U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

98–987 PDF 2016

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 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

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 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 
2 

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 
3 

1The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 24. 

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. 

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. 
4 

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 
5 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Waller Pope appears in the Appendix on page 26. 

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. 

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 
6 

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 highquality 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 
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Salerno appears in the Appendix on page 70. 

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. 

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. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Soltys appears in the Appendix on page 92. 

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. 
9 

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 
10 

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 
11 

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. 
12 

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. 
13 

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 
14 

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. 
15 

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 
16 

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 
17 

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? 
18 

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, 
19 

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 
20 

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. 
21 

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.] 

(23) 

A P P E N D I X 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 

Æ