BALTIMORE COUNTY, Md. (WBFF) — After fierce public backlash and accusations of self-dealing, the Baltimore County Council repealed a 2024 law Monday, which linked pensions to future salary increases.
The 2024 law amended the pension calculation process. Some community leaders warned it could nearly double taxpayer-funded pensions for sitting council members. The recent controversy started weeks ago after the Personnel and Salary Advisory Board recommended salary increases from $69,000 to $140,000 for Council members. For the council chair the proposed salary increase was from $77,000 to $150,000. Weeks ago, some County Council members voiced concerns about the salary recommendations saying they were “extraordinarily high and not appropriate.”
ALSO READ | Council weighs repealing pension bill after outcry over payouts tied to pay raises
Nick Stewart, a candidate for Baltimore County Executive, has been outspoken about his push to repeal the pension bill in question. In joint statement, Stewart, along with other former County leaders, and current County Candidates they said, “the reality is simple: Council members who supported this legislation voted to significantly enhance their own retirement benefits while neglecting the needs of thousands of other county employees. This bill prioritizes elected officials over the taxpayers they serve.”
Amid public outcry, last week at a Council meeting council members argued they are doing full-time work for part-time pay.
One council member said, “Our pay has gone up $15,000 in 15 years.”
During that meeting, Councilmember Izzy Patoka pushed back on claims about the salary recommendation, saying, “there are many folks that are trying to create their own narrative, for their own benefit, that this is something the council has approved.”
During Monday’s meeting, Patoka, said he believed the 2024 law in question should be repealed, sponsoring the legislation to do so.
“If this council or a future council wants to do a study or do the necessary legwork to see how we move forward, I think that may be appropriate in a separate action,” he said. “But, I think this action needs to be solely to repeal.”