Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Presidential Designations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission dispute over White House designees derails agenda at U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Summary
Commissioners sparred over whether the commission should vote on White House designees, including Carissa Mulder, with Chair Rochelle Garza ruling the motion out of order because the commission had not received a formal designation letter; a parliamentary challenge failed and the chair's ruling stood.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opened its Sept. 19 business meeting with a heated dispute over whether to take up presidential designations for the commission’s leadership and staff.
Commissioner Adams moved to amend the agenda to add the president’s designation of Carissa Mulder as staff director, saying the commission has operated with a vacancy and ‘‘Carissa…will make an excellent staff director’’ and urging an immediate vote. Chair Rochelle Garza replied that ‘‘the statute requires…the president [to] request concurrence’’ and said commission practice requires a formal designation letter from the White House presidential personnel office; she ruled the motion out of order until such a letter is received.
Adams challenged the chair’s ruling and sought a full‑commission vote. Vice Chair Nurse and others read portions of 42 USC section 1975 into the record and debated whether the statute specifies a required method for communicating designations. Adams cited a Feb. 19 email from General Counsel David Gans that he said indicated White House communications were adequate; Garza said the commission had not received the formal letter and therefore had ‘‘no valid request before it.’’
Commissioner Harriott warned that the administration had made threats—she said ‘‘threats have been made’’—and said she would not approve votes without assurances the commission’s independence would be protected. Harriott urged caution, arguing that the commission is not an executive agency and stressing the need to preserve independence.
After a parliamentary exchange, the commission held a roll‑call vote on whether the chair’s ruling should stand. The ruling that the motion was out of order was sustained and the attempt to add the White House designations to the agenda failed. The chair then moved on to the next agenda item.
The dispute left unresolved whether the White House’s email transmissions met statutory requirements for designations; Chair Garza said the commission will vote ‘‘once we receive a formal designation letter,’’ while proponents of immediate votes maintained the White House had signaled its choices.
The commission did not take up any confirmation votes for presidential designees at the meeting.
