Pension Forfeiture in Baltimore
"My e-mail boxes are full of angry letters about [former Baltimore
mayor] Dixon's retirement
package being left intact. The deal to resolve this case and get Ms.
Dixon out of office seems to have sparked more public emotion than the
mayor's transgressions." (<a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.rodricks10jan10,0,…
Rodricks' column</a> in the Baltimore <i>Sun</i>)<br>
<br>
One of the ugliest aspects of local government ethics is the desire for
retribution that expresses itself again and again in the form of a
demand for pension forfeiture. <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/455">I
wrote about this </a>eighteen months ago, but with the public baying
at Dixon's heels, I think it's worth raising again.<br>
<br>
There were no protests against what Dixon did. In fact, many people
felt she was being discriminated against, that all the wonderful things
she had done for the city were being ignored, even though she was only
accused of having stolen a thousand dollars' worth of gift cards.<br>
<br>
But there was a protest this week in front of City Hall, according to <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-md.pension…
article in the Baltimore <i>Sun</i></a>.<br>
<p>
<img src="http://www.cityethics.org/sites/cityethics.org/files/balt pension protest.jpg" alt="" align="right"></p>
<br>
(Baltimore Sun photo by Kenneth K. Lam)<br>
<br>
One protester called the deal that
allowed Dixon to keep her pension "an abomination." Another is quoted
as saying, "What kind of a punishment did she get? Every year Baltimore
is going to have a much better use for $83,000 than paying her."<br>
<br>
In Maryland, pension forfeiture resides in the state constitution,
that's how important it is to people:<br>
<ul>
<b>Article XV, Sect. 2. </b>Any elected official of the State, or of a
county or of
a municipal corporation who during his term of office is convicted of
or enters a plea of nolo contendere to any crime which is a felony, or
which is a misdemeanor related to his public duties and
responsibilities and involves moral turpitude for which the penalty may
be incarceration in any penal institution, shall be suspended by
operation of law without pay or benefits from the elective office.
During and for the period of suspension of the elected official, the
appropriate governing body and/ or official authorized by law to fill
any vacancy in the elective office shall appoint a person to
temporarily fill the elective office, provided that if the elective
office is one for which automatic succession is provided by law, then
in such event the person entitled to succeed to the office shall
temporarily fill the elective office. If the conviction becomes final,
after judicial review or otherwise, such elected official shall be
removed from the elective office by operation of Law and the office
shall be deemed vacant. If the conviction of the elected official is
reversed or overturned, the elected official shall be reinstated by
operation of Law to the elective office for the remainder, if any, of
the elective term of office during which he was so suspended or
removed, and all pay and benefits shall be restored.<br>
</ul>
So a mere misdemeanor related to public duties, where there is "moral
turpitude" (any ethics violation in Baltimore, for instance), means no position, no pension, and no health care for the
official and his or her family.<br>
<br>
Ms. Dixon spent 22 years of her life in public service to Baltimore.
She was hardly the most ethical of officials, but she did a lot more
good than bad. Her pension was not offered to her as an extra, but was
part of her pay, just as it is for everyone lucky enough to get a
pension. She earned her conviction, but she also earned her pension.<br>
<br>
Yes, any amount she stole from the city should be taken from her
pension, if she were not able to pay it directly (this is the law in
the states with more reasonable pension forfeiture laws, such as New
Jersey and Connecticut). But Dixon is paying far more than what she
stole, and it is not coming from her pension.<br>
<br>
I consider pension forfeiture to be the capital punishment of
government ethics, because although its supporters say it will prevent
unethical conduct, it is actually based on feelings of retribution.
Those protestors were not out there to prevent unethical conduct by
other officials. What concerned them was their tax dollars going
to a convicted official. They were out for blood.<br>
<br>
Jay Hancock, in <a href="http://dailyme.com/story/2010010700001224/baltimore-sun-jay-hancock-col…
Baltimore <i>Sun</i> column</a>, is up in arms about Dixon's pension, and the
deal she made to keep it. But it wasn't her who put herself in a
position where she had to make a deal to hold on to the pension she had
earned. It was people like Jay Hancock, who don't see the injustice of
pension forfeiture, because they're blinded by the injustice of an
official, even one convicted of stealing $1,000 in gift cards, holding on to a
pension.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---