Greenbelt council holds first reading of municipal labor‑code ordinance after staff revision sparks dispute

Council held the first reading of Ordinance 1410, a measure to amend Chapter 13 of the Greenbelt City Code to create a municipal labor code governing collective bargaining for three designated non‑managerial units: police, public works and a general unit.

The ordinance, read into the record for first reading, would formalize employee‑organization selection processes, define unfair labor practices and establish impasse‑resolution procedures for bargaining units across city departments. Mayor Jordan presented the ordinance text for first reading and said the updated packet contains an amended version labeled “version two.”

The most contentious moment came when Council Member Pompy accused staff and outside counsel of altering timeline language without notifying council. "They changed it without any notification," Pompy said, arguing the version circulated in the packet did not reflect the language council had previously voted on. Pompy said she would move forward with the language the council had approved and welcomed amendments at second reading.

City Manager Brian Kim responded that staff had traced the change to a series of email exchanges among staff and counsel during a late packet production effort. Kim said staff and legal reviewers were attempting to align dispute‑timelines with federal practice and that the 45‑day figure had been referenced as consistent with the National Labor Board’s standards in those internal emails. "There was an exchange in that email between Mr. Sylvestri and Mr. Taylor about the question of the 14 days," Kim said, describing the change as the product of email discussions rather than a formal legal opinion presented to council.

Several councilors urged caution and asked for citations and the underlying legal basis. One councilor said their own research showed the 45‑day timeline had been rescinded in 2024 and asked staff to provide authority; council did not reach a resolution on that point in the meeting. Staff said if the change is deemed a substantial revision it would return to first reading again.

The ordinance remains at first reading; council did not vote to advance the measure to second reading or adopt any final amendments during the meeting. The city manager was directed to provide documentation on the change, including the email trail and any legal citations used to justify the 45‑day language.

Next steps: staff will confirm the authoritative text to be used for second reading, provide the legal citations discussed in council, and, if necessary, re‑introduce the ordinance consistent with council direction.