DPOC Executive Director controversy – post meeting analysis

Gerrie Schipske

Now that I have had time to complete some review and further research on the selection process for the Democratic Party of Orange County’s Executive Director here is where things are as I see it.

First, the bylaws of the party specify what is supposed to happen with the selection of an Executive Director.

Article VII.
A. Executive Director 

The Executive Director shall be employed or appointed with the approval of the Executive Committee. The appointment shall be ratified by 60% of the County Committee at the next regular meeting. The job description of the Executive Director shall be approved by the  Executive Committee and ratified by the County Committee. The Executive Director shall  perform all duties assigned by the Officers and report in writing on any and all activities to the Executive Committee.

The Executive Board took the following action at its meeting on February 8, 2010:

” To extend the deadline for completing Search Committee process until February 22nd, 2010 and to approve selection of the Search Committee of any of the finalists. “

While there are members of the Central Committee who dispute the ability of the Executive Board to prospectively approve the selection, there is clearly nothing in the Bylaws that prohibits them from taking that action. Absent such a prohibition, the Executive Board can pretty much decide how it wants to handle the appointment and approval of the hiring of an Executive Director. In this particular case, because of time constraints, they did so in advance by designating that decision to the Selection Committee.

Since the Central Committee took no action to ratify the appointment, the ratification is still outstanding. The appointment however, stands. Presumably, if the Central Committee ultimately fails to ratify the decision to hire, Schipske could be out.

I am still trying to determine if Schipske still wants the job.

  4 comments for “DPOC Executive Director controversy – post meeting analysis

  1. Jim Benson
    February 23, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    My understand after talking to the parlementarian is that the appointment stands unless the central committee rejects it, failing to ratify allows the apointment to stand.

    The members I talked to did not wish to reject the appointment, but felt that the rules were not followed regarding it. The fact that a press release to the media prior to the central committee meeting being able to consider the appointment was the major objection.

  2. Pat
    February 23, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    For the record –

    There was NO PRESS RELEASE.

    It was just an email blast to the Democrat list. funny that the register is on the dem list

    • February 23, 2010 at 7:03 pm

      Pat,

      for the record, an email blast to the DPOC general mailing list through the ConstantContact service they use, in fact constitutes a release. Media are included in that list. That is how we usually find this stuff out. It usually does not happen by direct email press release.

  3. lefty
    February 24, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    \If nominated I will not run, if elected, I will not serve.\ P-LBJ

    Come-on, how about someone from the OC?

    Chris Prevatt maybe ….

Comments are closed.