A Firend Writes In To Salisbury News:
"Pension Deal for the Wicomico County Attorney
Needs Much More Public Disclosure and Scrutiny
There has been little public disclosure and almost no discussion about a very unusual aspect of Rick Pollitt’s proposed budget that could tie the County to a huge but largely unfunded pension liability. The word “could” is used, rather than “will,” because factual information is not fully available. Apparently Mr. Pollitt and Edgar Baker, who for some years has been the County Attorney but not a full-time employee of the County, decided that Baker should become a full-time County employee with no other legal practice, beginning on July 1. Mr. Baker is in the process of winding up that other practice, which includes services for several local towns (but not Salisbury).
Very recently it has become known that he may be allowed to participate in the County’s retirement plan by retroactive contribution to the plan for the period during which he has been the County’s attorney – about 20 years – apparently at his expense. But the terms and amount of that “buy-in” are not known. A well-informed source has stated that it would be based on his retainer (believed to be $5,000 per year) from the County during that period, even though his total fees paid by the County were much greater. According to that source, the total “buy-in” sum might be very small – perhaps $25,000 or so.
If Mr. Baker becomes a full-time County employee with 20 years service vested in the pension plan, then in another 5 or so years he would be eligible for retirement benefits that apparently based on his salary when he retires, which will certainly exceed $100,000 per year then even if not now. Thus, for a very nominal “buy-in” after only a few years as a full-time employee of Wicomico County, he could be entitled to a very substantial retirement income stream – possibly well over $1 Million if he enjoys good health –funded substantially by future tax revenue rather than the normal contributions during the term of employment.
We don’t know how much of this was presented to the County Council when it discussed Mr. Baker’s restructured position in a recent closed session. But the public remains in the dark, and that’s not appropriate or acceptable under Mr. Pollitt’s campaign pledge to conduct “transparent government” in the “sunshine.” "
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Here's my opinion on this matter. Although I truly like Mr. Baker and believe him to be a very honorable man, I worry about this "business decision" being made by the powers to be in the County.
ReplyDeleteMy reason being, (if I'm to be fair to all taxpayers) if I were to consider this in "my own business" I would have to say its putting good money after bad money.
I believe a younger, (long term) in house attorney would be in the County's best interest, especially for the taxpayers.
Mr. Baker could stay on as the County's official attorney while they break in the new In House attorney. Granted, this might cost the "taxpayers" a little more up front for 2 or 3 years but in the long run it would save the taxpayer millions of dollars.
This is of course just my opinion but I always like to believe in putting good money after good money. We're talking about protecting the interests of the citizens of the County, not an expert lawyer trying to take on a OJ Simpson Trial. If you get my drift?
While ADA would likely take issue with the "younger" requirement, I wholeheartedly agree with the time in service issue. Perhaps, if they wish to let him buy into the retirement they should consider a minimum number of years to serve....like a contracted ten to fifteen year minimum time in service. Fringe benefits are negotiated all the time to "sweeten the deal". I would hope that the county doesn't immediately match all of Ed Bakers contributions since they haven't matched all of those of the Deputies in all these years.
ReplyDeleteI am not arguing that Ed is not honorable, that is not the point, and those of you arguing that are just trying to cloud the real issue. If he is going to be in the county retirement plan, it is going to cost him 5% (roughly) per month. However, to "buy back" 17 years at his salary, I believe, will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000,000.00. I know someone who wanted to buy back 2 years and they were told it would cost them $180,000.00 and they dont make anywhere near his salary. Who is going to purchase the buy back, or are they just going to throw his name in the hat and let him draw off the other employees contributions. There was recently a young man, who works at the roads division, killed in a tragic motorcycle accident. This young man has a one year old daughter. He lacked a few months of receiving the death benefit.(one year salary). He had been employed for the required amount of time, however, a portion of that time was under the "part time" status. This is the counties way of hiring people and not having to give them benefits. If Mr. Baker should be able to recieve retroactive benefits because he worked part time for the county, then this young man, who I am sure whose one year old daughter could certainly use this benefit, should receive the same consideration. But I guess this negotiation is only if you are in the good old boy club. Shame on you Wicomico County. I hope someone FOI's how the buy back occurs, even if it does.
ReplyDeleteThere will be quite a few class action lawsuits from county employees if this action is approved. The retirement system cost county employees a great deal with little change and support from the legislative bodies of past. Mr. Creamer is well aware of it's faults and where the investment money actually goes. He was part of the original scream team that changed it to benefit the county not the employees.
ReplyDeleteI'm a county employee and would love to get a sweetheart deal like this. I can not and would not be given the chance for this. My buy in would be greater for less benefits.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of giving the asst. supt. at the BOE a 10% bonus because he signed up to retire at the end of this year, not that he planned to do that necessarily. He gets to keep the bonus, stay, and get a higher salary/more benefits next year than the salary scale provides for his position. Nothing fair about it. In most cases with public funds if you insist on a benefit for the group that benefits yourself more than anyone else you get investigated. Being in the central office and making decisions that add to your own income by a large amount may be legal, but how ethical is it? How long can public bodies continue to give sweetheart deals with taxpayers money like they're in private business?
ReplyDeleteWanna bet when this will be in the Daily Times -- not before Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteThis is yet another reason why we can't repeal the tax revenue cap as long as Pollitt is in charge.
The buyback is not based on your earnings then, it is based on your current earnings. If that was the case, he would be able to draw out what he will pay in, within the first year of retirement. This is a bunch of bull, think of it logically. How would you be able to get into a retirement plan that will be giving you 50,000 a year or more and you only have to pay in 25,000. Do I have stupid written on my forehead or something. You must be one hell of an investor to be able to pull off a stunt like that. I know for a fact what it cost someone at a much lower salary to try and buy back a couple of years from before the retirement was mandatory and they couldnt afford it. The number was 7 times that 25000 figure. Sounds like a lot of political fuzzy math. They think everyone cant see the forest for the trees. How dumb to they think people are?
ReplyDeleteThis is Ridiculous!! Can that Bastard and tell him to pack sand! $100,000 a year! You have got to be kidding! Just look at his $750,000 house he just bought! Salisbury better wake up and cancel his services!!! There are cheaper and better services by other attorney's in the area! Bid out the legal services for the city with at least 3 bids period!
ReplyDeletePollitt knows how to take care of loyal friends and cherished employees with your money. He has a plan to put in place to take care of himself before Ed Baker retires. The good ole boys take care of their own. Just your bad luck if you aren't one of them. Better luck in your next life.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about the politics. Run and get elected if you want to change something. If Pollitt takes care of Baker now, then Baker will execute a plan to set Pollitt up with a nice retirement. I love the good ole boys.Too bad some of you don't belong and are second class citizens.
ReplyDeletePollitt = large size Barrie Tilghman
ReplyDeleteYour source for the buy in is wrong. You must also buy back interest as well as your portion of contribution at your CURRENT SALARY. How will that come to 25,000?
ReplyDeleteMr. Baker could be an honorable
ReplyDeleteman. We will see how much honor can be purchased with tax money.
I think I know Ed Baker about as well as anyone around here. He served six or more years on the library Board of Trustee's and gave us lots of legal advice free of charge. Ed is also a "Free Mason" and past master of the local lodge, which doubly says he is as honest an attorney as they come. Having said all that, I do question the gift at tax payers expense of this deal as said. By all means keep him on baord the county council payroll, but rethink the retitement part of it please, Rick.
ReplyDeleteA. Goetz
7:36
ReplyDeleteIt's the prior years that are subject to contribution based on the lower annual "salary" of $5,000/year.
Yes, for the future years it will be based on his "current salary," but the total amount that he contributes will not be nearly as much as it would be if he had paid on the basis of the actual fees that he received in the past.