State Personnel - Collective Bargaining - Nontenure Track Faculty
HB0106 amends Maryland’s Public Safety law governing the 9–1–1 Emergency Telephone System by expanding the statutory definition of “first responder.” In addition to firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, rescue squad members, State Fire Marshal personnel, certain volunteer fire and rescue members, licensed or certified individuals under the Education Article, and 9–1–1 specialists, the bill adds three categories of employees of the Department of Transportation: emergency response technicians, facility maintenance technicians, and vehicle services and recovery technicians.
The practical effect is to place these Department of Transportation employees within the same first responder definition used in the 9–1–1 subtitle, which may affect how they are recognized in emergency-response related law and any programs, benefits, or administrative provisions that rely on that definition. The bill does not create a new program; it updates an existing statutory definition in the Public Safety Article and takes effect October 1, 2025.
HB0106 changes Section 1–301 of the Public Safety Article by broadening the legal definition of “first responder” for purposes of the 9–1–1 Emergency Telephone System subtitle. The amendment specifically adds certain Maryland Department of Transportation employees, which may affect their eligibility or treatment under any state laws, policies, or benefits that incorporate this definition by reference. The bill leaves the rest of the subtitle unchanged and applies prospectively beginning October 1, 2025.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be a straightforward definitional expansion with no recorded committee testimony, amendments, or votes indicating opposition. The absence of debate in the provided materials suggests the measure was likely viewed as a technical or recognition-based update rather than a controversial policy change. The context does not show any formal support or opposition statements, so the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond that it appears neutral to favorable.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or vote history. The only potentially debatable issue is whether Department of Transportation employees such as emergency response technicians, facility maintenance technicians, and vehicle services and recovery technicians should be classified as “first responders” for 9–1–1-related purposes. Because no committee discussion is included, it is not possible to identify any articulated objections, fiscal concerns, or labor-related concerns from the record provided.