Baltimore County is violating its own laws when it rehires county employees who have retired and either doesn’t notify the County Council or keeps the employees on the payroll for several years, the county inspector general said in a report released this week.

The county has changed its laws three times since 2010 to outline under what terms a retired county employee can return. The County Council passed the most recent law in 2021. It says that returning retirees could serve for six months to one year; and that the county could extend that service for one year provided the county administrator furnishes the council with the name of the individual and a detailed job description.

In her report, Inspector General Kelly Madigan found that 24 county employees were collecting both a pension and a paycheck, and that some had done so for eight or nine years. Others had served less than a year, but the administrative officer had never notified the council, as required by law.

“The administration is not doing what they’re supposed to do,” Madigan said.

Madigan added that these rehired employees were supposed to be part-time and seasonal; as an example, she said, a former county employee might come back to get his or her replacement up to speed for a complicated position, such as a supervisory auditor or an environmental engineer. Otherwise, she said, the county is effectively paying two salaries. What was supposed to be a “stopgap” measure to pass down hard-earned expertise is turning into a lucrative second act for which the taxpayers are footing the bill.

According to Madigan’s report, 45 county employees fall into the category of returning to work after retirement for one year or less; 24 are entering into a second year or are “reestablished,” meaning they have exceeded their second year. Most of these positions are in public safety, either in the Police Department or the corrections department.

Madigan reports that the County Council only received two notifications for these employees, and neither spelled out the job titles or employees’ names as required. The dates were incorrect, and the County Council never received notice of reappointment for the employees staying more than the one-year term that the law specifies.

During the April 13, 2021, work session to discuss the bill, the county administrative officer at the time testified that the bill was not intended to “have positions into perpetuity where the person retires, has a pension, and then becomes a part-time employee forever” and that the “programs were not designed for that.”

Of the 24 employees collecting both a pension and a paycheck, 10 had been doing so for more than eight years, and 12 had been doing so for six to eight years.

  • Madigan recommended several steps to make sure the county was complying with its own laws:
  • Update the notifications to the council with the number of hours the retiree works, their job duties, and their names, as required by Section 5-l-236(f)(4);
  • Notify the council on a rolling basis, perhaps monthly or quarterly, rather than once a year;
  • Devise a plan to deal with the many retirees who have been in service for more than two years, which is contrary to the county’s stated intent;
  • Give the County Council authority to approve any retiree who is rehired for more than two years;
  • Update language so that “seasonal” and “part-time” no longer refer to full-time, returning retirees who stay longer than a year.

In response to Madigan’s report, County Administrative Officer D’Andrea Walker, who was appointed last spring, said Baltimore County could update notifications with the job duty information and hours worked; would notify the council prior to renewals after the second year; and would consider changing the descriptions of “seasonal” and part-time.

As for Madigan’s concern that the rehiring was only supposed to be a stopgap, Walker responded: “The bill allows the Administration to keep re-hires more than two years with proper notification to the County Council.”

Thomas Bostwick, legislative counsel for the County Council, said the county had always interpreted the notification clause differently, and that he hadn’t seen a need to push back.

“It was their view that no notifications were required in the first and second year, and that Council notification was only required for any renewal after the second year (essentially beginning in a third year),” Bostwick said. “Candidly, I did not take issue with this interpretation, mainly because I had always been most concerned that a meaningful level of Council notification and reporting was occurring.”

Bostwick added that he and the council were willing to work with the administration on a clarification that promotes “better practices and transparency.”

This report is not the inspector general’s first about this matter. In October 2020, she found that 51 retirees had returned to active service and also received pension benefits. That report prompted changes to the law; but, Madigan said, there is room for improvement.

“They’re still not doing what they’re supposed to be doing,” she said.