Parliamentary Procedure Q&A

Q: I heard something today which surprised me. At a meeting which subscribes to Robert's Rules, the secretary announced that "a motion, if adopted, is only effective or binding until the next election of officers has been installed. It is not binding upon the successor to the current president. Any matter which should extend beyond one presidential term should be in the form of a resolution. The difference between a 'motion' and a 'resolution' is that a resolution is voted upon three times (I assume in three consecutive meetings) before it may take effect the same for Bylaws changes." Is this so? If so, it is certainly news to me! I asked if this were in the organization's bylaws and he said that it was not, it was according to Robert's Rules of Order. Any ideas on this? - J.R., Jan. 2, 2000

A: It just ain't so.

Resolutions are merely motions that are more formalized. They are usually written, and sometimes have a preamble ("Whereas ...") section in addition to the resolution ("Resolved ...") section. They are used when a motion is particularly long or complicated, or when more pomp is desired.

They are voted on once, just as a regular motion. (And there is no requirement in RONR that motions to amend the bylaws be voted on thrice.) They are almost invariably original main motions (as opposed to motions like Commit or Adjourn), motions to Amend Something Previously Adopted or motions to Rescind.

The affirmative decision on a regular motion is just as binding as that on a resolution. There is no expiration at the end of a term.

HOME QUESTIONS OTHER SITES
1