Harford County Council overrides executive veto on arbitration bill, 7-0

The Harford County Council voted 7-0 on Dec. 25 to override the county executive's veto of Bill 25-012, a measure that adds an enforcement provision to memoranda of agreement (MOAs) allowing binding arbitration for certain grievance disputes under the county personnel code.

Council member John Bennett, who moved to override the veto, said he continued to support the bill and accused the county executive of making misleading public statements about testimony in earlier hearings. "I just want to reaffirm everything I previously said about this bill and the reasons for it," Bennett said. He added that it was "disappointing to see the county executive say some of the things he has in his statements and to confuse the public and to continue to use untruth statements."

Why it matters: The bill changes how some workplace disputes involving union contracts are resolved in Harford County by adding an explicit binding-arbitration enforcement path to MOAs. Supporters argued it protects county employees' rights under contract; opponents and some members raised questions about who would pay arbitrator costs and how the process would interact with existing grievance and appeals mechanisms.

Councilman Jan Giordano explained the legal context, saying Section 6.07 of the Harford County Charter authorizes the Personnel Advisory Board (PAB) to hear appeals from classified employees and that the grievance definition in Article 4 of Chapter 38 excludes MOAs. "Bill 25-012 expressly excludes matters covered under section 6.07 of the charter from arbitration because those matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the personnel advisory board," Giordano said.

Several members probed practical details. Council member Thomas Riley said many constituents emailed asking who would pay the cost of an arbitrator if a case goes to arbitration. Staff member Ms. Allegi responded that the bill does not specify payment arrangements. "That is left up to the county executive and the unions to negotiate in the MOA," she said, adding that the bill would supply an enforcement provision requiring binding arbitration but would not set the split of costs or exact filing timelines.

Miss Robert, a council member who identified herself as a trained mediator, urged mediation where possible and described arbitration as a "stopgap" for disputes that cannot be resolved through mediation. "Sometimes going to the process of mediation prior to even getting to an arbitration is the best case scenario," she said, while noting arbitration duration and cost vary case by case.

Riley asked whether binding arbitration would preclude court review; staff confirmed that, if binding arbitration is chosen, it generally removes the avenue to litigate the grievance in court.

After discussion, the council took a recorded voice/roll-call vote. Miss Dixon, Miss Robert, Miss Zimhoff, Councilman Jan Giordano, Mister Riley, Miss Bull Saddles and Mister Bennett all voted "Aye." The chair announced seven votes in the affirmative and none in the negative and said, "The veto override is hereby approved." The council then adjourned.

What happens next: The override puts the arbitration enforcement language into effect; the details the bill leaves unspecified'including filing deadlines and how arbitrator costs are allocated'will be negotiated between the county executive and the affected bargaining units in subsequent memoranda of agreement.

Quotes in context

"I just want to reaffirm everything I previously said about this bill and the reasons for it," said Council member John Bennett, who moved to override the veto.

"That is left up to the county executive and the unions to negotiate in the MOA," staff member Ms. Allegi said when asked who would pay arbitrator costs.

"Sometimes going to the process of mediation prior to even getting to an arbitration is the best case scenario," said Miss Robert, who identified herself as a trained mediator.

Ending

The council's decision overrides the county executive's veto and implements the arbitration enforcement option in Bill 25-012; further specifics will be resolved in MOA negotiations between the county executive and the unions.