Carroll County Educ. Ass'n, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Carroll County

Decision Date05 August 1982
Docket NumberNo. 4,4
Citation294 Md. 144,448 A.2d 345
Parties, 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2048, 5 Ed. Law Rep. 907 CARROLL COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CARROLL COUNTY.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

James R. Whattam, Baltimore (Walter S. Levin, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

William H. Engelman and Kaplan, Heyman, Greenberg, Engelman & Belgrad, P.A., Baltimore, and Larry P. Weinberg, Martha Walfoort and Kirschner, Weinberg, Dempsey, Walters & Willig, Washington, D. C., on the brief, amici curiae, for American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) and Maryland Council 67, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO filed.

Edward J. Gutman, Baltimore (Thomas A. Baker, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the Maryland Open Meetings Act, Maryland Code (1957, 1980 Repl.Vol.), Article 76A, §§ 7-15 (the Act), authorizes a county board of education to determine unilaterally to conduct collective bargaining negotiations at meetings open to the public, notwithstanding the provisions of Code (1975), § 6-408 of the Education Article, which require that public school employers negotiate in "good faith" with representatives of employee organizations.

I

Labor relations between a county board of education and public school employees are governed by a comprehensive legislative scheme, originally enacted by ch. 483 of the Acts of 1968, now codified as §§ 6-401 to 6-411 of the Education Article. Section 6-408(b)(1) requires that "On request a public school employer or at least two of its designated representatives shall meet and negotiate with at least two representatives of the employee organization that is designated as the exclusive negotiating agent for the public school employees in a unit of the county on all matters that relate to salaries, wages, hours, and other working conditions." (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 6-408(a)(1)(i) defines the word "negotiate" as including the duty to:

"Confer in good faith, at all reasonable times." (Emphasis supplied.)

Another provision of the Education Article, § 4-106(e)(2), provides that a county board of education "may meet and deliberate in executive session if the matter under consideration is ... labor relations."

The Open Meetings Act was enacted by ch. 863 of the Acts of 1977; it requires that meetings of public bodies, with limited exceptions, be open to the public. Avara v. Baltimore News American, 292 Md. 543, 440 A.2d 368 (1982). The strong policy in favor of open meetings is expressed in § 7:

"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that except in special and appropriate circumstances public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy."

Section 9 states that the Act applies to a public body when it is exercising, inter alia, "quasi-legislative" functions; that term is defined in § 8(i) to encompass, among other matters, "[t]he approval, disapproval, or amendment of a contract ... by a public body, or the process of doing so." (Emphasis supplied.) Section 8(g) defines a "public body" as

"an entity consisting of two or more persons that is created by the State Constitution, by State statute local charter or ordinance, or rule, resolution or bylaw, or by executive order of the Governor or the chief executive authority of a political subdivision of the State."

Section 8(f) defines a "meeting" to mean

"the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public body for the purpose of considering or transacting public business."

Section 10 requires that meetings of every public body covered by the Act "shall be open to the public unless closed in accordance with § 11." Section 11(a) states that a public body required to have an open meeting by § 10 "may have a closed meeting" for any of thirteen specified reasons, one of which, § 11(a)(8), is for the purpose of

"[c]onducting collective bargaining negotiations or considering matters and issues in connection therewith."

II

Every year since June of 1968, the Board of Education of Carroll County (the Board) and the Carroll County Education Association, Inc. (the Association), through their respective representatives, have met in closed sessions to negotiate matters relating to salaries, wages, hours and other working conditions for certain employees of the Board. On August 12, 1981, the Board adopted a resolution requiring that such collective bargaining sessions thereafter be conducted as meetings open to the public. The Association objected to the Board's action on the ground that the obligation of "good faith" bargaining contained in § 6-408 of the Education Article prohibited the Board from unilaterally determining that the collective bargaining sessions would be conducted at meetings open to the public.

After unsuccessfully pursuing all available administrative remedies, the Association filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court for Carroll County. The Association sought a declaration that the Board's resolution of August 12, 1981 was void as being in violation of the Board's duty to negotiate in good faith with employee organizations, as required by § 6-408 of the Education Article. In addition, the Association sought a decree directing the Board to institute collective bargaining negotiations in executive or closed sessions unless both parties agreed to the contrary.

The trial court (Gilmore, J.) granted the Board's motion for summary judgment and "dismissed" the action. It noted that

"the process of the Board and the Association negotiating a contract, the monetary provisions of which are later included as part of the Board's budget, is a process which falls within the statutory definition of 'quasi-legislative function.' Thus, Section 10(a) requires that the Board's meetings with the Association for this purpose 'shall be open to the public unless closed in accordance with Section 11.' "

The lower court emphasized that

"[a]lthough Section 11(a)(8) authorizes the Board to conduct its negotiations with the Association in closed session, it in no way requires closed sessions. Under the statute, adjournment of an open meeting into closed session is at the option of the public body, in this case, the Board."

The trial court concluded that to hold in favor of the Association

"would be to give the Association the power to unilaterally determine that negotiations should be closed to the public, in contravention of the general statement of public policy found in Section 7."

We granted certiorari prior to decision by the Court of Special Appeals to determine the important issues of statutory construction presented by the case.

III

In seeking reversal of the judgment below, the Association offers two basic arguments. First, while it readily acknowledges that the Open Meetings Act permits a public body to hold collective bargaining sessions as open meetings, it argues that because § 6-408 of the Education Article imposes the duty upon the Board to negotiate in good faith, neither party can unilaterally insist upon open meetings as a precondition to further negotiations. For the Board to do so, the Association claims, is a per se violation of its statutory duty under § 6-408. Secondly, the Association argues that collective bargaining sessions between representatives of a local board of education and representatives of an employee organization are not within the ambit of the Open Meetings Act. This is so, the Association contends, because the relevant "public body" for purposes of § 8(g) of the Act is the Board itself, not its negotiating representatives. Consequently, the Association urges that unless a quorum of the members of the Board is present at negotiating sessions, the sessions are not "meetings" within the contemplation of § 8(f) of the Act.

In support of its first argument, the Association places reliance upon a number of court and state labor board decisions which espouse the view that the public interest is best served by conducting public sector labor negotiations in sessions closed to the public. These cases, in general, advance the notion that the presence of the public and press at such negotiating sessions inhibits the free exchange of views and freezes negotiations into fixed positions from which neither party can recede without loss of face; in other words, that meaningful collective bargaining would be destroyed if full publicity were accorded at each step of the negotiations. See, e.g., Talbot v. Concord Union School District, 114 N.H. 532, 323 A.2d 912 (1974); Board of Selectmen v. Labor Relations Com'n, 7 Mass.App. 360, 388 N.E.2d 302 (1979); State ex rel. Bd. of Pub. Utilities v. Crow, 592 S.W.2d 285 (Mo.App.1979). The Association maintains that the authorities upon which it relies universally condemn unilaterally required public bargaining regardless of whether the collective bargaining law is accompanied by an Open Meetings Act, 1 by one with a specific exception for collective bargaining sessions, 2 or even by one with no specifically applicable exception for such purposes. 3

IV

In the view we take of this case, we need not undertake a detailed analysis of the authorities presented by the Association because the matter before us is essentially one of construing two Maryland statutes under applicable principles of statutory construction to ascertain the intention of the General Assembly. The determination whether the Board negotiates in "good faith" within the meaning of § 6-408 of the Education Article "is a subjective measure which can be applied only in light of the totality of the circumstances." Mont. Co. Council v. Bd. of Education, 277...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • City of College Park v. Cotter
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1986
    ...that meetings of public bodies, with limited exceptions, be open to the public. See Carroll County Education Association v. Board of Education of Carroll County, 294 Md. 144, 147, 448 A.2d 345, 347 (1982); Avara v. Baltimore News American Division, 292 Md. 543, 440 A.2d 368 (1982). 13 Secti......
  • Rupli v. South Mountain Heritage Soc'y, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 22, 2011
    ...without giving a declaration passing upon and adjudicating the issues raised in the proceeding.” Carroll County Education Asso. v. Board of Education, 294 Md. 144, 155, 448 A.2d 345 (1982) (citations omitted). “[W]hen a declaratory judgment action is brought, and the controversy is appropri......
  • Volkman v. Hanover Invs., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 25, 2015
  • Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank of Hagerstown v. Schlossberg
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1985
    ... ...   On December 28, 1982, Paramount Interiors, Inc., a Maryland corporation, executed an assignment ... in the Circuit Court for Washington County on December 29, 1982, seeking that court's ... 277, 283, 477 A.2d 1174 (1984); Board of Educ., Garrett Co. v. Lendo, 295 Md. 55, 63, ... at 62-63, 453 A.2d 1185; Carroll Co. Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ., 294 Md. 144, ... Franchise Tax Bd. v. Credit Managers Assn., 76 Cal.App.3d 344, 142 Cal.Rptr. 777 (1977); ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT