My take: Someone in the administration of Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski Jr. crossed the line to engineer a soft landing for Chris McCollum, a controversial but politically connected County employee, and the excuse given for doing so strains credibility.
This is the third in a series of posts that I’ve written on the controversial use of sick leave to keep Baltimore County employee William “Chris” McCollum on the payroll for the past eight months despite the fact that he is neither ill nor injured. In the first post, I described how the failure of County Executive Johnny Olszewski, Jr. to implement a requirement added to the County Charter by an amendment approved by the voters in 2018 affects the legality of the use of sick leave by McCollum.
In the second post, I went into more detail on the absolute improbability of the claim by County Administrative Officer (CAO) Stacy Rodgers that the Olszewski “Administration” was unaware of the requirement. In this post, I will elaborate on the factual context and the law that supports my opinion as to what occurred in this matter.
The matter is not a minor one. About $90,000 in county funds already have been spent because of the approval of the sick leave and there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in future pension payments to McCollum at stake.
A thorough investigation of all the relevant facts must be done by the appropriate agency. Here is my summary of what I believe transpired and what the investigation is likely to confirm:
Summary
After two reports by the Baltimore County Inspector General cast McCollum in a highly unfavorable light, Olszewski’s spokesman announced that McCollum was resigning his position effective July 2, 2021. The announcement clearly was intended to end the controversy over McCollum’s continued employment with the County as a well-paid member of the Olszewski administration.
McCollum left his job, but not county employment, something not discovered until nearly a year later when we learned that he remains employed, earning a salary of $137,710. Olszewski officials apparently had hatched a plan to keep McCollum on the payroll long enough to qualify for a 38% increase in his pension benefit.
The plan included the use of McCollum’s unused sick leave to pay him during an extended absence from work, even though he was neither ill nor injured. The flaw in the plan was the fact that there is no apparent legal authority for Olszewski officials to approve sick leave for such use.
The authority to approve sick leave for an extended non-illness related absence would have had to be based on a compensation plan for exempt service employees submitted by the County Executive and approved by the County Council in accordance with a 2018 amendment to Section 505 of the County Charter. There is no such plan.
Earlier this month, County Administrative Office Stacy Rodgers acknowledged that Olszewski had not submitted a proposed compensation plan for approval because the “Administration” was not aware of the requirement. For the reasons set forth in the second post, it defies belief that the Olszewski administration was unaware of the requirement when it took effect on December 6, 2018 and has remained unaware for the past 3 ½ years.
In my opinion, the facts suggest that it is more likely that the administration had chosen to ignore the requirement. Then, when faced with a situation involving a politically connected employee, McCollum, it decided to use sick leave to keep him on the payroll long enough to secure a financial windfall, fully aware that it was doing so without legal authority, and perhaps hoping that the scheme would never be discovered.
As to the lawfulness of the use of sick leave by McCollum, it doesn’t matter whether the county officials who signed off on McCollum’s use of sick leave were aware that they were acting in violation of charter because of the absence of an approved compensation plan. What matters is that there was no legal authority on which the use of sick leave for an extended absence not due to illness nor injury was based.
On the other hand, if the county officials who signed off on McCollum’s use of sick leave were aware that they were doing so in the absence of an approved compensation plan as required by the charter, such knowledge is relevant as to the possible sanctions against them. It could place those officials in considerable legal jeopardy because their unlawful actions have cost the County a substantial amount of money.
The apparent shared goal is to qualify McCollum for an enhanced pension benefit as an “appointed department head.”
According to the Baltimore Sun, McCollum, now age 51, will be eligible to begin receiving a pension from Baltimore County when he reaches age 60. And, if he can remain on the payroll through July of this year, he will receive an increase in that pension from about $50,000 per year to $68,855 per year as an “appointed department head.”
Baltimore Banner reporter Taylor DeVille tweeted that she was told by three sources that securing the enhanced pension benefit available to appointed department heads was the reason that McCollum wanted to remain on the payroll. In her words, he “is angling to get retirement and a 39% boost in his pension benefits by running out unused sick leave.”
Explanation:
Section 5–1–214(a)(5) of the Baltimore County Code provides for an increase in the benefit accrual rate for officials who served as appointed department heads for at least two years immediately prior to termination. The Sun reported that McCollum’s tenure as Acting Director of Economic and Workforce Development (beginning in August 2020 and ending in November 2020) apparently qualified as service under the appointed department head pension plan as “head of a department.”
In November 2020, McCollum moved to the position of Senior Administrative Assistant to the CAO. That position is defined as an appointed department head at § 5–1–201(e) of the County Code.
Therefore, to qualify for the increase in pension, McCollum must remain on the payroll in the position of Senior Administrative Assistant to the CAO until the end of July, when he completes two years as an appointed department head. DeVille said that her sources told her that the County administration’s “intended goal” is to allow McCollum to qualify for the enhanced pension.
Sick leave is being misused to achieve that goal.
The plan to get McCollum across the finish line for the bump in his pension depends upon the misuse of sick leave. It appears that McCollum has been using unused sick leave to excuse his absence from work since early October of last year, despite being neither ill nor injured. He apparently has enough unused sick leave to get him to the “target date” of July 31st.
The problem with the plan is that the County official(s) who approved his use of sick leave to compensate him for what amounts to a no-show County job for the past seven months had no authority to do so. The unlawful action has cost the County about $80,000 in salary payments to McCollum alone.
Explanation:
For employees in the County’s “classified service” (merit system), the use of sick leave is governed by Rule 22 of the Personnel Rules approved by the County Council, which reads as follows:
“Sick leave is provided for absences caused by actual non-work-related illnesses or injuries, necessary medical, dental, or optical appointments or treatments, or confinement due to quarantine as determined by an authorized medical authority. Absences are to be used for the employee’s illnesses, injuries, appointments, or quarantines only.” [Inapplicable provisions omitted.]
Sick leave for employees in the County’s exempt service, such as McCollum, could be granted for other reasons if such reasons were set forth in a compensation plan “adopted or amended by the county council upon the recommendation of the county executive” as provided in a 2018 amendment to Section 505 of the County Charter. As described in the first post, there is no approved compensation plan because of Olszewski’s failure to submit a proposed plan for to the council as required by the amendment.
An important unanswered question is this: Why did the county officials who approved McCollum’s sick believe that they had the authority to do so? What law, policy document or other County employees did they consult to ascertain that authority?
Approving sick leave for an extended absence not related to illness or injury is an extraordinary personnel action, even by Baltimore County’s relaxed standards. Based on considerable experience, I know how county officials think — even if willing to go out on a legal limb for someone, they tend to try to cover their own (selves) before doing so. There likely is a record of that self-covering.
(The informal “Executive Benefits Policy” approved only by the County Administrative Officer that was rendered null and void by the 2018 charter amendment authorized sick leave for exempt service employees and provided for the accrual of such leave at the same rate as classified employees. It contained absolutely no indication, however, that sick leave could be used for any purpose other a purpose for which classified service employees could use it.)
There was a lawful use for McCollum’s earned but unused sick leave.
It is worth noting that County law gave McCollum the right to put his unused sick leave to good use. That use did not include “cashing out” unused sick leave or using it to go on an extended paid leave of absence before he terminates employment, however.
Explanation:
County employees have the right to be paid for unused vacation leave upon termination of employment. Consequently, the apparent use of unused vacation leave for McCollum’s absence from July to early October 2021 is not problematic.
County employees do not, however have the right to be paid for unused sick leave upon termination. The difference is based on a distinction between the two types of leave under Maryland law.
Under § 3–505 of the Labor and Employment Article of the State Code, an employee must be paid for unused vacation leave upon termination of employment unless the employer’s policy expressly prohibits it. That is not the case with unused sick leave. As the Maryland Department of Labor website explains:
“Because sick leave is generally meant to be used in the case of sickness or for medical attention, its use is limited to those situations. Sick leave is therefore a contingency against illness, and cannot be claimed at termination in the same manner as unused vacation leave, unless expressly allowed in a contract or an employer’s policy.”
County law did, however, give McCollum an option for use of his unused sick leave at the end of his employment with the County. He could have converted his earned but unused sick leave into “creditable service” for purposes of calculating his pension benefit as provided by Section 5–212(b) of the County Code.
Why didn’t McCollum convert his unused sick leave into creditable pension service?
So, why didn’t McCollum convert his unused sick leave to creditable pension service rather than try to use it to remain on the payroll? The answer becomes obvious after running some numbers.
First of all, by staying in active County service he continues to receive his salary and health care benefits while earning additional creditable service to be applied toward his pension benefit. Also, staying employed may increase his “average final compensation” (calculated over three years), depending on his salary history.
The amount of a county retiree’s pension is calculated by multiplying a specified percentage of the retiree’s final average compensation by the retiree’s years of creditable service. (The specified percentage commonly is referred to as the pension accrual rate.) In McCollum’s case, staying employed is likely to increase both his final average compensation as well as years of creditable service.
Secondly, and much more importantly, staying employed long enough to attain the two years of service as an “appointed department head” immediately prior to termination that is necessary to make him eligible for the enhanced pension benefit under § 5–1–214(a)(5) of the County Code is where the big money lies. Eligibility for the appointed department head plan would increase his pension accrual rate from 1.8% (1/55) to 2.5% (1/40).
The numbers:
The Baltimore Brew reported that as of the end of April McCollum had used 152 days of sick leave and had enough remaining for “several months to come.” Unused sick leave converts to creditable pension service at the rate of 30 days of pension service for every 22 days of unused sick leave under county law.
Let’s assume that he has enough unused sick leave to carry him through July. That would mean that he started with about 220 days of unused sick leave.
Had he converted that unused sick leave to creditable pension service, it would increase his annual pension from about $49,500 to about $51,500 per year. If, on the other hand, he could use it to remain actively employed long enough to qualify for the appointed department head pension plan, it would increase his annual pension from about $49,500 to about $68,855 per year.
The difference of $17,355 a year in pension benefits explains why McCollum wants to stick around to the end of July by using sick leave to keep him on the payroll rather than convert it to creditable pension service. But why would Olszewski officials stretch the law past the breaking point to accommodate him?
Was it McCollum’s stellar service to the County? Or his stellar service to County politicians? I’ve put together a brief history of both drawn from published news reports, so that you can form your own opinion.
I emphasize that allegations of unnamed sources and unconfirmed accounts of reporters are not proven facts. But enough facts have been documented by sources including the Baltimore County IG to point toward a definite pattern.
McCollum’s career in Baltimore County government was marked by controversy.
William “Chris” McCollum began employment with Baltimore County in 2002. In 2010, he was appointed Director of the Baltimore County Center for Maryland Agriculture and Farm Park (Ag Center) by former County Executive Jim Smith, who predicted that McCollum would “provide the vision and leadership that will quickly establish [the Ag Center] as a true focal point for local agriculture here and throughout the region.”
McCollum’s tenure at the Ag Center, however, was marked with controversy. It included clashes with the Maryland Agricultural Resources Council (MARC), a principal private partner in the development and operation of the Ag Center. A member of MARC reportedly told the Baltimore Brew that during the 2018 campaign for county executive he complained about McCollum to Olszewski at a breakfast reception, questioning his honesty.
Two other people confirmed knowledge of the conversation to the Brew, one stating, “We figured Johnny would take care of it.” In a way, he did.
McCollum left the Ag Center shortly after Olszewski was sworn in as county executive in December 2018 — with a promotion and pay increase. In February 2019, McCollum was appointed head of “anchor initiatives” in the Department of Economic and Workforce Development at an increase in salary reported by the Brew to be in the vicinity of $50,000.
Soon thereafter, McCollum was promoted to Deputy Director of the department. He served as Acting Director of the department from August 1, 2020 until November 2020. He departed when Leonard Howie was named Director and became Senior Administrative Assistant to the County Administrative Officer (CAO), Stacy Rodgers.
In February 2020, the Baltimore County Inspector General (IG) received a complaint that a piece of equipment purchased by the County for use at the Ag Center was missing from the Ag Center’s inventory. The investigation of the complaint expanded into a probe of widespread waste and mismanagement at the facility while McCollum was in charge. The IG identified $1,023,486 in waste from 2016 to 2018 in a report issued in January 2021.
The investigation triggered a second investigation, this one into County procurement card abuse at the Ag Center. In a separate report issued in March 2021, the IG described $29,670 in unauthorized purchases by an employee later identified as McCollum.
On June 14, 2021, Sean Naron, a spokesman for Olszewski, announced that McCollum would be leaving his position with the County on July 2, 2021. The Brew reported that, when asked why McCollum was resigning, Naron said, “We don’t comment on personnel matters.” The announcement was interpreted to mean that McCollum was resigning from County employment.
As we found out much later, McCollum did not resign from County employment. He was placed on an extended, paid leave of absence. Although the last day that he reported to work was July 2, 2021, McCollum remains on the payroll in the position of Senior Assistant to the CAO drawing a salary of $137,710.
McCollum’s other “career” as a political operative also raises questions.
McCollum long has been active in Democratic politics in the county, with strong connections to the county’s powerbrokers. He has ties to former County Executive Jim Smith, and more recently to current County Executive Johnny Olszewski, Jr.
McCollum was the treasurer of Smith’s Baltimore County Victory Slate in 2016 when it was fined for an unlawful loan of $100,000 to the mayoral campaign of Catherine Pugh. In 2018, he served as campaign manager and treasurer for Councilwoman Cathy Bevins, a close friend.
In 2018, McCollum became a financial supporter of Olszewski. In June 2021, the Brew reported that since the run-up to the 2018 election McCollum had helped raise $22,550 in campaign contributions for Olszewski, including $6,050 in McCollum’s own money. The bulk of the money, $12,000, came from transfers from Friends of Cathy Bevins, for which McCollum was treasurer.
Smith’s Victory Slate, with McCollum as treasurer, transferred $2,000 to Olszewski’s campaign account. It also transferred $2,500 to Future Slate, run by Olszewski’s brother, which in turn transferred $24,000 to Olszewski.
The Brew reported that a source stated that “[McCollum] was a bundler. His role developed over a period of time from a glad hander to the guy who puts together the cash. And he loved doing it, he relished it.” McCollum allegedly boasted that “I’m not paying” for contributions attributed to him in campaign reports which, if true, is a violation of Maryland campaign financing laws.
Problems with the Victory Slate reemerged in December 2019. A reporter discovered that $97,664.97 that Smith purportedly had transferred to the Victory Slate when he closed out his Friends of Jim Smith account in 2015 had never been recorded as received in reports filed by the Victory Slate. The reporter’s inquiry triggered a review of the discrepancy by the State Board of Elections.
McCollum thereafter filed amended reports for the Victory Slate for the years 2014 through 2019 which appeared to resolve the discrepancy, at least in terms of the Victory Slate’s bank statements. The amended reports also disclosed $26,213.63 in previously unreported consulting fees paid by the Victory Slate to McCollum.
The amended reports also apparently prompted McCollum to amend his 2019 County financial disclosure statement. The original statement reported no income outside of his county job, according to the Brew.
The Brew described other problematic transactions in a story published in May 2021. One of them involved Friends of Cathy Bevins. McCollum reported that the Victory Slate transferred $11,000 to the Bevins account in a series of three checks between August and December 2015. The Bevins campaign, however, reported that it received only one $7,000 check from the Victory Slate. That check arrived almost a year earlier, in January 2015.
After the IG reports of problems at the Ag Center surfaced last year, Bevins reportedly told WYPR-FM that McCollum was resigning as her campaign treasurer “so as not to put her in a bad light.” Recent reports, however, indicate that he continues to serve as her campaign treasurer.
The May 2021 Brew story quoted Jared DeMarinis, head of the Candidacy and Campaign Finance Division of the State Board of Elections, as stating that the alleged discrepancies in the Victory Slate account were under review. I am aware of no further public report on the status of that review.
Conclusion
McCollum became a political liability to Olszewski because of the IG investigations and other stories reported in the press. It appears that a plan was put together to curtail the political damage to Olszewski as well as engineer a “soft landing” for McCollum, who was a loyal Democratic Party insider and a fundraiser for Olszewski.
I am not prepared to say that Olszewski’s spokesperson intentionally misled anyone when he announced McCollum’s “resignation” on June 14, 2021. I will say that the announcement was interpreted to mean that McCollum was resigning County employment effective July 2, 2021, and that the announcement largely ended the controversy. It would not have done so if the public knew that McCollum simply was going on an extended, paid leave of absence.
The fact that McCollum remained on the payroll was first reported by WBFF-TV on April 21, 2022. Someone talked, and the controversy began anew.
In my opinion, neither Olszewski nor any other county official had the authority to approve extended sick leave for McCollum for an absence unrelated to illness or injury, let alone to approve it so that he could secure a dramatic increase in his pension. Pardon the non sequitur, but they had no authority to do so before the December 2018 amendment to the County Charter, and they had even less thereafter.
I am not accusing CAO Rodgers of lying when she said in her email to me on May 2, 2022 that the Olszewski “Administration” was unaware of the requirement for an approved compensation plan for exempt service employees added to Section 505 of the County Charter by the voters. I do question the scope of the “review of our records” on which her statement was based. For example, did she speak with former County Attorney Mike Field, who was well aware of the amendment?
County residents are not going to know who knew what about the charter amendment, or when they knew it, until records are examined and testimony of current and former administration officials is taken, ideally under oath. That information is not relevant to the lawfulness of the sick leave, but it is relevant to the culpability of the public officials who approved it. It is one thing to violate the law through ignorance; it is quite another to do so deliberately.
Some public officials yield to temptation if they believe that no one is watching. It seems that Baltimore County officials have not yet figured out that people, including the county IG and local reporters, are finally watching them.
