Towson, MD – An investigative report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has revealed deficiencies in the rehiring practices of retirees within the Baltimore County Police Department (BCPD), raising concerns about accountability and compliance with county regulations.

The investigation, prompted by a December 2023 complaint, scrutinized the rehiring of four retirees by the BCPD. The complainant, referencing a previous OIG report (Case No. 20-020), alleged ongoing violations of the county’s rehiring policies.

Findings and Compliance Issues

The OIG determined that while the rehiring of the four retirees technically complied with the conditions set forth by Council Bill 22-21, there were significant procedural shortcomings. Notably, the required notifications to the County Council—mandated by Council Bill 22-21—were either missing or deficient. Additionally, many rehired retirees were found to have been employed for periods far exceeding the intended temporary nature of the program.

Council Bill 22-21 and Related Codes

Council Bill 22-21, enacted in 2021, allows retired county employees to be rehired as seasonal or part-time workers while still receiving pension benefits. The bill mandates that any extensions beyond the initial one-year term require written notification to the County Council, detailing the rehired employee’s name, job title, hours worked, and job duties.

Baltimore County Code Sections 4-8-101 and 5-1-236 further outline the rules governing seasonal, part-time, and temporary employment, emphasizing the temporary nature of such rehires.

Notification Deficiencies

The OIG’s investigation revealed several deficiencies in the notifications provided to the County Council:

Notification #1 (January 9, 2023): This notification, intended to list rehired retirees for compliance, was found to be incomplete and contained errors, such as missing information on job duties and hours. Additionally, it included employees who were already in their second-year term without prior notification to the Council, making the notice delinquent.

Notification #2 (January 9, 2024): This notification aimed to extend the service of rehired retirees beyond the initial two-year term but contained inaccurate rehire dates and failed to adhere to the required notification timelines.

Extended Employment Terms

The investigation also highlighted that several retirees had been re-employed for extended periods, with some working for over six years. This extended employment contradicts the temporary nature intended by the legislation, raising concerns about the program’s administration and oversight.

OIG Recommendations

To address these issues, the OIG has made several recommendations:

  1. Detailed Notifications: Future notifications should include comprehensive details such as the number of hours to be worked and job descriptions, as required by Section 5-1-236(f)(4).
  2. Rolling Notifications: The Administration should consider providing notifications on a rolling basis (monthly or quarterly) rather than annually.
  3. Address Long-term Rehired Retirees: Develop a plan to manage the employment of retirees who have been re-employed for over two years, contrary to the program’s intent.
  4. Legislative Amendments: The County Council should consider amending the code to require its approval for any re-employment of retirees beyond two years.
  5. Terminology Consistency: Align the terminology in the County Codes for seasonal, temporary, and part-time employees to ensure clarity and consistency.

Responses from the Administration

The County Administration has acknowledged the OIG’s findings and agreed to include the required details in future notifications and to notify the County Council before any renewals after the second year. Further legislative clarifications are also being considered to enhance compliance and transparency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *