Appointed Officer Approval

[Guest ryandmcc]

Our committee bylaws state certain officers "shall be appointed by the Chair and approved by the Executive Committee. The appointments shall take place within 30 days after election of the Chair."

Is there any recourse in Robert's Rules if the Chair appoints the officers but the Executive Committee refuses to approve them within the 30 days?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The chair would appoint someone who would be approved.

[George Mervosh]

Or, do you mean the executive committee is just not acting on the appointment at all?  If the answer to this question is, yes, no, the chair can't do a thing to force them to act. 

Edited March 29, 2017 at 04:52 PM by George Mervosh
Added second sentence.

[Guest ryandmcc]

2 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Or, do you mean the executive committee is just not acting on the appointment at all?

The executive committee has stated they might not approve the chair's appointments.  I am not sure if this means vote them down or not vote at all.

[George Mervosh]

1 minute ago, Guest ryandmcc said:

The executive committee has stated they might not approve the chair's appointments.  I am not sure if this means vote them down or not vote at all.

If they vote the appointment down, then Mr. Huynh has answered your question.

[Guest ryandmcc]

10 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

If they vote the appointment down, then Mr. Huynh has answered your question.

Thank you.  That is what I figured.  Is there a difference if they fail to act?

[George Mervosh]

3 minutes ago, Guest ryandmcc said:

Thank you.  That is what I figured.  Is there a difference if they fail to act?

It might be worse (if they're not acting  because they don't like the appointee), but in reality, I thin Mr. Huynh nailed it.

[Robert B Fish]

4 minutes ago, Guest ryandmcc said:

 Is there a difference if they fail to act?

It depends on your bylaws.  If the bylaws somehow require them to act on a presidential appointment, i.e."The Executive Committee shall give and up or down vote..." then they must act.  Otherwise, they could just decline to act.  The "pocket veto" possibility by the POTUS has existed for a long time.

-Bob

[Richard Brown]

55 minutes ago, Guest ryandmcc said:

. . .  Is there a difference if they fail to act?

If they refuse to act at all, as opposed to just refusing to confirm specific appointments, the membership might believe that the members of the executive committee are refusing to perform their duties and subject them to censure, removal from office, or even expulsion.  Anything beyond censure gets tricky.  Chapter XX in RONR (the chapter on discipline) devotes 26 pages to disciplinary procedures.  Your bylaws will also likely have a say on what you can do and how you have to go about it.  But, you probably aren't helpless.  RONR does provide remedies for such obstinance.

Even if the executive committee is taking up the appointments but is routinely refusing every appointment of the president, if the membership believes they are not acting in the best interests of the society, the membership likely has the remedies I mentioned above. 

Another option, of course, is the one suggested by Mr. Huynh:  The president can try appointing people whom the executive committee will approve.

And if it is the president who is being difficult, he is likely subject to discipline or removal from office as well.