Confirmations are typically perfunctory affairs in the Statehouse, but the Vermont State Employees’ Association had been campaigning strenuously against the appointment of retired lawyer Karen O’Neill, who joined the quasi-judicial board that handles labor disputes earlier this year.
On Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs voted 4-1 not to confirm O’Neill. The panel’s lone Republican, Sen. David Soucy (R-Rutland), cast the dissenting vote. The entire Senate is expected to vote on the matter later this week.
The dispute centers around whether O’Neill is qualified to serve as a neutral arbiter. State law requires that the Labor Relations Board consist of two members with management experience, two members with a background in labor and two neutral members. A separate hiring panel reviews labor board applicants and forwards nominees to the governor, who makes an appointment from among them.
Scott selected O’Neill to fill a vacant neutral seat in time for her to vote on stalled contract negotiations between his administration and the state employees’ union. In late March, she voted with the majority to set a contract that raises health care costs for state workers and limits their access to certain prescription drugs.
O’Neill worked as general counsel for Vermont Electric Power Company. Prior to that, she was a partner at the Burlington law firm Gravel & Shea, and a lawyer for Green Mountain Power.
VSEA slammed the labor board’s decision and subsequently sued the state, arguing that O’Neill had been improperly appointed. Union members showed up in force at the May 2 confirmation hearing.
“She has spent her entire life working with management and corporations, with very powerful people against workers, against consumers and against unions,” said VSEA executive director Steve Howard. He pointed out that the Gravel & Shea website touted a track record of stymieing union drives.
When it was her turn to testify, O’Neill accused the union of propagating an “incomplete and distorted picture of my background.”
“That was never a part of my practice at the firm,” she said, referring to the Gravel & Shea statement. O’Neill contended that the fact that she represented management throughout most of her career doesn’t mean she can’t sympathize with labor — “I viewed my responsibility in those roles to include being an advocate for employees’ issues on the management team,” she said.
The majority of the committee was unpersuaded.
After voting Wednesday, Sen. Michael Sirotkin (D-Chittenden), the chair, said, “I think the majority of us felt, in looking at the last 30 years of Ms. O’Neill’s work experience, it was consistently in management positions.” He noted that the committee was also concerned that the hiring panel’s review was “less than robust” and didn’t including actually interviewing any of the candidates.
Rejections are rare, but not unprecedented. In 1994, a Republican Senate voted not to confirm three of Democratic governor Howard Dean’s appointees to the state’s Environmental Board.
It’s not entirely clear how much weight the Senate’s consent carries. Sirotkin said his understanding is that even if the entire Senate votes against O’Neill’s confirmation, Scott could go ahead and renominate her.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Admittedly not being impartial to the issue myself, I find the article was a little light on critical detail ….just a little.
1. Although “unusual”, the examination of appointments and subsequent confirmation is the JOB of the Senate, so when they move to insure the statute is followed-in this case that a neutral is INDEED neutral, we should be praising the body, not seeming to question their motivation.
2. The VSEA is not so much campaigning against Ms. Oniell, who many members state was perfectly pleasant and appropriately inquisitive for the hearings on the last best offer, but campaigning against someone of her almost exclusively management based background being placed in the NEUTRAL position. Within that question was IF the recommendation panel was in any way properly constructed by the Commissioner of Labor, who seems to have taken the direction of the statute as to her role and obligation rather “lightly”. When three of the largest labor organizations state they got no notice of the prospective change to the hiring panel, AND the currently seated labor representative finds he has been turned out to pasture with not so much as a notice to consider reapplication……well, the straight face test is not passed. She was also a PARTNER in a law firm that advertises itself to management as an antidote to a workforce that is seeking union representation.
IF indeed the Governor would seek to reappoint over the objection of the Senate, one could legitimately question the dedication to at least the modicum of fairness incorporated into the governing statute. Sad situation that would be….
Legality aside, wouldnt it be foolish for a governor, who already has to work with majorities from the opposing party(s) in both chambers, to buck the Senate if it votes against ONeill? Would Scott choose to spend a lot of political capital on this?
Once again, Democrats displaying their unwavering anything for the union attitude. The union lost this time, get over it and move on!!!!
You can’t expect good outcomes if you load the labor relations board with advocates of one or another perspective. Vermonters want fairness, not Washington -style partisanship