A public hearing Tuesday on Bill 25-12, which would add binding arbitration for grievances and authorize bargaining units to propose one annual amendment to Chapter 38 of the Harford County Code, drew 27 speakers and sharply divided testimony from unions, county employees and residents.

The bill, introduced by Councilman Jacob Bennett, would allow binding arbitration only “for certain grievances related to the interpretation, implementation, enforcement, or application of the memorandum of agreement,” and would not permit arbitrators to change contract terms such as wages, cost-of-living adjustments, or benefits, Bennett said. He told the council the change is intended to enforce existing contracts, not to substitute for collective bargaining.

Supporters — including union leaders and dozens of county employees who spoke at the hearing — said grievance arbitration is a narrowly tailored, commonly used tool that can prevent costly litigation and ensure signed memoranda are honored. Gerald Eaton, president of the Harford County Deputy Sheriffs Union, told the council that arbitration would give employee groups “a fighting chance of upholding the county executive’s promised agreement.” Joy Clark, president of MCEA Council 610 and a 24‑year county Department of Emergency Services employee, said mediation was removed two years ago and that binding arbitration is a needed neutral backstop when contract terms are not followed.

Speakers for unions and labor organizations including AFSCME Local 1802, AFSCME Maryland Council 3, the Baltimore firefighters IAFF Local 734 and smaller local unions described arbitration as a rare, last‑resort remedy that preserves workplace stability and contract enforcement. Several testifiers said arbitration is already used by other Maryland counties and by the Harford County Public Schools’ unions.

Opponents cautioned that binding arbitration could create unpredictable fiscal exposures and remove budget control from elected officials. Diana Sadowski, a resident who opposed the bill, said arbitrator fees and awards could become a budget liability and argued that arbitration decisions could bind future appropriations without full legislative scrutiny. Jeffrey Beck and other residents urged clearer limits in the bill’s language to prevent expansion beyond grievance enforcement.

Key clarifications and constraints discussed at the hearing:
- The bill, as presented, applies to county government employees represented by bargaining units (examples cited included public works, parks and recreation, emergency services and the treasury); it does not apply to Harford County Public Schools employees, Bennett said.
- Binding arbitration would be limited to grievances about interpretation, implementation, enforcement or application of an existing memorandum of agreement — not to negotiation of new contract terms and not to disciplinary actions governed by the county charter, Bennett said.
- The county auditor’s fiscal note states the ordinance has “no fiscal impact” on the county’s structural budget; speakers noted arbitration can still carry case‑by‑case costs and said payment arrangements (50/50 split, losing side pays, etc.) are typically decided at the bargaining table.
- Bennett and union speakers emphasized arbitration tends to be infrequent in jurisdictions that have it; several referenced counties that have not used arbitration in years.

Bennett said the bill also would give representative units the authority to propose one amendment per year to Chapter 38 during negotiations, and require the county executive to respond in writing. Supporters said the measure would simply create a formal communication channel; some opponents said the language is unclear about who may propose changes and urged narrower drafting.

The public hearing concluded without a vote; the council will consider the bill at a future meeting. Several testifiers asked council members to adopt the ordinance to strengthen contract enforcement; opponents urged additional language to limit fiscal exposure and protect the council’s budget authority.

The hearing record and testimony are extensive: 27 speakers registered and most allotted three minutes each, with a mix of union leaders, rank‑and‑file county employees, and residents speaking both for and against the measure.

Councilman Bennett said he will answer follow‑up questions and expects continued briefing and amendments before the council votes.