Would Rick Pollitt Be The Arbitrator?
Filed under: Fiscal Policy, Maryland, Public Safety, Wicomico Politics
I happen to agree with the Wicomico County Council’s veto override of the labor code to establish collective bargaining with binding arbitration for the County’s Sheriff’s deputies. I do not, however, agree with the persistent, and false, allegations that have been thrown at County Executive Rick Pollitt regarding his supposed role at arbitrator.
On multiple occasions DuvaFiles has made the claim that Pollitt has attempted to set himself up as “the purported independent arbitrator”. Much criticism can be cast at Pollitt over this matter. I just happen to believe that if you are going to accuse him of poor judgement, you should be truthful.
Pollitt has never attempted to put himself in the role as arbitrator. Anyone bothering to look at the legislation or who attended the public hearing would understand this. Pollitt’s job is to either appoint a representative for Wicomico County, or act as that representative himself, in negotiations with the elected bargaining agent of the deputies. Everyone assumes that this agent will be F.O.P. Local #111.
An arbitrator will only be appointed if the representative of the County and the representative of the deputies cannot reach an agreement. The legislation lays out how that arbitrator would be chosen, and there is no way that Pollitt could possibly be that arbitrator.
If you wish to criticize our County Executive over this matter, then attack him with facts. Pollitt’s fault in this matter lies with his (apparently successful) attempt to have his cake and eat it too. In his veto of the Council’s legislation, he claims that the legislation would not fully comply with the will of the voters. That is true. However, the only way for the County Council to fully comply would be to either:
- Violate the County Charter by entering into negotiations themselves with the deputies’ collective bargaining agents. …or
- Give up their limited authority over the budget to the County Executive, which would make the Council an irrelevant institution.
This is an inherent problem of legislation by initiative. One need only to visit California to figure that one out.
If Pollitt wishes the Council to violate the Charter, and in effect surrender a portion of his own power, then he should say so. If he wishes Council to make themselves irrelevant, which is most likely, he should admit to that.
cross posted at Salisbury News
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Wicomico, politics, wicomicopolitics, RickPollitt, blogging, fiscalpolicy, publicsafety
Powered by ScribeFire.Sphere: Related Content
//END Quantcast Code
These charlatan bloggers, (Duva and Cato) cry foul when government goes against the people’s will. But all of a sudden when the people speak, and they SHOUTED with OVER 70% majority vote for collective Barg. They (Cato and Duva) are against the people. I must cry Hypocrite!
Therefore, I must resign from these nay-sayer blogs forever. I rather read the Daily Times.
Be my guest. While you are taking a vacation from us, you should spend your time by exploring a course in critical thinking.
I don’t know what your tie to FOP 111 is, but you are allowing your emotions to get the best of whatever critical skills you may posses. I will try to explain this again so that you may be able understand this.
One of the reasons that I was opposed to the revenue cap is because I am opposed to legislation by initiative (referendum). Question A is yet more evidence as to this problem.
There have been three major referenda in Wicomico County in recent years. The first two, the revenue cap and County Executive form of government did not particularly conflict with one another. Now comes along Question A.
While I support collective bargaining for public employees, Question A conflicts with the county charter. If the County Council does what you want, then they are forced to violate the charter either by illegally entering into negotiations with the FOP -OR- by giving up their responsibility to budget oversight.
It is obviously OK with you for this to happen. It is not OK with me. You appear to believe that it’s OK to violate the law (the charter) as long as the Deputies get what they want. If you are in law enforcement this is frightening.
When Pollitt vetoed the legislation I advocated that the County Council step back and spend the time necessary to come up with an adequate solution. Instead, the FOP began threatening legal action. Since several other counties have already overcome this problem I have a feeling that the FOP will lose any lawsuit, while losing well earned good will with the council.
This solution can be solved, but not by hotheads like you beating the drums.
If it is not, the next step will be collective bargaining (with binding arbitration) by the WCBOE staff. Then we’ll have the rest of the county employees.
===================
If you love initiative so much, go to California. On any given election there are multiple referenda, many deliberately conflicting with one another.
Again, I am favor of collective bargaining, but not binding arbitration. If this is followed to its logical conclusion, the county will be bankrupt.
Wow.
Looks like i hit a few of your buttons CATO. Do you always call people hot heads when they have a different opinion?
First, a law, charter, amendment, can always be changed and are always changing to fit the form of gov. Especially in the case when the question is petitioned to a ballot and the people vote on this question, in favor of the question. In this case people voted, so the wording should be changed as to not conflict.
Then you say everyone in the county, the BOE, etc will petition for a question A. I don’t think that is the case. Do you realize how difficult it was to put this Question on the ballot. Do you realize how much money FOP 111 and thier members spent in efforts just to have the question placed on the ballot so it could be put before the people. So i think your statement is an absolute Exaggeration and meant to deceive the public.
As far as “the county will be bankrupt” why do you think that an independant arbitrator is put in place? To prevent this very case you argue. This is why I write a response because you use this Blog to introduce false facts about Question A.
I’m Just simply debating you in a civil way and calling it as i see it. So I guess i have my cake and eat it too.
Good day, Fine Sir.