FOP Response to the Cecil County Commissioners

The Cecil County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 2 issued a formal response in regards to Collective Bargaining With Binding Arbitration. This is a must read response for a fair and balanced viewpoint of this important topic.

FOP RESPONSE:

Collective Bargaining With Binding Arbitration

The FOP’s Response to the Cecil County Commissioners

The Cecil County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 2 would like to take

this opportunity to respond and address issues the county commissioners raised in

their recent opinion entitled, Some Facts About Collective Bargaining With Interest

Arbitration For Deputy Sheriffs, found on the county website at www.ccgov.org.

Over the last three years, Cecil County sheriff’s deputies have pursued a

more direct and honest dialogue with the county commissioners – one that

promotes integrity. This was born over many years of neglect by the county as to

what their number one priority should be: protecting its citizens. This goes way

beyond inadequate pay and benefits and straight to the heart of the issue: with very

few exceptions, the county has consistently viewed the sheriff’s office as a

necessary evil and has funded it as such. In a county such as ours, it is outrageous

that only 6 or 7 deputies per shift are expected to adequately patrol the county and

keep bad guys at bay. The Town of Elkton has almost that many covering their

town because they get it – is your family’s safety any less important? If we’re not

aggressively pursuing more police coverage when violent crime goes up EACH

YEAR, then are we at least going to invest in the deputies we do have? The

county’s answer is, apparently, no.

Whenever deputies are told – even during prosperous years – that there is no

extra money in the budget to keep their salaries comparable to neighboring

jurisdictions but there is money to fund non-essential big-ticket projects, they’re

told to “hang on ‘till next year.” Always next year. And if that doesn’t sit right

with them, they’re told – like the recent online Whig comment – “You’re

disgruntled. Go find a job somewhere else.”

Is that what the citizens really want? Do they really want their deputies –

professional police officers with years of experience and knowledge of this county

and its citizens – to leave because they simply want to better their families? More

than a few heard that message loud and clear and did just that.

2

In the last 10 years, no less than 32 deputies left the Cecil County Sheriff’s

Office for better employment – and that’s just the law enforcement side! 32

deputies whose training, uniforms, and equipment YOU PAYED FOR left after

getting their experience here and taking it to benefit citizens elsewhere. It’s a good

bet that the Delaware State Police, New Castle County and Newark Police, Queen

Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office, and the Maryland State Police (to name but a few)

thank you.

Quite frankly, it is in the citizens’ best interest to have a well funded and

highly trained police force. Cops today deal with situations far removed from the

days of locking up the town drunk for the night. Their work includes increasingly

detailed investigations into complex issues involving identity theft, homicides,

gangs, drugs, child predators, and abductions. In fact, recently a small child was

abducted by a non-family member and sheriff’s deputies pulled together their

resources with surrounding jurisdictions and worked tirelessly to put that small

child in the arms of her mother within 10 HOURS! These are the dedicated

professionals citizens have working for them. Please take the time to read and

study the deputies’ side of this issue, compare them with the commissioner’s point

of view, and decide for yourself whether Collective Bargaining with Binding

Arbitration for sheriff’s deputies is right for Cecil County.

What is Collective Bargaining with Binding Arbitration?

Collective bargaining is nothing more than deputies sitting down with

government at a level playing field and negotiating issues to meet the best interests

of the deputies and the public. Binding Arbitration is an informal process in which

two parties present their views of a dispute to a neutral third party, an arbitrator,

who will decide how to resolve the dispute. The arbitrator considers, in part,

various constants:

 the county financial situation,

 their ability to maintain bond ratings, and

 comparable wages and benefits in surrounding jurisdictions before making

a binding decision.

Arbitration is intended to spur candid, open discussions. It protects the

citizens from overzealous, unwarranted requests by both elected officials and

3

deputies. The National Labor Relations Act is quite clear on the topic of

Arbitration. It states that in the absence of strikes and negative work actions,

already illegal for public safety employees, arbitration acts as a catalyst to ensure

that the commissioners and deputies negotiate in “good faith.”

How will it be used in Cecil County?

Binding Arbitration for the Cecil County Sheriff’s Office deputies will only

occur if the commissioners and the deputies cannot reach an agreement during

contract negotiations. The arbitration process is very similar to the negotiation

process, however, both parties continue to present proposals to one another under

the guidance of the arbitrator. If there is a failure to reach an agreement, both sides

carefully propose their final offer to the arbitrator. Again, the arbitrator considers

the various constants described above: the county financial situation, their ability

to maintain bond ratings, and comparable wage and benefits in the surrounding

jurisdictions before making the final decision. Because the expense of this process

is shared by deputies and the county, Binding Arbitration has been rarely used in

the jurisdictions that have it as it encourages both sides to reach an agreement.

Will this process raise my taxes?

Absolutely not! No Maryland jurisdiction has ever seen their taxes raised as

a result of a police contract or an arbitrator’s decision. Neither will this process

prohibit or inhibit the Sheriff in his/her duties. The Sheriff is a constitutional

officer, with certain managerial rights which cannot be taken away, who is

mandated by the voters to operate his/her Office as they see fit.

Will this bankrupt the county or adversely affect my quality of life?

No! Even though government’s number one priority should be the safety of

the public, law enforcement operations comprise just 5% of the commissioners’

proposed Fiscal Year 2011 $165 million budget. Because police are the most

visible form of government and the ones most citizens have contact with, it is

convenient for politicians to blame public safety for financial woes and, in fact, is

why many jurisdictions cut them first.

4

As it stands, the proposed budget already slashes $100,000 from law

enforcement and it was made very clear, as it was last year, that yearly step

increases would not be given, nor did the FOP ask for them. (That didn’t stop the

County Administrator from requesting a $4000 pay raise to his 6-figure salary.

Though, to be fair, he did request a $100 raise for his administrative assistant). So

where is the pork? How about the $300,000 the county contributed to restore the

North East Covered Bridge that goes nowhere. (Restoring historical structures to

give future generations a sense of culture and communal identity is admirable, but

the county can’t justify those types of expenditures and still not adequately address

the basic functions of government.) Or, how about the hundreds of thousands of

dollars the commissioners have reportedly spent to retain Miles & Stockbridge

Law Firm to represent them on various issues (such as the collective bargaining

issue for the last three years or the Artisan deal) when they already have a county

attorney on the payroll? And, of course, who can forget the recent closed session

hiring of a lobbyist to fight their own deputies to the tune of $6000. These are only

a very few of many examples of how the county is wasting taxpayer dollars and it

has nothing to do with protecting your family.

Why are the commissioners so against arbitration?

While only the commissioners know their true reasons, it is not hard to make

an educated guess based on their history with employees and citizens alike. An

arbitrator has subpoena power and will be able to verify whether the county was

being truthful in fully disclosing its financial situation. This was clearly

demonstrated in two Maryland counties last year. Anne Arundel County and their

sergeants’ union went to arbitration over a pay dispute. After carefully considering

all facts and evidence, the arbitrator sided with the county, finding that the

county’s financial situation did not support the sergeants’ request. The other

example was in Baltimore County where an arbitrator found $30 million the

county did not disclose. This process works both ways and is designed to keep

honest people honest. (Interestingly, Commissioner Wayne Tome, who “strongly

opposes” the referendum bill, is an employee of the Baltimore County Fire

Department and has enjoyed and benefited from this process during his tenure

there. While it’s good enough for him, it apparently isn’t good enough for Cecil

County sheriff’s deputies.)

5

Will arbitration cost the county tens of thousands of dollars?

It doesn’t have to. The average arbitration costs approx. $6000 and is split

evenly between the county and the FOP. If the county chooses to hire high priced

attorneys and economists rather than utilizing the county attorney and budget

director it already employs, that could drive the costs up but that isn’t the fault of

the FOP. The fact is, with a $165 million budget and over $20 million in the rainy

day fund, the county could simply out spend the FOP if it worked that way. It

doesn’t and the county doesn’t want you to know that.

What about these “horror stories” the county is citing?

They are just that – horror stories not based on facts and designed to scare

the public. Out of the many “examples” the county listed in their recent

dissertation, only one from Maryland -Wicomico County- was cited and in that

case, the Court of Special Appeals ruled against the FOP, opining that the citizens’

initiated referendum, which authorized Collective Bargaining with Binding

Arbitration for the sheriff’s deputies, was unconstitutional because the referendum

“backdoored” the legislative process. While the case has been appealed to the

Court of Appeals, Cecil County’s situation is different. Because this is a

commissioner form of government, the Maryland General Assembly is the only

body authorized to pass legislation affecting the citizens of Cecil County. This

referendum would be a direct result of the legislative process and would not be

affected by the ruling.

The other cited “examples” are in other states with laws different then

Maryland. In fact, the main complaint cited in those “examples” is that arbitrators

are not required to take into account a jurisdiction’s financial situation, revenues,

and their ability to pay. If the commissioners had bothered to read the proposed

referendum bill, they would have seen these very requirements codified in the text,

which reads that the arbitrator shall:

“Receive and consider evidence regarding:

A. Hours, wages, and benefits of similar sworn law enforcement employees

in comparable surrounding jurisdictions;

B. The cost of living in Cecil County;

6

C. The condition of Cecil County’s general Operating fund and Cecil

County’s ability to fund the final proposed offers;

D. The nature of the work performed by employees represented by the labor

organization; and

E. Other information that the arbitrator considers necessary to fully weigh

the final proposed offers of the labor organization and the Sheriff and the

Board”

That nullifies their entire argument. So let’s take a look at several examples of

how this process has worked in Maryland:

 While, as previously discussed, Ann Arundel County Police sergeants union

recently went to arbitration and lost, the Ann Arundel County FOP (which

represents the rank and file) has never been to arbitration and has always

been able to work well with their government.

 Baltimore County FOP went to arbitration for the first time last year and

taxes did not go up as a result of the arbitrator’s award.

 Elkton FOP is currently in arbitration with their town over retirement issues.

While the result won’t be known for 30 days, the town’s property taxes have

gone down in recent years (though the county’s have consistently risen) and

they have a $5 million surplus. This is Elkton’s first time at arbitration since

the voters empowered them with it in 2004.

 Ocean City, Maryland is an interesting story. Former Mayor and current

Delegate Jim Mathias is a supporter of this process. For approx. 15 years,

the city and FOP could not resolve their issues pertaining to bargaining. A

referendum was held on the issue of Collective Bargaining with Binding

Arbitration for police officers and the citizens supported their cops with 87%

of the vote. After utilizing this process, the city found it worked so good that

they gave it to their career firefighters/paramedics. Neither the FOP nor the

firefighters union have ever taken the city to arbitration. In fact, there is so

much trust between the city and public safety that last year the FOP and

firefighters union unanimously voted to forgo their contractually guaranteed

pay raises with the option of forgoing them for this year as well. Their logic

was very simple: The citizens of Ocean City have taken care of them and

they felt it their duty to do their part in these tough economic times, knowing

7

that when things get better – and it is starting to – the city will continue to

take care of them and treat them as valued professionals. That is the kind of

trust and cooperation we can have here in Cecil County.

How did we get to this point?

By elected officials not ensuring that their word was their bond. For

many years, the county has put the sheriff’s office on the back burner and

treated major issues with a band aid. 8 years ago, during the last sheriff’s

administration, the FOP convinced the county to commission a pay study,

which ultimately found that the sheriff’s deputies were severely under paid.

The commissioners then put in place a Public Safety Pay Scale, which, while

still inadequate, was designed to start making deputies’ wages more

comparable to surrounding jurisdictions. The problem was that, with very

few exceptions, deputies never saw the money and it wasn’t until the next

sheriff’s administration that the county did anything about it. This was not

the “big pay raise” that the sheriff likes to laud as one of his

accomplishments. This was simply righting a wrong and honoring the

agreement the county had with its deputies. Several years later, another pay

study was commissioned and again it was decided to attempt to bring the

pay scale up to comparable levels. Once again, it fell short and has never

received the proper attention it deserves. What the county did do was place

deputies in a “pay-for-performance” evaluation system which took away

yearly pay scale steps (about 2.5%) if deputies did not meet a predetermined

level of performance. Being ripe for potential abuse and

political retribution, deputies did not want to be on this system but it was

implemented anyway. The only upside was that the county had, in effect,

made a gentlemen’s agreement which provided that as long as performance

was maintained, deputies would continue to receive their yearly step

increase.

Of course, this system still exists and while the FOP never asked for the

steps last year or this year, deputies were initially surprised and felt slapped

in the face when the commissioners reneged on that agreement for the first

8

time and used the money for other projects. The commissioners and sheriff

have publicly insisted that they have been on the up & up with the deputies

and that they should just “trust them” instead of having a proven conflict

resolution mechanism to ensure fair play. Listed below are the actions of the

county’s elected officials when dealing with the FOP:

 Sheriff Janney has campaigned on this issue, not once but twice, in

pursuing the FOP’s endorsement. During the 2006 election in a

speech documented on video, Sheriff Janney addressed the lodge to

obtain an endorsement they ultimately gave him and told his

deputies, “As your sheriff you have my word, you have my full

support, in working with the legislators in making collective

bargaining with binding arbitration a reality.” In December 2007

Sheriff Janney asked for and was afforded an opportunity to address

his deputies at their monthly lodge meeting during which he

predicted that they were low on the county commissioners list of

priorities and stated that it was imperative that sheriff’s deputies

obtain collective bargaining. He cautioned not accept anything less

than binding arbitration, otherwise it would be “collective begging.”

The FOP sought the assistance of the delegation and Del. Michael

Smigiel submitted legislation providing for collective bargaining

with binding arbitration for law enforcement deputies. As soon as

the sheriff read this standard boiler plate bill, he immediately

attacked the FOP in the press and accused them of sneaking behind

his back. As the sheriff no longer supported the bill, the FOP

believed it prudent to pull the bill and come up with one agreeable to

them and the sheriff.

 In May of 2008, Del. Mary-Dulany James initiated a series of

meetings between her, the FOP, and the sheriff during which a bill

was crafted calling for non-binding arbitration and codifying the

sheriff’s managerial rights as not subject to arbitration. The sheriff

supported this bill and in November 2008 the sheriff and the FOP

met with the county commissioners and formally requested their

support for this bill. Their attorney from Stockbridge & Miles law

firm was there and suggested a brief recess so both sides could

9

caucus. When they returned, they presented a counter-offer of

mediation only. The FOP told them that they could not make a

decision until talking with the membership and promptly called an

emergency meeting and presented the commissioners’ counter-offer.

The members overwhelmingly rejected the proposal and voted to

press on with Del. James’ bill.

 The FOP relayed that to Commissioner Lockhart and he stated that

he would take it to a vote but believed that Commissioners Mullin

& Tome would join him in accepting Del. James’ bill. That vote

was taken in closed session on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 just

before the commissioners entered the auditorium in a budget hearing

meeting that saw three deputies pulled from patrol due to peaceful

demonstrators protesting against the SPCA. Commissioners

Lockhart and Mullin informed the FOP that they had voted to accept

the bill by a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Demmler & Hodge

dissenting. After the meeting, the FOP thanked each of them and

asked Commissioner Lockhart for a letter documenting their support.

He assured the FOP that they would get it by the end of the week.

 The FOP never did get that letter. What they did get, approx. 2

weeks later, was a letter from the commissioners rejecting the bill

and stating that their final offer was the mediation bill. The FOP

called Commissioner Lockhart, who assured them that their new

position wasn’t set in stone but that the commissioners wanted a

“cap” on arbitration costs and suggested that $15,000 was fair. He

stated that, as president of the commissioners, he could call a re-vote

and did so when the FOP accepted this concession. Del. James

amended the bill and Commissioner Lockhart informed her and the

FOP after the next commissioners meeting that it was acceptable.

 Shortly thereafter, not long before the committee hearing date,

Commissioner Lockhart informed the FOP that they would again

reject the bill unless deputies agreed to shoulder all the costs of

arbitration. For obvious reasons, this was unacceptable and Del.

James pulled the bill. The FOP made a decision right there to pursue

10

a referendum, asking the people to decide if they wanted deputies to

engage in this process.

 It should be noted that, after the bill was pulled, the sheriff and the

FOP president had a conversation on the phone during which he

agreed that a Collective Bargaining with Binding Arbitration

referendum should happen as long as his managerial rights were

protected. The current referendum bill contains these protections but

the sheriff has withdrawn his support.

 Contrary to recent disparaging public remarks by the commissioners,

the FOP did not have the bill pulled because they demanded binding

arbitration. At no time last year did the FOP demand this and the

commissioners know it. As previously stated, the FOP agreed to

Del. James’ bill which only had non-binding arbitration in it. Had

the Commissioners stuck with that bill, there would have been no

discussions of a referendum this year. The mere mention of a “cap”

in this year’s bill is proof of the Commissioners agreeing to the

proposed legislation last year because the FOP didn’t ask for a “cap”

and Del. James didn’t put it in the original draft. However, once the

“cap” was introduced, the Commissioners made the error of pulling

their support if the FOP didn’t agree to pay 100% of arbitration, and

their inability to keep their word killed the legislation.

 Starting in July 2009, over 1000 Cecil County residents signed a

petition to support placing Collective Bargaining with Binding

Arbitration for sheriff’s deputies on the 2010 ballot through enabling

legislation. Given Commissioner Lockhart’s recent public

comments that he is adamantly opposed to this referendum, it is

ironic – but not all together surprising – that he himself signed the

petition, documenting his support for placing this very issue on the

ballot!

 In October 2009, the FOP formally requested the commissioners to

support enabling legislation to place this process on the ballot. The

commissioners responded with a letter detailing the county

attorney’s opinion that the referendum and binding arbitration were

11

unconstitutional and that the commissioners requested an Attorney

General’s opinion on the matter.

 On December 21, 2009, they received the Attorney General’s

opinion, which stated that the referendum and binding arbitration is

constitutional. The FOP wasn’t informed of this decision until Del.

Smigiel mentioned it to the FOP president 14 days later. The County

Administrator stated that he must of “forgot” to have included the

FOP in the distributing circle, although it is reasonable to assume

that if the opinion had gone the other way, FOP leaders could have

been anywhere in the world and that opinion would have been

FedExed to them overnight. If it wasn’t for Del. Smigiel’s sense of

fair play, the FOP might still be ignorant of its existence.

 In the beginning of January 2010, the FOP and the county

delegation were informed that the commissioners would take no

opinion on the referendum bill. According to Sen. Pipkin, as late as

Cecil County Night in Annapolis, he asked Commissioner Lockhart

what the commissioners wanted them to do on this issue and was

told to “show some leadership.”

 On January 31, 2010, the Cecil County delegation met in

Annapolis, where they voted 6-1 to support the referendum bill,

allowing voters to chose which form of arbitration would be best for

Cecil County sheriff’s deputies.

 The next day, on February 01, 2010, the sheriff contacted the FOP

president and informed him that he now considers the rank of First

Sergeant an appointed one and that a new policy would be

forthcoming implementing the change. This is significant for two

reasons. The first, being that the referendum bill would authorize the

FOP to bargain for the rank of First Sergeant and below (the rank of

First Sergeant is the last one paid an hourly wage. Lieutenants and

above are salary employees). The second reason is, in the Fall of

2009, the Sheriff and the FOP had a series of meetings regarding

new promotional procedures and the sheriff wanted the FOP’s input.

After negotiations and compromise on both sides, an agreement was

reached as to the promotional process for the ranks of Corporal

12

through First Sergeant. This was codified in policy, which the

Sheriff agreed to abide by. Up to that point, it was a strong example

of how collective bargaining should work. What followed is a

classic example as to why deputies need conflict resolution. While

the Sheriff has the absolute right to change any policy at any time for

any reason, just because you have the right to do something doesn’t

mean you are right to do it. The FOP believes that this was done in

retaliation for standing up for themselves as well as an attempt to

water-down the referendum bill. (Ironically, this was the same sort

of behavior the sheriff himself decried during his first campaign for

office.)

 Shortly thereafter, the commissioners finally sent the delegation a

letter strongly opposing the bill. In it, they attacked the FOP for not

being contented “with half a loaf” and falsely accused the FOP of

pulling last year’s bill because binding arbitration wasn’t involved.

They also objected to a referendum on the grounds that the issue is

“complicated” and that “matters of governance” shouldn’t be

“punted to the voters”, implying that Cecil County voters aren’t

smart enough to understand the issues. Incidentally, they do support

a referendum on another “complicated” issue – charter government.

They seem to believe that the voters can comprehend the many

complications of a brand new form of government but not issues

relating to their deputies. This letter was signed by the same

Commissioner Lockhart who, to recap, had previously signed a

petition for Collective Bargaining with Binding Arbitration to be

“punted to the voters.”

 And, of course, the commissioners, in closed session spent $6000 of

taxpayer funds to fight their own police officers and attempt to deny

their citizens a voice in this process.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that Collective Bargaining with Binding Arbitration is a

tried and true mechanism in Maryland to negotiate wages, benefits, and working

conditions between governments and police while ensuring both sides bargain in

13

good faith. Contrary to what the commissioners have implied, this process is not

one-sided and favored toward the bargaining unit. Rather, the burden is equally on

both sides to present their case in a clear and concise manner for the arbitrator to

make a fair and intelligent decision. This process does not raise taxes and the

commissioners have not come up with one single incident where that has happened

anywhere in Maryland. With most deputies being homeowners in Cecil County, it

makes no sense for them to support a process that would give them a modest pay

raise only to have it taken back by higher property taxes.

The commissioners have consistently raised property taxes for years – they

don’t need to blame the deputies for that. Then again, it seems easier to blame the

cops. Others do it, why shouldn’t they?

They have accused the Cecil County Delegation of meddling in local affairs

and forcing a referendum on them. The deputies made every conceivable attempt

to reconcile this issue with the commissioners and went to the delegation only

when it was apparent that the commissioners were not serious and could not be

counted on to keep their word. The delegation carefully evaluated all the facts and

came to the conclusion that their intervention was necessary.

Instead of the commissioners facing the very real issue that crime is rising in

this county (and they have done very little to address that), they have painted the

sheriff’s deputies as disgruntled and ingrates. They have used fear mongering to

suggest that law enforcement, being 5% of the budget, will somehow be

responsible for bankrupting Cecil County if a process is put in place to keep

everybody above board. They have played on anti-union sentiments and tried to

portray the FOP as the “Boogeyman.”

The fact is, no matter what your position is on unions, the FOP doesn’t

really fall into that category. A union’s true power comes from their ability to

strike or take other negative work actions, which could affect an employer’s

productivity and bottom line. Right or wrong, unions use that power as a strong

negotiating tool in bargaining for labor issues. The FOP does not have that power.

Police officers, by law, are forbidden to strike or take negative work actions. Even

if they could strike, most sheriff’s deputies live and raise their families in Cecil

County and would not subject their families, friends, and neighbors to the mercy of

14

criminals just to get a pay raise. In the absence of that distinction, there is nothing

to guarantee that the commissioners will bargain in good faith and thus the need

for effective conflict resolution is a must to ensure fair play.

Finally, it is interesting to hear political candidates and elected officials

pledge their support of law enforcement during election years or a police funeral.

For all the band aids placed on this issue, the starting salary and yearly increments

of the Cecil County Sheriff’s Office is still well below that of surrounding

jurisdictions and deputies are leaving and taking their experience with them. So the

FOP asks this of the county commissioners, sheriff, and others who have vilified

this process and their deputies:

You can admire the undercover officer trying to keep drugs off your

street and say you support law enforcement. You can praise the detective for

apprehending predators before they get to your kids and say you support law

enforcement. You can laud the patrol deputy for catching a burglar before he

makes his way into your neighborhood and say you support law enforcement.

But if you don’t believe police have a right to bargain for a fair wage, how can

you say you support law enforcement? If you don’t believe police have a right

to raise their families in a financially secure environment, how can you say you

support law enforcement? If you don’t believe the police deserve credible

conflict resolution when bargaining with politicians, how can you say you

support law enforcement?

The Cecil County Sheriff’s Office is made up of honorable men and women

with integrity, committed to serving and protecting the citizens of Cecil County.

They need the support of their fellow citizens. Please carefully investigate and

evaluate all the facts and points of view before coming to your own conclusion as

to what it right for Cecil County.

Cecil County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 2

www.cecilfop2.com