Vote of No Confidence in a Process or Procedure

[MCV]

I need some help. I want to know if a vote of no confidence can apply to something other than a person or group. For example, if I object to the way in which my organization has handled workplace safety (i.e., they have not put in place the proper procedures, policies, safeguards) can there be a “vote of no confidence in the policies and procedures that put in place by administration X to deal with health and safety issues on campus”. Our parliamentarian is claiming that a person or group must be named, but that we can’t have a vote directed at a policy.

Any thoughts?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

I think that if you organization is responsible for putting such policies in place, then a vote of no confidence does not really accomplish anything.  In particular it does not change any policies.

It seems to me that it would be more productive to move the adoption of a policy that you believe should be in place, or to move the creation of a committee to study the policies in which you have little confidence, with instructions to report back improvements to current policies or establishment of new ones, that would improve workplace safety.

Here is a relevant FAQ from this web site's FAQ page:

Quote

 

7.   What is a vote of no confidence?

The term “vote of no confidence” is not used or defined anywhere in RONR, and there is no mention of any motion for such a vote. However, this does not mean that an assembly cannot adopt a motion, if it wishes, expressing either its confidence or lack of confidence in any of its officers or subordinate boards or committees. Any such motion would simply be a main motion, and would have no effect other than to express the assembly’s views concerning the matter. A vote of “no confidence” does not—as it would in the British Parliament—remove an officer from office.

 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

I can see that rationale for a motion to censure. 

But I can see having a lack of confidence in a policy. Or you could resolve it by rewording the motion to say that you

"disagree with" the policies and procedures
or
"have no faith/belief" that they will be effective in dealing with the health and safety issues
or
call upon the administration to work with your organization to develop effective policies and procedures to replace the ones that currently exist
or
a lot of other ways to express similar ideas. 

BTW, under RONR parliamentarians don't have the authority to rule motions out of order. They can advise the presiding officer and the presiding officer would make the ruling, subject to appeal.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/14/2021 at 2:35 PM, MCV said:

I need some help. I want to know if a vote of no confidence can apply to something other than a person or group. For example, if I object to the way in which my organization has handled workplace safety (i.e., they have not put in place the proper procedures, policies, safeguards) can there be a “vote of no confidence in the policies and procedures that put in place by administration X to deal with health and safety issues on campus”. Our parliamentarian is claiming that a person or group must be named, but that we can’t have a vote directed at a policy.

Any thoughts?

A motion of no confidence simply expresses the assembly's view that it has no confidence in whatever is named in the motion. While such a motion is customarily used in regard to a person or group, I see no reason why it is necessarily limited to those things.

I am in agreement with Mr. Novosielski, however, that there are likely more productive solutions.

[MCV]

Thanks for the feedback. There are various reasons why the no confidence in the process/procedures is the preferred way to go. The academic senate of which I am a part doesn’t set policy on workplace safety. It might be possible to target individuals, but it is unclear (due to a lack of administrative transparency) who is ultimately responsible for what we have seen take place on campus. By expressing our opinion regarding the process (with a detailed explanation of the way it has failed) we leave it to those responsible to fix the problems listed.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/15/2021 at 10:48 AM, MCV said:

Thanks for the feedback. There are various reasons why the no confidence in the process/procedures is the preferred way to go. The academic senate of which I am a part doesn’t set policy on workplace safety. It might be possible to target individuals, but it is unclear (due to a lack of administrative transparency) who is ultimately responsible for what we have seen take place on campus. By expressing our opinion regarding the process (with a detailed explanation of the way it has failed) we leave it to those responsible to fix the problems listed.

 

Well, if the Parliamentarian is intent on giving you a hard time about "no confidence" votes, and since RONR does not mention them, what you definitely can do is to move a "sense of the Senate" resolution, which is really the same thing but doesn't have the baggage of a "confidence" vote.

You could simply move that it is the sense of the Senate that the workplace safety policies are deficient in the following ways.....

And if you want to get fancy, you can dress it up as a Resolution, with a preamble such as Whereas this is bad; and, Whereas that is bad; and, Whereas people could die, Therefore, be it Resolved by the Academic Senate that what ought to be done is.....

See RONR 12th ed. 10:13 et. seq.