Government Operations Committee Meeting - March 20, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Government Operations Committee Meeting - March 20, 2025
The Government Operations Committee met on March 20, 2025, at 2:00 PM. The main item was Ordinance G-25-08 to extend collective bargaining rights to non-sworn city employees, which was tabled for further discussion. The committee also received updates from the Downtown Frederick Partnership, the Golden Mile Alliance, and a verbal report on the Maryland General Assembly session.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Denise Gilmore, Legislative Director of AFSCME Maryland, spoke in support of the ordinance. She highlighted four key areas for refinement: election and decertification procedures, dues authorization, discipline standards, and impasse procedures. She recommended limiting bargaining units to no more than two to avoid administrative burdens and suggested binding arbitration as an alternative to strikes. She also noted that supervisors and non-supervisors should be in separate units. Ms. Gilmore provided written materials and answered questions from the committee.
Discussion Items
-
Ordinance G-25-08 – Collective Bargaining for Non-Sworn Employees Councilmember Kelly Russell introduced the ordinance, explaining that current law only covers sworn personnel and that this ordinance would allow non-sworn employees to organize. The redlined version incorporated suggestions from AFSCME and city staff. Key points of debate included:
- Bargaining units: Councilmember Wilson expressed strong opposition to having more than one bargaining unit, fearing it would leave some employees out and strain HR resources. Councilmember Russell and Ms. Gilmore argued that limiting units to two (e.g., based on community of interest or FLSA classification) is standard and provides flexibility. Councilmember Wilson maintained his position.
- Strikes and power: Councilmember Wilson initially objected to the no-strike provision, arguing it gives employees no bargaining power. Councilmember Russell and city attorney Rachel explained that binding arbitration is the common alternative for public employees, and that the grievance process and arbitration panels would provide recourse. Councilmember Wilson later acknowledged this could be acceptable.
- Election procedures: Ms. Gilmore emphasized the need for codified timelines and transparent processes for certification and decertification, including quick access to employee lists and secret ballots.
- Other amendments: Discussion touched on including part-time employees, dues deduction, and for-cause discipline. Outcome: The committee voted 3-0 to table the ordinance to the next available Government Operations Committee meeting for further deliberation.
-
Downtown Frederick Partnership Update Kara Norman (Executive Director) and Leanne Cruz (Associate Director) presented an overview of activities. Highlights included:
- Business development: A new food hall project (with McClintock Distilling), a retail incubator grant application, facade and interior improvement grants, and trainings (e.g., ASL for businesses).
- Placemaking: Downtown Frederick Light Walk, Seventh Street Fountain Park (partnership with city and Archaeology Society), Carroll Creek Wayfinding, and ambassador program (cleaned 11,000+ block faces, recycled 87 pounds of cigarette butts).
- Organizational: FY24 budget just under $2 million, with 50% from fundraising/grants; full-time staff expanded to five.
- Concerns: Businesses reported negative impact from vendor markets on Carroll Creek (private, for-profit events that pull foot traffic away from storefronts), while cultural festivals were seen positively. Councilmember Wilson requested a detailed budget breakdown showing all city taxpayer contributions, including pass-through state grants. The partnership agreed to provide current and next fiscal year budgets after board approval.
-
Golden Mile Alliance Update Chris McDonald (Executive Director) reported on 2024 accomplishments and 2025 plans. Key points:
- Community engagement: National Night Out (500+ attendees, food provided by GMA with sponsorship), rain barrel auction partnership, advocacy for dignified bus stops (shelters and benches), Westside Community Center and Library support, Hill Street Park redesign input, public art initiatives, and connecting Centro Hispano with STEM funding for a second Westside STEM center.
- Business engagement: Facilitated facades grants ($34,000 spent in FY24), grand openings, Latino business networking events, international festival (700 attendees, 27 vendors), and business visits (5-7 per week).
- Financial: FY24 total income ~$39,000 (private grants $20,000, sponsorships/donations $6,000, in-kind $9,000). FY25 projected income $100,000 (including $75,000 city investment).
- Challenges: Partnership with city staff still developing; e.g., spring cleanup date conflicts (Palm Sunday) and coordination on National Night Out supplies. Councilmember Wilson praised the improved fundraising but noted concerns about the food cost for National Night Out shifting from community donations to GMA. He and Councilmember Wilson (again?) emphasized the need for better city-GMA coordination and communication. Councilmember Zemchak acknowledged the organization's progress and transition from a volunteer-run to a staffed structure.
-
General Assembly Session Update Luke Pinson (Funk & Bolton, via video) and Guy Sampson (Chief of Staff) gave a verbal update. Highlights:
- State budget: Governor and legislative leaders announced framework to address $3 billion deficit with $2 billion in cuts and $1 billion in new revenue (limited business-to-business tax, income tax changes for high earners).
- Transportation: Mayor advocated for Route 15 funding via the MOVES coalition; $400 million needed to unlock federal funds.
- Legislation: Mayor testified on expungement reform (Abishek fix), Maryland Values Act (limits ICE 287(g) agreements), and Protect Sensitive Locations Act (requires warrant for ICE access). Mayor also met with Senator Karen Lewis Young and others.
- Councilmember Wilson requested a formal written report with details on meetings, hours, and bills tracked, citing dissatisfaction with the verbal-only update. Chief Sampson agreed to provide an end-of-session written report.
Key Outcomes
- Ordinance G-25-08 was tabled (3-0) to the next Government Operations Committee meeting for further discussion and potential amendments.
- The committee received updates from the Downtown Frederick Partnership and the Golden Mile Alliance; no formal votes were taken.
- A formal written report on the General Assembly session will be provided after the session concludes.
- No consent calendar or approval of minutes was recorded in the transcript (agenda listed approval of March 6 minutes, but discussion was not captured).
Meeting Transcript
Call it order if the government operates as committee meeting for March twentieth, two thousand twenty-five. We start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Second. We have an item on our agenda today for review for recommendation. Ordinance G twenty five dash zero eight collective concerning collective bargaining for employees of the City of Frederick to it presented by Council Member Kelly Russell. Mr. Vice President Chair. Our first attempt was to take that ordinance and amend it to apply to non-sworn employees, and that was our very first discussion. This was uh late last fall. Um that at that time there were a few unanswered questions about timing of things, procedures, etc. And so it was determined that it would need some more discussion. We also had um interaction from the uh legislative director of the American Federation, state, county, and municipal employees present in the room who had some thoughts on how to modernize our very old language that currently exists in the code and how we could make it uh better. And so over a period of time we had some communications uh with Ms. Denise Gilmore. She's not here as part of my presentation, but she's certainly here to you know talk about her thoughts and uh um ideas. Um we got some comments back, and Rachel and I and Karen uh Paulson, our director of human resources, Rachel, our city attorney, sort of worked through those and adopted a number of those that we thought were good and and modernizing and clarifying. Um there were some parts of it that we thought would would be better suited to be actually in a collective bargaining agreement at that point, some uh very prescriptive procedural things. Um so we sort of took took what we thought was really good and applicable and and worked it into it. What you have in front of you today, you'll see the red line version, it's very red because a lot of that is what was presented to us from ASME worked into the original city ordinance that already existed that was very, very dated. Um I'm I'm happy to have discussion, and I'm looking forward to having discussion on what is proposed, what other thoughts you might have if you have questions. Both Rachel and Karen are here to um assist me in in uh answering questions about what we're proposing. Um but essentially it's uh this is something that has been discussed with the umployee committee. They are looking forward to having this enabling legislation. I want to make this very clear that this is an ordinance to allow this action to occur should employees decide to organize. They don't have to, that is their choice. Um they don't have to join a union, they can have uh like the FOP is not a union, it is a volunteer organization, but still recognized as a collective bargaining union. So, whatever employees decide to do, I just want to set the table and allow them to do it if that's what they choose to do. So, with that, I guess I'll stop rattling off and take some questions. Questions, councilmember. Um, yeah, I have a couple questions. So uh the way this is written, I I still don't understand the need for this. There was um you know, we we've permitted collective bargaining. If a group wanted to bring that forward, um it's just another part of the ordinances that we would have changed according to the group of people who wanted collective bargaining. So um, I'm having problems with timing, nonetheless, it's before us. So the way I read this is uh who from who from city staff has been involved in this. I'm sorry. I don't need names. What I need to know is that there have been people on city staff who have are interested in moving forward with something like this, and um I I don't know. I I'm I don't want to do this for just one group of people, which is in my brain right now. We're doing this for one group of people who wants to move forward with a collective bargaining whatever, and that is not I'm not interested in that. So can you tell me who who's who's been working on this city employee-wise? Again, general, not specific. This is my initiative when I recognize that the current ordinance only applied to sworn personnel, and it was during a casual conversation with the city attorney that this came up that we needed to pass an ordinance for non-sworn employees to have that same ability. Yeah, those, I mean, we've had those conversations numerous times over the years that something more has to be passed. Timing-wise, why now? So I mentioned last fall I was in Rachel's office, and we were discussing, I don't even know what we were discussing, and it came up, and I I said, well, if employees wanted to do this, they could do it under the existing provision, and I was corrected and had to go back and look at the language that and realize that all of these years, I think we had all been under the impression that any employee could could organize under that statute. But in rereading it and examining it, it is only for sworn personnel. So that's why now because it came up in a conversation and I wanted to fix it. Okay, that's fair. Um in um the the way that I read this, it talks about um various bargaining units within non-sworn personnel.
openpublica.com