Hon. Robert R. Neall, Chair, Presiding for the SHELRB
Sherry L. Mason, Senior Member, Presiding for the SLRB
 

             3.       Chairman’s report for SHELRB / Senior member report for SLRB

          Chairman Neall declined any report for the SHELRB and asked Sherry Mason if she had anything to offer for the SLRB.  Ms.
          Mason offered a brief remembrance for Allen Siegel, friend, comrade, and past interim chair of the SLRB.  Ms. Mason noted
          Mr. Siegel’s passing in late July, and stated that he would be missed.  Silent motions of agreement came from all Board
          members, SLRB and SHELRB alike, and staff as well.

4. Executive Director’s report
   
              Following remembrance of Mr. Siegel, SHELRB chairman Neall asked Executive Director Erica Snipes if she wished to give her report, or move directly to the proposed regulations that would be before both Boards during this meeting.  Ms. Snipes indicated that the Boards should consider the proposed regulations first and then move to the administrative and day to day matters of information she had to share.  Ms. Snipes suggested that since the SHELRB had fewer regulations to consider, that Board should proceed to the regulations first.
   
               Ms. Snipes noted that the proposed regulation before the SHELRB was worked on extensively by Board staff and the parties that had requested its consideration.  She noted that the proposed regulation focused on the practices required for ratification of a Memorandum of Understanding and invited the Board’s discussion and consideration. 
   
               SHELRB Vice-Chair, Harriet Cooperman offered one amendment to the proposal as it was presented.  (Note:  Copies of the proposed regulation were available for the public at this meeting and had been posted for some time on the Board’s website)  Ms. Cooperman suggested that proposed language at COMAR 14.30.09 should read “…copy of the terms of the agreement…” instead of “copy of the agreement” as the proposal was presented.  Ms. Cooperman noted that it was more than highly unusual that a full Collective Bargaining Agreement would be ready for the inspection of unit members so early in the ratification process.  The Board members discussed Ms. Cooperman’s proposed amendment and ended in agreement with it.  Board member Sheldon Steinbach made a motion that the proposal, with Ms. Cooperman’s amendment, be approved and published as a proposed regulation in the Maryland Register.  Harriet Cooperman and Leo Gant simultaneously seconded the motion.  All Board members present voted in its favor and Chairman Neall declared the motion to have carried. 
                         
               Chairman Neall asked Ms. Snipes to proceed with the SLRB regulations at that time.  Ms. Snipes indicated that the SLRB members should first consider the regulation with identical language to the regulation that the SHELRB had just considered.  It would be placed at COMAR 14.32.06.03. Ms. Snipes requested that in addition, the members of the SLRB consider whether the amendment made by Ms. Cooperman for the SHELRB was something the SLRB would want as well.  Ms. Snipes also noted additional language regarding negotiability that was also offered within this particular section of proposals.  Ms. Mason, Senior Member of the SLRB indicated that she did wish to consider Ms. Cooperman’s amendment, and offered the regulation, with Ms. Cooperman’s amendment, up for full SLRB discussion.  Homer La Rue moved that the regulation involving additional information on Negotiability and detailing certain requirements for the ratification of a Memorandum of Understanding, to be incorporated in to SLRB regulations at COMAR 14.32.06, be approved for publication as a proposal in the Maryland Register.  Laird Patterson seconded the motion, and all Board members present voted in its favor.  Ms. Mason declared the motion to have carried and asked Ms. Snipes for the next regulation proposed. 
   
               Ms. Snipes asked the Board members to consider a proposal at COMAR 14.32.01.05 that would make a timeline for service exception due to requirements of a later regulation (one that would be proposed today), as well as change the mailing addition (3 days for US Mail filing) from business days to calendar days, which was more appropriate.  Ms. Mason asked the Board members for their consideration of this proposal.  Laird Patterson made a motion to approve the proposal for publication as proposed in the Maryland Register.  Susie Jablinske seconded the motion.  All Board members present voted in favor, and Ms. Mason declared the motion to have carried.
   
               Ms. Snipes next noted the final proposed regulation was one that related to the passage of amendments to the Collective Bargaining Statute that detail the process by which employees may opt out of having their addresses and a number of other pieces of information shared with the unit’s exclusive representative, who may request the information twice per year.  Ms. Snipes noted that the parties most affected by this proposed regulation had worked quite hard on its provisions and there was only one area in which there was still disagreement:  whether the cost that the employer may charge an exclusive representative for the information requested was to be the cost of providing the list of the information or the cost of compiling the information.  Ms. Snipes noted that there may be members of the public at the meeting that wished to comment on this disagreement and the Board may wish to wait until hearing from those people before it reached a final decision regarding this regulation. 
   
               Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan Krasnoff, went through some of the particulars of this small area of contention, and after his comments, the Board members, lead in discussion by member Homer La Rue, decided to wait on a final decision regarding this regulation until they had heard public comment about it.  After this decision, Ms. Snipes continued with the administrative details of her meeting report.   

2. LERA (Labor and Employment Relations Association)

Ms. Snipes noted that the first LERA meeting is coming up on September 24 at Caesar’s Den Restaurant in Little Italy.  The topic will be Religious Discord in the Workplace and the speaker is Arbitrator and Mediator Michael Wolf.


                        

5. Regulations

           As per the discussion above, proposed regulations for both the SLRB and the SHELRB were considered prior to the Executive Director’s administrative report.  Ms. Snipes, however, did note that more members of the public were present at the meeting than had been present during the Boards’ discussion regarding the various proposals that had been accepted.  Ms. Snipes asked that the SHELRB briefly go over their single proposal, including the amendment made by Ms. Cooperman, and that the SLRB do the same. 

            Chairman Neall asked Ms. Cooperman to go over the regulation (14.30.09, as described above) and her proposed change, which she did.  She then looked out to the members of the public in attendance and asked if there were any questions or comments.  Linda McKeegan of Kahn, Smith & Collins, representing the American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) asked if she might speak.  Chairman Neall motioned her forward. 

            Ms. McKeegan noted that she had no problem with the change and that indeed the Memorandum of Understanding that would be available for viewing by the unit members prior to a ratification vote, would be a draft copy that would be prepared and presented in final form after the ratification.  Ms. McKeegan noted that Hillary Davis, representing MCEA (Maryland Classified Employees Association), may well have objected to the change, as it had seemed important to her that the MCEA membership that was part of the various higher education as well as state units see the actual contract, but noted that AFSCME had no objection to the amendment offered by Ms. Cooperman.  Ms. McKeegan noted that Ms. Davis may be agreeing to drop a current lawsuit pending before the Board after this regulation is passed.  As the language of the proposal before the SHELRB, and the amendment offered by Ms. Cooperman was identical to the proposal before the SLRB (including the amendment), the SLRB membership joined with that of the SHELRB in supporting the earlier motions that the proposals

be advanced in the publication process through the Maryland Register.  Chairman Neall of the SHELRB and Sherry Mason, senior member of the SLRB, indicated that both motions would stand. 

            Following the discussion on 14.30.09 (SHERLB) and 14.32.06.03 (SLRB) Ms. Mason also reiterated the acceptance of the proposed change at 14.32.01.05, regarding the service and filing requirements for the SLRB.  

            Ms. Mason then asked the membership of the SLRB to return to consideration of the proposal at 14.32.08.  Member Homer La Rue asked if there were members of the public that wished to comment on this proposal to assist the Board in considering its provisions.  Ms. McKeegan again asked to speak on behalf of AFSCME, and Ms. Mason motioned her to begin. 

            Ms. McKeegan began by presenting what she understood to be the process for the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to provide the employee information that the exclusive representative, in many cases AFSCME, was requesting.  Ms. McKeegan indicated that the main problem in charging the exclusive representative with the cost of “compiling” the employee information, was that AFSCME was unclear on how much the union would be charged and for what particular activities, and that she needed more information from DBM, particularly when DBM had brought the Comptroller’s Office into the process by getting various employee lists from that office.  Ms. McKeegan noted concern with ethics issues in compiling with the statute, and that AFSCME and the other unions who represent the various state employee units, will work on this issue together.  Ms. McKeegan noted that she’d worked with Kris Hoffman, the Assistant Attorney General who represents DBM, on how to make this request for information work with the state abilities to provide it and that they would continue to work together on this. 

            As Ms. McKeegan was speaking, Ms. Hoffman herself walked into the meeting room, apologized for her lateness, and also introduced Cindy Kollner, of DBM, who accompanied Ms. Hoffman to the meeting.  Ms. Mason welcomed them and asked if they had anything to add.  Ms. Hoffman and Ms. Kollner presented information that DBM doesn’t have any database of the information that the unions would be requesting, and is in the process of trying to get the technology to create such a database, but they didn’t know how far our they were in terms of getting the system implemented.  Ms. Kollner speculated that it could be a years long process.  Ms. Hoffman supported her argument that the union should be charged with the cost of compiling the information as it was not information that was at the state’s immediate access to provide.  Ms. McKeegan indicated that the two sides were continuing to work on this process.  Board member Homer La Rue asked AFSCME and DBM whether they had a timeline in which they could work out a language solution for the proposed regulation.  Ms. McKeegan indicated that it would be as soon as they could, perhaps in the next two to three weeks. 

6. Announcement of administrative determinations or Board decisions and orders, as appropriate:

Ms. Snipes noted that there were none to report at this time.

7. Issues arising from the elections, negotiations, investigations, and cases pending before OAH:

Ms. Snipes noted that there are no SHELRB cases before OAH at this time.

For the SLRB, Ms. Snipes noted that Case ULP 08-U-06 is up for a hearing before OAH on November.

8. New Business proposed by members of the Board or staff

Ms. Snipes indicated that there was no new business from staff to present that hadn’t been discussed already at the meeting.  Chairman Neall of the SHELRB indicated his preference that for the next meeting, the SHELRB at least, should meet at its own offices.  Ms. Snipes noted his comments. 

9. Meeting calendar

Proposed meeting calendar:  Remainder of Calendar Year 2008
     
                  December 11, 2008 (SHELRB)
                  December 4, 2008 (SLRB)           

Ms. Jablinske of the SLRB indicated her difficulty with the December 4 date, and Ms. Snipes noted that these dates are merely placeholders and if the date needs to be changed, we can do that at a later point. 

10. Adjournment

There was a unanimous motion for adjournment at approximately 10:55 by membership of both Boards, as well as a unanimous second.  The motion to adjourn carried.