The Baltimore County Council has sunk to a new low in the course of its discussion of two bills proposed in response to the public backlash over the scheme by council members to give themselves extraordinarily large, unearned increases in their pension benefits.

Some members of the council are trying to undo the consequences of the scheme while at the same trying to persuade the public that those consequences – including eye-popping pension windfalls for incumbents who leave the council at the end of this year – were the unintended result of a series of unrelated actions.

I believe that the consequences were intentional and that claims to the contrary insult the intelligence of county residents.

The positions taken in the debate by Councilmen Izzy Patoka and Julian Jones, frontrunners in the race for the Democratic nomination for county executive, are the most preposterous.

Bill 19-26, sponsored by Patoka, would repeal Bill 40-24, which changed county law to provide that the pensions of members who retire on or after January 1, 2025 will have their pensions based on the salaries of future, active members of the council, rather than on their own final average earnings.

That means, unless Bill 40-24 is repealed, retired members’ pensions will increase each time the salaries of active members increase.

Bill 26-26, sponsored by Councilman Julian Jones, would place a proposed amendment to the county charter on the ballot for approval by the voters that, among other things, would remove language added to the charter by the voters in 2024 that states that “membership on the council shall be considered a full-time position for the purpose of determining compensation.”

The council held the first work session on Bill 19-26 on February 24. The second work session on Bill 19-26, and the first on Bill 26-26, was held on March 10.

So far, the debate has consisted primarily of finger-pointing and prevarication.

The Scheme

Standing alone, Bill 40-24, sponsored by Councilman Wade Kach, gave retired council members much more lucrative increases in their pension benefits than the formula used for adjusting the pensions of rank-and-file county employees, which has resulted in one 3% COLA in the past 14 years.

Before enactment, Bill 40-24 was amended to clarify that the enhanced benefit did not apply to former members who retired before January 1, 2025, but did apply to members who retired on or after January 1, 2025.

In other words, council members who voted for the bill (all members except Councilman Mike Ertel) made sure that the bill applied to them, even if they left office at the end of the current term in December of this year.

It was Bill 47-24, introduced by Patoka on the same day that the council passed Bill 40-24, that consummated the opportunity created by Bill 40-24 to produce some truly astonishing windfalls, especially for members who retire in December.

Bill 47-24 combined the proposal to mandate full-time compensation with the proposal to increase the size of the council from seven to nine members on a single ballot question, which virtually guaranteed that the full-time compensation mandate would be approved by the voters and implemented for the new term of office beginning in December.

Golden Parachutes

The result of Bills 40-24 and 47-24 is that the six council members already eligible to retire can leave office at the end of this term and immediately reap the benefit of the increase to full-time compensation that doesn’t take effect until next term, after they’re gone.

Neither Patoka nor Jones will be returning to the council next term, and one will be out of county government entirely.

If Patoka retires at the end of this term in the absence of Bill 40-24, with his pension based on his own earnings, his annual pension would be $30,800 for eight years of service, including one as council chair.

With Bill 40-24, his pension would be $60,000 under the salary recommendations by the county’s Personnel and Salary Advisory Board for the full-time compensation of council members to take effect next term, i.e., after he will be gone from the council.

Why the difference? Under Bill 40-24, his pension would be based on a salary of $150,000, even though he never earned more than $77,000 during his council career.

A pension grab doesn’t get any more outrageous than that.

Jones’ pension for twelve years of service, including five years as chair, would increase from $46,200 to $90,000.

In either case, not a bad consolation prize for failing to win the Democratic nomination for county executive.

Blame Game

Perhaps the most pathetic feature of the discussion was the attempt to blame the county’s Personnel and Salary Advisory Board for creating the potential pension windfall for incumbent council members by proposing full-time salaries. Patoka described these salaries before the work sessions as “extraordinarily high and not appropriate.”

The story promoted by Patoka is that the council did nothing untoward by passing Bill 40-24, and that it was the recommendation by the advisory board that salaries of members be increased from $69,000 to $140,000 (from $77,000 to $150,000 for the chair) to reflect the change to full-time status next term that caused the problem.

The fallacy in his argument is that the advisory board recommended salaries that are actually lower than the only two comparable jurisdictions in Maryland.

Baltimore County joined Montgomery and Prince George’s County as the only counties in the state that compensate council membership as a full-time position as a matter of law.

Salaries for council members cannot be changed by action taken during the middle of a four-year term but can be subject to programmed increases approved before the beginning of a term, which is done in both Montgomery and Prince George’s County.

During the current term, the salary of a member of the Montgomery County Council increased from $156,000 to $167,172, and the salary of a member of the Prince George’s County Council increased from $133,800 to $145,432.

For the term beginning in December 2026, the Prince George’s County Compensation Review Commission recommends that member salaries begin at $145,432 with a COLA not exceeding 3% in years two, three and four of the term. It recommends that the salary of the council chair begin at $152,703.

Given the comparables, the recommendation by Baltimore County’s board that council members be paid $140,000 and the chair paid $150,000 for each year of their four-year terms is neither extraordinarily high nor inappropriate.

Guaranteed Windfall

To put Patoka’s finger-pointing in additional perspective, assume that the council rejects the board’s recommendations and adopts a far more modest salary structure; for example, one that would pay members $110,000 and the chair $120,000.

Using that example, Bill 40-24 would increase Patoka’s pension for eight years of service from $30,800 to $48,000 if he leaves at the end of this term. Maybe to him an unearned 56% increase of “only” $17,200 a year is no big deal, but to ordinary county residents that’s a fair hunk of change.

The scheme was simple and easily understood.

The heart of it was passing Bill 40-24 knowing that, if they implemented the long-discussed plan to pay council members on a full-time basis (it was recommended by the Personnel and Salary Advisory Board in a report issued two months before Bill 40-24 was introduced), all members would benefit, including those who leave the council at the end of this year with “golden parachutes.”

The suggestion that council members didn’t understand that they were setting themselves up for a windfall when they voted for Bill 40-24 is ridiculous.

The council is squarely to blame for the pension grab, not the county residents who volunteer their time to serve on the Personnel and Salary Advisory Board.

Bill 26-26: A Bad Joke

Bill 26-26, introduced by Jones, would place a measure on the 2026 ballot to remove the language from the charter mandating full-time compensation for council members that was added in 2024.

In his view, Bill 47-24, which proposed the 2024 amendment, was the problem, not Bill 40-24.

It is bad enough to propose that such a fundamental decision about county government made by the voters only two years ago be reversed, but to do so in an election year after candidates have already filed to run for seats on the council, is cynical and irresponsible.

The rationale behind compensating council members for full-time employment included attracting a younger and more economically diverse group of candidates, and it appears that the measure may have succeeded in doing so.

In any event, it defies common sense to change the rules in mid-stream and Bill 26-26 is getting the negative reaction from other members of the council that it deserves.

I doubt Jones expects the bill to pass. It was just the logical next step in the blame game that he and fellow county executive candidate Patoka are playing – both of them are clearly worried about political damage from the pension controversy.

While Patoka points his finger at the recommendations of the salary advisory board, Jones points his finger at Patoka, criticizing him for introducing Bill 47-24. (Jones was absent when the vote on Bill 47-24 took place.)

Of course, neither Patoka nor Jones faults himself for voting for Bill 40-24.

The most important thing is that the council fixes the problem – that means passing Bill 19-26 and defeating Bill 26-26.

Bill 19-26 is scheduled for a vote tonight. The vote on Bill 26-26 is scheduled for April 6.

Ideally, the council members responsible for orchestrating the pension grab would admit that they were being greedy – or at least stop making excuses for their actions. Not holding my breath.

The most important thing is that the council fixes the problem. That means passing Bill 19-26 and defeating Bill 26-26.

• David A. Plymyer retired as Anne Arundel County Attorney after 31 years in the county law office. He can be reached at dplymyer@comcast.net and Twitter @dplymyer.