Mta v. Mta Police, 21 A.3d 1098

In 2006, MdTA Police Lodge #34 of the FOP and MdTA entered a one-page memorandum (the Agreement) promising THV funding if collective bargaining bills were withdrawn this session.
The Agreement conditioned MdTA funding on bills being withdrawn and no MdTA collective bargaining legislation passing that session, with the FOP to advocate withdrawal.
The MdTA Board unanimously approved steps toward a three-year THV program (initially funded in 2007) and delivered the first 25 take-home vehicles.
Governor Ehrlich initially funded the THV program, but Governor O’Malley’s administration later declined continuing funding.
The FOP sued MdTA for breach of contract and promissory estoppel after the 2007 funding decision.
The Circuit Court dismissed on grounds of indefiniteness and public policy; the FOP appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed on the collective bargaining issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Legislature authorize MdTA to bargain collectively in 2006?	FOP: express authorization existed via enabling powers.	MdTA: no express authorization to bargain collectively.	No express legislative authorization to bargain collectively.
Does the McCulloch exception apply to render the Agreement enforceable despite no express authorization?	FOP: McCulloch exception covers such agreements.	MdTA: lack of express authorization defeats enforceability.	McCulloch exception does not validate the Agreement; it is unenforceable.
Was the Agreement subject to procurement or ethics/public policy constraints?	FOP: not a procurement of services; not prohibited.	MdTA: various public policy/ethics concerns apply.	The central enforceability issue centers on express legislative authorization, not procurement/public policy here.
Did MdTA’s actions unlawfully bargain away legislative discretion in violation of statutes?	FOP: MdTA acted within broad powers; no bargaining away.	MdTA: broad grants do not equate to express authorization to bargain away discretion.	Express authorization to bargain away statutory discretion was absent; unenforceable.

Mass Transit Admin. v. Wyatt, 295 Md. 88 (Md. 1982) (agency cannot bind itself to collective bargaining absent express authority)
McCulloch v. Glendening, 347 Md. 272 (Md. 1997) (absence of express legislative authority blocks binding arbitration/collective bargaining)
Anderson v. Md. Classified Emps. Ass'n, 281 Md. 496 (Md. 1977) (early rule: cannot bind state in compensation without express authorization)
Wyatt v. State Roads Comm., 175 Md. 258 (Md. 1938) (state agency funds not subject to constitutionally uncontrolled delegation)
Frenkil v. Hagan, 146 Md. 94 (Md. 1924) (evidence on improper influence in contracting cases)
Magnetti v. Univ. of Md., 402 Md. 548 (Md. 2007) (sovereign immunity waiver in contract actions with State entities)