Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Re-hashing Appointees


HungryJack619

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm currently a University student and I had some questions as to how a procedure would operate for something that's going to happen in our upcoming student legislature meeting.

 

At our previous meeting we were handling approval for the President's annual cabinet nominations (our election cycle just ended a few weeks ago so the new President-Elect needs to hire his cabinet). Most of the cabinet were accepted and ratified by the legislature, as required by our Bylaws, but two individuals were not approved. For our upcoming meeting the President obviously had to select two new individuals to fill those positions. The issue is that he chose the same individual as his appointment and (assuming the information that I'm hearing is correct) will be bringing her before the legislature for approval a second time.

 

So, the obvious question. Can he do that? Fundamentally I'm sure the approval won't pass, but last time it was a 19-20 vote with one abstaining, so there's always the chance that he played politics in the week since our last meeting. Each appointment ratification is it's own resolution, and from what I understand the language of the resolution will be identical to the previous one, so on top of re-hashing his appointment he's also be re-hashing a piece of legislation that was voted down..

 

And I know what you're thinking, the right thing to do would be to move to reconsider the previous resolution, but without that happening is it allowed? What's the rule citation on something like this, or has it ever come up before? Is it up to the chair to simply not entertain a motion to introduce that legislation? Is it simply our of order? Is it an absurd or dilatory motion?

 

Thanks for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the obvious question. Can he do that? Fundamentally I'm sure the approval won't pass, but last time it was a 19-20 vote with one abstaining, so there's always the chance that he played politics in the week since our last meeting. Each appointment ratification is it's own resolution, and from what I understand the language of the resolution will be identical to the previous one, so on top of re-hashing his appointment he's also be re-hashing a piece of legislation that was voted down..

 

A defeated motion can be made again (i.e. "renewed" or, if you prefer, "re-hashed") at the next meeting as if it had never been made before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the vote was that close (19-20 with one member abstaining), I think the president has probably engaged in some lobbying, which is perfectly permissible, and believes he now has the votes necessary for approval.  That's politics.  I don't personally believe that renewing a motion at the next meeting, when it was defeated on such a close vote, should be considered dilatory.    It's up to the assembly to decide that question, though, if a point of order is raised or if the presiding officer raises it on his own.

 

If the original motion had been defeated by an overwhelming majority, or if the president had already submitted the appointment for confirmation several times before with the same outcome, I would see it differently.

 

I just don't think that renewing a motion that was defeated only one time by such a close vote is dilatory.  It also seems to fly in the face of the RONR provisions that a motion can be renewed at the next or any subsequent session.  If renewing a motion that was defeated by such vote only one time is dilatory, what is the purpose of the rule that allows motions to be renewed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the limit to this? In this situation what stops the President from appointing the same person over and over and over until the legislature gives up and approves them because we NEED that position filled?

Yes, or until the President gives up and nominates someone else because the position needs to be filled.

I think such fears are a bit premature, however, since at the moment, the chair is resubmitting the nomination once, and is doing so (at least in part) because the initial vote was extremely close.

The chair could rule the motion to be "dilatory" and then not consider it (subject to appeal). A member could raise an "Objection to the Consideration" of it.

The chair certainly could rule the motion to be dilatory, but based upon the facts presented, I don't see any reason why the motion should be viewed as dilatory.

I concur that an Objection to Consideration of the Question would be in order, but that seems unlikely to be successful, since that motion requires a 2/3 vote and the assembly appears to be closely divided on the issue.

If the original motion had been defeated by an overwhelming majority, or if the president had already submitted the appointment for confirmation several times before with the same outcome, I would see it differently.

I would too, but in either case, I still would see no reason the motion would be out of order (at least, not based upon anything in RONR).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My statement above was meant for the situation that the president keeps nominating the same people and these get defeated every time. But if this is just the second or third time, I certainly think he has that right.  After that point, I think a member would be justified in raising an Objection to the Consideration of the motion, although a 2/3 vote against consideration is required to defeat this motion.  It also seems to me that a reasonable president would eventually give up pushing these particular individuals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. Is the reason that the motion to approve the nominee would be in the nature of a motion to Ratify, which is an incidental main motion?

Yes (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 124-25). The words "approve" and "confirm" seem to be a bit more descriptive of what is happening here.

 

I agree that Object to Consideration would not be in order, but for the simple reason that any question required by the bylaws to be placed before the assembly ought not be subject to objection.  

 

In this case it would be the objection itself that should not be considered as it would, if adopted, conflict with the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...