[A] Senate committee made the rare move of voting against one of the governor’s appointments on Wednesday after the state employees union urged them to stop the confirmation process of retired Burlington attorney Karen O’Neill.
The four Democrats on the Senate Committee on Economic Development voted against O’Neill, while the lone Republican supported her confirmation. The full Senate will vote on the nomination before the end of the session.
O’Neill was appointed to the state Labor Relations Board ahead of a crucial decision on contract arbitration between Gov. Phil Scott’s administration and the Vermont State Employees Association.
She was among those who selected the last best offer put forward by Scott — despite a neutral fact finder previously finding in favor of the union.
VSEA quickly targeted O’Neill after the vote, saying that she had a purely management resume, and that her appointment was rushed through without proper senatorial oversight, union consultation or interviews with candidates nominated for the position.
Sen. Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden, said four senators came around to the same position after taking hours of testimony on the appointment.
“I think it’s fair to say labor has grave doubts about Ms. O’Neill’s ability to be neutral, but we didn’t take their word for it,” Baruth said in an interview after Wednesday’s vote. “We did our own deep dig and our own interviews and came to our own conclusion that was similar to theirs.”
When senators said they planned to hold hearings on the appointment, Scott said it would be “shocking – and clearly political” if the Senate rejected O’Neill’s nomination.
Baruth said there was nothing political about the decision, and that the senators duty to “advise and consent” did not simply mean acting as a rubber stamp, particularly when statute required a particular appointee to have specific qualifications.
“If the expectation is that we will in perpetuity forward every nominee, than there is something wrong with this,” he said.
Sen. Michael Sirotkin, D-Chittenden, the chair of the committee, said that for the past 30 years O’Neill has been working either in management or in support of management, and therefore was not an appropriate selection for a neutral seat on what is supposed to be a neutral body.
“I’m a strong believer in the governor being given a wide berth in his selection [of appointees], but this is kind of a different role, this is a specific role based on qualifications of neutrality and past experience,” he said.
Sirotkin, who has previously worked as a lawyer and lobbyist for labor interests, said he felt confident in his own ability to consider the situation without bias.
“I’ve changed my role, and I don’t view this as a political decision whatsoever,” he said.
O’Neill served in senior management positions with two Vermont utilities and was a senior member of Gravel & Shea, a Burlington law firm that boasts on its website: “In both the public and private sectors, we have successfully defeated union organizing drives.”
Sen. David Soucy, R-Rutland, noted that O’Neill also spent 17 years as an assistant U.S. Attorney, which he said showed that she was able to make decisions based on merit.
“Just like I felt Karen O’Neill could be neutral, I believe that about Senator Sirotkin as well,” Soucy said, adding that he did believe politics contributed to the vote against O’Neill, though he did not think it was a deciding factor.
“We all bring something to the story, whether its politics or preconceptions on somebody, so I would say politics certainly comes into play,” he said. “I think certainly it had some influence, but I don’t think that’s the reason.”
Scott’s spokesperson, Rebecca Kelley, said given the appointment process for O’Neill, and the ensuing process in the Senate, she had “a very hard time understanding how this could be characterized as anything other than political.”
Kelley said that O’Neill had similar legal experience to previous board members, was unanimously recommended by a panel that included a labor representative, and had been vetted by the governor’s legal team. The Senate hearings, meanwhile, were stacked with labor representatives, she said.
“It’s exceedingly rare for the Senate to not confirm a Governor’s appointee,” she said.
O’Neill previously said that the VSEA “provides an incomplete and misleading picture of me as a professional and a person” and that her “knowledge, experience and judgment will enable me to do a good job.”
O’Neill said the VSEA was unhappy about her decision on this particular case, but she strongly disagreed “with their suggestion based on that decision that I am not qualified to serve as a neutral.”
The VSEA’s executive director, Steve Howard, believes the process leading up to her selection was manipulated by Scott.
Howard said the panel that reviewed candidates conducted no interviews and did not consult multiple labor unions during the process as required under state statute. Instead, the Scott administration consulted with Jeff Wimmette, a business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 300 who sits on the labor panel and who was “hand-picked” by the administration, he said.
“That was the governor’s intention, he tried to stack the labor panel and rig the system to get the person he wanted,” Howard said. “Ms. O’Neill, whether she knew it or not, was in some ways a victim of a broken and flawed process.”
Howard said the Senate resistance to O’Neill highlighted the need for the labor board to reconsider its decision in favor of Scott’s proposed contract for state workers.
“What’s at stake here is the credibility of the Vermont Labor Relation Board,” he said. “And if they care about whether they are seen as a fair arbiter of labor disputes, they will take the motion to reconsider seriously.”
