Vote of Confidence

Q: Every year my organization has to have a "Vote Of Confidence" for its elected officers.  As parliamentarian I cannot find any procedure to do this in Robert's Rules Of Order.  Is there an established voting procedure for this?

You are correct that Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) does not mention such a vote. In parliamentary style governments (i.e., England and Canada), there is a vote of no confidence, which essentially dissolves parliament and forces an election. It is rarely used and rarely successful when attempted. There is no such procedure in America.

RONR does mention the motion to Censure (see page 120). A motion to Censure does not remove the subject of the motion, but serves as a formal reprimand. Censures are embarrassing to the recipient and the result goes into the minutes, to be recorded for all time in the history of the organization. A motion to Censure may be the closest thing to a vote of no confidence.

Your organization, however, uses a vote of confidence. RONR mentions a motion to "commend" as being the opposite of the motion to Censure (see page 131, line 12). Your vote of confidence may be similar to a motion to commend the elected officers.

The important question is what would be the repercussions if the organization rejected the vote of confidence? Unless your bylaws and rules have clear procedures for this, I do not think the impact would be any different than that of rejecting a motion to commend.

You are right to be questioning any type of procedure that is vague and not clearly defined. Your efforts here will prevent future problems from occurring. A rule of procedure should be adopted to define how the vote of confidence should be used and the impact of adopting or rejecting it.

When Can The President Vote?

Q: If there are no restrictions stated in a organization's constitution, is it unconstitutional for a president to vote during elections if he/she is presiding over the election?


The rules here are simple. The presiding officer has the right to vote as any member, however, he/she should refrain from voting as much as possible in order to maintain a sense of impartiality before the assembly. There are three cases when the presiding officer can vote:

1. A ballot vote
The results are secret and the presiding officer does not lose impartiality by voting.

2. A roll call vote
All votes are recorded in the minutes and the presiding officer's vote is recorded just as the other members.

3. Making or breaking a tie
If a tie exists, the motion or election will be lost. The presiding officer can vote "yes" to break a tie, if he has not already voted (cannot vote twice). If a vote is one more in the affirmative, the presiding officer can vote "no" to make a tie and defeat the motion or election.

It is recommended that elections be conducted by ballot. This enables the presiding officer to secretly cast his vote. Otherwise, the presiding officer might be placed in the unenviable position of voting to make or break a tie in an election -- the effect of which will be taken personally by the candidates and may set up the winners of the election with little confidence from the assembly as they begin their term.

Teleconferencing Rules

Q. When my organization conducts a teleconference meeting, the chair insists on taking all votes by voice, even though we have had several contested and debated issues. Our bylaws have no provisions for teleconferences, even though we use Robert's.

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (page 482-483) states: "The bylaws may authorize a board or committee to meet by . . . teleconference. If they do, then such a meeting must be conducted by a technology that allows all persons participating to hear each other at the same time . . . It is advisable to adopt special rules of order and standing rules, as appropriate, to specify precisely how recognition is to be sought and the floor obtained during . . . teleconferences."

Electronic meetings tend to restrict the deliberative process. For example, telephone conferences allow each individual to hear, but not to see. Studies have shown that hearing has one of the lowest retention rates for communication:

• Reading 10%     
• Hearing 20%
• Seeing 30%
• Hearing and Seeing 50%

When only hearing is available for a meeting, the ability to communicate is cut in half.

Whenever membership rights are to be limited, it must be authorized. Bylaws are inflexible by design, hard to change, and cannot be suspended. Special Rules, however, are easier to change and can always be suspended (with a 2/3 vote). In a meeting context, it is better to have this flexibility. So, authorize with the bylaws, but specify with special rules.

I recommend you approach your chairman and explain to him that teleconferences must be authorized by the bylaws. Also recomend that some special rules be adopted. For example,

"In a teleconference meeting, voting shall be conducted as follows:

a. Unanimous consent shall be used whenever possible and especially for routine business such as adoption of the agenda, approval of the minutes, or adjourning the meeting.
b. A roll call vote shall be taken whenever a two-thirds (2/3) vote is required or whenever a member calls for a Division to verify a voice vote."

This gives your chairman the option to conduct voice votes as long as the attendees are comfortable with it. Also, a 2/3 vote is required to Limit Debate, move the Previous Question, take items out of order from an approved agenda, or otherwise Suspend the Rules. A 2/3 vote cannot be taken by voice and a standing vote cannot be taken over the telephone, so the only option for extra-majority votiing is to do a roll call.