What's Next for Maryland's DPSCS Labor Leadership After Moran
supervisors · August 22, 2026
Patrick Moran built Council 3's power through coordinated bargaining, legislative pressure, and PERB litigation. What will his successor do when safety and staffing gaps remain?
Key takeaways
- Patrick Moran pioneered a multi-front approach combining contract bargaining, legislative advocacy, PERB litigation, and public pressure that moved Maryland DPSCS toward meaningful safety and staffing gains.
- Council 3's incoming leadership will inherit unresolved safety and staffing shortages at DPSCS despite Moran's strategy, forcing a choice between continuing incremental gains or escalating to more aggressive tactics.
- Bargaining alone cannot solve problems rooted in state budget constraints and political will; legislative wins create the conditions for bargaining success, but require sustained pressure to move.
- PERB litigation and media campaigns amplify negotiating leverage when corrections staff feel unheard through formal channels and morale erosion accelerates turnover.
- First-time union leaders stepping into this role face the same core challenge as first-time supervisors: building credibility with members while managing relationships with institutional power, which requires transparency, follow-through, and protecting members in tough moments.
- The successor's credibility depends on naming the real problem openly with members, setting clear expectations about what each strategy can and cannot achieve, and admitting when progress stalls.
- Sustainable labor leadership requires choosing between tactics deliberately rather than cycling through them reactively; escalation without a clear endgame erodes member trust just as quickly as inaction does.
You just took over leadership of a labor organization that fought hard for gains your members deserved, and you still have unfinished business. Safety staffing at Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services remains inadequate. Turnover is still eating the workforce. Your predecessor built a model that worked on multiple fronts at once. Now you have to decide whether to keep that approach running, double down on the parts that are working, or shift tactics entirely. That choice will define whether your members see you as a leader who delivers or a caretaker who inherited momentum and let it slip.
This is the exact position Council 3's incoming leadership will face. Understanding what worked, what did not, and what your options actually are will save you from reactive decisions made under pressure. Your members are watching. Your credibility depends on being clear about what you can and cannot control, and then delivering on what you promised.
The Moran Model: Four Pressure Points Working at Once
Patrick Moran's approach at Council 3 was not about picking one tactic and riding it hard. Instead, he built a coordinated, multi-front campaign. As detailed in a prior analysis of his career, Moran moved from shop steward to Council 3 president by combining direct contract bargaining with legislative advocacy, PERB litigation, and public pressure campaigns. Each tactic served a purpose; together, they created a system where management faced consequences and costs no matter which direction they moved.
Direct bargaining with DPSCS management put the core demands on the table: better wages, more predictable schedules, staffing levels. Legislative advocacy created political pressure; Moran and Council 3 members testified, mobilized constituents, and built relationships with lawmakers who controlled DPSCS budgets. PERB litigation enforced agreements and created legal precedent, making violations costly. Public campaigns, media outreach, and member mobilization ensured that staff concerns reached newspapers, elected officials, and the public conscience. Management could not negotiate past the union without hitting political consequences. Legislators could not ignore the issue because Council 3 made it impossible to. PERB cases created legal exposure for violations.
This was not flashy. It was methodical, and it worked because each tactic reinforced the others. Bargaining gains built credibility with members. Legislative wins created room for bargaining to move further. PERB victories established precedent that made management more willing to negotiate. Public pressure kept elected officials engaged.
What Remains Unresolved
And yet staffing and safety gaps at DPSCS persist. Why? Because the fundamental problem is not management stubbornness or union weakness; it is that state budget allocation and political will have not yet shifted enough to fund the full solution. A contract can raise wages for the staff you have. Legislation can create mandate for new positions. But neither can happen if lawmakers do not appropriate the money or if leadership has competing budget priorities. DPSCS safety and staffing is not a bargaining problem or a legal problem alone; it is a resource allocation problem. Until that shifts, no single tactic will close the gap.
This is the hard truth a new Council 3 leader must tell members clearly. You can win rounds at the bargaining table. You can pass bills. You can win PERB cases. You will still have staffing shortages as long as the state chooses to put money elsewhere. Members need to know that so they can decide whether the leadership's next move is worth their time, energy, and risk.
The Strategic Choice: Continue, Double Down, or Escalate
Your next move depends on what you believe will actually move the needle. Here are the real options, with honest trade-offs:
| Approach |
What It Does Well |
What It Cannot Do |
Member Risk |
| Continue Moran's Multi-Front Model |
Maintains steady pressure across multiple channels. Builds on existing relationships and precedent. Keeps management uncertain about which pressure point will move next. Sustainable over years. |
Moves incrementally. Takes time. Cannot force legislative budget action if political will is absent. Does not address immediate staffing crisis. |
Members feel progress is too slow; morale erodes; turnover accelerates despite union activity. |
| Double Down on Legislative Action |
Shifts focus to the only tactic that can solve resource constraint. Mobilizes members to testify, lobby, and make staffing a political cost for ignoring it. Creates permanent solution if successful. |
Requires sustained member engagement over multiple legislative sessions. Lawmakers may not move even under pressure. Takes longer than bargaining to show results. |
Members grow frustrated if legislative push stalls; they may see it as leadership wasting political capital on battles they cannot win. |
| Escalate to Work Actions or Job Actions |
Creates immediate, visible pressure. Shows members leadership is fighting hard. Forces management and elected officials to take the problem seriously right now. |
Can backfire if public sympathy is absent or if members pay a cost without winning gains. Requires overwhelming member support or you lose credibility fast. Creates legal and employment risks. |
If the action does not produce results, members lose confidence and leadership looks reactive. If members face retaliation, credibility erodes further unless leadership protects them effectively. |
Each option is defensible. None is obviously wrong. But the choice you make must be deliberate, not reactive, and you must be transparent with members about what success looks like and what they are signing up for.
The Leadership Parallel: Credibility Built on Honesty and Follow-Through
If you are stepping into a leadership role for the first time, whether as a union officer, a first-time supervisor, or a team lead promoted from within, you are facing the exact same core challenge: building credibility with people who are watching to see whether you deliver on what you say. Your members are watching. Your team is watching. And credibility does not come from picking the most aggressive tactic or the most popular move. It comes from being honest about what you can control, doing what you say you will do, and protecting people in tough moments.
In a corrections context, that means naming clearly what is broken, what your strategy is designed to achieve, and what members should expect in the next three to six months. It means following through on small commitments before you ask for big sacrifice. It means admitting when a tactic is not working and being willing to pivot rather than doubling down on something that is failing. It means pushing back on management when they overreach, and protecting your members even when it is inconvenient for you politically.
This is harder than it sounds because you will face pressure from multiple directions. Management will push for concessions. Elected officials will ask you to accept small wins and declare victory. Members will demand escalation. Your own team will have competing ideas about what to do. The temptation is to please everyone or to move fast and decide later. Resist that. Instead, get clear on your one outcome, communicate it repeatedly, and adjust your tactics deliberately when conditions change, not reactively when pressure builds.
The Immediate Priority: Listen and Assess
Your first 90 days should not be about announcing a new strategy or making big moves. It should be about listening and assessing. Talk to frontline staff directly. Ask them what is broken, what they need, and what they are willing to do about it. Meet with your negotiating team and PERB representatives to understand where the leverage actually is. Meet with management and elected officials to understand their constraints and priorities. Then, and only then, communicate back to members what you learned, what your assessment is, and what the path forward looks like.
This approach does three things. First, it gives you real information instead of inherited assumptions. Second, it signals to members that you are thoughtful and serious, not just another voice yelling. Third, it creates space to build your own credibility rather than immediately being measured against your predecessor.
After you listen, name one clear goal for the first quarter. It could be "win the legislative provision on mandatory staffing levels," or "secure a contract amendment on shift scheduling," or "establish public commitment from the commissioner to address turnover." Make it specific, achievable, and visible so members can see progress. Then protect that goal ruthlessly. Do not let yourself be pulled in ten directions. Do one thing well, deliver it, and build from there.
What Members Actually Need From You
Your members do not need you to be more aggressive than your predecessor. They need you to be clear, honest, and consistent. They need to know that you understand their problem from the inside because you lived it. They need to see that you follow through. They need to know that you will tell them hard truths, not just what they want to hear. And they need to see you protect them when management or politics turns against them.
If you can do that, you build the kind of credibility that allows you to ask for sacrifice when it is necessary and to maintain member trust even when progress is slower than they want. That is how Moran built power at Council 3. That is how you build power in whatever leadership role you are stepping into.
Your members are watching. Choose your strategy deliberately, communicate it honestly, and follow through. Everything else follows from that.
Frequently asked questions
- What was Patrick Moran's approach to labor organizing at Council 3 in Maryland?
- Moran coordinated four strategies: direct contract bargaining with DPSCS, legislative advocacy to reshape budget priorities and staffing mandates, PERB litigation to enforce existing agreements and create legal precedent, and public campaigns including media outreach and member mobilization. This multi-front approach created multiple pressure points simultaneously.
- Why does bargaining alone not solve DPSCS safety and staffing problems?
- Safety and staffing gaps stem from state budget allocation and political will, not just management inflexibility. Bargaining can secure incremental raises or schedule flexibility, but cannot force legislators to fund more positions or redirect resources from other state priorities. Legislative action and budget advocacy must precede or accompany bargaining to move the needle meaningfully.
- What is the risk of escalating to more aggressive tactics without a clear plan?
- Escalation without a defined endgame or member buy-in erodes trust in leadership. If strikes, work actions, or intensive media campaigns do not produce visible gains, members begin to see leadership as reactive rather than strategic, and morale fractures. Conversely, inaction when members feel unheard also damages credibility.
- How does a new union leader build credibility with members when inheriting an unfinished fight?
- Name the real problem openly; acknowledge what previous leadership achieved and what remains unresolved. Set clear expectations about what each tactic can achieve and on what timeline. Follow through on small commitments first. Listen more than you talk, admit when progress stalls, and protect members in tough moments. Credibility grows in repeated, small moments of honesty and follow-through.
- What role does transparency play in union leadership during contract disputes?
- Members support strategies they understand and see as having a realistic chance of success. Transparency about negotiating positions, budget constraints, and management responses reduces the drift between member expectations and actual progress. When leadership communicates early and often, members stay engaged even during long stalls.
- Can PERB litigation create leverage in labor disputes?
- Yes, but only when paired with other tactics. PERB cases establish legal precedent and create consequences for management violations, which strengthens the labor organization's credibility with members and sends institutional signals. However, litigation alone takes years to resolve and does not address immediate staffing or safety crises.
- What should a new Council 3 leader prioritize in the first 90 days?
- Listen to frontline staff directly about what is broken. Audit the current state of negotiations, litigation, and legislative relationships. Meet with management and elected officials to understand their constraints and priorities. Then communicate back to members what you learned, name the path forward, and set one clear, achievable goal for the first quarter to rebuild member confidence.
Related articles
All articles