant that the object was staying put and would not be moved and if the motion failed it meant the object was moving. The motion was voted on and it failed. The voting group knew the object was going to be moved. Seven weeks later, the voting group's legal counsel advises the group that just because the motion failed, it did not automatically mean that the object was going to be moved, and that it would take another motion, this time stating that the group wanted the object to be moved, had to be voted on and approved before the object could be moved. Was the advice provided by the group's legal counsel correct?

By the way, this is a real life example. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

If an affirmative motion is defeated, it means the status quo ante continues to exist unchanged.

For that reason, a motion to leave things as (or where) they are should not be entertained by the chair, as the same objective could be achieved by not moving (in the parliamentary sense) anything at all. Such a motion is not truly an affirmative motion, as it attempts to define what the society will not do rather than what it will do. Trying to dress up the wording to make it sound affirmative doesn't make it any less frivolous.

[abcdave]

I agree with Mr. J......as usual.

I also agree completely with Mr. J! As does apparently every one else here (when your right - your right)

But, again, as to the original question - "Was the advice provided by the group's legal council correct?" - I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole - or a 700 page book!

It is nice to see us all having so much fun with the concept of a negative motion.

[Guest Joanne]

Do Robert's Rules of Order state that a motion should be worded in the affirmative?  i.e., is the folllowing incorrect?

 

"Be it resolved that the committee NOT accept the proposed revisions as presented"

[Josh Martin]

Do Robert's Rules of Order state that a motion should be worded in the affirmative?  i.e., is the folllowing incorrect?

 

"Be it resolved that the committee NOT accept the proposed revisions as presented"

 

Yes, RONR states that a motion should generally be worded in the affirmative. A motion should not be offered if the same result could be accomplished by doing nothing. The motion "Be it resolved that the committee not accept the proposed revisions as presented" is not appropriate. If someone else moves to accept the revisions, then other members can speak and vote against that motion and/or offer amendments to the proposed revisions.

 

For future reference, it's generally best to post a new question as a new topic, even if a topic from three years ago appears similar.