Oversight Panel Weighs Fed Letter on LePage Intimidation

GOP lawmakers attempt to block discussion, then defend LePage

AUGUSTA — The state’s Government Oversight Committee held its first meeting to discuss findings from a federal investigation into the appropriateness of Governor LePage’s private meeting with unemployment hearing officers.

In the nine-page letter, the U.S. Department of Labor found that behavior by Governor Paul LePage and his political appointees “endangered the fair hearings process” for Unemployment Compensation appeals. The investigation specifically cited LePage’s March 21, 2013 Blaine House meeting where he wrongly scolded hearing officers for finding too many cases in favor of workers.

“Right now, employees and employers are wondering if the system is rigged. As the government oversight committee, it is our job to lay out a plan to restore confidence and public trust in the system,” said Rep. Chuck Kruger, the House Chair of the Government Oversight Committee. “We can’t do that unless we speak with the unemployment hearing officers directly and hear from both federal and state labor officials.”

The six Republican members on the committee tried to block any discussion of the letter, even setting forth a motion to further delay discussion of the Federal Government’s findings. The committee has anticipated the findings from the DOL for more than nine months.

“We have a long road ahead to restore public confidence. Sweeping the facts under the carpet only ignores our duty to the people of Maine,” said Senator Emily Cain of Orono, the Senate Chair of the Government Oversight committee. “The Governor interfered with what is supposed to be an unbiased process and that’s a discussion we need to have together regardless of political party.”

In a February 27 letter, Holly O’Brien, regional administrator for the U.S. Department of Labor, raised concerns that LePage’s labor commissioners have become directly involved in the decision making of hearing officers.

“The level and nature of this participation has, at times, exceeded the normal management prerogative of managing day-to-day operations of DAH and could be perceived as an attempt to influence the appeals decision making process in favor of employers,” wrote O’Brien. “When added to this internal MDOL pressure,the Governor’s direct intervention could be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate or direct hearing officers to view employers more sympathetically.”

The committee will meet again on March 28 to further consider the contents the letter from the federal Department of Labor.

###