Atkinson v. Anne Arundel County
53 A.3d 1184
Md.2012Background
- Voters amended the Anne Arundel County Charter in 2002 to authorize binding arbitration for law enforcement and uniformed firefighters.
- The County Council enacted implementing ordinances in 2003 and later amended them in 2011 to restrict funding obligations and to insulate the Council from implementing final awards.
- An uncodified Section 3 of the 2011 ordinance stated that if any part was invalid, the entire code section would be repealed by operation of law, eliminating binding arbitration.
- Petitioners, aggrieved members and unions, sought a declaratory judgment that the 2011 ordinance violated the 2002 Charter amendment.
- The County argued the 2002 Charter amendment requires funding proposals in the budget but allows the Council to reduce or eliminate appropriations, and that the Charter amendment is not charter material under Article XI-A §3.
- The Court held that Charter § 812 binds the Council and that portions of the 2011 ordinance and its uncodified section 3 violate the Charter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 812 apply to the County Council to void Sec. 2? | Petitioners: Council must fund awards under § 812; Sec. 2 tries to override this. | County: § 812 applies only to the Executive’s budget, and Council retains budgetary control. | Yes; § 812 binds the Council and invalidates Sec. 2. |
| Does § 812 violate Article XI-A, § 3 (charter material)? | Petitioners argue § 812 is charter material regulating the Council’s law-making power. | County argues § 812 is permissible and consistent with XI-A §3. | No; § 812 does not violate XI-A §3. |
| If § 812 is valid, is Sec. 3 of Bill 4-11 invalid for nonseverability? | Petitioners contend Sec. 3 is necessary to preserve arbitration; severability should allow partial invalidity. | County asserts Sec. 3 is needed to preserve consequence of invalidation, not severable. | Sec. 3 is invalid as applied, and cannot repeal § 6-4-111; remand unnecessary to sever. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595 (Md. 1980) (charter amendments must be charter material)
- Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381 (Md. 1984) (binding arbitration detailed and preclusion of council decision-making invalid)
- Anderson (Maryland Classified Employees Ass’n v.), 281 Md. 496 (Md. 1977) (binding arbitration requires authorization by charter or public general law)
- Freeman v. Local 1802, Am. Fed’n of State, County & Mun. Employees, 318 Md. 684 (Md. 1990) (authorization required for delegation of discretionary governmental power)
- Save Our Streets v. Mitchell, 357 Md. 237 (Md. 2000) (degree of discretion retained by council in charter material analysis)
- Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 347 Md. 1 (Md. 1997) (budgeting and appropriation system is proper charter material)
- Wicomico County FOP, Lodge 111 v. Wicomico County, 190 Md.App. 291 (Md. Ct. App. 2010) (charter amendment mandating binding arbitration may be unconstitutional)
- Surratt v. Prince George’s County, 320 Md. 439 (Md. 1990) (severability and waiver context in charter amendments)
- Griffith v. Wakefield; Griffith dissent referenced, 298 Md. 381 (Md. 1984) (two-step approach to binding arbitration under charter amendments)