Mahalo for supporting Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Enjoy this free story!

When even the opponents of a nomination have good things to say about the nominee, there’s likely good reason to rethink that opposition. Read more

When even the opponents of a nomination have good things to say about the nominee, there’s likely good reason to rethink that opposition.

In the instance of Tom Gorak, whom Gov. David Ige tapped to join the state Public Utilities Commission and who was narrowly rejected by a key state Senate panel, there’s a strong argument for the chamber as a whole to overcome that recommendation.

Some Senate leaders are pointing to the process used in seating Gorak as an interim commissioner as flawed, but so far their assertions are not persuasive. At least one state judge has ruled with the Ige administration that this nomination was valid on an interim basis, and now there seems to be no reason to block his installation for a full term.

The governor appointed Gorak in June, with the expiration of the term for then-Commissioner Mike Champley. That happened at a very consequential juncture for the PUC, which was in the midst of hearings over the proposed acquisition of Hawaiian Electric Industries by Next­Era Energy Inc. of Florida.

The commission ultimately rejected the $4.3 billion takeover deal. Gorak, an interim commissioner at the time, had recused himself from the vote, but since the other two commissioners voted it down, the proposal failed anyway.

Still, the vote was a sensitive issue, given that Ige publicly had opposed the NextEra deal. The governor had decided to fill Champley’s vacancy with Gorak rather than extending Champley until a replacement could be confirmed by the Senate.

This rubbed some in the Senate the wrong way, perceiving the move as a power play by the governor. That may have been true, but based on one judicial review, he does seem to have just that power.

Sen. Rosalyn Baker (D, West Maui-South Maui), who chairs the Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Health committee, was among panel members who voted Friday, 4-3, against recommending Gorak, adding that it had nothing to do with the nominee’s credentials.

Approving Gorak, Baker said, would mean that “the constitutional authority of the Senate to advise and consent would be permanently diminished, and the inappropriate actions of the executive would be legitimized.”

Examining the wording of the state Constitution on this issue, however, it’s hard to see what’s “inappropriate.”

According to the Constitution: “When the Senate is not in session and a vacancy occurs in any office, appointment to which requires the confirmation of the Senate, the governor may fill the office by granting a commission which shall expire, unless such appointment is confirmed, at the end of the next session of the Senate.”

So the Senate does get its right to advise and consent — once it’s back in session, as it is now. And if it desires to reject the permanent appointment, it can do so.

But it should have a rational basis for that rejection. Gorak had served as chief counsel at the PUC since 2013, prior to his appointment. He helped write a draft of the order the agency issued upon its decision on the NextEra docket. Clearly, he is familiar with the issues the PUC handles, and his experience prepared him for this position.

The legal challenge of his appointment was thrown out in August by the state Circuit Court, a ruling now pending with the state Intermediate Court of Appeals.

If the Senate wants to negate the governor’s own constitutional right to an interim appointment, it should pursue that end by amending the Constitution. That would be unwarranted, of course, but in any case that goal is not achieved by rejecting this candidate.

The Senate has until May 4 to vote, and if there is any just cause to dismiss Gorak, it wasn’t identified at the hearing. Lacking such evidence, Gorak has the qualifications and deserves confirmation to this crucial post.