It is sometimes suggested that an Intergroup hold votes of confidence / no-confidence in all of its officers, say annually.
This runs against the Traditions for the following reasons:
- It is heavy-handed and overly formal (Tradition IX): if someone's work is not good enough, the fact can be raised informally, courteously, kindly, and constructively at Intergroup meetings. The Intergroup should work with any underperforming officer to help them perform their role better or to provide assistance to plug skill and time gaps. A vote of no-confidence should be a rarity, a last resort with an uncooperative and belligerent officer, not a primary tool of the Intergroup.
- Intergroup meetings are held precisely to discuss (Warranty IV) its work through its officers in a cordial, collegiate, and cooperative way. If an officer 'failed' in such a routine confidence / no-confidence vote, it is the Intergroup that has failed, not the officer, by not raising and solving problems earlier.
- It is personally punitive (Tradition XII, Warranty V).
- It is divisive (Tradition I).
- It suggests lack of fundamental trust in officers (Concept III).
- It focuses on the personalities, not the principles (Tradition XII).
- Rather than involving the officer in the work of Intergroup, Intergroup is standing above the officer. This has the flavour of an 'act of government' (Warranty VI) and certainly denies participation (Concept IV). Officers would be demoralised, and Intergroup members would be more reluctant to take up officerships.
- It is a human measure, not a Godly measure (Tradition II). Where votes or ballots are necessary, sobeit, but they should not be used as an alternative to God speaking through the voices of the Intergroup members.
- It will almost inevitably lead to grievances, which, under Concept V would have to be dealt with. Such processes are inevitably counterproductive and vexatious for everyone involved.
In short, it's unnecessary, unhelpful, and mean.