Obama Needs to Re-Nominate Robinson to Keep Appointment Alive

* * *Update: President Barack Obama re-nominated Marietta Robinson January 24. * * *

President Barack Obama must reissue the nomination of Marietta Robinson under Senate Rule XXXI or chose another person to fill the commissioner slot for which he selected her. Under that rule, nominations not acted on in one session of Congress will not be acted on in the next without resubmission by the President. Robinson is not alone in this situation as Congress sent back roughly 120 such stalled nominations with notice in the January 3 Congressional Record as part of the formalities at the start of the 113th Congress.

CPSC, as a small agency, historically has not been a nomination priority at the beginning of presidential terms. For example, Obama’s nomination of current Chairman Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Robert Adler did not occur until four months into his first term (PSL, 5/11/09, p. 1).

The commission currently has two open seats vacated by Thomas Moore in 2011 and Anne Northup in 2012. Obama nominated Robinson a year ago to fill Moore’s slot (PSL, 1/3/12, p. 1) and has yet to select Northup’s replacement. Robinson received a confirmation hearing last May (PSL, 5/14/12, p. 1), but the Senate did not act further. Speculation is that the Senate is waiting to have two nominations – a Democrat and Republican – to approve at once.

Without action, the commission risks falling to just two members– Tenenbaum and Adler – by the end of the year because Commissioner Nancy Nord is serving the final year of her tenure. She leaves in October. Her term ended last October, but the CPSA allows commissioners to serve an extra year to help protect against an under-filled commission. Moore and Northup also served their extra years.

In a related topic, Nord wrote an article published in the Winter 2012-2013 edition of the Cato Institute’s Regulation magazine and titled “Too Many Commissioners?” She questions the wisdom of multi-member commissions, citing political division as a problem. She also reiterates her desire for a greater level of cost-benefit analysis. She suggests a single administrator might be better, concluding:

“Granted, a single decisionmaker could make the wrong decision. That is what judicial review is for. But when a single decisionmaker stumbles, he or she can be held accountable. By contrast, on a multi-member commission, a good rule will have many fathers, while a bad one is always an orphan.”