[Senate Hearing 114-411]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-411
NOMINATIONS OF HON. CAROL WALLER POPE,
ROBERT A. SALERNO AND DARLENE M. SOLTYS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF HON. CAROL WALLER POPE TO BE A MEMBER,
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ROBERT A. SALERNO AND
DARLENE M. SOLTYS TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, D.C. SUPERIOR COURT
__________
DECEMBER 3, 2015
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-987 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
Christopher R. Hixon, Chief Counsel
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Deirdre G. Armstrong, Minority Professional Staff Member
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Benjamin C. Grazda, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lankford............................................. 1
Senator Carper............................................... 2
Senator Portman.............................................. 13
Senator Ernst................................................ 20
Prepared statement:
Senator Lankford............................................. 23
Senator Carper............................................... 24
WITNESSES
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Representative in Congress from the
District of Columbia........................................... 4
Hon. Carol Waller Pope to be a Member, Federal Labor Relations
Authority
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Biographical and financial information....................... 28
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 47
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 49
Robert A. Salerno to be Associate Judge, D.C. Superior Court
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Biographical and financial information....................... 71
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 91
Darlene M. Soltys to be Associate Judge, D.C. Superior Court
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Biographical and financial information....................... 93
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 115
Statement submitted for the Record from the Hon. Paul Strauss,
Shadow Senator from the District of Columbia................... 116
NOMINATIONS OF
HON. CAROL WALLER POPE, ROBERT A. SALERNO AND DARLENE M. SOLTYS
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Lankford,
presiding.
Present: Senators Lankford, Portman, Ernst, Sasse, and
Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. I am going to go ahead and begin our
hearing today. Good morning to you. And then we will have
others that will join us in due time.
Today, we are going to consider the nominations of Mr.
Robert Salerno and Ms. Darlene Soltys for the position of
Associate Judge in the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia, as well as the nomination of Ms. Carol Waller Pope
for the position of Chair of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority (FLRA).
The Committee takes these nominations very seriously. We
are pleased to have strong nominees before us.
Mr. Salerno is a native of New Jersey, received a Bachelor
of Arts degree from Brown University and a law degree from the
University of Virginia School of Law. After graduation, Mr.
Salerno practiced law with several D.C. area law firms, honing
skills in civil litigation and white collar criminal defense.
This year, he became Special Counsel of Schulte Roth and Zabel.
Ms. Soltys is a native of Washington State, the other
Washington. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the
University of Maryland (UMD) and a law degree from Georgetown
University. After graduation, Ms. Soltys clerked for the
Honorable Gregory Mize on the Superior Court for the District
of Columbia. Following her clerkship, she embarked on a 23-year
career in prosecution, working for the D.C. Attorney General
(AG), the Maryland State Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney's
Office.
In addition to these impressive resumes, Mr. Salerno and
Ms. Soltys possess the necessary skills and judgment to serve
the District of Columbia. The Committee staff reached out to a
variety of these nominees' colleagues and affiliates, who
actually spoke very highly of them.
Ms. Pope is a native of Pittsburgh. She received her
Bachelor of Arts degree from Simmons College and a law degree
from Northeastern University School of Law. After law school,
she worked at Boston University and the Department of Labor
(DOL) before joining the Federal Labor Relations Authority in
1980.
The Committee staff also had the opportunity to be able to
interview Mr. Salerno, Ms. Soltys, and Ms. Pope on an array of
issues ranging from notable cases to their community service
and pro bono work. They have thoughtfully and competently
answered each question to our satisfaction.
To date, the Committee has found you to be qualified for
the positions you have been nominated. I look forward to
speaking with you a bit more today on your experience and
accomplishments and how you intend to bring them to bear in a
fair and impartial manner for the FLRA and the District of
Columbia.
And with that, I recognize the Ranking Member of the full
Committee, Senator Carper, for any opening statement he would
like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, good morning.
Senator Lankford. Good morning.
Senator Carper. This man has been with us for about a year
and he is already chairing the full Committee. That is pretty
good.
Eleanor, nice to see you. Welcome. Congresswoman, nice to
see you.
Ms. Pope, Mr. Salerno, Ms. Soltys, we are honored to have
you here and welcome you, your family, and your friends.
I think before I make any opening remarks, a lot of us are
thinking about--when I was in the Navy, I was stationed in
California and did not live in San Bernadino, but traveled
through there from time to time, and I continue to follow the
developments there as the law enforcement folks conduct their
investigations. We feel and pray for the folks whose lives have
been taken, whose lives are in jeopardy, and the families that
are mourning their loss. It is a tough time for them, a tough
time for our country. We are keeping them in our prayers.
I again want to thank you for coming. I want to thank you
for your willingness to serve. For 8 years of my life, I was
privileged to be Governor of Delaware, and one of the jobs of
Governors is to actually nominate people to serve on the bench.
And, frankly, when I ran for office for Governor in 1992, I had
35 joint appearances with my Republican opponent, a good guy,
and in those 35 joint appearances and debates, nobody ever
asked what criteria I would use to nominate people to serve as
State judges, Supreme Court, Court of Chancery, Superior Court,
Family Court, Court of Common Pleas, Magistrate Courts, all of
those, and no one ever asked. It turned out it was one of the
most important parts of my job.
So, I learned quickly to figure out what to look for in men
and women that I might nominate, and I decided that one of the
things I wanted to make sure that we did, that we had a
judiciary--just like I wanted to build an administration that
was diverse, a cabinet that was diverse, a leadership team that
was diverse, I wanted to have a judiciary that was diverse and
looked like my State in terms of gender, race, and so forth,
and it would also have in just two or three people. We had a
Judicial Nominating Committee just kind of like the commission
that you all have that brings at least two of the three of you
here to us today.
I just want to say--and I interviewed them all. I
interviewed everyone that came to me nominated by our
commission. And, I want to say the qualities in the education,
job experience of our two judicial nominees stacks up well
with, I think, any group of nominees submitted to me as
Governor by our Judicial Nominating Commission--people who are
bright, people who know the law, people that have
unquestionable integrity. What did Alan Simpson used to say?
Former Senator Alan Simpson used to say about integrity, if you
have it, nothing else matters. If you do not have it, nothing
else matters.
And, the folks that we have talked to who know you, who
know of your work, know of your background, know, really, of
your character, have said just wonderful things. I would be
delighted--I know they say stuff like this about our Chairman,
but I would be delighted to know if people said those kinds of
things about me. Maybe some day, they will.
But, I think the folks in Washington, DC, are lucky that
you are willing to serve on the bench and pleased that we
finally moved through the Senate with help from our Chairman
and others. We had people who had been nominated 2 years ago,
waited 2 years to get people confirmed. That is awful and we
have to do a whole lot better than that. My hope is that we
will do a lot better than that with these two nominations
before us today.
I want to say to Ms. Pope, thank you for your willingness
to continue to serve, and my hope is, I think we have another
person with whom you serve on the Authority, a Republican whose
term is coming up, I think maybe later this year, maybe early
next--and there might be an opportunity for us to hopefully
reconfirm you to serve and maybe the other person, your other
colleague, as well. That would be, I think, a good outcome. So,
hopefully, we can do that expeditiously.
I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee for the way
he approaches his work, and he is a golden rule guy. He treats
people the way he wants to be treated and we are lucky to have
him here and we are lucky to have you all here. Thank you for
joining us today.
And, I have a statement for the record,\1\ Mr. Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the
Appendix on page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Senator Carper, very much.
I would like to recognize the Delegate from Washington, DC,
Eleanor Holmes Norton, who I had the privilege to be able to
serve with in the House of Representatives. We even served on
Committees together. So, pleased that you are here. This is
obviously a very important issue to you and your
responsibilities, as well, and we would like to be able to
receive any opening statement you would like to make.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Senator Lankford. It is a
pleasure to appear before you as Chairman of this Committee,
and my good friend and Ranking Member, Senator Carper.
I realize that brevity is the coin of the realm. I will
have very little to say. I will let these nominees speak for
themselves.
As for Carol Waller Pope, this is the fourth time I have
been before you for her. That says everything about, I think,
her distinguished record. She is being renominated to Chair the
Federal Labor Relations Authority. She is the first civil
servant to serve both as a Member and as the Chair of the
Authority and we are very proud of her.
We have two nominees to serve on our trial court, the
Superior Court. You have summarized well, Mr. Chairman, their
distinguished qualifications. Both have extensive litigation
experience, which is very important for our Superior, our trial
court.
If I may, in closing, say to you, or bring to your urgent
attention, what the Superior Court has asked me to indicate to
you. First, we in the District of Columbia very much appreciate
that last month, the Senate confirmed William Nooter and Steven
Wellner to the Superior Court. These were the first local D.C.
judges confirmed since May 2013. And I bring to the attention
of the Committee that they are beginning to write articles in
the District of Columbia about the slowness of trials in the
District of Columbia because of pending nominations, perhaps
other reasons, as well.
I urge this Committee to move Todd Kim, who was nominated
in February 2014 for the D.C. Court of Appeals and is awaiting
a hearing, and Julie Becker, who was first nominated in April
2015 for the Superior Court and is also awaiting a hearing.
We hate to burden you with these local courts, but they are
Article I courts, which is why we have to be here at all. There
may be other candidates coming up in turn. I understand the
busy schedule of the Senate and very much appreciate the time
and effort you have taken with these nominees.
Thank you very much.
Senator Lankford. No, thank you very much.
It is the custom of the Committee to swear in all witnesses
that appear before us, so if you do not mind, I would like to
ask you to stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear the testimony that you are about to give
before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Pope. I do.
Mr. Salerno. I do.
Ms. Soltys. I do.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the
record reflect the witnesses have all answered in the
affirmative.
I would like to take a moment of personal privilege before
we actually move to opening statements here. Do you all have
family members or friends that are here that you would like to
introduce? And if you would like to do that, when you make an
opening statement, would you please introduce them and then
step into your statement, because there are a few folks that
are behind you that probably are well deserving of some
recognition in this process, as well.
So, I would like to recognize Ms. Pope. You have been
through this before. You will be the one with all the
experience here at the table, so you can go first. If you have
any individuals to recognize, and then receive your opening
statement, we would be glad to do that.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROL WALLER POPE,\1\ NOMINATED TO
BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
Ms. Pope. Good morning. I want to thank you, Senator
Lankford and Senator Carper, for conducting this hearing. I
also thank the Committee staff for their work and meaningful
assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Waller Pope appears in the
Appendix on page 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to thank Congresswoman Norton for being here
today. As she said, she has been here on all three prior
occasions that I have been before this Committee. I admire her
illustrious career, and as a D.C. resident, appreciate her 25
years of service as our Representative in Congress.
It is my honor and privilege to be here today as President
Obama's nominee to serve for a fourth term as Member, and if
confirmed, to again serve as Chairman of the FLRA. I thank
President Obama for the confidence and trust he has placed in
me to serve in this leadership capacity at the FLRA.
I also want to thank and introduce my family for their
unwavering support and trusted guidance. With me here today are
Lynda White and Fred Grigsby, Jr., who are here representing
those of my family members who could not be here, along with
many members of my extended family who are in attendance.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the collegiality
and support of my fellow Presidential leadership at the FLRA,
Member Patrick Pizzella, who Senator Carper referenced will
also be appearing before you, his nomination is pending
renomination; Member Ernest DuBester; General Counsel Julie
Clark; and Federal Service Impasses Panel Chairman Mary
Jacksteit; and Panel Member and former FLRA Chairman Donald
Wasserman. I want to acknowledge and give thanks to Member
DuBester and Member Wasserman who are here today in attendance
representing our colleagues.
I am here today standing on the shoulders of my parents, my
father, a Pittsburgh steelworker, my mother, a domestic worker,
both of whom embodied the principle of hard work. They worked
hard to ensure that their four daughters had a foundation of
love and education as well as their shared commitment to public
service and to helping others.
I have devoted my entire professional career to public
service, first at the U.S. Department of Labor, and for 21
years as a career employee at the FLRA. If confirmed, I will be
the longest serving Member, a Presidential appointee, at the
FLRA, and I have the distinct honor of having been nominated by
three Presidents, President Clinton, President Bush, and
President Obama, and it is my honor to have been confirmed on
three prior occasions by this august body, the U.S. Senate.
The FLRA encompasses in one small agency the investigator,
prosecutor, adjudicator, and interest arbitrator for labor-
management disputes involving 1.2 million Federal employees.
Since its creation as part of the Civil Service Reform Act, the
FLRA has been committed to providing leadership and
establishing policies and guidance related to Federal sector
labor-management relations. For over 36 years, the FLRA has
promoted labor-management relations for an effective and
efficient government. Simply stated, the FLRA must meet the
needs of the Federal workforce with high-quality legal
decisions and alternative dispute resolution services to ensure
that workplace disputes do not unduly impede the performance of
Federal agencies in their missions to serve the American
people.
With respect to mission performance, the FLRA had a great
year in 2015. I am proud to say that mission performance is No.
1 for us, as was eliminating our case backlog. We know that
protracted legal disputes are in no one's interest. They create
problems in the workplace and certainly morale problems for the
FLRA. So, we have worked hard and accomplished eliminating the
backlog on the Member side of the house, which was due to a
lack of a quorum of Members for over 10 months in 2013.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), activities throughout
the agency are very important. Over 80 percent of the FLRA's
cases are resolved voluntarily by the parties with our
servicers and facilitation through alternative dispute
resolution. ADR is deeply embedded in the mission of the FLRA.
We make it work. Offering it and making it work are two
different things. During my tenure as Chairman, we formally
integrated mediation and ADR into all aspects of case
processing, in every component.
In real terms, as just one example of our ADR efforts, the
parties amicably resolved a dispute in 2 days of mediation, a
dispute involving 44 contract provisions that would have taken
a lot of resources of the FLRA if we had to render a legal
decision on the negotiability of those 44 provisions.
I proudly note on behalf of the FLRA that when I began my
tenure as Chairman in 2009, employee morale at the FLRA was at
an all-time low. In fact, the FLRA was ranked last among small
agencies in the Partnership for Public Service's Best Places to
Work in the Federal Government rankings. Our mission
performance, which in my view goes hand-in-hand with employee
morale and engagement, was also well below our annual
performance targets.
I am happy to note today that in fiscal year (FY) 2015, the
FLRA captured the rank of No. 2 on three important indexes in
the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey (FEVS): employee engagement, global
satisfaction, and inclusivity of the work environment. We also
achieved an all-time high employee response rate of 84 percent.
Equally important to our mission success is that 99 percent
of the FLRA's respondents, our employees, reported that they
are willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done.
Ninety-four percent believed that the agency is successful at
accomplishing its mission. And 94 percent know how their work
relates to the agency's goals and priorities.
This year, the FLRA expects to improve upon its No. 5
ranking in 2014. Obviously, No. 5 reflects an impressive and
unprecedented improvement of over 300 percent since I became
Chairman. This sustained progress from nearly 7 years ago
reflects the commitment of all of the agency leadership, and of
all levels of management, to operate with transparency and
accountability, and to truly engage our employees. It reflects
the hard work and dedication and commitment of all of our
employees.
If I am confirmed, I will continue to work hard every day
with my FLRA colleagues throughout the country, some of whom--
many of whom--are at this hearing today, and I appreciate their
being here and countless others who are following the live
stream of this proceeding. I pledge to them to build on a
culture of excellence, this record of success in our mission
performance, and employee engagement for effective and
efficient government.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to be here
today and I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Mr. Salerno, could you introduce any family or guests that
you may have here, and we will be proud to receive your opening
statement, as well.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. SALERNO,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Salerno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am honored to appear before you today as a nominee
for Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Salerno appears in the Appendix
on page 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank the District of Columbia Judicial
Nomination Commission, including its Chair, District Judge
Emmet Sullivan, who is here today, for recommending me to the
White House, President Obama for nominating me, and
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for introducing me to the
Committee.
I would not be here today without the support and
encouragement of family, friends, and colleagues. Family
members who are with me today are my wife, Juanita, my son,
Evan, and Michael and Robert Guberman.
Senator Carper. I think we see your wife over your right
shoulder. Where is your son? Would you raise your hand?
Senator Lankford. Right there.
Senator Carper. OK, thanks. Thanks so much. The young guy.
Mr. Salerno. Yes. My daughter, Alex, is finishing up her
fall semester at Skidmore College in New York, but she and
other family members, including my sisters and nieces, are
watching on the Committee's streaming video.
My parents are no longer with us, but they would have been
proud today if they were, especially my father, who always
encouraged me to go to law school.
And I also want to acknowledge the colleagues and friends
who have come here today to show their support.
I am excited by the opportunity to serve on the Superior
Court. I would bring to the position more than two decades of
experience as a litigator in the District of Columbia, recent
quasi-judicial experience, and a deep commitment to the city.
I have been a resident of the District of Columbia for 25
years and raised two children here. During that time, I have
had a very varied and rewarding career in private practice. I
have litigated civil and criminal matters in Federal and State
courts across the country, handling everything from high-stakes
commercial litigation, to alleged criminal conduct by
individual clients, to pro bono matters on behalf of our most
vulnerable residents. I have been fortunate to work on
sophisticated matters with extremely talented colleagues.
At the same time, I have always had a strong interest in
public service. Prior to becoming a lawyer, I was a Peace Corps
volunteer in Ecuador, which is where I met my wife, Juanita. I
also volunteered to serve as a Hearing Committee Chair for the
Board of Professional Responsibility, and in that capacity, I
conducted evidentiary hearings on formal charges of
professional misconduct by members of the District of Columbia
Bar.
But, I am now at a point in my life where I am ready and
able to focus one hundred percent of my energy on public
service. It would be a privilege for me to do so as an
Associate Judge on the Superior Court. Judges have a unique
ability to make a difference in the community on a daily basis,
and for many of our citizens, judges are the personification of
the judicial system. I can think of no greater honor for a
lawyer than to be entrusted with the responsibility that comes
along with being a judge. My broad and diverse experience in
private practice, together with my experience as a Hearing
Committee Chair, make me confident that I would be a good judge
and that I would enjoy serving in that role.
If confirmed, I would work hard every day to achieve fair
outcomes in accordance with the law for all persons who come to
the District of Columbia Superior Court seeking justice and due
process and to do so as efficiently as possible.
Thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward
to answering your questions.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Ms. Soltys, glad you are here. We would be glad to be able
to receive the introduction of any family members or friends
that are here and then your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF DARLENE M. SOLTYS,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Soltys. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, thank you for an opportunity to
appear before you as a nominee for the position as an Associate
Judge in the District of Columbia's Superior Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Soltys appears in the Appendix on
page 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank the Judicial Nomination Commission and its
Chairman, the Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, for recommending me
to the White House, and, of course, to the President for
nominating me. Also, thank you to Congresswoman Norton for her
kind words in introducing me today.
I am honored by the presence of those who are here today to
support me, including my law enforcement partners from the
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Metropolitan
Police Department and my colleagues from the United States
Attorney's Office, including U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia Channing Phillips and the Principal Assistant United
States Attorney, Jim Dinan, who for many years was my chief
supervisor.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank my parents, who
I expect to be here today, Al and Emily Soltys. I am who I am
because of them.
I am also grateful for the love and the support of my
spouse, Pilar Suescum, and our two daughters, Gabriela and
Lilian, who are seven and nine, who are home in bed sick.
I was raised in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. My father's
32 years at the National Security Agency (NSA) taught me the
value of hard work and the importance of public service.
I came to Washington, DC, in 1987 to attend law school at
Georgetown University. Since then, I have lived on Capitol
Hill. Serving the community and the public interest is one of
the most satisfying aspects of my profession.
My legal career began as a judicial law clerk to the
Honorable Gregory E. Mize of the Superior Court, who I am
honored to report is here today at this hearing. Thereafter, I
have served as a prosecutor, handling diverse criminal offenses
in Washington, DC, in both the Superior Court and the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia, where I have had
the privilege of serving in front of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
I have also served as a prosecutor in the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County, Maryland, and this career path has
exposed me to the myriad of issues plaguing our community and
has impressed upon me the importance of the government's
responsibility to ensure justice in our society. I have had the
privilege to appear before many fine jurists who care deeply
about the fair administration of justice and due process for
all, and these inspiring role models are essential to the
effective functioning of our legal system.
I would be honored to put my experience to work to ensure
that the people of this city receive impartial and thoughtful
consideration of their matters and that justice is served with
fairness and respect for all.
Thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward
to answering any questions that you may have.
Senator Lankford. Thank you all.
I have three questions that are not fun, but they are
mandatory questions that I am going to ask of each of you. I
will say it out loud and then I will ask each of you to answer
verbally for these, and then we will have questions from the
dais after that.
The first question for all three of you, is there anything
that you are aware of in your background that might present a
conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you
have been nominated? Ms. Pope.
Ms. Pope. No.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Salerno.
Mr. Salerno. No.
Senator Lankford. Ms. Soltys.
Ms. Soltys. No.
Senator Lankford. OK. Second question. Do you know of
anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent
you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities
of the office to which you have been nominated? Ms. Pope.
Ms. Pope. No, Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Salerno.
Mr. Salerno. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lankford. Ms. Soltys.
Ms. Soltys. No.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Third, do you agree, without
reservation, to comply with any request or summons to appear
and testify before any duly constituted Committee of Congress
if you are confirmed?
Ms. Pope. Yes.
Mr. Salerno. Yes.
Ms. Soltys. Yes.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
I defer to Senator Carper for his questions.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Several of you have mentioned the name, I think it was
Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is not only a judge, but also the
Chairman, apparently, of the Nominating Commission who sent
your names forward to the President and then on to us. I
understand he is here today, and I would just ask him to raise
his hand. Good. Judge Sullivan, nice to see you.
Senator Lankford. Maybe we should swear him in and bring
him to the table, as well. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. That is not an easy job and thank you for
taking it on.
I would like to start off, if I could, with a question of
Ms. Pope. Every year, we receive, like the world gets it to
take a look at it, but a report on morale, employee morale
within the Federal Government. We are the authorizing Committee
for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and have a
special interest in the importance of the work that they do. We
were reminded of it just again yesterday with the tragedy in
San Bernadino. But, we are also concerned that the people who
work there not just enjoy their work, but they feel fulfilled
by their work.
One of the things that I found of interest was that the
folks who work at the FLRA did not always have very good morale
and it seems to have continued to improve over time, a time
that sort of coincides with the time that you have been a
Member of the Authority and most recently chairing it. What is
going on? I have a friend of mine, Alan Blinder, who used to
say, when asked about getting good results in something, he
said, find out what works, do more of that. And, so, we would
like to find out what is working and maybe we can throughout
the rest of our Federal Government do more of that. Go ahead.
Ms. Pope. Thank you for that question, Senator. I have said
that employee engagement begins on the first day of an
employee's work life, and in some instances, it goes downhill
from there. We were certainly disappointed to be last in the
survey results in 2009-2010. When I became Chairman in 2009, it
was important for me to hear from employees and to respect
their views and concerns, and I started on a listening tour
within the offices of the FLRA.
I also went to the agencies. To the point of your question,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the time was No. 1,
and I went out there and talked to the Chairman and said, how
do you do it? What do you do?
Senator Carper. You know, ever since you had that
conversation, they have been going down----
Ms. Pope. I have noticed that. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. And you guys are going up.
Ms. Pope. I also have to say for the record, he is no
longer there.
Senator Carper. They will be coming to you pretty soon.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pope. Leadership is important. I think one of the
important factors is to establish some core values--
transparency, accountability of leadership, communication, and
I think those are values that should be embedded in an agency,
regardless of the leadership. I have been fortunate to be a
part of a leadership team that shares those values.
So, one of the other things that we did, when we looked at
the first survey and we zeroed in on the areas where we scored
the lowest, we went behind the survey results and the questions
and conducted our own internal surveys and asked to find out
more. And then we asked employees to sit with us and develop
initiatives to address some of the problems, and we do that
every day, and that is the part of sustaining and improving
employee engagement and satisfaction. It never ends.
I started with saying the first year I was going to
revitalize, reengage, and reinvent the agency, and I also said
it was the year of the employee. Well, after 6 years as
Chairman, I realize every year is the year of the employee.
Senator Carper. That is good. I like that.
I have another question of you, but before I do, I want to
ask a quick question of Ms. Soltys. There is a young couple
that just came into the hearing room and they took two seats
right behind you, kind of over your left shoulder, and you sort
of look like them. [Laughter.]
Do you know these people?
Ms. Soltys. I would be honored to introduce my parents, Al
and Emily Soltys. I would like to just repeat the remarks that
I made earlier, which is that I am who I am because of them and
I am proud that they are here.
Senator Carper. I think it is great that you came. People
sometimes say to me, I am sure they say this to Senator Portman
and Senator Lankford, what are we proudest of in our lives, and
I always say my sons. We know you are proud. Thank you very
much for raising this kid and presenting her to us today to
serve.
Mrs. Emily Soltys. I am sorry. We could not find a parking
spot. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Sometimes I cannot find parking spots,
either, Ms. Soltys. It happens to all of us, but we are glad
you found one and you made it in. Welcome.
Another question, if I could, for Ms. Pope. Chairman Pope--
do people call you Chairman? What do they call you?
Ms. Pope. Yes. Chairman.
Senator Carper. OK. When you look at backlog--you talked a
little bit about this in your statement, but could you just
come back and tell us again what did you and the Authority and
the folks who work with you, for you, with you, do to achieve
these results and what plans do you have going forward to
continue to improve efficiencies and keep things on track? We
face big backlogs in a lot of other areas. Veterans Affairs
(VA) is certainly one of them. But, just talk about what some
other agencies might learn from what you all have done.
Ms. Pope. We started with setting ambitious goals. We
communicated to employees what our goals would be. We
recognized that it would be a multi-year effort. When I became
a Member in 2000 and Chairman in 2009, we had a backlog of over
300 cases, and it was a multi-year effort and we celebrated
every step of achievement, and I think that was part of what
kept us on target to move forward.
I was proud to say that we eliminated--a backlog for us is
a case that is pending before the Authority members for over
180 days, and we again developed a backlog when we were without
a quorum. There are three of us, and if there are fewer than
two, we cannot issue decisions.
The other factor that we paid attention to is the
recruitment, retention, and training of our staff. One of the
factors that contributed to the backlog was that we had some 22
vacancies when I became Chairman and we aggressively looked to
build a human resources staff. Part of what is important is the
infrastructure of the agency, to give support to the attorneys,
the case writers that do the work. I am remiss every time I
speak when I do not acknowledge the importance of human
resources (HR) and administrative services and our information
technology (IT) department.
But we all came together as a team and we continue to do
that. We continue to publish our goals in our weekly
newsletter. On a monthly basis, we say what we have achieved,
and then we celebrate success.
The other aspect of it is the reallocation of resources.
For the first time ever, we have looked at--we have reemployed
annuitants. We had an HR department to advise us to use every
hiring flexibility possible to bring people on board quickly,
to find qualified, diverse staff. And all of that contributed
to our eliminating our backlog. Now that we have done that, we
want to pay attention to technology developments, use resources
for IT as well as to empower employees to reinvent our case
process, where we can have time savings and cost savings in how
we do the work. Those have all contributed to that.
Senator Carper. Thank you for all of that.
I would say, I have one other question. I am not going to
ask it. I will ask it for the record. I will mention what it
is. I always want to treat, and my colleagues are the same way,
we want to treat other people the way we would want to be
treated, and we feel like there is an obligation with respect
to judicial nominations. If we are going to be involved in the
confirmation process--and we are, clearly--then we need to be
responsible and to act, really, in a more timely way. And I am
pleased that the Chairman feels that way. I feel it very
strongly.
I am going to ask you for the record. Here is the question.
To what extent does the fact that we have delayed, in some
cases, the two people who were just confirmed last month for
these judgeships, to what extent does it reduce the likelihood
that somebody is going to be interested in putting their career
on hold, being sort of, like, held out there for a year or two
waiting for the opportunity to serve? To what extent does that
reduce the interest in good people wanting to serve? That is
the question I will ask you to answer for the record, but my
gut tells me that cannot be very helpful. That cannot be very
helpful, certainly not very fair.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me go first. We have an
unscheduled caucus meeting today. It starts in about 20
minutes, and I will be in and out after this. And I, just
again, want to thank you all. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr.
Chairman.
Ms. Pope. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, and I hope that caucus meeting
goes extremely well. Senator Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for stepping up to serve. Trust in Government is not at a high
water mark right now, and so able people willing to step
forward with good character is really important to try to
regain some of that trust.
Mrs. Soltys, you will be disappointed to know that your
daughter will not have any jurisdiction over parking.
[Laughter.]
I looked at what the Superior Court has responsibility for.
I do not think it fits under her new responsibilities, but
otherwise, it is a really important job.
Interestingly, we were talking about what the successes
have been on workplace improvements under your leadership,
Chairman Pope, and here is a letter of congratulations from
Senator Danny Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee of Oversight
of Government Management and the Federal Workforce, a
Subcommittee I have served on, in September 2010,
congratulating you for the dramatic improvement in the 2010
Best Places to Work rankings, so----
Ms. Pope. I framed a copy of that letter.
Senator Portman. There you go.
Ms. Pope. I was very honored to receive it. [Laughter.]
Senator Portman. This Committee has already weighed in, it
sounds like.
I have a few questions, if I could, for the judges. To
Judge Salerno, you have an extensive litigation career--both of
you. As you said, Ms. Soltys, you have appeared before a lot of
different judges and worked for judges. My question to you
would be, what do you think constitutes judicial temperament? I
mean, what are the elements of judicial temperament that are
most important for a trial judge, which is what you are hoping
to be?
Mr. Salerno. Shall I go first?
Senator Portman. Go ahead, Judge Salerno.
Mr. Salerno. The best characteristics of a judge include
someone who treats all litigants with respect, is patient,
thoughtful, deliberate, and a good listener, is always well
prepared and hard working, and issues reasoned decisions.
I think disputes come to court and not everyone is going to
be happy with the way disputes are resolved, but hopefully, all
litigants in my courtroom would feel happy with the process,
that they have been treated properly, that their issues have
been dealt with in a respectful way, in a deliberate way, and
even if they do not agree with the result, feel that they have
had their day in court and had a fair shake. And, if I could
achieve those things as a judge, I think I would be very
satisfied.
Senator Portman. Ms. Soltys.
Ms. Soltys. Thank you, Senator. Senator, I echo my
colleague's answer to you. I have appeared before many judges
and I have seen different types of judicial temperament. What I
think is most important is that the person who is serving as a
judge is impartial, is fair, is respectful toward all litigants
in the courtroom, and who treats people the way that they want
to be treated. A judge has to be prepared. And a judge also has
to have a healthy dose of humility, because a judge should
recognize that he or she may not know the facts of the case
better than the parties that are in the courtroom.
And as has been my honor as an Assistant United States
Attorney to represent the United States in court, what I love
about my job and what excites me about that job, my current
job, is the role that I play in ensuring that there is a fair
and just criminal justice system, and that is the same thing
that would excite me to serve as a Superior Court judge, that
is, the role that I would play in ensuring that there is a fair
and just legal system.
As Mr. Salerno said, what matters at the end of the day is
not whether the litigants are pleased with the ruling, because
half of them will not be, but rather that they left the
courtroom recognizing that they had a fair hearing, that I was
thoughtful, that I was deliberative, and that I made my ruling
with impartiality.
Senator Portman. Thank you. Very good answers, Mr.
Chairman.
By the way, the Chief Judge, as I understand it, determines
which division, criminal or civil. Has that decision been made?
It cannot be made until you are confirmed, I take it.
Ms. Soltys. That is correct. There is also a family
division, so there are three different divisions.
Senator Portman. Let me ask you a more specific question,
and this is, again, sort of getting at this issue of your
approach to determining tough calls. Let us say there is a
summary judgment motion before you and it is a tough decision.
It is a very close call. In deciding whether to grant that
motion for summary judgment, would you consider as a tie-
breaker that granting the motion would prevent the case from
reaching a fact finder? Mr. Salerno.
Mr. Salerno. I do not think that consideration should play
a part in which way to rule on a summary judgment motion. A
summary judgment motion, as in any other motion, should be
decided based on determination of the record, the determination
of what is the applicable law, finding the facts, and applying
the law to those facts in an unbiased way. And if it comes out
in favor of summary judgment, so be it, and if it does not,
that is what trials are for.
Senator Portman. Ms. Soltys.
Ms. Soltys. Senator, about 15 years ago, I had an
opportunity to serve on a jury, and I learned from that
experience that jurors are inclined to base their verdicts on
their feelings and their emotions. Ever since that time, in my
opening statements to juries and in my closing arguments, I
remind them of the oath that they have taken to decide this
case based on the facts and the evidence and not based upon
their feelings or their emotions or sympathy or prejudice to
one side or another.
I understand that if I were confirmed, my role would be to
make a factual record for possible appellate review, and I
would do that by making findings of fact that are based upon
logical determinations of the evidence, and then I would make
conclusions of law that are based upon the governing precedent.
I do not believe that it is appropriate for a judge's personal
views to influence in any way the outcome of a decision.
Senator Portman. So, in this case, the reasonable juror
standard that you use when you are deciding whether to grant a
summary judgment would be what you would use, but you would use
it based on the facts of the case. I like your answers. I do
not know if there is a right answer or a wrong answer. I think
those are the correct answers for a judge, and I appreciate,
again, your willingness to serve and thank all three of you for
being here today. I wish you good luck.
Mr. Salerno. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Soltys. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Let me just say, I will have questions
for all three of you, as well, but for the judges, I have a
longtime friend of mine who is an attorney. Folks used to say
to him all the time, you should consider being a judge, and his
answer was always the same every time. ``I am not arrogant
enough to be a judge.'' [Laughter.]
And he would just say it over and over again. But guess
what he is doing now. [Laughter.]
He is a judge, and a very good one. So, there is a certain
sense of humility walking into it, but a certain sense of very
thick skin, because you have very difficult issues that the
United States has said to you, make this decision. You
represent all of us. And we have an expectation that you are
going to make the hard call.
And, so, I understand the depth of that decision for you
and the difficulty of that at times, but you have gone through
a difficult process to get to here, and then we are finishing
out this conversation today with that. But, that responsibility
is large on you.
Ms. Soltys, let me ask you a little bit, you have a pretty
remarkable background in dealing with drugs and narcotics.
Given your past record of dealing with high-profile drug cases,
how will that fight continue and how will that affect you as a
judge in the issues that we face here in the District dealing
with drug issues?
Ms. Soltys. Senator, I would say this. My experience as a
prosecutor over the years has involved participating in
prosecuting homicide cases, rape cases, and narcotics
conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy cases. I recognize the
problems that are plaguing our community, and when I was a law
clerk to Judge Mize, one of the very first assignments that we
had was sitting on the child abuse and neglect calendar, in
which many of the children that were brought into that
courtroom were the children of parents who had addictions.
Throughout my entire career, I have seen the harm that drug
addiction causes to families and to communities.
I have said, as a judge, I have an obligation to set aside
my personal views and to make findings of facts and conclusions
of law based upon the evidence that is presented to me and that
is a job that I assume willingly. I cannot emphasize any more
than my record has demonstrated, that the harm that is caused
by the sale of drugs, the violence that is attendant to that,
is deeply troubling to our society and has a direct negative
impact on the quality of life that our citizens hope to enjoy.
Senator Lankford. It is a national issue for us. It is not
a D.C. issue. It is a border-to-border issue, that we are
dealing with a rapid rise in addiction and the consequences
that come with that and the destruction on families and
communities that are around it.
You have been able to use your prosecutorial discretion on
bringing some cases up and some cases not. Now, you do not have
that same ability. You have a full calendar at that point. How
will you balance that out between, I am taking every case that
is sitting in front of me, knowing full well there will be some
cases that will land on your desk that you would think, if I
was on the other side of this desk, I would not have brought
this. But, how will you balance that out?
Ms. Soltys. As you know, the law, there is always a
balancing that takes place. As a prosecutor, I have a heavy
caseload and I recognize the need to move my caseload, and I
recognize that justice delayed is often justice denied. On the
other hand, I also recognize that behind every docket number,
there is a human face. There is at least one person, one human
life that will be affected by the decisions that I make.
One of the things that Judge Mize told me very early on
was--and that has stuck with me all these years--is that
whatever case you are working on at the time is the most
important case that you have. So, I recognize that it is
important to move cases along efficiently, but also correctly,
and that determining the balance is obviously a challenge that
judges face, but it is a challenge for which I am up to the
task.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Salerno, let me ask you, you have had
a long career in private practice. How does that affect you
walking onto the bench as far as shaping how you think about
all of these issues? What should be an expectation, I guess, of
the other attorneys that are then coming to the bench, based on
your prior record?
Mr. Salerno. Sure. I have had a very varied career in
private practice, and as a result, I have developed, I think,
an ability to get up to speed quickly on new areas of the law,
and I think that is a skill that would serve a judge on the
Superior Court well. Also, I believe over years of private
practice, I have developed an ability to get to the heart of a
dispute and to figure out what is material and what is
important and what we should spend our time and energy on. I
also think that that is something that I would bring to the
bench.
I have been representing clients as an advocate, and when
you represent clients as an advocate, you are 100 percent in
their corner as an advocate. However, you would be doing a
client a disservice by not stepping back, taking an objective
and unbiased look at your client's case and explaining to your
client how you think the case is going to come out if it were
litigated. So, that, in a sense, even though I have been in
private practice all the years, I have been, hopefully, honing
an ability to do that.
And I have had some recent, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, some recent quasi-judicial experience as a hearing
committee chair, where I have had a taste of what it would be
like to be a judge, and to, again, to put aside any
preconceptions and biases and make rulings, findings of fact,
conclusions of law based on the evidence. I hope I have done so
in a way that the board would be pleased with, and those are
qualities that I think I would bring to the bench.
I hope that was responsive to your question.
Senator Lankford. Sure. Yes, it is.
Ms. Pope, let me ask you a question. Government funds the
FLRA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and
the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), all to adjudicate
disputes between Federal agencies and unions and employees. Is
there overlap? Is there a need to be able to combine some of
these for efficiencies? You have seen this from a long view now
and you have experienced some things and you bring some things
to the table here that others do not. How do those three work
together, and where can the taxpayer be best served, and where
is it that the Federal employees and agencies can be best
served with the interaction of those three?
Ms. Pope. Thank you for that question. I have learned over
the years that there is a very small part of Title 5, the Civil
Service Reform Act, where there is overlap with respect to the
agencies that you mentioned. We have some 5,800 cases filed a
year among the components of the FLRA. We may have an unfair
labor practice charge or an arbitration case that comes up
through the appeals process to the Authority that may address
some aspect of an equal employment opportunity violation or
some aspect of some other jurisdiction, some other legal
statute.
We have very little overlap that would impact in any way
the resources of the FLRA, the EEOC, and any consideration of
overlap that would result in any combination of those agencies.
It has not happened with any degree of regularity. I do not
know that there has been any case where we have worked together
on----
Senator Lankford. Is there any confusion for individuals,
that as they are going through the process of filing and
choosing where they are going to go, or through the agencies to
say, no, we got this phone call that should really go to here,
or where does that land?
Ms. Pope. Well, every Federal agency has carved out through
the law created by Congress, the legislative body, their area
of jurisdiction. So, it is not unusual for the FLRA to get a
call that is a matter of an employee that is under the
jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It
is not unusual that we would deny a case, dismiss a case,
because of a lack of jurisdiction over the issue. There are
contractual issues that are not within the purview of the
statute under which we review arbitration decisions that
interpret the party's contract. So, the overlap is one that, in
some regard, the bureaucracy of government contributes to, but
it has not been a barrier to the FLRA's performance.
Senator Lankford. OK. Let me ask you about some perspective
things, as well. There is a case that I know you are familiar
with, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU), 2012, that dealt with the role of the Inspector
General's (IG) Office. How do we integrate the Inspector
General and their work and their unique responsibilities, as
well as collective bargaining and negotiation and all of those
things? What is the view now of your agency on how the
Inspector General fits into collective bargaining and what
happens now?
Ms. Pope. Well, one thing that we do not do is set policy,
and with respect to the role of Inspectors General or the role
of collective bargaining with respect to investigatory
interviews conducted by an Inspector General in an agency. What
we do review when the issue is presented before us in an
individual case, and in that case you mentioned with respect to
the negotiability of a provision regarding the union's
opportunity under the statute to be a part of an investigatory
interview conducted by an Inspector General.
With respect to the FLRA, we look to apply in that case the
precedent of the Supreme Court, a National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) decision that touched on a similar
issue with respect to the role of the Inspector General that
affirmed an FLRA position with respect to that. We were
overturned by the courts in our application of the NASA
decision, but in every case we make a decision on the facts of
that case. We do not set policy with respect to how the
Inspector General may interact in investigatory interviews in
the workplace.
Senator Lankford. OK. Let me ask a little bit on the
backlog issue, as well. If I am reading the numbers correctly,
about a third of the cases in the past, let us say, 4 or 5
years have been dismissed based on procedural grounds, and I
think it is part of just this trying to move things. How does
that fit, and help me understand, if I am coming through and it
gets dismissed on procedural grounds how it actually still gets
heard, the meat of the argument. Is that a matter of refiling?
What happens at that point? If it is dismissed for procedural
grounds, how does the core of their argument still get heard?
Is it a start over process? What happens there?
Ms. Pope. There are different types of cases that come
before the FLRA, so a response to your question in some part,
in large measure, depends on the type of case that is before
us. A procedural matter that would result in the dismissal or
the FLRA not addressing the merits of an argument in the review
of an arbitration case, for example, is based on the fact that
the parties did not make the argument below and they cannot
make it for the first time before the Authority. So, we have
very limited grounds for review, and the Authority decision
with respect to arbitration cases, which the parties have that
process in their contract, they choose an arbitrator, they
litigate before the arbitrator, and when the Authority reviews
arbitration decisions, it is finality. There is no other
opportunity.
So, if they fail to make an argument before the
arbitrator--we do a lot of training and education, because we
feel as though the parties, in our view, are managers,
employees, and union representatives--if they understand their
rights and responsibilities, then they know to file a grievance
versus an unfair labor practice charge so it does not result in
a procedural dismissal.
Senator Lankford. What is the speed, typically, that they
can get an answer to that? Do they typically go through several
months waiting and then find out, no, this is a procedural
issue, or is it fairly rapid once they start the process, they
will understand there is a procedural process here?
Ms. Pope. The 180 days before the Members does not start
counting until we go through the procedural review, our Case
Intake and Publication (CIP) office. And, so, we move those
cases pretty quickly. It is not in anybody's interest to
maintain an inventory in our docket office. So, some of the
procedural delay is the time it takes for responses to filings,
and so the time period that cases sit in the CIP office are not
just because we have not processed them quickly. You have to
allow the process to evolve for the responsive filings. But, if
there is a procedural deficiency, those cases move forward,
move through to decision in 30 to 60 days.
Senator Lankford. Good. So, you have a tremendous amount of
experience you walk into this with. If confirmed for this next
round, and I am impressed you want to take another round in the
ring here, if confirmed, what changes do you see immediately
that you would say, you have moved the agency in many ways. You
have improved the relationships among the body of the staff and
the individuals that work there, trying to deal with backlog
issues. What is the next mountain you are going to climb?
Ms. Pope. We have a shifting workforce--I think it is true
throughout the Federal Government--with the retirement bubble,
and, so, one of the challenges, I think, that I would face
moving forward, if I am confirmed, is to continue the high
quality work, to ensure that we devote enough resources to
train and retain a quality workforce. It is also an issue of
succession planning, as the senior leadership, the managerial
leadership, retires.
We have been very successful in making a commitment to
leadership training, to supervisory training. I have learned in
this business that a first-line supervisor has the hardest job
in the workplace. They often do not get enough information from
upper management and they have to deal and resolve with
workplace disputes, workplace conflict in an instant without,
oftentimes, the ability to consult with labor relations
professionals.
So, for me, the challenges moving forward are to retain a
highly engaged and qualified staff. Diversity is an important
priority moving forward, if I am to be confirmed, as well as
continuing to evolve alternative dispute resolution in areas
that we have not done as much work in in the arbitration field.
And, of course, continuing innovation in the workplace is
very important. It takes a lot of resources and commitment. The
day we publish a new webpage, it is almost obsolete and it is
hard to keep up with technology. You have to give technology to
every employee in the workplace to retain newer employees as
well as to give the services to our customers. So, we devote a
lot to that and that is a priority of mine moving forward.
Senator Lankford. Great.
Senator Ernst, did you have additional questions?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Yes.
For Mr. Salerno and Ms. Soltys, please describe your
current thoughts on what it means to be an independent judge as
well as the importance of judicial independence, just in your
own words.
Ms. Soltys. Should I go first?
Mr. Salerno. Sure.
Ms. Soltys. Thank you, Senator. Senator, I gave an answer
earlier which I would like to repeat for your benefit----
Senator Ernst. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Soltys [continuing]. Which is that I served on a jury
and I saw that jurors are inclined to decide cases based on
their feelings and their emotions, and not on the facts and not
on the evidence. And since that time, in every opening
statement and in every closing argument that I have made to a
jury, I have reminded them of the oath that they took to decide
this case based on the facts that they have heard and not based
on sympathy or prejudice to one side or the other. And that
same oath that I ask the jurors to uphold is the same oath that
I would uphold every day as a judge.
Senator Ernst. Very good. Thank you very much.
Certainly, Mr. Salerno.
Mr. Salerno. Yes. The most important thing for a judge is
the unbiased application of the law to the facts, and as a
judge, it is our job, and I would believe I can do so, to put
aside any personal beliefs, prejudices, and decide in an
unbiased, fair manner.
Senator Ernst. Very good. I appreciate it very much. Thank
you both for stepping up and accepting this challenge.
And, Chairman Pope, what is your assessment of the current
state of Federal labor-management relations, and you have
touched a little on this, but if you could just expound a
little bit further, please.
Ms. Pope. Thank you for that question. It is an evolution,
as any relationship is an evolution. We are in a period where
we have worked very hard to encourage collaboration and
cooperation in the resolution of workplace disputes. We know
that to the extent that we can give the parties the tools that
they need, our innovation has contributed to that with respect
to web-based, for the first time, web-based training, where
supervisors can sit at their desks. We have encouraged in every
managerial leadership discussion we have been invited into that
labor-management relations should also be taught to a
supervisor and it should not be trial by fire.
And, so, in that regard, labor-management relations
throughout the government is a factor that we take seriously
because it contributes to an effective and efficient
government. If there are workplace disputes, it impacts mission
performance.
Senator Ernst. Yes, it does.
Well, thank you all. I do not have any further questions,
but I want to thank all three of you for, again, stepping up to
the challenge and your exceptional service for all of our
constituents. Thank you.
Ms. Soltys. Thank you.
Mr. Salerno. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Pope. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lankford. Thank you all for being here. Let me read
a final statement, and then we will close all this fun out and
let you all get a chance to connect with family and friends for
the conversation, and then we will move this on to the full
Senate in the days ahead.
Mr. Salerno, Ms. Soltys, and Ms. Pope have filed responses
to biographical and financial questionnaires, answered
prehearing questions submitted by the Committee, and had
financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government
Ethics. Without objection, this information will be made part
of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial
data, which are on file and available for public inspection in
the Committee offices.
The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow,
December 4, 2015, for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all for
being here.
Ms. Pope. Thank you.
Mr. Salerno. Thank you.
Ms. Soltys. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]