Fraternal Order of Police v. Montgomery County Executive, 62 A.3d 238

FOP 35 is the bargaining representative for Montgomery County police officers below lieutenant; MCC PLRA governs union rights.
Final arbitration award in 2011 merged into the 2011 Agreement after impasse resolved by a Neutral; the Final Agreement required funding to implement.
FY12 Budget submitted March 15, 2011; County Executive did not include funding or the Final Agreement; MCC 33-80(g) requires budgeting for CBAs.
Umpire found the County Executive violated MCC 33-80(g) and 33-82(a)(8) by failing to request funding to implement the 2011 Agreement in the FY12 budget.
Circuit Court granted the writ for the County and reversed the Umpire; this is now an appeal by FOP 35 seeking to reinstate the Umpire’s ruling.
The central dispute is whether Montgomery County Charter and MCC provisions allow the Council to constrain the County Executive’s budgetary discretion to include funding for CBAs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Umpire’s ruling was supported by substantial evidence and correct law.	FOP 35—County Executive violated MCC 33-80(g) and 33-82(a)(8); Charter 303 does not immunize discretion.	County—Executive has broad budgetary discretion; Council cannot force funding or interpret 303 to override executive power.	Yes; Umpire’s ruling supported; Council can require funding for CBAs and limit Executive budgetary discretion.
Whether Charter 303 and MCC 510 enable Council to constrain the Executive’s budget submissions regarding CBAs.	Council may legislate limits on Executive budgetary discretion via Charter 303 and MCC 510 to fund CBAs.	Executive retains budget proposal discretion; charter limits are not read to compel funding of CBAs.	Yes; Charter 303 and MCC 510 authorize Council-imposed limits and binding arbitration funding within the budget process.
Whether MCC 33-80(g) requires inclusion of sufficient funding to implement the Final Agreement in the FY12 Budget.	Final Agreement must be described and funded in the budget per 33-80(g) and 33-80(h).	Agreement funding could be determined through Council review; inclusion is not mandatory if not prescribed by law.	Yes; 33-80(g) requires inclusion of sufficient funding to implement the Final Agreement in the FY12 Budget.

Atkinson v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 428 Md. 723 (2012) (binding arbitration in budget process; charter limits on discretion)
Wicomico Cnty. Fraternal Order of Police v. Wicomico Cnty., 190 Md.App. 291 (2010) (budgetary and charter interpretation context)
Kensington Vol. Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Mont. Cnty., 684 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2012) (budget acts as legislative act; immunity considerations)
Schisler v. The State, 394 Md. 519 (2006) (constitutional interpretation and separation of powers in context of state budget)
Judy v. Schaefer, 331 Md. 239 (1993) (governor’s budget role; legislative-like action and delegation)
Mandel v. O’Hara, 320 Md. 103 (1990) (official immunity and discretion in executive actions; budget context)