From the executive`s point of view, severance provisions offer significant protection and become key elements of the negotiated employment package, particularly when it leaves a secure role to join a new organization. Executives also have legitimate doubts about job security in the event of a personality conflict with board members or executives, positions often more often occupied than employee positions. As a result, executives often seek to narrowly define the circumstances under which a board of directors may dismiss them for reasons. In the absence of a public scandal detrimental to the reputation of both the executive and the association, the executive should be honestly informed of the alleged reason for dismissal and the possibility of reacting. An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature, since the treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from legally binding contracts. Most executive agreements were concluded in accordance with a treaty or an act of Congress. However, presidents have sometimes reached executive agreements to achieve goals that would not find the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the Americans entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on some British naval bases in the Atlantic.
To use the example described above, a 90-day period, perhaps even 60 days after the restoration that the CEO must move to Ohio should be enough to decide whether she stays at NEWC (after exercising her right to leave for “good reason”) or to retain her position and go to Akron. The employer must rightly know that if it changes with the company, it will not be able to change its mind two years later, citing “Good Reason” as the reason for moving to Manhattan.