Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Appointed Officer Approval


Guest ryandmcc

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by George Mervosh
Added second sentence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...