It occurred to me a while back that anyone coming here to learn about the no confidence vote, and some people did, would have to sort through a lot of commentary to get the facts of the case. Thus I offer a simple summary of what happened:
For many and varied reasons many came to the conclusion that Selma Botman, University of Southern Maine President, was doing her job so badly that her removal, while not sufficient, was necessary to fix the university.
First a petition was circulated. It did not go to the full faculty because there was fear or retribution against those who signed, thus those who could still be promoted were not asked to sign. The petition received the votes of a majority of the top-level professors (the group that was asked to sign) and received more than one and a half times the votes necessary to move forward.
At this point one could already see confusion in news sources about the requirements of the eventual no confidence vote. The Bangor Daily News, for example, reported the necessary threshold as "a majority of the faculty".
After that it was necessary to figure out how to go about taking the vote. This had never been done before and a method had to be worked out. Selma Botman had a hand in that method (and what I think of her demands is by now well recorded.) What was not publicly discussed at this point, at Botman's request, was what would be necessary for the vote to be considered successful.
As noted, the papers had already reported the threshold as a majority of the faculty. This version would soon be forgotten. The Governance Document, which is what actually determines how such procedures are to be carried out, said it needed "a two-thirds vote of those voting".  This was never widely reported. Selma Botman said it would need a two-thirds of the entire faculty whether they voted or not. This was widely reported.
When the vote was held the vote a greater than two thirds majority of those voting voted no confidence, which also represented an outright majority of the entire Faculty. 
Selma Botman immediately claimed victory and it was widely reported that the vote failed. Some new sources even erroneously claimed it had failed to reach a majority.
What effects the vote might have remain to be seen, but the story of the vote itself seems to end with it being reported to have failed. The chancellor noticed that the vote took place, and came to the university to talk to various people. If anything changes, it will come from that.
 The Faculty Senate did not and does not have the power to remove Botman and therefore the nonbinding vote was a recommendation to those who do have such power. While a no confidence vote against a USM President had never been carried out before, the method for the Faculty Senate to go about making a recommendation to the chancellor and Board of Trustees to do something the Faculty Senate lacks the power to do is in fact clearly described.
Normally such a recommendation would go through the USM President, but Selma Botman wasn't about to recommend she be removed and for recommendations like that the university Governance Document has an entire section (Article VIII.) The procedure is very simple actually. When a senate -be it the Faculty Senate, the Student Senate, the Professional Staff Senate, or the Classified Staff Senate- wants to make a recommendation that the university president doesn't agree with it holds a vote. Then "upon a two thirds vote of those voting" the recommendation is sent to the chancellor and/or the Board of Trustees along with the university president's dissenting recommendation.
Thus, one would think, it would be clear that what was necessary for the vote to be declared a success would be for two thirds of those voting to vote in favor.
 The vote was 194 no confidence, 88 not-no confidence. (There were no other options.) The total faculty is 377. Thus 68.8% of those voting voted no confidence, which is 51.5% of the total faculty. Turnout was 74.8%.
23.3% of the faculty came out to vote against no confidence as compared to 25.2% who either chose not to vote or were unable to vote and, as previously mentioned, 51.5% who voted no confidence.
All figures have been rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.