I would love to spend the time to get into researching case law/precedent, both for the USA's federal level, and for the state where HiFo is registered, to see if your interpretation here is sound. Sincerely, actually. I understand the value of addressing this form the legality side. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of time.

But near as I can tell, you're playing word games with the term "appoint". Your argument depends on the supposition that the word "appoint" in this context means "pick a person that is wanted (and tell them about it I hope)". But you know very well that a bulk of the time, people don't take the word "appoint" to mean that, and more importantly, when they do, the context clearly indicates that. Usually, the expected meaning of "appoint" is "(previous meaning), and that person accepted".

It's a flaw of the English language, in other words, that lets you make this argument (that "appoint" can mean both "picked for a position" and "picked for a position and actually got into that position (either by accepting it, or clearing other prerequisites)"), not a clear case that that is the appropriate interpretation.