Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendment Double Dip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harford County council hears hours of public opposition to 'double‑dip' charter amendment
Summary
Dozens of residents, union leaders and elected officials urged Harford County Council to reject or narrow Bill 26‑009, saying the proposed charter language is overly broad, risks litigation and would exclude many public servants from running for office. The council closed the hearing and will consider the measure at a future meeting.
Harford County Council held a public hearing on Bill 26‑009 — a proposed charter amendment critics call the "double‑dip" measure — and heard more than 30 speakers who largely urged the council not to advance the draft as written.
The hearing opened with the bill's proponent, Councilmember Jan Giordano, saying the amendment would clarify charter section 2.07 and allow voters to decide whether county employees who receive government paychecks should be eligible to serve on the council. "Let the public weigh in on it, not seven council members," Giordano said, arguing the ballot would provide the broader public view.
Opponents — including union leaders, teachers, law enforcement representatives and multiple residents — argued the amendment is overbroad and would bar a wide range of working citizens from seeking office. "This is not reform. This is exclusion," Jerry Eaton, president of the Harford County Deputy Sheriffs Union, told the council. Several speakers cited the Maryland Supreme Court's decision in Bennett v. Harford County and warned that the county would likely face another round of litigation if the language is not narrowed. "Conflict of interest must be based on actual direct financial or decision‑making conflicts, not simply the category of employment," Candace Hart, a candidate for the House of Delegates, said.
Councilmember Jacob Bennett, who has been at the center of prior litigation, told the council the court previously found "no present or prospective conflict of interest" between a teacher's employment and service on the council and cautioned that the proposed language would sweep far more broadly than the charter's original intent. Several speakers urged an alternative approach — narrower language or clear recusal rules rather than a blanket bar — and a number of residents said sending a clarified measure to the ballot would be the most transparent option.
After hearing three‑minute remarks from all registered speakers, the council president closed the public hearing and said the bill will be taken up for action at the next council meeting. No final vote on Bill 26‑009 was taken during the session.
