Polity – June 2025

Fact Verses Fiction: Procedural Myths, Part 1

As Presbyterians, our commitment to Robert’s Rules of Order goes without saying, but if we’re being honest, how many of us have actually read through all 800 something pages lately?  Since beginning my journey as your Stated Clerk, I have committed myself to working my way through the “tome” as I have come to call it, but the old joke “it reads like stereo instructions” often overtakes me. For the pastors among us, sure, we had to take a polity class or two in seminary and pass an ordination exam, but those don’t exactly cover parliamentary procedure in any great detail and even our Book of Order only mentions Robert’s Rules of Order once in its entirety (G-3.0105). If you’re like me up, I imagine most of what you know of parliamentary procedure comes from observation and participation in congregational/Presbytery gatherings over the years, accompanied by the occasional “fact checking” or reference look up.   If this is true, then like anything else that passes one hand to another through word of mouth, myths and misconceptions have a tendency to take root.  You may recall a popular television series from recent years titled “MythBusters” that put popular fan theories and myths to the test using the scientific method. Well, I invite you to join me in a two-part myth-busting series where I’ll take common procedural “facts” straight to the pages of Robert’s Rules of Order to see how they hold up. Therefore, submitted for the approval of the polity society of Giddings-Lovejoy, I present “Spotlight on Polity: MythBusters Edition!”

Let’s get started:

1. “Robert’s Rules is just a guide you don’t have to follow.” I’m sure I’ve heard this a time or two, and at times in my ministry, I might have even agreed to this sentiment to a certain extent. Like our polity at times, it can feel like Robert’s Rules of Order create a lot of extra hoops or hurdles in our meetings just to get anything done.  Sure, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone agrees on everything all the time, then this perception may be true, yet for many of us, we know all too well the rabbit holes we tend to fall into when we sidestep the parliamentary process.  This is why organizations adopt parliamentary procedures in the first place. So, sorry, this myth is busted. Bottom line, if an organization adopts a style of Parliamentary Procedure in their constitution and/or bylaws, such as we do in our Book of Order, it becomes the binding authority for the organization, and you must follow them.
2. “Only one motion can be on the floor at a time.” For those who struggle to think in the abstract, we may wish this one was true, but sadly, this is not the case. The correct answer is that Robert’s Rule establishes that only one “question” can be considered at a time. This is referred to as the “immediately pending question.” (RONR Chp.16) The correct answer is several pending motions can be on the floor at any given time, such as any secondary motions that are made during the handling of the main motion. In these cases, when you have several pending motions on the floor, they become a stack of motions to be considered and are discussed/voted one at a time according to rules of applicability and precedence.  Myth Busted!
3. “The Moderator can vote only to break a tie.” I know I’ve heard this one many times throughout my experiences moderating Sessions, and until recently, I couldn’t tell you if this was true or not. I had even heard this to the effect that a moderator must vote in order to break a tie, so early in my ministry I took it as fact and just prayed the situation never came up. Going to Robert’s Rules on the matter, the correct answer is if the Moderator is a member of the body, they can vote with the other members by ballet.  “In all other cases the presiding officer, if a member of the assembly, can (but is not obliged to) vote whenever [their] vote will affect the result—that is, [they] can vote either to break or to cause a tie; or, in a case where a two-thirds vote is required, [they] can vote either to cause or to block the attainment of the necessary two thirds.” (RONR 44:12). The idea that a moderator must vote to break a tie most likely comes from the misconception that a tie vote is indecisive, when in actuality, a tie vote with no tie breaker means that a motion fails due to not having a two-third or majority approval it requires. So, while we can safely conclude this myth is busted, it is worth affirming the moderator’s duty is to maintain the appearance of impartiality while presiding and should weigh their decision to vote in any matter with much discernment.
4. “The Parliamentarian/Stated Clerk makes rulings.” I know this one to be among the popular “facts” firsthand. In different situations since becoming Stated Clerk, I’ve had others say to me “Well, in that case, you as the Stated Clerk will just make a ruling.”  I think I’ve even seen this demonstrated at the General Assembly on occasion, eagerly waiting for the Stated Clerk and their assisting parliamentarians to make a decision to an inquiry on the floor. Even so, while the ego in me casually proclaims “Yes,” Robert’s Rules definitely says “no!” Parliamentarians such as Stated Clerks stand in service to the Moderator and assembly strictly in an advisory capacity (RONR 47). While the Stated Clerk can offer an opinion when consulted, the sole responsibility for ruling on a decision or inquiry lies with the Moderator or presiding chair, and of course, subject to the appeal of the assembly.  Sorry ego, this one is also busted!
5. “If a motion doesn’t receive a second, it is considered void.” If you ask me, this one makes sense.  The whole point of a motion requiring a second is to avoid wasting time on something no one else wants to discuss. However, the “fact” is only half true. When a motion is made, even if it does not automatically receive a second, it’s not automatically void.  If a motion is discussed, debated, or acted upon without a second, it is presumed to have a second, since the body chose to take action on it. If ever there was a time to raise a “point of order,” this would be it, but again, that window closes as soon as the motion is debated and voted. So, while I wouldn’t consider this one to be “busted,” I think the clarification is worth noting.

So, there you have it, your first five common procedural “facts” examined, and for most, busted.  What other procedural “facts” have you heard over the years and wonder if they stand up? Let me know, and maybe we’ll feature them in part 2 of our myth-busting series on the next “Spotlight on Polity.” Until next time, stay decent and in good order!

Rev. Dr. Brandan Eddy
Presbytery Stated Clerk
beddy@glpby.org