Faced with a budget deficit, the Charles County Board of Commissioners heard sheriff’s deputies from the Charles County Sheriff’s Office. They were fighting for salary step increases, which they say they are entitled to under county law which set up a legal showdown forcing the meeting to closed session.
During the work session, around a hundred sheriff’s deputies sat in the chamber expressing their support for the fight Major Joseph “Buddy” Gibson waged.
At issue was Article 24, Section 8-101 of the Annotated Code of Maryland and its direct conflict with Chapter 125-4 of the Code of Charles County and whether salary step increases were determined by the budget or not.
The Annotated Code of Maryland states, “Each of the following entities is subject to the budget and fiscal policies and purchasing laws of the county in which it is located: (1) Any county board of supervisors of elections; (2) Any State’s Attorney’s office; (3) Any sheriff’s office; (4) Any county board of liquor license commissioners; or (5) Any circuit court, but not the office of a clerk of court.”
The Code of Charles County states, “All Deputy Sheriffs shall receive the salary for the next step within their rank upon each anniversary date, which means July 1 as to all persons who are Deputy Sheriffs on July 1, 1979, or the date of employment as to all other deputies.”
Charles County Circuit Court Judge Stephen Chappelle, who was operating as legal counsel for the Sheriff’s Office and not as a judge, presented the argument about the county code to Charles County Attorney Barbara Holtz.
“I’m here as counsel,” Chappelle said. “Whether each sworn deputy would be entitled to a step increase on their anniversary, I think the authority from sheriff’s view is in section 124 of the county code. All county sheriffs shall receive a step increase from their anniversary date. We begin our analysis at looking at the plain meaning of the statute. What’s the plain meaning? Let’s look at the code in its entirety. The sheriff’s suggestion is supported when you look at the question in that regard. There’s a lot of merit to what the sheriff is suggesting.”
“I’m seeing it for the first time,” Holtz said. “It’s interesting that we cite the principles of law, but I cite the state law which specifically says sheriffs are subject to the county budget.”
“Listening to the plain meaning, I’m wondering if the impression, at the time, the same interpretation explained today, the previous board was more in line with being reflective with actual state,” Commissioner Vice President Reuben Collins (D) said.
“I’ve looked for files in the office and couldn’t find anything except retention increases,” Holtz said. “They understood there was no obligation under the law to do a step or COLA. I even met with Mr. (Roger) Fink because I could not find anything in writing and he agreed with my interpretation.”
“There is a history of giving steps to the sheriff’s office when the MSP did not so it’s ironic Mr. Fink had changed the interpretation that he had when Sheriff Rex Coffey (D) came in to office,” Major Joseph “Buddy” Gibson from the Charles County Sheriff’s Office said. “Prior to that, we didn’t have this issue.
“This is going to have an
