Motion to Deny

[russmoody]

Our 8-person city council recently voted on a land use change request. A motion was made to deny the request. It passed 6 to 2, but had it failed would the request then have been approved?

[Rob Elsman]

Our 8-person city council recently voted on a land use change request. A motion was made to deny the request. It passed 6 to 2, but had it failed would the request then have been approved?

Your question points up the very reason for not framing the motion in this way.

[Chris Harrison]

Our 8-person city council recently voted on a land use change request. A motion was made to deny the request. It passed 6 to 2, but had it failed would the request then have been approved?

In a nutshell a motion is proposing that an action be taken. If the motion is adopted than the assembly is choosing to take that action and if the motion is defeated than the assembly is choosing not to take that action and the status quo is still intact.

[Chris Harrison]

Your question points up the very reason for not framing the motion in this way.

The nightmare with this scenario is:

Me: "I move to deny the application", the vote is taken,

Chair: "The motion is defeated."

Me: "I move to approve the application, the vote is taken,

Chair: "The motion is defeated."

Me: "So what the #$#%$ do we do with this #$%% application????"

[Rob Elsman]

Your question points up the very reason for not framing the motion in this way.

I think I'm of the opinion that this motion cannot be put, since it places a question before the assembly that does not have two rational sides--a rational, affirmative side and a rational, negative side.

[Guest dan]

There also may be problems with a motion to approve the request/application. Suppose all 8 want to deny the application. Who makes a motion to approve? If there is no motion, then what happens to the application? If a person opposed to approval makes a motion to approve, but really opposes it, he can not state that he really opposes it.

I actually think this type of acting on applications or requests for "something" should have a different type of voting process than a standard RONR motion.

[Rob Elsman]

I think I'm of the opinion that this motion cannot be put, since it places a question before the assembly that does not have two rational sides--a rational, affirmative side and a rational, negative side.

For what it's worth, the poster might want to take a look at RONR (10th ed.), p. 100, ll. 18-32.

[David A Foulkes]

There also may be problems with a motion to approve the request/application. Suppose all 8 want to deny the application. Who makes a motion to approve? If there is no motion, then what happens to the application? If a person opposed to approval makes a motion to approve, but really opposes it, he can not state that he really opposes it.

I actually think this type of acting on applications or requests for "something" should have a different type of voting process than a standard RONR motion.

Here's how I see it:

A motion to refrain from doing something should not be moved when the same result can be attained by adopting no motion at all (p. 99 l. 33ff). Thus, if the result is to not approve the request, that result can be attained by not moving on it at all. So no one needs to move to approve in expectation of getting a majority in the negative, when the request is effectively denied by "ignoring" it.

If the council members were all clear with each other that no one would approve the request, the motion could be made and voted down or, in the absence of a second (since no one would want to even consider the motion), it would die a natural death, thus having it on record.

If no one wants to paint the barn red, I don't think you need to have a vote on it, you just don't bring it up. There will likely be a lot of items and actions the council would not want to approve or enact, but they don't have to spend the time to vote them all down, unless perhaps they want to go on record as such.

[Dan Honemann]

Here's how I see it:

A motion to refrain from doing something should not be moved when the same result can be attained by adopting no motion at all (p. 99 l. 33ff). Thus, if the result is to not approve the request, that result can be attained by not moving on it at all. So no one needs to move to approve in expectation of getting a majority in the negative, when the request is effectively denied by "ignoring" it.

If the council members were all clear with each other that no one would approve the request, the motion could be made and voted down or, in the absence of a second (since no one would want to even consider the motion), it would die a natural death, thus having it on record.

If no one wants to paint the barn red, I don't think you need to have a vote on it, you just don't bring it up. There will likely be a lot of items and actions the council would not want to approve or enact, but they don't have to spend the time to vote them all down, unless perhaps they want to go on record as such.

In some instances, however, it is the duty of governmental bodies such as city councils or zoning boards to act upon applications submitted to them. In these cases, the presiding officer should simply assume a motion to approve the application.

In those (perhaps rare) instances in which applications are deemed to be approved unless they are denied within a certain period of time, I think that the proper motion to make, if one is to be made, would be a motion that the application be denied.

[David A Foulkes]

In some instances, however, it is the duty of governmental bodies such as city councils or zoning boards to act upon applications submitted to them. In these cases, the presiding officer should simply assume a motion to approve the application.

In those (perhaps rare) instances in which applications are deemed to be approved unless they are denied within a certain period of time, I think that the chair may assume a motion that the application be denied.

Agreed.

And in continuing to ponder, I had that thought, that the council "must" act on the request one way or the other. Also, I'd say there is a (perhaps not so subtle) difference between not approving the request and in denying it. The latter is more of a direct action (saying "no"), whereas the former is somewhat more indirect (not saying "yes").

[Tim Wynn]

Our 8-person city council recently voted on a land use change request. A motion was made to deny the request. It passed 6 to 2, but had it failed would the request then have been approved?

To directly answer the question, no. RONR doesn't provide for adopting a motion by way of rejecting a motion to not adopt a motion.

It's the responsibility of the chair to ensure that the effect of the vote is clear. If you're uncertain about a motion, ask the chair what the effect will be if the motion is lost.

[Josh Martin]

It passed 6 to 2, but had it failed would the request then have been approved?

No. If the motion had failed, the assembly would have taken no action on the request (unless some law or rule of the council suggests otherwise). Presumably if the motion had failed, someone would have followed up with a motion to approve the application.

As noted, it's probably best to avoid motions worded in this manner at all, unless it is required by some law or rule of the council.

[Rev Ed]

This is a poster example of why a motion should always be worded in the positive - that way if the motion is defeated, then the issue is denied.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our 8-person city council recently voted on a land use change request. A motion was made to deny the request. It passed 6 to 2, but had it failed would the request then have been approved?

No. When any motion fails, the effect is the same as if it had never been made.

Obviously this motion should have been ruled out of order, since the same thing happens whether it is approved or not.

That is why only affirmative motions are in order. In other words, the only proper main motion would be to approve a request. The way you deny it is to vote No on the motion to approve.

[Josh Martin]

This is a poster example of why a motion should always be worded in the positive - that way if the motion is defeated, then the issue is denied.

That is why only affirmative motions are in order. In other words, the only proper main motion would be to approve a request. The way you deny it is to vote No on the motion to approve.

Okay, I think you both need to either carefully reread RONR, 10th ed., pg. 99, line 33 - pg. 100, line 9; pg. 100, lines 18-32 or choose your words more carefully. While you both have the right idea, what you're saying is not quite what RONR says on this subject. There is a reason it took the authors two paragraphs to say what you have condensed to one to three sentences - it's a bit more complex than you're making it out to be. Additionally, this is a good lesson on why it is dangerous to take the facts of a particular case and then make a broad generalization on the subject.

[Gary Novosielski]

Okay, I think you both need to either carefully reread RONR, 10th ed., pg. 99, line 33 - pg. 100, line 9; pg. 100, lines 18-32 or choose your words more carefully. While you both have the right idea, what you're saying is not quite what RONR says on this subject. There is a reason it took the authors two paragraphs to say what you have condensed to one to three sentences - it's a bit more complex than you're making it out to be. Additionally, this is a good lesson on why it is dangerous to take the facts of a particular case and then make a broad generalization on the subject.

I agree that the language on pp. 99-100 is more nuanced, and certainly gives a far more thorough and illustrative explanation of all the pitfalls of improperly framed and worded main motions.

But I can't find anything in there that would seem to contradict what either of us said in our response to this specific question.

[Josh Martin]

But I can't find anything in there that would seem to contradict what either of us said in our response to this specific question.

Well, let me put it this way. When the text says, "It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement" (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 100, lines 18-19), I think it goes too far to say that motions should always be worded in the positive or that only affirmative motions are in order, and I certainly don't think you'll find any support for the latter claim in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 106-108.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, let me put it this way. When the text says, "It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement" (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 100, lines 18-19), I think it goes too far to say that motions should always be worded in the positive or that only affirmative motions are in order, and I certainly don't think you'll find any support for the latter claim in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 106-108.

Okay, if I did in fact say "always" or "never" then I overstated.

But I have seen this question come up in zoning boards and adjustment boards before, where some inexperienced member moves "to deny" an application, and when the motion is voted down, everyone is left scratching their heads trying to figure out where they are now.

I know of one case where a motion to deny was voted down, the board adjourned, and the matter ended up in court with the property owner's lawyer arguing that the non-denial-denial was in fact a tacit or even explicit approval. Mercifully, I can't remember how it ended.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, let me put it this way. When the text says, "It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement" (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 100, lines 18-19), I think it goes too far to say that motions should always be worded in the positive or that only affirmative motions are in order, and I certainly don't think you'll find any support for the latter claim in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 106-108.

I read this to mean, in the presented case, that the motion should not be phrased "I move to not accept the request", as that includes a "negative statement." I see a subtle difference between "not accepting" and "denying", although (admittedly) that subtlety is mild.

If the motion is to accept the request, and it's voted down, is the request "denied", or merely "not accepted?" Conversely, if the motion is to deny, and it it's voted down, is the request "accepted", or merely "not denied?" (a very sharp scalpel to split this hair, indeed)

Denying is more of an active process ("I said no"), while not accepting is more of a passive process ("I did not say yes"). Parents out there know which one to use with their child effectively.

[Josh Martin]

I read this to mean, in the presented case, that the motion should not be phrased "I move to not accept the request", as that includes a "negative statement." I see a subtle difference between "not accepting" and "denying", although (admittedly) that subtlety is mild.

If the motion is to accept the request, and it's voted down, is the request "denied", or merely "not accepted?" Conversely, if the motion is to deny, and it it's voted down, is the request "accepted", or merely "not denied?" (a very sharp scalpel to split this hair, indeed)

Denying is more of an active process ("I said no"), while not accepting is more of a passive process ("I did not say yes"). Parents out there know which one to use with their child effectively.

The more critical citation in this particular instance is: "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 adopting no motion at all." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 99, line 33 - pg. 100, line 1) Unless there is some circumstance which would make the "motion to deny" meaningful (such as the possible legal situation Mr. Honemann mentioned), such a motion should be avoided.

[Rob Elsman]

The more critical citation in this particular instance is: "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 adopting no motion at all." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 99, line 33 - pg. 100, line 1) Unless there is some circumstance which would make the "motion to deny" meaningful (such as the possible legal situation Mr. Honemann mentioned), such a motion should be avoided.

I agree. There is also the problem of interpreting the meaning of the rejection of such a motion, as the original poster's question suggests.

[hmtcastle]

I agree. There is also the problem of interpreting the meaning of the rejection of such a motion, as the original poster's question suggests.

I suspect that in situations where an affirmative denial is required, the body has informally, in debate, agreed to deny the application (or whatever it is) and the vote is just a formality. So there's little or no chance that it would not be adopted.

All in favor of denying Mr. Jones' application?

All opposed?

The ayes have it and the application is denied.

[Rob Elsman]

I suspect that in situations where an affirmative denial is required, the body has informally, in debate, agreed to deny the application (or whatever it is) and the vote is just a formality. So there's little or no chance that it would not be adopted.

All in favor of denying Mr. Jones' application?

All opposed?

The ayes have it and the application is denied.

The meaning of the affirmative is not usually the problem. As the original poster seems to realize, the problem arises when the motion is rejected.

[hmtcastle]

The meaning of the affirmative is not usually the problem. As the original poster seems to realize, the problem arises when the motion is rejected.

True, but the original poster noted that the motion (to deny) passed by a vote of 6-2 so the question was hypothetical and the event, I suspect, highly unlikely. In other words, the eight members knew that the motion to deny would be adopted. Otherwise they would have made, and adopted, a motion to approve.

In this (municipal?) situation they may be required to adopt a motion. In other words, to either affirmatively approve or affirmatively deny.

But yes, defeating a motion to deny is problematic. On the other hand defeating a motion to approve doesn't mean the application was denied. The only way to do that is to adopt a motion to deny.

[Josh Martin]

On the other hand defeating a motion to approve doesn't mean the application was denied. The only way to do that is to adopt a motion to deny.

Well, I suppose you can say that, but the distinction between "not approved" and "denied" is irrelevant unless there is some applicable law at work here (which I admit may be the case).