The Senate has rejected the controversial nomination of a retired utility executive to the state Labor Relations Board.
Senators on Saturday refused to confirm Gov. Phil Scott’s nomination of Karen O’Neill, whom the governor had named to serve as a “neutral” member on the six-member labor relations board in February.
Opponents of O’Neill’s nomination said her extensive experience in management positions, and lack of work or advocacy for labor interests, means she is not qualified under state statute to serve as a neutral board member.
They also said no applicants for the position, including O’Neill, were interviewed by phone or in person prior to the nomination.
“I think that the process of getting this nomination to us was flawed,” said Sen. Michael Sirotkin, D-Chittenden.
Supporters of the nomination said there was no evidence that O’Neill would be biased against labor issues.
“I believe that Ms. O’Neill can be neutral in her decisions,” said Sen. David Soucy, R-Rutland. “She’s qualified. She has legal experience, which the board needs badly. And she also brings diversity to the board, which also is important.”
Both Sirotkin and Soucy are members of the Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee, which voted 4-1 against confirming O’Neill’s confirmation.
O’Neill recently came under fire for supporting the governor’s “last, best offer” in a lengthy contractual battle with the Vermont State Employees Association. Union members subsequently filed a complaint over O’Neill’s appointment and said she should not be involved in the contract issue going forward.
O’Neill, an attorney who worked in management for Vermont Electric Power Co. and Green Mountain Power, has told VTDigger that the union’s objections paint “an incomplete and misleading picture of me as a professional and a person.”
“I applied for this position because I want to serve Vermont in my retirement and because I believe my knowledge, experience and judgement will enable me to do a good job, including being fair and impartial in all matters coming before the board,” O’Neill has said.
Rebecca Kelley, Scott’s communications director, issued a statement Saturday night expressing disappointment after the Senate vote.
“As we’ve said throughout this process, considering Ms. O’Neill is well-qualified, her legal experience is similar to those who’ve previously served in the role, she was unanimously recommended by a five-member panel with a statutorily ascribed composition – one of whom is the head of a labor organization – and it is exceedingly rare not to confirm a governor’s appointee, it’s an incredibly disappointing decision that appears political,” Kelley said.
It will now fall to Scott to submit another nomination for the labor board.
Prior to the Senate’s rejection of the nomination on a voice vote, Sirotkin said his committee’s opposition was “not about Karen O’Neill personally.” O’Neill “presented extremely well” in testimony before the committee, he said.
Rather, Sirotkin pointed to a 2006 state statute saying a neutral member of the Labor Relations Board cannot be connected with any labor organization or management position. Sirotkin said he doesn’t interpret that provision to be limited only to people who are currently affiliated with labor or management.
“I think that’s critical to our decision-making,” he said.
Sirotkin distributed O’Neill’s resume, saying that “in virtually every instance in the last 32 years, 33 years, the applicant has been in an executive position” or otherwise affiliated with management.
“We do not hear … of any experience representing labor that might have balanced out this consistent management experience,” Sirotkin said.
Sen. Anthony Pollina, P/D-Washington, said senators should take note of the lack of interviews conducted in the nomination process and of a lack of substantial input from organized labor.
“I think (those issues) are critical, because they tell us something about the attitude toward labor of those people involved in this process,” Pollina said.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, agreed that “the process that led up to this discussion was flawed.” But he noted that O’Neill’s nomination – and the resulting controversy – shouldn’t be seen in isolation.
“We could be, in fact, setting ourselves up for precedent of denying someone from the labor camp the same opportunity at some point,” Benning said.
