[L]awmakers and Scott administration officials agreed Thursday that candidates for adjutant general should face a background review process similar to that used for judges, but differ on who should make the final selection.
The House Military and General Affairs is considering two bills to revise the process. One would have the Legislature retain the final pick; the other would have the governor make the appointment, which Gov. Phil Scott favors and is the practice in every other state.
Rep. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury, the committee chair, expects a bill to pass out of committee by the Mar. 15 deadline required to be considered by the Senate this year. No action was taken on Thursday.
In an interview after the hearing, Stevens said he no longer plans to hold hearings on allegations of misconduct, sexism and harassment in the Vermont National Guard reported in “The Flying Fraternity,” a seven-part series in VTDigger in December. Instead, Steven said the committee would look to see how effectively the new adjutant general, Col. Greg Knight, followed through on campaign promises to change the Guard culture. Lawmakers selected Knight last week to a two-year term as head of the Guard after he and the other candidates promised reforms in the wake of the series.
“It’s hard for me to go back and go point by point over what was reported. I have a slew of emails from people that have either confirmed or denied similar behavior. It’s hard in the limited time that we have to rehash what happened,” Stevens said.
Stevens is looking to Knight to “fulfill his campaign promises of changing the culture, of trying to create an open and inclusive internal justice system so when people do see things that they’re able to report them without any damage to their careers,” Stevens said. “That fear is really the problem.”
The VTDigger series included a report by a Guard whistleblower, Lt. Col Jeff Rector, who said he was retaliated against after reporting misbehavior by higher ups.
“I want to work with the new (Adjutant General) and see these systems put into place,” Stevens said.
Knight promised to address issues of sexism, including meeting with every woman in the Guard. He also promised to follow through on Scott’s request to conduct a top to bottom review of Guard policies and review any individual cases that were improperly handled.
Lawmakers and the administration officials call the current selection process flawed: adjutant general candidates have to sell themselves in the halls of the Statehouse and some legislators feel unqualified to choose the head of the state militia. However, some lawmakers are concerned if the power is given to the governor that cronyism could occur.
Stevens said he hoped to have a selection system that could build in more accountability after the election if problems occurred. Neither the Legislature nor the governor currently have the power to fire the adjutant general. Stevens said the inability to be able to hold leaders accountable, including Adjutant General Steven Cray, was “frustrating” after reading the VTDigger series.
“We’re going to keep teasing this out and seeing if any change at all is a reasonable one or if we’re just changing for change’s sake,” Stevens said of the selection process.
“There are some days where I wake up and just throw up my hands and say give it to the governor and let him do it in the normal course of business, and then some days I really, really appreciate the opportunity to be able to talk to military people about what their visions are about the Guard,” Steven’s said. “That’s a real privilege for us to have and it would be really hard to give that up.”
In a January letter to leaders of the House and Senate, Scott sought to have this year’s candidates be reviewed by a board of three House members, three senators and three appointees by the governor before the vote in late February.
Both bills under consideration would include a board to review the qualifications and recommend candidates to be picked. H. 192 would give the final selection to the governor with approval from the Senate, the same way judges are confirmed. That bill would extend the adjutant general term from two to four years. The nominating board would be made up of three members of the Governor’s Veterans Advisory Council, three picked by the House speaker and three by the leader of the Senate.
Administration officials Brittney Wilson, secretary of civil and military affairs, and Jaye Pershing Johnson, Scott’s legal counsel, noted court judges were originally selected by the Legislature. In 1974, the Judicial Nominating Board was created, which reviews judicial candidates and forwards qualified candidates to the governor. After the initial appointment, the Legislature reviews judges for retention every six years.
In H. 247, the Legislature would retain the power to make the selection. Lead sponsor Rep. Chip Troiano, D-Stannard, said giving the power to the governor opened up the appointment to cronyism. The nominating board would include four House members, four senators and two picked by the governor.
Lawmakers and administration officials debated keeping a balance and accountability between the three branches in the selection process. For example, they noted if the nominating board were dominated by lawmakers and the Legislature made the final pick, that might tip the balance too far to the legislative branch. A legislative lawyer also pointed out that if the Legislature made the appointment, the only removal process would be impeachment, which requires two-thirds support in both chambers (impeaching a U.S. president, by contrast, requires a majority in the House and two-thirds of the Senate for a conviction.)
One consideration discussed would be to move the selection date to the second year of a legislative biennium. That would avoid the problem a member of the Legislature who served on a nominating board not winning re-election and requiring a replacement with little time before the election, which is currently held in February of the first year of the biennium.
