Senate committee hears legal, operational questions about letting assistant attorneys general unionize

Sarah London, chief assistant attorney general at the Vermont Attorney General's Office, told the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee on March 18 that extending collective-bargaining rights to assistant attorneys general (AAGs) raises a web of legal and operational questions that the Legislature would need to address.

"I am the chief assistant attorney general at the Vermont Attorney General's Office, and I am in what is currently the only classified lawyer position in all of the executive branch of state government," London said, describing the historical uniqueness of the role and the statutes that govern it.

London told senators the statutes that structure AAGs' status — including 3 V.S.A. §153, which says AAGs "serve at the pleasure of the attorney general" and directs that salaries be set by the attorney general "in consultation with the governor," and 3 V.S.A. §311, which governs pay plans for executive-branch lawyers — could require reconciliation if the Legislature expands collective bargaining to cover AAGs. She said the chief assistant position was created by statute in the mid-20th century and has been held by just three people.

Why it matters: changing whether AAGs may bargain collectively could alter who is treated as the employer, who must represent the state in litigation, and how the office assigns defensive legal work. "If we want the Attorney General to still be the employer of AAGs, or do we want to give that entirely over to the Governor? This is a pretty significant possible change to the Attorney General's office," London said.

London described three funding/position categories in the Attorney General's Office that complicate bargaining: (1) AAG positions funded from the AGO general fund appropriation; (2) AGO position numbers funded through interdepartmental transfers (IDTs) billed to other state agencies; and (3) embedded position numbers funded by partner agencies such as the Agency of Human Services (AHS). She said many of the lowest-paid AAGs work in embedded AHS positions, and the attorney general does not control those position numbers or funds.

Operational and litigation concerns: London warned that leaving employer-definition issues to the Vermont Labor Relations Board could lead to protracted litigation and appeals to the Vermont Supreme Court. She said litigation would be more expensive and take longer than clarifying the law legislatively. "If litigation at the Vermont Labor Relations Board involves hearings and findings, it is then subject to appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court," she said, urging that legislation could be clearer and faster.

Exclusions and conflicts: London said a substantial number of AAGs perform nondiscretionary defense work or other functions that would likely be excluded from bargaining because they represent the state in litigation (public-records litigation, Superior Court, federal court and the Vermont Supreme Court). While committee members had previously suggested only a handful would be excluded, London said the actual number could be much larger: "It's more like 20 to 30 that would be excluded." She cautioned that excluding that many lawyers could change the current single pay-plan approach used across executive-branch lawyers.

Union and labor-board perspective: Al Gordon, speaking for the labor movement, said several other states already permit organizing by assistant attorneys general and that bargaining can be handled unit by unit. "I know of 4 where the attorney generals are actually organized ... Connecticut, Washington, California, Oregon," Gordon said, arguing the Vermont Labor Relations Board is the proper forum to determine units and exclusions and that the process need not be adversarial.

Committee response and next steps: Senators expressed mixed views. Some members said they support giving AAGs a path to organize but want more time and research on employer structure, exclusions and cost. One senator said the measure will likely be routed to Senate Finance for further work; members asked staff to collect comparative information from other states and to reexamine draft language that would place agency employees into the relevant labor statute. The committee did not take a final vote on an amendment during the session.

Context and limits: London and committee members repeatedly cautioned that legislative language would need to define the employer and carve out appropriate exclusions. London also provided salary context: she said the AGO median AAG pay is approaching about $120,000 and that the median annual total cost of an AAG (salary plus benefits) is about $181,000; she identified roughly 10 AAGs whose pay is below $80,000. Those figures were given by London as context for cost and bargaining discussions.

The committee said it will continue deliberations and gather information from other states and from the Vermont Labor Relations Board before deciding whether to press an amendment into pending labor legislation.