Approval of Presidential Appointments

[AFS1970]

Another odd things has come up in my volunteer fire department. We have quite a few committees made up of members. Some committees are made up of certain members ex officio and those are specified in the bylaws. All other committees are appointed by the president, subject to the approval of the membership. However the bylaws are silent on what form that approval takes. In the few years I have been a member, I have never heard a motion made to approve or ratify the president's appointments of committee members. From what I can determine the lack of serious objection has always been taken as an informal approval. 

So this year the president read his list of appointments, and there were a few minor complaints, almost all of which were settled at the meeting. However there is one committee that has a chair who is growing more and more unpopular among the membership. Several members lobbied the president not to reappoint him committee chair, some even asked that he not be on the committee. This all apparently fell on deaf ears. So now a couple of members have brought up the idea that non of the committee appointments are valid as the membership did not approve of them. While I think they may have some technical merit to their point, I think that the traditional way the department has informally approved this action (which long predates my membership) is an acceptable way to conduct the business of the department. 

So my questions would be, absent specific language defining the method of acceptance, is a formal motion needed to accept the committees? When if ever does a traditional custom become the rule, at least until amended? If a motion is needed to approve the committees, can it be made at a later meeting? What would happen to the committee appointments if such a motion fails?

[George Mervosh]

27 minutes ago, AFS1970 said:

So this year the president read his list of appointments, and there were a few minor complaints, almost all of which were settled at the meeting.

Was the unpopular appointment one of those which were settled at the meeting?

Edited August 5, 2021 at 04:38 PM by George Mervosh

[Atul Kapur]

Usually, I've seen that the president announces the appointments and, unless there is an objection voiced, it is taken that these are approved by unanimous consent.

If an objection is raised, then the president can assume a motion to approve the committee appointments.

You may find 50:13(c) "nominations by the chair" helpful as it is very similar to the process you are describing.

Regarding custom, see 2:25 which specifies its place in the hierarchy of rules.

[AFS1970]

No the unpopular appointment was not settled at the meeting. 

Thanks for the info on unanimous consent, that is what I was thinking of, I just didn't have the wording right.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/5/2021 at 11:11 AM, AFS1970 said:

So my questions would be, absent specific language defining the method of acceptance, is a formal motion needed to accept the committees?

Not necessarily. This method is common and works very well:

During the president’s report he says: “The chair would like to appoint Jack Smith, Fred Jones and Roger Wilson to the building maintenance committee with Jack Smith as Chair. Is there any objection to those appointments?” Pause. “Hearing none, Jack Smith, Fred Jones and Roger Wilson are appointed to the building maintenance committee with Jack Smith as chair”. 

Note; there is no need to specify that Jack Smith is to be chair since he was named first and RONR says the member named first is automatically chair, but specifying that he is chair removes any doubt for those not familiar with RONR. 
 

Edited August 8, 2021 at 08:50 AM by Richard Brown
Added last six words.

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/5/2021 at 12:11 PM, AFS1970 said:

So my questions would be, absent specific language defining the method of acceptance, is a formal motion needed to accept the committees?

No, but the membership has the opportunity to object, as mentioned earlier.

In the situation that you describe, it sounds like there was an objection raised to one appointee. It sounds like the other appointments were adopted by general consent but if there was objection to the one person, that should have been processed more formally. 

On 8/5/2021 at 1:19 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If an objection is raised, then the president can assume a motion to approve the committee appointments.

I want to clarify that "assume a motion" means that the president doesn't have to call for someone to formally move and second the motion to approve the challenged appointment. It does not mean that the president can assume that the motion was adopted (this normally does not need to be specified but you mentioned that the president ignored objections raised). See RONR (12th ed.) 4:58-59 for more information.

[AFS1970]

The objections were names left off of the committees, like I was not initially reappointed to our bylaws revision committee. The committee chair questioned that and the president added me back in addition to my replacement. There were a couple of others settled the same way. 

My question was less about these objections, than about what formal acceptance we needed, as one member brought up that none of the appointments are valid. From what I have read here, they are valid. 

Thanks for all the help.