Correction: Some police officers in Maryland do lose their pensions if convicted of crimes
The Baltimore City Council has the power to change city law to provide that officers of the Baltimore Police Department may lose their pensions if convicted of crimes
Last month, a story appeared in the Baltimore Banner under the following headline:
“They were convicted of crimes. But police officers don’t have to forfeit their pensions in Maryland.”
The text of the story explained:
“In Maryland, police officers do not lose their pensions if they are convicted of crimes. Meanwhile, in some neighboring states, such as Pennsylvania, public employees who commit certain offenses related to their employment forfeit that benefit.”
In fact, some police officers in Maryland do lose their pensions if convicted of crimes
The categorical statement that police officers in Maryland who are convicted of crimes do not lose their pensions is not true. Officers of the Baltimore County Police Department (and other Baltimore County employees) can lose their pensions if convicted of crimes because the pensions are expressly conditioned by county law on “honorable and faithful service.”
It is possible that there are officers in other local police departments in Maryland who are subject to loss of their pensions if convicted of crimes, but I am not aware of any. Pension forfeiture for conviction of crimes is not a common provision in public employee pension plans in Maryland.
Pension forfeiture is not solely a matter of state law
The story detailed efforts by state legislators, including State Senator Jill Carter, D-Baltimore, to enact a state law that subjects all law enforcement officers in the state who are convicted of certain crimes to pension forfeiture. To date, those efforts have failed.
The story gives the impression that pension forfeiture by police officers is entirely a matter of state law, which also is not true. A change to state law by the General Assembly would be required to forfeit the pensions of law enforcement officers who are members of pension plans that are part of the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System.
A change to state law is not required to forfeit the pensions of law enforcement officers employed by local governments that establish and administer their own pension plans, however. For those officers, pension forfeiture is a matter of local law; local law can provide for loss of pensions upon convictions of crimes even if state law does not.
Many smaller counties and cities participate in the Law Enforcement Officers’ Pension System that is part of the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System. Most larger jurisdictions do not, including Baltimore, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s County. Officers in the police departments of those jurisdictions are in pension plans governed by local law.
The willful ignorance of the Baltimore City Council president
This correction is important if only for one reason: Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby frequently complains that officers of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) keep their pensions even if they are convicted of serious crimes committed in the course of their duties, but without acknowledging that the City Council has the power to change that.
In my opinion, he is misleading the residents of Baltimore into believing that only the Maryland General Assembly has the power to act. Unfortunately, the Banner’s story supports his narrative.
Mosby wants to talk the talk but refuses to walk the walk when it comes to persuading his colleagues to pass a bill. Mosby prefers to have the General Assembly do the heavy lifting and pass a law of statewide applicability.
The story included a link to Mosby’s testimony at the meeting of the city Board of Estimates meeting on August 3rd, during which he lamented the need “to figure out a way” to deny pensions to BPD officers who commit crimes in the course of their duties. There is a way, and he knows what it is: Amend city law.
One city pension plan, the Elected Officials’ Retirement System, already includes a pension forfeiture provision:
“No benefits provided under this section will be paid or payable to any elected official, or his or her beneficiary, who is convicted of a job-related offense, such offense being either a misdemeanor or felony punishable by incarceration for more than 6 months or punishable by a fine in excess of $500.00. To be job-related, the offense must be committed by the member in the performance of his duties as an Elected Official of the City of Baltimore and committed against the City of Baltimore.”
The council can add a similar provision to the Fire and Police Employees’ Retirement System if it wishes to do so.
Stop using the General Assembly’s refusal to pass a statewide law as an excuse
Own the problem and its solution, Mr. Mosby. If members of the General Assembly believe (as it appears they do) that this is an issue best left to local determination, then it is up to the mayor and city council to act. Or not. But at least accept responsibility for whatever it is you decide.
In fairness to legislators around the state, they may not believe that this is a problem of such significance and scope that a single, statewide approach is warranted. Indeed, the problem of criminal conduct by police officers has been most severe in Baltimore, so it is not unreasonable to expect the city to tackle the problem itself.
One more thing: Whether implemented by state or local law, it is not clear that a pension forfeiture condition may be added to the pension “contract” of a current employee under Maryland case law, and it is possible that the courts would hold it is only applicable to future hires. That means that the longer the city delays a change to city law, the more officers are added to the BPD who may not be subject to the loss of their pensions if convicted of crimes.
