Arbitration Override Fails, Court Battle Looms on Horizon

After a failed attempt to override County Executive Leopold's line-item veto of three amendments to the recently-passed binding arbitration bill, union leaders say a court battle is now imminent.

By | | 2:41am

On a night when comprehensive rezoning legislation was the County Council's primary agenda item, the council quietly failed to override County Executive John R. Leopold's line item veto of three amendments to the binding arbitration bill passed two weeks ago.

At the council's , Councilman Jerry Walker (R-7th District) of Gambrills, introduced a series of amendments aimed at bringing the three reluctant Democrats on board with Bill 4-11, which significantly alters the contract negotiation process between public sector employees and the county.

The amendments helped secure a bipartisan vote of 7-0. However, just two days later, that he would strike the amendments using his line-item veto power.

The move outraged elected officials and union leaders.

"I expected it," said Councilman Jamie Benoit (D-4th District) of Crownsville in a phone interview last week. "He's doing what he can to hurt our public sector employees."

To override Leopold's vetoes, the council would have needed to secure support from five of the seven council members. Walker, along with the three Democrats, backed an override, meaning Chairman Dick Ladd (R-5th District) of Severna Park, Councilman Derek Fink (R-3rd District) of Pasadena or Councilman John Grasso (R-2nd District) of Glen Burnie, needed to override Leopold's move.

Leading up to Monday's meeting, both Fink and Grasso praised the county executive for his line-item veto, leaving Ladd as the question mark. Without any discussion on the measure, the override failed on a vote of 4-3, with Ladd, Grasso and Fink all voting against an override.

After the meeting, Ladd declined to comment, but provided reporters with a written statement explaining his decision.

“These [vetoes] did not change the major result of providing the council the opportunity to not fund binding arbitration awards as the final spending authority for Anne Arundel County,” Ladd said in the statement. “To those who will argue that this was just a simple political vote by a Republican to support a Republican county executive, I say it was far from that.”

The failure to override Leopold's amendments comes on the heels of a survey released by the Center for the Study of Local Issues at Anne Arundel Community College showing that more county citizens would rather see the binding arbitration process left alone.

The survey, which polled 537 county residents, found that 42 percent opposed limiting the use of binding arbitration when the county negotiates with public safety unions. Thirty-five percent of respondents supported limiting binding arbitration and 23 percent were unsure.

While the issue may be momentarily laid to rest, union leaders said they are getting ready to challenge the bill's legality in court.

“Yes, the court battle is imminent,” said O'Brien Atkinson, president of the Anne Arundel County chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police in an e-mail. “It is ridiculous due to the fact that the taxpayers who will be funding Leopold's side of this court battle agree with the public safety professionals about binding arbitration.”

In 2002, nearly 80 percent of county voters approved a charter amendment that supported the idea of giving binding arbitration rights to public sector workers.

Atkinson argued that Fink and Grasso are simply following in the footsteps of the county executive, no matter what that means for public sector workers.

“Councilmen Derek Fink and John Grasso have remained in lock step with County Executive Leopold from the beginning,” Atkinson said.

As for the court battle, Atkinson said the outcome won't be known for quite some time.

“This will be tied up in the court system until Leopold is long out of office,” he said.