Harford County Executive Bob Cassilly vetoed a bill that would give county employees the right to consult with a neutral arbitrator on their county contract. Cassilly said allowing the bill to become law would be “unlawful and costly.”

The bill was introduced to the Harford County Council in September by Democratic Council member Jacob Bennett. It aimed to give county union employees the right to binding arbitration, specifically limiting county binding arbitration rights to “certain grievances related to the interpretation, implementation, enforcement or application of terms of memorandum” in county employee contracts.

Upon the bill’s introduction, Cassilly voiced his opposition, saying that taxpayers are “under threat” from a “dangerous proposal” that would “hand control” of tax dollars to “unelected outsiders.”

Cassilly maintained the position that binding arbitration is unnecessary because the county charter outlines the use of a citizen-led personnel advisory board for employee resolutions at no cost to taxpayers.

“Let’s be clear: binding arbitration sounds harmless, but it’s really about surrendering control,” Cassilly said in an October news release. “It’s about shielding local officials from personal responsibility for increasing taxes.”

Bennett repeatedly pushed back against Cassilly’s remarks, emphasizing that if employee contracts are followed by the county, there will never be a need to go to binding arbitration.

“The only reason to not support such binding arbitration, which is a basic right many public employees benefit from across the state and country, is if you want the power to violate their contract and have no accountability for doing so,” Bennett said.

The bill gained tremendous support from county employees and even from local union organizations such as the Harford County Sheriff’s Union — which it would not have affected. During a public hearing, most of the 20 speakers favored the bill, which was passed by the council in a 6-1 vote in November. Council Vice President Tony Giangiordano cast the dissenting vote.

Harford County was on track to join Washington, Allegany and Garrett counties in having binding arbitration for county employees, but Cassilly vetoed the bill Wednesday, doubling down on his belief that the bill goes against the county charter and would cost taxpayer dollars, and surrender control to entities outside the county.

In a five-page release regarding his veto, Cassilly said the bill also:

  • Prioritizes special interests over county taxpayers.
  • Hands significant authority over important local matters to unelected, costly, out-of-county arbitrators.
  • Unnecessarily introduces conflict and expense into existing county workforce processes that have created a harmonious work environment.
  • Inserts binding arbitration into a process that has long been effectively handled by the resident-led personnel advisory board at no cost to taxpayers.
  • Exposes the county to litigation, escalating costs, and reduced accountability.

“Most importantly, Bill 25-012 violates the County Charter in several ways, most notably because the charter establishes the PAB as the exclusive final authority on such matters, yet this Bill imposes binding arbitration as the new final authority,” Cassilly said. “There simply cannot be two final authorities, and council members and I have sworn to uphold the charter.”

Cassilly said Bennett, a teacher with Harford County Public Schools, is the “first council member to sit as a member of a government employee union.” Cassilly called Bennett’s employment “noteworthy” in relation to the binding arbitration bill and said the charter was intended to prohibit “such a clear conflict of interest” — something the Supreme Court of Maryland ruled on in 2023, saying he may stay on the council.

In a social media post responding to Cassilly’s veto, Bennett said the five-page release was “filled with inaccuracies and misstatements” and that the bill would not have benefited him as the Harford County Education Association already has access to binding arbitration.

“I support Bill 25-012 because it’s the right thing to help take care of county employees,” Bennett wrote. “It might shock the County Executive to hear this, but it’s possible to take actions that have nothing to do with furthering your own self-interests.”

Bennett said Thursday that he hopes the council will override Cassilly’s veto since the bill has support from six of the seven County Council members — exceeding the five-vote minimum needed for a veto override.

Have a news tip? Contact Matt Hubbard at mhubbard@baltsun.com, 443-651-0101 or @mthubb on X.