Vote Raises Questions About County Board Of Trustees Role In Pension Issues
Patch’s Political Reporter Bryan Sears’ article on a new pension issue raises questions about the Baltimore County Pension Board of Trustees' role in overseeing various pension funds.
County councilmen questioned the prudence of borrowing $25 million from the Baltimore County Employees Retirement System, approved by the Board at its July 10 meeting.
Councilman Tom Quirk explained that the council had no input on the matter even though the council previously approved financing for the recycling facility.
This blogger followed up on another Sears article that covered a 2007 deal, when the County invested $21 million from the general fund into the failed Mainsail, LLC investment; it conveniently traded the worthless asset to the Police Fire and Widows Pension fund (PFWPF) for the full $21 million value of the investment.
I am currently seeking documents concerning a vote of the Board of Trustees on the Mainsail investment. In the November 26, 2007 letter allegedly sent to the County Council, Mr. Fred Homen explained that “The county executed the transfer of the Mainsail commercial paper to the PFW Pension Fund on November 15, 2007.”
The letter made no mention of the County Pension Board of Trustees input or vote on the matter.
This begs the question then of the role of the Trustees in supervising the various pension funds, and whether they merely exist to put a happy face on politically sensitive transactions, but remain silent in those the county can quietly sweep under the rug. Can the County, without the Council or the Board’s permission, trade worthless investments to the employee pension funds because of the “greater need for liquidity” in the general fund?
When asked for clarification on when the Board is required to take a vote my calls were not returned. I have filed two Public Information Act requests in an effort to shed some light on the past actions of the Board. The first case is scheduled for a circuit court hearing on September 26 over documents the county refused to turn over.
In another Sears article the question arises over who controls the pension board? The question I have is, is it Homan or as the county charter outlines in Article 3 & 5, is it the Board of Trustees working as a quorum?
Steve
12:44 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Why didn't you wait until you actually had something concrete to report instead of just regurgitating something some else wrote about?
You wasted all that space just to say someone didn't return your phone call???
Buzz Beeler
2:10 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Come on Steve read the issue on the duties of the board of trustees. Why would they vote on one issue and not the other. Did you bother to read the county charter before you commented?
There are numerous issues here. One is the fiduciary duties that the charter requires over those who oversee it. The next is the ethical and conflict of interest questions that arise from these deals.
First you lay the ground work, which you will see in other reports from Patch, and then you begin the process of holding those accountable for their responsibilities.
For your own sake of respectability cut the comments (you know what I mean) because it only hurts your creditability. Always take the high road even if you disagree with someone. When you don't it hurts your cause.
It boils down to how you express your discourse. As I keep saying articulate don't denigrate.
Ron Burgundy
4:46 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
I give you credit many times Buzz, but there's not much new here. This could have waited until you garnered all of the facts. What you have done is rehash the original story.
BTW, where are the countys that are in better fiscal shape? I've asked you to name them 3 times now!
Buzz Beeler
6:51 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Ron I responded to your question on the article about the school vacancies. I am responding to you in a blog. There is not enough room in this little space. I would take a couple of Tums before reading it.
It's no Mona Lisa but paints a good picture of the county.
As for this blog I'm, along with others laying the groundwork for some charter an ethical issues. They are plenty to go around. The charger is quite clear and the ethics issues and fiduciary responsibility are paramount.
I would not be surprised to see an investigation over this issue after all the details come out, and there is enough people working on for that to happen.
Steve
7:02 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
What's the point of this blog Obleo?
You don't know anything until you can read the documents and it looks like you won't even get them. This is kind of a half arse smear piece with no real facts. It all regurgitation and innuendo.
Buzz Beeler
11:41 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
The other night I said you're out of your league and over your head. You have no knowledge in this and are not a player as they say.
I have a expanding folder of documents about 7 inches that the county turned over. I am still seeking the ones they are denying based on lawyer client privilege.
Our contention is that they should have responded prior to the 30 day period as per the law. If they choose to withhold certain documents then they, by law, must do so by notifying me of which documents and the reason for the denial.
You always spout of at the mouth without any thinking. Do you know when I highlight something in blue that is a link to something. Well Mr. Armstrong/Steve whatever, click on that.
Where do you think that came from? I filled a second PIA seeking additional information regarding the application of the charter and fiduciary responsibilities.
This is the big leagues for adults, not some kid with three names. This isn't hide and seek we're playing. It's past your bedtime.