item previously allowed.

[Guest condoguy]

I live in a condo which requires certain types of unit construction projects get board approval. Tonight I requested to be allowed to install casement windows identical to what a neighbor already had approved ten years ago. It was moved that my Window project be rejected, which resulted in a 3-3. Since the motion failed as a tie vote, it seem to me the motions failed. The opposition failed to reject my new windows. My take is that the failure of this rejections, means the rejection lost and that I should now be allowed to install these previously approved Windows? I think so, as the motion to reject them failed.

[Josh Martin]

My take is that the failure of this rejections, means the rejection lost and that I should now be allowed to install these previously approved Windows? I think so, as the motion to reject them failed.

In my opinion, the fact that the motion was defeated means the board has taken no action on the matter. I would get one of your supporters to make a motion to approve the project. Of course, the motion "to reject" the request was meaningless and should not have been admitted by the chair in the first place, and the failure to follow proper procedure is why you're in this mess to begin with. The fact that a neighbor was granted an identical request ten years ago has no parliamentary relevance.

[hmtcastle]

My take is that the failure of this rejections, means the rejection lost and that I should now be allowed to install these previously approved Windows? I think so, as the motion to reject them failed.

This is why motions should not be made in the (negative) form you describe. Failure to say no is not the same as saying yes. But since the board was evenly divided on the proposal, a properly worded motion to approve your windows would likely have resulted in a tie vote as well, thereby rejecting your request. So, as Mr. Martin indicated, things stand right where they were before the vote. You needed approval and didn't get it.

[Gary Novosielski]

I live in a condo which requires certain types of unit construction projects get board approval. Tonight I requested to be allowed to install casement windows identical to what a neighbor already had approved ten years ago. It was moved that my Window project be rejected, which resulted in a 3-3. Since the motion failed as a tie vote, it seem to me the motions failed. The opposition failed to reject my new windows. My take is that the failure of this rejections, means the rejection lost and that I should now be allowed to install these previously approved Windows? I think so, as the motion to reject them failed.

When a motion fails, it means nothing has changed So you still don't have permission to change your windows.

Of course if the motion passed, you would also not have permission to change your windows.

For that reason, the motion should have been ruled out-of-order, because it is absurd and accomplishes nothing.

The only correct motion would be one to approve your application, because then, passage and failure have two different outcomes.

[Dan Honemann]

When a motion fails, it means nothing has changed So you still don't have permission to change your windows.

Of course if the motion passed, you would also not have permission to change your windows.

For that reason, the motion should have been ruled out-of-order, because it is absurd and accomplishes nothing.

The only correct motion would be one to approve your application, because then, passage and failure have two different outcomes.

Suppose the bylaws of this association require that the board act upon such applications by either approving or rejecting them. Since, when the matter was presented to it, the board decided that it would not reject this particular application, might it not be reasonable to conclude that it approved it?

[hmtcastle]

Suppose the bylaws of this association require that the board act upon such applications by either approving or rejecting them. Since, when the matter was presented to it, the board decided that it would not reject this particular application, might it not be reasonable to conclude that it approved it?

I'm afraid I don't find that very reasonable. If the choices are "approve" or "reject", "not reject" is not an option.

In instances where a board must either affirmatively approve or affirmatively deny a request (e.g. a zoning board of appeals), the decision is typically known beforehand and the vote, to either approve or deny, is just a formality. In the event that the board is evenly divided, neither an affirmative approval nor affirmative denial is possible so the status quo is preserved.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm afraid I don't find that very reasonable. If the choices are "approve" or "reject", "not reject" is not an option.

But that is exactly what the board decided. It decided that it would not reject the application.

[tctheatc]

Not that it helps much, but should not the chair, when announcing the result, also announce the effect of the vote? RONR p 46 line 25

Seems that especially in this case of a negatively worded motion that would be beneficial. The original poster is likely on shaky ground assuming the windows have been approved and may find later EXACTLY what the board meant. So would it be proper to ask the chair to state the effect of the vote?

[David A Foulkes]

Not that it helps much, but should not the chair, when announcing the result, also announce the effect of the vote? RONR p 46 line 25

Seems that especially in this case of a negatively worded motion that would be beneficial. The original poster is likely on shaky ground assuming the windows have been approved and may find later EXACTLY what the board meant. So would it be proper to ask the chair to state the effect of the vote?

Indeed, the chair is remiss in his duties if he fails to do this. And with a proper motion having been made, it is very helpful. But what would he announce? "The rejection of the request has been rejected."

Let's say you're driving a bus down a very narrow one lane road, barely enough room to get by without the sides getting scraped by the brush growing over the stone walls at the edge of each side of the road. The reverse gear is broken. There is only forward. At the end of the road we come to a junction. Left or right. Someone says "let's not turn right." A vote is taken, and it's a tie. So, do we turn left? Or do we sit still?

[tctheatc]

Indeed, the chair is remiss in his duties if he fails to do this. And with a proper motion having been made, it is very helpful. But what would he announce?

I'd suggest "There are 3 votes in favor, 3 against. The motion is lost. (The effect of the vote is) no action is taken on the request."

[Josh Martin]

But that is exactly what the board decided. It decided that it would not reject the application.

This is true, but the only case in which I would consider that to be meaningful is a situation in which the application is assumed to be approved unless rejected by the board, which is sometimes the case under weird zoning board-esque rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

But that is exactly what the board decided. It decided that it would not reject the application.

That way lies madness. The only appropriate motion for such a board is "to approve", regardless of how the majority of the board is apparently leaning.

If the motion to reject was lost, then the status quo ante is still in effect, i.e, no approval has been granted. It is the same as if a motion to adopt was lost--nothing has changed, and approval has not been granted.

And without approval, construction cannot proceed. So what is required for construction to begin is an adopted motion to approve.

A failed motion to approve, to reject, to or burn down the gazebo all have equal lack of force and effect. So would a motion to reject that died for lack of a second, that was postponed indefinitely, or that was withdrawn.

[Gary Novosielski]

This is true, but the only case in which I would consider that to be meaningful is a situation in which the application is assumed to be approved unless rejected by the board, which is sometimes the case under weird zoning board-esque rules.

Well, there are often rules that, if the board failed to act on it within x days, that the application would be deemed approved. That protects against boards that simply fail to meet.

[hmtcastle]

But that is exactly what the board decided. It decided that it would not reject the application.

I would say that, with the vote tied, the board made no decision at all.

[David A Foulkes]

I would say that, with the vote tied, the board made no decision at all.

If the motion had been to approve the request, and the vote was a tie, would you still say the board made no decision at all?

[Gary Novosielski]

The point is that construction requires board approval.

Failing to reject is not the same as approving, any more than failing to walk North is the same thing as walking South.

If the board fails to reject, then the application is not rejected, but neither is it approved.

If the board fails to approve, then the application is not approved, but neither is it rejected.

In these two cases, the board has arguably reached a decision (viz. not to do what the motion proposed) but in neither case did it change the status of the application. It remains unapproved, and construction may not proceed.

If the board agrees to approve, then the application is approved, and the status of the application has changed, and construction may proceed.

[hmtcastle]

If the motion had been to approve the request, and the vote was a tie, would you still say the board made no decision at all?

Yes, to be consistent, I'm afraid I'd have to.

It's analogous to a hung jury. They didn't find the defendant guilty but neither did they find him not guilty. The effect may be that he walks, but that's not the same as the jury reaching a decision.

So the effect of a tie vote may be the preservation of the status quo, but that's not the same as the board reaching a decision. In fact, it's the result of the board's failure to reach a decision.

[hmtcastle]

Failing to reject is not the same as approving, any more than failing to walk North is the same thing as walking South.

Well, I think that's an unfortunate analogy. For one thing, it fails to take into account such options as East and West which have no analog in the approve/disapprove situation.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, I think that's an unfortunate analogy. For one thing, it fails to take into account such options as East and West which have no analog in the approve/disapprove situation.

East = Postpone Indefinitely

West = Refer to committee, with instructions to shred before reading.

[David A Foulkes]

Yes, to be consistent, I'm afraid I'd have to.

It's analogous to a hung jury. They didn't find the defendant guilty but neither did they find him not guilty. The effect may be that he walks, but that's not the same as the jury reaching a decision.

So the effect of a tie vote may be the preservation of the status quo, but that's not the same as the board reaching a decision. In fact, it's the result of the board's failure to reach a decision.

If the vote had been 2 to 4, would the board have made a decision?

[Gary Novosielski]

If the vote had been 2 to 4, would the board have made a decision?

The motion fails either way, as you well know.

[David A Foulkes]

The motion fails either way, as you well know.

Yes, but I'm not questioning (Mr. M on) that.

"The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly is that, to become the act or choice of the body, a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote;..." (RONR 10th Ed. p.4 ll. 5-7)

"Since a majority in the affirmative is necessary to adopt the motion in the case mentioned (here talking about the chair voting, or not), a final result in the form of a tie rejects it." (p. 51 ll. 8-10)

Yes, more than half of the votes must be in the affirmative to adopt, but nothing I've found in RONR (yet) indicates that a majority in the negative is required to reject. In fact, a tie is as good as a majority in the negative. To imply that only a majority in the negative denotes a decision being made discounts the apparent equivalence RONR gives to a tie vote in the same regard. Either the decision is to adopt, or the decision is to reject (not adopt).

[Josh Martin]

Yes, but I'm not questioning (Mr. M on) that.

"The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly is that, to become the act or choice of the body, a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote;..." (RONR 10th Ed. p.4 ll. 5-7)

"Since a majority in the affirmative is necessary to adopt the motion in the case mentioned (here talking about the chair voting, or not), a final result in the form of a tie rejects it." (p. 51 ll. 8-10)

Yes, more than half of the votes must be in the affirmative to adopt, but nothing I've found in RONR (yet) indicates that a majority in the negative is required to reject. In fact, a tie is as good as a majority in the negative. To imply that only a majority in the negative denotes a decision being made discounts the apparent equivalence RONR gives to a tie vote in the same regard. Either the decision is to adopt, or the decision is to reject (not adopt).

Mr. Foulkes, your key citation is the first one. In order for something to become the act of the body, a proposition must be adopted by majority vote. The proposition (to reject the request) was not adopted by majority vote. Therefore, nothing has become the act of the body. Weird customized rules could change this, but so far as RONR is concerned, the board must actually adopt a motion to approve the request for it to be approved.

As long as we all understand this, I'm not particularly concerned with who wants to call what a "decision."

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. Foulkes, your key citation is the first one. In order for something to become the act of the body, a proposition must be adopted by majority vote. The proposition (to reject the request) was not adopted by majority vote. Therefore, nothing has become the act of the body. Weird customized rules could change this, but so far as RONR is concerned, the board must actually adopt a motion to approve the request for it to be approved.

As long as we all understand this, I'm not particularly concerned with who wants to call what a "decision."

It is important to understand, however, that rejection of a motion constitutes a decision by the assembly that the society will not do whatever it is that the motion proposes.

"If the assembly decides to do what a motion proposes, it adopts the motion, or the motion is carried; if the assembly expressly decides against doing what the motion proposes, the motion is lost, or rejected." (RONR p. 31, l. 31-34)

It is certainly true that when a motion is rejected, nothing has become an "act" of the body. No rule or policy has been adopted. Nevertheless, the assembly has made a decision not to do something, and such decisions have consequences (particularly with respect to subordinate bodies).