Arguments of legal fees owed by Baltimore County to FOP Lodge #4 will be made at that time.

Date: 2012-06-04

Baltimore County officials have been slow to release information on how each department has been specifically affected. Recent budget hearings before the County Council have shed some light on the issue.

The county expects to expects to save a total of $8 million from retirements in the Fire, Police, Property Management and Public Works departments, according to reviews performed by the county auditor’s office.

County Executive Kevin Kamenetz announced the early retirement incentive last year. County officials hoped to eliminate 200 positions and save about $15 million annually.

The individual retirements required approval from County Administrative Officer Fred Homan. Most employees were required to leave their positions by the end of February and the jobs were then eliminated.

Last month, Kamenetz announced that more than 600 county employees applied for the retirement incentive. The county approved 310 retirements and estimate the savings will be about $21 million

By Jon Meoli, jmeoli@tribune.com

5:18 PM EDT, May 14, 2012

Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson threw out a more than three-decades old promotions policy just days before a class of sergeants was to take standardized oral interviews to become lieutenants.

The change comes amid a looming U.S. Department of Justice inquiry into the county’s hiring and promotions practices within the police and fire departments.

The change involves who interviews prospective candidates for promotion. Until now, interviews had been conducted by outside law enforcement personnel. Now, those interviews will be conducted by officials who work for Baltimore County.

“I have not determined the motivation of the administration as to why this change was instituted,” said Cole Weston, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 4. “As far as the Department of Justice inquiry is concerned, if the county is doing this because of that then it appears they are doing this on their own.”

A county police spokeswoman acknowledged that Department of Justice officials met with the county earlier this year. The change in the promotion interview process last week had more to do with Johnson’s desire to make the department responsible for the selection of its leaders, she said.

“The chief has told me he has felt for a long time that it did not make sense to cede choosing our leaders to other law enforcement agencies,” said Elise Armacost, a police spokeswoman.

“We don’t even know what (the Department of Justice’s) concerns are at this point,” Armacost said. “Nonetheless, the continued diversification of our work force is a major goal for Baltimore County public safety.”

The change in who gives the standardized interviews preceded an announcement Wednesday that the county Office of Human Resources plans to review the promotional processes for the county corrections, fire, police and sheriff departments.

Additional promotional exams will not be given until that summer review is completed over the summer.

The department currently uses a written test and a standardized oral interview to determine promotions.

For more than 30 years, the department has used a three-member panel composed of police officers from other agencies to conduct and score those interviews. It was the same process that Johnson himself navigated as he was promoted through ranks to colonel before then-County Executive Jim Smith appointed him police chief in 2007.

The use of sworn personnel from outside the county removed concerns of interview bias that could help or hinder any particular candidate’s promotional opportunities, according to Weston.

Baltimore County continues to send its officers to assist other agencies with their own promotional interview processes.

“Everyone thought that was the most fair and impartial way to conduct the process,” Weston said.

Armacost said the chief has harbored concerns about the process and contemplated changes since he was named chief.

The change Johnson instituted last week, days before the sergeants sat for their interviews, was to use a five-member panel comprised of four sworn county police personnel—a black female, one white female, two black males and one white male—and one civilian member—state Del. Adrienne Jones, who also works in the county’s Human Resources office.

“Chief Johnson and the County Executive both believe that the quality of public safety is enhanced when our public safety agencies reflect the communities they protect,” Armacost wrote in response to a follow up question.

Jones was the head of the county Office of Minority Affairs before County Executive Kevin Kamenetz named her deputy director of the county Office of Human Resources.

Kamenetz charged Jones at the time of her appointment with improving the county’s recruitment of minorities.

“Like the sworn members of the oral exam board, (Jones) is a professional of the highest integrity. We know without question that she and the other panelists take this responsibility extremely seriously and will make sound decisions based on the qualifications of the candidates,” Armacost wrote.

The panel does not, in the end, make the final decisions on promotions but scores each candidate based on benchmark answers, Armacost said.

“The oral test and the scoring process remain unchanged,” she said.

Armacost pointed out that the department uses an internal interview process when selecting candidates for specialized units within the police department.

“It’s a panel of internal personnel that makes those decisions and it’s always worked well,” Armacost said. “There’s no reason why this shouldn’t work well for promotional candidates.”

Johnson said other departments also use an internal panel for their promotional interviews, Armacost said. The chief was unable to provide the names of some of those departments in follow-up interviews with Armacost.

The new policy raises concerns about bias for Weston.

“There are always concerns about relationships in terms of supervisors or that someone was an officer’s training officer or even just heard something good or bad about an officer interviewing,” Weston said of the change. “I don’t see how this can be avoided.”

Food and refreshments will be provided. The meeting lasts for about 1 hour.
Date: 2012-05-21

The Court of Special Appeals ruled that Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld III had the authority to terminate the 19-year veteran officer, Salvatore Rivieri, despite a recommendation from an administrative hearing board that he be suspended for six days and lose six days of leave.

Judges wrote that the “commissioner cannot overturn the hearing board’s factual finding of guilt or non-guilt.” But, they said, “the recommendation of a penalty by the hearing board is not binding on the chief.”

The administrative board, called a trial board, had cleared Rivieri of the most serious charges of using excessive force and language. They found him guilty of failing to write a report and to fill out a citizen’s contact form.

Rivieri’s attorneys with the police union argued that while Bealefeld could fire the officer, his decision to do so on what they argued a trivial infraction involving paperwork made the move appear retaliatory and was a result of bowing to political and public pressure. Union officials said Friday they are considering appealing to the state’s highest court.

The officer’s confrontation with Eric Bush on July 1, 2007 went viral on YouTube. After feeling the youngster ignored his orders to stop skateboarding in the harbor, Rivieri is seen pushing Bush to the ground and grabbing his skateboard. Angry at repeatedly being called “dude,” the officer went on a rant:

“Obviously your parents don’t put a foot in your butt quite enough because you don’t understand the meaning of respect,” Rivieri shouted. He added: “I’m not ‘man.’ I’m not ‘dude.’ I am Officer Rivieri, and the sooner you learn that the longer you’re going to live in this world. You go around doing this kind of stuff, somebody’s going to kill you.”

The Court of Special Appeals ruled that Bealefeld was correct in saying Rivieri had brought “discredit upon and undermined public confidence” in the department.” The court ruled that Bealefeld’s upping the punishment “is not sufficient evidence of retaliation.”

At a Circuit Court hearing last year, the police department’s attorney called Rivieri’s actions an “international incident” that cast a pall on the force and the city, and called not writing a report “tantamount to a cover-up.”

Copyright © 2012, The Baltimore Sun

9:38 PM EDT, April 24, 2012

A $21 million investment at the center of a legal debate in Baltimore County government was downgraded to junk status less than a month after the county purchased it in 2007, according to county documents.

Details of the investment loss were included in a November 2007 letter sent to members of the former County Council and other county officials. The county is now considering suing Merrill Lynch, and has since stopped making similar investments.

The letter, from County Administrative Officer Fred Homan, said the county bought commercial paper issued by Mainsail II LLC through Merrill Lynch on July 31, 2007. At the time, the investment was highly rated by Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, he wrote.

But Mainsail’s commercial paper — a term used to describe certain types of short-term debt — was tied to subprime mortgages, and downgraded to “non-investment grade,” according to the letter.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the commercial paper “failed to pay off at maturity,” Homan wrote.

Six days later, the county asked Merrill Lynch to repurchase the Mainsail commercial paper, and Merrill Lynch later declined, according to the document. The county later transferred the investment to a special county pension fund.

Last week, County Council Chairwoman Vicki Almond said she believed the county had lost all $21 million of the investment.

Merrill Lynch spokesman Bill Halldin declined to comment Tuesday, saying the company does not comment on client matters.

At a meeting scheduled for May 1, the County Council is set to discuss a proposed contract with outside legal firms. The contract could be approved the following week.

Under a proposal from County Executive Kevin Kamenetz’s office, the county would contract with two firms to pursue a lawsuit: Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP, which is based in Austin, Texas, and Themis PLLC, which has locations in Washington, D.C., and Chevy Chase. Representatives of the law firms couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.

The lawyers would receive one-third of any potential recovery after litigation expenses, according to a contract request submitted to the County Council by Budget Director Keith Dorsey.

According to people who attended a private legal briefing for council members last week, the county was approached by outside attorneys seeking to file the lawsuit on behalf of Baltimore County, as they had done for other municipalities.

At the time of Homan’s letter, the county was planning a revised investment policy that would “emphasize safety and diversification, but … also increase oversight through an investment committee and prohibit the purchase of asset-backed commercial paper and derivatives.”

“The revised policy is designed to prevent a reoccurrence of another ‘Mainsail’ situation,” Homan wrote.

The County Council approved such a policy in January 2008.

In 2007, the county also sold off $40 million in other commercial paper “as a precaution,” Homan wrote.

Kamenetz’s chief of staff, Don Mohler, said Tuesday he could not comment in detail on the matter because of possible litigation. The county executive discussed the issue briefly during a weekend interview with WBAL-TV.

“We, like many other jurisdictions, were misled as to the security of the financing,” he said on television.

Former County Executive James T. Smith Jr. said Tuesday that the Mainsail purchase was part of the county’s general investments, and that the county took what it believed was the proper action at the time.

“We handled it as best we could under the circumstances,” Smith said.

According to Homan’s letter, the county transferred the Mainsail commercial paper in November 2007 to its Police, Fire and Widows’ Pension Fund. That account was funded in 1988 to pay for previously unfunded pension obligations to police officers and firefighters hired before Oct. 1, 1959, as well as their surviving spouses, according to the letter.

In 2007, that pension fund was over-funded by 12 percent and “fiscally healthy enough to support any potential revaluation of the Mainsail security,” Homan wrote in the letter.

alisonk@baltsun.com

twitter.com/aliknez
Copyright © 2012, The Baltimore Sun

By Alison Knezevich, The Baltimore Sun

9:38 PM EDT, April 24, 2012

Advertisement

A $21 million investment at the center of a legal debate in Baltimore County government was downgraded to junk status less than a month after the county purchased it in 2007, according to county documents.

Details of the investment loss were included in a November 2007 letter sent to members of the former County Council and other county officials. The county is now considering suing Merrill Lynch, and has since stopped making similar investments.

The letter, from County Administrative Officer Fred Homan, said the county bought commercial paper issued by Mainsail II LLC through Merrill Lynch on July 31, 2007. At the time, the investment was highly rated by Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, he wrote.

But Mainsail’s commercial paper — a term used to describe certain types of short-term debt — was tied to subprime mortgages, and downgraded to “non-investment grade,” according to the letter.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the commercial paper “failed to pay off at maturity,” Homan wrote.

Six days later, the county asked Merrill Lynch to repurchase the Mainsail commercial paper, and Merrill Lynch later declined, according to the document. The county later transferred the investment to a special county pension fund.

Last week, County Council Chairwoman Vicki Almond said she believed the county had lost all $21 million of the investment.

Merrill Lynch spokesman Bill Halldin declined to comment Tuesday, saying the company does not comment on client matters.

At a meeting scheduled for May 1, the County Council is set to discuss a proposed contract with outside legal firms. The contract could be approved the following week.

Under a proposal from County Executive Kevin Kamenetz’s office, the county would contract with two firms to pursue a lawsuit: Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP, which is based in Austin, Texas, and Themis PLLC, which has locations in Washington, D.C., and Chevy Chase. Representatives of the law firms couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.

The lawyers would receive one-third of any potential recovery after litigation expenses, according to a contract request submitted to the County Council by Budget Director Keith Dorsey.

According to people who attended a private legal briefing for council members last week, the county was approached by outside attorneys seeking to file the lawsuit on behalf of Baltimore County, as they had done for other municipalities.

At the time of Homan’s letter, the county was planning a revised investment policy that would “emphasize safety and diversification, but … also increase oversight through an investment committee and prohibit the purchase of asset-backed commercial paper and derivatives.”

“The revised policy is designed to prevent a reoccurrence of another ‘Mainsail’ situation,” Homan wrote.

The County Council approved such a policy in January 2008.

In 2007, the county also sold off $40 million in other commercial paper “as a precaution,” Homan wrote.

Kamenetz’s chief of staff, Don Mohler, said Tuesday he could not comment in detail on the matter because of possible litigation. The county executive discussed the issue briefly during a weekend interview with WBAL-TV.

“We, like many other jurisdictions, were misled as to the security of the financing,” he said on television.

Former County Executive James T. Smith Jr. said Tuesday that the Mainsail purchase was part of the county’s general investments, and that the county took what it believed was the proper action at the time.

“We handled it as best we could under the circumstances,” Smith said.

According to Homan’s letter, the county transferred the Mainsail commercial paper in November 2007 to its Police, Fire and Widows’ Pension Fund. That account was funded in 1988 to pay for previously unfunded pension obligations to police officers and firefighters hired before Oct. 1, 1959, as well as their surviving spouses, according to the letter.

In 2007, that pension fund was over-funded by 12 percent and “fiscally healthy enough to support any potential revaluation of the Mainsail security,” Homan wrote in the letter.

alisonk@baltsun.com

twitter.com/aliknez

Copyright © 2012, The Baltimore Sun

Councilman Joseph Bartenfelder, a Fullerton Democrat, and Bryan McIntire, a Timonium Republican, both served on the County Council in 2008 at the same time county officials requested changes to pension regulations. Some of those changes instituted prohibitions on the county’s ability from investing pension funds in derivatives and mortgage-backed funds.

Bartenfelder said the discussion of the requested changes five years ago was very general.

“There was nothing specific and no mention of a $21 million loss,” said Bartenfelder. “They were just saying there had to be changes because of a loss but how much was lost was never mentioned.”

McIntire had a similar memory.

“I certainly don’t recall and I just don’t think I’d forget a $21 million loss,” said McIntire. “That’s not pocket change.”

The recollection of the two former county councilmen directly challenge a statement made by County Executive Kevin Kamenetz during an interview on WBAL TV.

“The council was informed,” said Kamenetz, who chaired the council in 2008. “We were aware of the nature of the loss and enacted changes to our bonding portfolio concept so this would not occur again. Now we’re investigating the opportunity to pursue a cause of action and if we can recover something it would be great.”

There are no minutes from the January 2008 council work session that show the loss was discussed publicly.

County officials met April 13 in secret with members of the council to discuss a possible lawsuit against Merrill Lynch related to the bad investment in a fund known as Mainsail II LLC, which was backed by subprime mortgages.

The county plans to ask the council in two weeks to approve a contract to hire an outside attorney to pursue a lawsuit against Merrill Lynch.

The investment firm is being sued in federal court by King County, WA over investments in the same fund. That suit was filed in 2010.

After a relatively quiet first year in office, Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz has found himself in conflict with other state and county elected officials and labor unions.

The recent conflicts over legislation in Annapolis and in Towson have prompted complaints that Kamenetz has been difficult to work with, unwilling to compromise and arrogant.

Former Councilman Bryan McIntire served with Kamenetz for 16 years on the Baltimore County Council. The Timonium Republican said problems between the Democratic county executive and others have been personality-driven.

“(Kamenetz) is the kind of person who has to have his own way at any cost,” said McIntire. “That’s his nature and he can’t change his nature anymore than you or I can change ours.”

For a time during the 90-day General Assembly session that ended earlier this month, the county’s delegates and senators appeared to be getting along fine with Kamenetz—with many of the county executive’s bills moving quickly through the legislative process.

But two controversial bills—one related to county pensions for former state employees and another to change how county school board members are selected—derailed that good will. Many legislators began to openly criticize Kamenetz and worked in the last days of the General Assembly session in Annapolis to kill bills the county executive had favored.

Sen. Kathy Klausmeier, a Perry Hall Democrat, said she and others in her delegation do get along with Kamenetz. She blamed most of the discord in the last three months on the debate over the school board bill.

“I know that that irritated some of the members,” Klausmeier said.

In Towson, the second year county executive is being challenged by a freshmen-led County Council that has said Kamenetz is retaliating against them because they voted against another pension bill requested by his administration.

Meanwhile, labor union leaders were accusing Kamenetz of bullying them in negotiations.

Supporters, however, tell a different story. They say Kamenetz is focused on the fiscal well-being of the county. Others downplay the problems as minor bumps in the road.

Former County Executive Donald Hutchinson, who also served in the House of Delegates and state Senate, said conflict between a county executive and his delegation is almost inevitable.

“There’s always a rocky road, always people who think they know better than you,” said Hutchinson, who served as county executive from 1978 to 1986. “That’s all part of the dynamic.

“I’ve met every county executive,” said Hutchinson. “I don’t remember an executive who didn’t have a confrontation at one time or another with his delegation.”

“He’s Fighting With Us.”

Kamenetz has said there were no problems at all on the final night of the General Assembly session and that he “gets along” with the delegation.

But legislators, including those who represent the same neighborhoods as Kamenetz did when he was on the council, have a different opinion.

“I don’t know how he can say we’re getting along when he’s fighting with us,” said Del. Dan Morhiam, a Democrat who represents the 11th Legislative District that covers Pikesville, Owings Mills and part of Timonium.

Don Mohler, Kamenetz’s chief of staff, said reports of poor relationships are overblown.

“I reject that notion,” said Mohler. “It’s a mischaracterization to suggest that (Kamenetz) has difficult relationships.

“The county executive has a number of very positive relationships with members, including the chairs of the House and Senate delegations,” Mohler said, adding that the session was a success for the county.

“You can look at the glass as half empty or you can look at the glass as half full,” Mohler said. “The county passed important liquor license reform legislation and brought home near record-breaking money for school construction and renovation.”

Mohler said efforts to pass the liquor license bill show the county executive is willing to compromise.

“You talk about collaboration, there’s an example,” said Mohler. “We got ground breaking liquor license reform because all parties rolled up their sleeves and worked together.”

Kamenetz “Had Options And He Used Every One Of Them”

Kamenetz entered his second Maryland General Assembly session with a modest agenda and a plea to state delegates and senators from the county to work together in the best interest of the county.

“He had his agenda and on the things we agreed with, everything went well,” said Klausmeier, chair of the county’s eight-member delegation to the state Senate.

The relationship between Kamenetz and legislators who supported the bill creating a partially-elected, partially-appointed school board soured when the county executive personally took a hand in defeating the bill—first in a Senate Committee then in the final days of the session in a House committee.

“I tried to smooth things over with members of the delegation, but (Kamenetz) is the man and had options and he used every one of them,” said Klausmeier.

Legislators had options, too.

Kamenetz pressed his position with Del. Sheila Hixson, the powerful chairwoman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Hixson held a compromise school board bill in her committee until the last half hour of the 2012 session.

In the last weekend of the session, senators and delegates who favored changing the school board took action. Sen. Bobby Zirkin, an Owings Mills Democrat, started holding up bills Kamenetz wanted passed.

Del. Wade Kach, a Cockeysville Republican, did the same thing in the House.

“The essence of leadership is the art of compromise and working together,” said Zirkin. “It’s easy to kill a bill. It doesn’t take any political skill or muscle. There was a lot of difference of opinion on the school board issue and how to move forward. The county executive didn’t care about anybody’s opinion. His only desire was to kill the bill.”

Zirkin endorsed Kamenetz for county executive in 2010.

“It seemed like the right thing to do at the time,” Zirkin said.

Mohler said the county executive’s strong opposition should have “come as no surprise” to Zirkin and others.

“He was always on the record in opposition to an elected school board,” said Mohler, citing concerns about diversity on the board and the hiring of Dallas Dance, the new Baltimore County Public Schools superintendent.

“There was no middle ground on this issue,” said Mohler. “To make a judgment that the county executive won’t compromise based on this one issue is unfair. There was no margin for compromise. You’re either for an elected school board or you’re not.”

Kamenetz “Chose A Different Path”

Del. Steve Lafferty, a Towson Democrat and vice chairman of the county’s delegation to the House, said Kamenetz’s stand on the school board issue wasn’t a surprise. Many delegates, he said, were bothered when the county executive “came in the back door and killed it.”

Kamenetz personally spoke against the bill in the Senate and wrote a letter to Hixson opposing the bill. Hixson cited Kamenetz’s opposition as the primary reason she held it in her committee in the final days of the session.

“You fight the fight in the delegation and when it’s over, if you lose, you either accede to that or stay silent,” said Lafferty. “He chose a different path. He only heard one argument and that was his.”

Dels. John Cluster and Wade Kach expressed similar concerns and said Kamenetz promised to remain neutral on legislation they were proposing. Both said the county later opposed their bills without warning.

“Kamenetz and his staff told us one thing and did another,” said Cluster, a Parkville Republican.

Cluster sponsored a bill that would require the Baltimore County Revenue Authority to adopt the county’s ethics laws. He said the county worked against the bill after saying they would remain neutral on it.

“I don’t want to be too harsh, but I don’t think he was completely honest with me,” Cluster said.

Kach, a Cockeysville Republican, said he had a similar experience with his bill that would have allowed volunteers to work at the county’s animal shelter. The county later killed the bill by telling the committee it would cost nearly $1 million to implement the program.

“I was told the county would be neutral on the bill and I get there and there’s a $750,000 fiscal note based on nothing,” Kach said.

Mohler said Kach and Cluster were incorrect.

“The county executive adamantly rejects the notion that he said he would not get involved in the animal shelter bill,” Mohler said. “The county executive made it clear to Del. Kach that he didn’t think it was appropriate for a state delegate to insert himself into the day-to-day operations of the county.”

Mohler added that he did not believe Kamenetz ever promised to remain neutral on the Revenue Authority ethics bill sponsored by Cluster.

Kamenetz, however, in an interview with Patch the day before the session began, said he would likely not take a position on the bill.

Sending A Message

Despite a compromise between county senators and delegates on a partially-elected school board, Kamenetz still worked to keep the bill bottled up in the House Ways and Means Committee.

“He was flexing his muscles down here trying to see how much he had down here,” Cluster said. “It’s a small community. It didn’t take much for word to get around.”

The frustration of the legislators peaked on the last Saturday afternoon of the session.

Zirkin acted first, delaying a vote on a bill that would allow the county to consolidate some functions of the school system into existing county operations. Kamenetz said the bill would ultimately save the county money.

Zirkin delayed it two more times. He also prepared more than a dozen amendments for the bill in an attempt to be a one-man filibuster.

Kach, working in the House, delayed a vote on a parking bill Kamenetz wanted.

Both bills were part of the county executive’s legislative priority list.

And Del. Eric Bromwell, a Perry Hall Democrat, focused attention on the defeated animal shelter bill by introducing a bill that contained an intentional drafting error. In explaining why he was introducing the bill in the last two days of the session, Bromwell used his time to publicly criticize Kamenetz’s actions.

“The Baltimore County administration later came into the standing committee and claimed it was going to cost $750,000—which it does not—and was able to defeat the bill in the standing committee,” said Bromwell.

“I’d like to point out that if the administration, ours or any other, comes down here and does that, it might not be the best idea,” said Bromwell, who then pointed out some drafting errors in the bill and asked the House to oppose its formal introduction.

Lafferty said the delegation was definitely expressing its frustrations in the final days.

“Messages like that get sent all the time,” Lafferty said.

Klausmeier said the results would have been different had the school board bill not been in play.

“That bill was a lightning rod,” Klausmeier said of the school board bill. “We never had anything like that that was controversial.”

Klausmeier said County Executive Jim Smith also opposed changes to the school board but the issue never was a problem “because he always had the votes in delegation to stop it.”

“I don’t know what would have happened if this had happened when Jim Smith was county executive,” Klausmeier said.

Pension Bills Create Rift With Council, Unions

Tension has also arisen between Kamenetz and some unions. Ongoing contract negotiations with some unions, an arbitration loss to the union that represents police officers and two pension bills have resulted in some labor groups criticizing Kamenetz’s approach.

“There’s just a lack of connection between this executive and the leadership of this organization,” said Cole Weston, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 4. “We are not unwilling to compromise. We are not unwilling to negotiate.”

The county recently lost a binding arbitration decision to the police union. The decision resulted in a one-year continuation of the current contract even as a number of unions have reached multi-year agreements with the county.

Weston said the group has been willing to work out those agreements in the past.

“When you have an open dialogue and exchange of positions and can furnish supporting documentation, you can get a multi-year agreement,” Weston said.

Other union leaders say the problems others have with Kamenetz stem from an unwillingness to work with the new county executive.

“Some groups are cooperative and understanding and some are not,” said Michael Day, president of the Baltimore County Professional Fire Fighters. “When you work with them, they’re more than cooperative and are straight shooters.

“If you work against them, it’s a more difficult road to walk,” Day said. “These are strange, strange times and Baltimore County is doing everything it can to avoid hurting employees.

“I haven’t had a problem,” Day said.

But Day once had his own issues with Kamenetz, who in 2010, helped pass a county law that, had it stayed in effect, would have prohibited Day from negotiating with the county on behalf of the union because of two 1995 misdemeanor convictions related to a pyramid investment scheme.

Day supported Councilman Joseph Bartenfelder, Kamenetz’s colleague and rival in the Democratic primary for county executive that year.

Day said the 2010 law, repealed after Kamenetz won the primary election, is so much water under the bridge.

“It was 2010, an election year. Someone won and someone lost.  At what point do you lay something down for crying out loud. It doesn’t serve any person to harbor a grudge.  When the election was over, it was over.”

Council Cries Foul Over Retaliation

Some members of the County Council are feeling the fallout of the pension issue after voting last month to table a bill that would disallow the use of overtime in calculating final pension benefits for some employees.

Four council members, including Chairwoman Vicki Almond, a Resiterstown Democrat who succeeded Kamenetz on the council, voted to table the bill. Almond and others now claim they are the targets of retaliation by Kamenetz.

Almond said the council doesn’t plan to vote based on what the county executive wants.

“You respect us, you talk to us and we’ll work with you,” Almond said in a recent interview.

During that same interview, Almond said trust between the county executive and County Council had diminished.

Mohler called the problems between the council and Kamenetz “bumps in the road” and downplayed Almond’s comments.

“I think (Almond) regrets her choice of words,” Mohler said. “It’s simply not accurate to characterize the county executive as having poor relationships with the council or the House or Senate delegations.”

Making the Transition

Kamenetz is not the first county executive to butt heads with state legislators, the council or labor unions.

But some said they were surprised at the tone of the last few months after a relatively quiet first year of working with Kamenetz, who frequently touts his extensive experience in county government, with 16 years on the County Council.

Harford County Executive David Craig said the transition to being the executive after being a legislator can be difficult.

“You’re always a target and every time you make a decision you’re growing your base of enemies,” said Craig, a Republican who served both in the Senate and as mayor of Havre de Grace.

The fact that the most stinging criticism of Kamenetz is coming from members of Kamenetz’s own party is not surprising to Craig.

“It’s not about party,” said Craig. “It’s about understanding their roles.”

Hutchinson said when he disagreed with state legislators in his time as county executive he was always “confident I could mend the relationship in the future.”

But Hutchinson said continuing bad relationships with the state legislators could have its costs.

“Ted Venetoulis was a pretty good county executive but his delegation was angry with him for the entire four years he was county executive,” said Hutchinson. “As a result, when he ran for governor, no legislator outside his own district helped him run because they were so angry with him.”

Hutchinson said the power of the county executive’s office can go a long way toward bringing about a reconciliation.

“The Baltimore County Executive has extensive powers—the power of patronage and projects,” said Hutchinson. “It’s the strongest county executive in the country—not just in Maryland, but in the entire country. No one has the power the Baltimore County executive has. No one.”

Note from LRIS: LRIS Director Will Aitchison is quoted in this article. Mr. Aitchison lives and works in Oregon. He is misidentified as a California attorney in the article.

A growing number of police agencies are implementing policies to guide employees’ on- and off-duty use of social media.

The Mesa Police Department has a work group to explore the issue, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office just widened the scope of its officer-conduct policy to include websites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office adopted a social-media policy in November.

As more law-enforcement agencies are using networking websites to engage their communities, departments are weighing in on the role social media play in the personal lives of their employees and warning of the dangers.

Attorneys have used social-media profiles to discredit officer testimony in court. And officer posts are responsible for more than a few public-relations headaches.

“There’s usually a catch-all at most law-enforcement agencies that our conduct, even off duty, needs to be in line with the agency,” said John Ortolano, president of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police. “They call it the ‘headline test.’ This is a profession that doesn’t end when you take your uniform off.”

To minimize the potential for harm, police agencies are addressing the issue through policies to educate employees about social media, make clear department expectations and outline acceptable and prohibited uses. But labor experts say those standards are likely to change as case law evolves.

When developing social-media guidelines, law-enforcement agencies nationwide have taken their cue from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The association’s model policy, issued in August 2010, says sworn and civilian employees “should be mindful that their speech becomes part of the worldwide electronic domain.”

The policy defines social media as Internet-based resources that incorporate user participation and user-generated content, such as social-networking sites, microblogging sites, photo- and video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs and news websites.

The association’s position is: What an officer posts online may reflect poorly on the department and the profession, even if the speech was made while the officer was acting as a private citizen. “Therefore, adherence to the department’s code of conduct is required in the personal use of social media,” the policy states.

Stacey Dillon, president of Public Safety Authority Medias, a local public-relations firm specializing in law enforcement, advises police associations and their membership about using social media.

“My advice that I’ve given to the associations really falls in line with some of the case law,” Dillon said. “If you can educate your members not to be on social media, do it. It’s opened up a wealth of investigations that have been unnecessary and have created tremendous issues for the livelihood of front-line officers.”

‘A continuum’

A Peoria police sergeant was demoted and suspended without pay in February after he posted on his Facebook page a photo of a group of high-schoolers, some posing with guns and one holding a bullet-riddled T-shirt featuring an image of President Barack Obama.

Veteran lawman Pat Shearer, who is appealing the decision, posted the photo days before Obama visited the Valley in January. The Secret Service looked into the issue, but officials deemed it a local police matter and did not pursue it further.

Shearer got into trouble for being identifiable as a Peoria police officer on his personal Facebook page, in violation of the department’s social-media policy.

Police Chief Roy Minter Jr. in February announced that Shearer, who has been with Peoria police for 25 years, would be disciplined with a demotion to the rank of officer and suspended without pay for two weeks.

The Peoria Police Department has not released details of the investigation.

Will Aitchison, a labor lawyer in California for more than 30 years and author of “Rights of Law Enforcement Officers,” explained what factors come into play in similar inquiries.

He said an employee’s social-media conduct can be judged by weighing these elements: Was there any deliberate effort made to link the communication to the job? How much public attention did it get? What was the nature of the communication?

What to do about potential violations of a social-media policy would depend on how clear the rules were, how employees in similar circumstances had been treated and whether the kind of speech had a high or low degree of constitutional protection, Aitchison said.

“I think it’s all a continuum,” he said. “If an off-duty police officer says something like, ‘I hope they kill Obama,’ and they do nothing to associate themselves with the fact they are a police officer, the continuum suggests there’s a far less likelihood an employer can dismiss an employee. Different is if they say it while using their badge and their gun off duty.”

In an appeal notice, Shearer acknowledged that he violated policy when he posted a picture of himself in full uniform, although that was not what sparked his trouble or the internal investigation that followed.

Shearer said he was “embarrassed that the photograph was affiliated with the Peoria Police Department, and I take full responsibility for placing the photograph on my Facebook page along with a photograph portraying me in full uniform.”

“However,” he said, “such actions do not warrant demotion and an 80-hour suspension.”

Shearer said that he agreed that discipline was warranted but that it should be one or the other, not both.

Questionable online activity by law-enforcement officials doesn’t always trigger an inquiry into whether a department’s social-media policies were violated.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu has admitted posting suggestive photos of himself online and sending naked photos to a former boyfriend. He made the admission after several images appeared in the pages of a weekly publication.

Law-enforcement professionals say that if Babeu were anyone else, he’d likely be questioned about his conduct. But Tim Gaffney, Sheriff’s Office director of communications and grants, said the office will not launch an internal-affairs inquiry while another investigation is taking place. The state’s solicitor general is looking into abuse-of-power allegations against Babeu.

Solicitor General David Cole was asked in late February to look into any civil or criminal violations that may have been committed by Babeu or Jose Orozco, a former Babeu boyfriend and campaign volunteer accused of hacking into the sheriff’s social-media accounts and posting unflattering messages.

“The solicitor general’s investigation will outline many of the facts of this case, which will help better explain why, at this point, an internal-affairs investigation will not be conducted,” Gaffney said.

Babeu’s revealing photos were part of an article about Orozco, a Mexican immigrant who claimed Babeu and his attorney tried to pressure him into keeping quiet about their relationship. One image was a screen grab of Babeu’s profile on a gay dating site where users openly solicit sex and share intimate details. The sheriff posed in his underwear for the profile photo, his face slightly obscured.

The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office social-media policy warns employees that questionable social-networking activity can “reflect poorly” on the profession and cast doubt on a person’s judgment.

Aitchison said Babeu’s online profile “sounds awfully close to constitutionally protected.”

“Elected officials, I think, are held to a completely different standard, and that is the standard set by the electorate,” he said. “There are places in this country where what the sheriff did would be viewed by the electorate as very troublesome. There are other places in this country that people could care less.”

It is unclear from the policy who in the agency would step in to investigate if the department’s top official was suspected of violating the policy, but Aitchison said voters could weigh in.

Free-speech issue?

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of government employers limiting private speech.

A case often cited by experts is The City of San Diego vs. John Roe, which involved a police officer who claimed his termination violated his First Amendment and 14th Amendment rights to free speech.

Roe was fired for selling videos that showed him engaging in sexually explicit activity. He did not specifically name his employer, but he identified himself as a member of law enforcement on his eBay profile and wore a police uniform in at least two videos.

In its 2004 decision, the high court recognized a government employee’s right to speak on matters of public concern as they relate to governmental policy. A government employee can also expect First Amendment protection for off-duty speech or expression not related to the job, unless the employer can give a reason “far stronger than mere speculation” to justify its regulation, the court declared.

The court sided with the Police Department, saying it “demonstrated legitimate and substantial interests of its own that were compromised” by Roe’s speech.

However, law-enforcement officials don’t need to identify themselves as such in order to impede the department’s mission, said Lt. Brian Lee, a spokesman of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

“If I have a social-networking site, even if I don’t say I’m a deputy with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, if people recognize me as such, I can be held responsible,” he said.

But that paradigm may not hold true for long as it relates to public officers and the Web. Personnel law in this area is rapidly evolving, Aitchison said.

“I think the way the law on this is going to shake out, employees whether it be you or someone working down at the airport or police or firefighters, they’re going to say things off duty in social media that will make the employer uncomfortable,” he said, “but they’re going to have the right to say them.”

Overarching themes

For now, the overall theme found in the social-media policies of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office and Peoria Police Department is the standard.

Adopted in November, the Sheriff’s Office policy applies to “all forms of communication,” electronic and print. In the section titled “Prohibited speech, expression and conduct,” the policy says that, to meet the organization’s safety, performance and public-trust needs, an employee should refrain from any social-media activity that will “compromise or damage the mission, function, reputation or professionalism of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office or its employees.”

Gaffney said an employee found to have violated the office’s social-media and Internet policy, “depending on the circumstances or specifics of the instance or situation … may (be) subject to disciplinary action, or no action.”

Sheriff’s officials won’t comment on whether Babeu’s conduct — e-mailing and texting naked photos or his online profile in which he stated he was seeking friendship, a relationship or a sexual encounter — aligned with his office’s policy. Babeu has said the photos were meant to be private.

“These were photographs that are mine that I sent to an individual that was meant only for their observation, not to be splashed on the Internet or on TV or anything like that,” Babeu told reporters after Orozco went public. “And there still needs to be some bounds for privacy. … This is in my private, my personal life. What I do in my private and personal life is my business.”

The Peoria Police Department policy exempts “texts, pictures, video, audio, etc., sent from one consenting adult to another that are intended to be private.” The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office policy does not address the issue.

From The Arizona Republic.