experts also attend an annual luncheon, hosted by the NGO Committee on the Status of Women, NY (NGO CSW/NY), where key issues are discusses and the efforts of the committee are honored. Officers of the Committee The officers of the committee are composed of a chairperson, three vice-chairpersons and a rapporteur. Officers of the committee are nominated by another member of the committee, as opposed to a government which nominates members for the committee. All officers are elected by majority vote to a two-year term of office, and remain eligible for re-election after their term expires. The chairperson's duties include declaring a meeting to be open or closed, directing the discussion in a session, announcing decisions made by the committee, preparing agendas in consultation with the secretary-general, designating the members of pre-sessional working groups and representing the committee at United Nations meetings which the committee is invited to participate in. In the case the chairperson is unable to perform any her duties she designates one of the three vice-chairpersons to take over her role. If the chairperson fails to designate a vice-chairperson prior to her absence then the vice-chairperson with the first name in English alphabetical order takes over. In the event an officer is unable to continue serving on the committee before her term expires a new officer from the same region as the original officer shall be nominated, elected and will take over the vacated office. As of June 2019, the 23 members are: Optional Protocol The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is a side-agreement to the Convention which allows its parties to recognise the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to consider complaints from individuals. The Optional Protocol was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 6 October 1999 and entered into force on 22 December 2000. Currently it has 80 signatories and 114 parties. Controversy Controversy around CEDAW comes from two opposite directions: social and religious conservatives which claim that CEDAW is seeking to impose a liberal, progressive, feminist standard on countries, in detriment of traditional values; and radical feminists, who are skeptical of the power, or even desire, of CEDAW to radically transform societies and truly liberate women, and claim that CEDAW adheres to a form of weak liberal feminism similar to other mainstream organizations. They also claim that UN