Library Collective Bargaining Bill Passes the House, Counties Seek Clarifying Amendments

House Bill 65 was passed out of the chamber and is now up for consideration in the Senate. MACo is seeking clarifying amendments.

MACo opposes HB 65 – Education – Public Libraries – Collective Bargaining as drafted. The bill effectively repeals the ability of local jurisdictions to pursue single-county legislation in this policy area, a framework that has suited the needs of both counties and library employees for years. This bill’s one-size-fits-all approach would not only impinge on local decision-making, but would also force potentially unsustainable costs on counties, since the legislation does not provide any added State support for the potential salary, benefit, and pension increases.

From the MACo Testimony:

Maryland’s libraries do it all: they support early literacy, create collaborative spaces, connect Marylanders to technology, foster community engagement, prepare Maryland’s kids for K-12 learning, assist residents with workforce development, and serve as central resource hubs for families. Unfortunately, HB 65 could lead to a rollback of these critical functions at a time when access to these free and low-cost services is most needed. Alternatively, this bill might force some library systems to start charging Maryland residents for these services, shifting burdens onto many whose ability to pay is limited.

MACo is seeking clarifying amendments to explicitly grant county governments the same sovereignty as provided for in K-12 and community college collective bargaining law. As drafted, the bill attempts to respect the counties’ concerns and financial sovereignty around negotiations, but it does so in an unclear manner and too late in the bill, following a section that deals with negotiation impasses and mediation.

As such, MACo has respectfully requested with the following:

  • Language in section 23-909 of the bill should replace section 23-07, sub section (c)(2) on page 11, line 24 to more clearly outline this authority and affirmatively state that it applies to all negotiations, from the beginning of the process, not just in cases of mediation. In other words, replace (c)(2) on page 11 of the bill with 123-909, (A) – (B) on page 24.

The bill’s crossfile, SB 352, has not moved in the Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee.

For more on MACo’s advocacy efforts during the 2023 legislative session, visit MACo’s Legislative Tracking Database.