There is a prevailing belief that a “negative motion” cannot be made. Although there is a shade of truth in this belief, the actual rules are not quite this rigid. In reality, some governing bodies get so bogged down in procedural technicalities (with correct or incorrect assumptions made), that they don’t get their business done, or take more time for it than needed. This article relies on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th edition, referred to as “Robert”).

Take this scenario: A request for funding is presented to a public governing body, such as a municipal council. None of the council members favor approving the funding. Knowing that, under Robert, a mover is not allowed to speak against his or her motion, no one wants to make the motion to approve the funding. What can the council do to process the application and formally take a position on it?

On page 99 Robert states: “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. It is incorrect, for example, to move `that no response be made’ to a request for a contribution to a fund,’ or `that our delegates be given no instructions,’ unless some purpose would be served by the adoption of such a motion.”

Further, on page 100, Robert states: “It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement even in cases where it would have a meaning, since members may become confused as to the effect of voting for or against such a motion. Rather than moving, for example, that the association go on record as `not in favor of the proposed public bond issue,’ it should be moved that the association `oppose’ or `declare its opposition’ to the bond issue. In this connection it should be noted that voting down a motion or resolution that would express a particular opinion is not the same as adopting a motion expressing the opposite opinion, since-if the motion is voted down- no opinion has been expressed.”

It should be clear from the above quotes that the rules `prohibiting’ negative motions are not rigid, since Robert uses the words “should not” and not “must not.” The text also appears to accept a negatively worded motion when its adoption would serve a useful purpose. Therefore, in the scenario involving a grant application to a municipal council, it would be fine to make a motion “That the funding request relating to ___ be denied” or “That the funds not be granted.” The adoption of such a motion would enable the council to give an official and public response to the application. It is a “negative motion,” but it does serve a useful purpose.

Of course, there can still be confusion if the “negative motion” is defeated. In such a case it should be clear that the defeat of the motion does not mean that the application is approved. A separate positively framed motion would be needed to achieve this outcome. In addition, it cannot be assumed that a positive motion would be adopted. In fact, if the negative motion were defeated on a tie vote, a positive motion would also likely be defeated.