Agenda Item 9
June 28, 2011
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
,
~~
~
Action: Bi1145-1 0, Personnel
Partial Incapacity
Disability Retirement - Eligibility Total and
Public Safety/Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee recommendation (5-1,
Councilmember Eirich opposed): approve the Bill with amendments.
Expedited Bill 45-10, Personnel- Disability Retirement Eligibility - Total and Partial
Incapacity, sponsored by Councilmembers Trachtenberg, Andrews, Berliner, and Council Vice
President Ervin, was introduced on July 27,2010. A public hearing was held on September 28,
2010. The joint Public SafetylManagement and Fiscal Policy Committee held worksessions on
October 4, October 25, and November 22, 2010. A joint Public Safety/Government Operations
and Fiscal Policy Committee worksession was held on June 21, 2011.
At the October 25 worksession, the Committee
Executive Branch, the FOP, and MCGEO to discuss a
disability retirement system for their employees. The
from the parties in 30 days and agreed to review this
parties is at ©53.
Background
Bill 45-10 would create a two-tier service-connected disability retirement system for all
County employees identical to the current system for fire and rescue employees. Employees
eligible for a service-connected disability retirement benefit would receive either a partial
incapacity benefit of at least 52 Y2% of final earnings or a total incapacity benefit of at least 70%
of final earnings. The current system for all employees, except fire and rescue employees,
provides a service-connected disability retirement benefit of at least 66 73% of final earnings for
both partial and total incapacity.
An employee would be eligible for a total incapacity benefit if the employee was unable
to perform any substantial gainful activity because of an impairment that is unlikely to resolve in
the next 12 months and may be permanent. An employee would be eligible for a partial
incapacity benefit if the impairment prevents the employee from performing one or more of the
essential functions of the employee's position, but does not prevent the employee from
performing any other substantial gainful activity.
agreed to send a written request to the
two-tier or multi-tier service-connected
Committee requested a progress report
Bill again. The written request to the
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Council enacted amendments to the disability retirement system in Bill 37-08 on
May 12, 2009. One of the amendments in the Bill as introduced, but not enacted, was to extend
the two-tier system for service-connected disability benefits to all public safety employees. At
the Council's request last year, the Office of Human Resources provided information on the
County's experience with this two-tier system for fire and rescue employees. As of May 2009,
only 10 of the 67 fire and rescue employees who received a service-connected disability
retirement since the two-tier system began in 2000 were awarded the higher 70% benefit.
Therefore, 85% of the awards were at the lower 5212% level. The County's actuary, Mercer,
estimated the annual savings to the County's retirement contribution for extending the two-tier
system to Group F (Police) to be more than $1.5 million based upon an assumption that 60% of
the disability retirements would be at the lower level. A copy of Mercer's January 2009 letter is
at ©20-24. If the Group G (Fire and Rescue) experience is carried over to all employees, the
actuary estimated the annual savings would be more than $2.7 million.
The Bill would also prohibit the award of a service-connected disability pension to an
employee who "has committed an offense that would justify removal for cause." This provision
was also included in Bill 3 7-08, as introduced, but not enacted in the final version of the Bill.
Chronology of the Disability Retirement Legislation
Here is a chronology of significant events for the Council's consideration of changes to
the disability retirement system.
1. September 2008 - Inspector General Interim Report
2. October 30,2008 - MFP/PS Committee worksession on Report
3. December 9, 2008 - Bill 37-08 introduced
4. January 15,2009 - Public Hearing on Bill 37-08
5. MFP/PS Committee worksessions on Bill 37-08
February 19,2009
April 2, 2009
May 1, 2009
May 4,2009
6. May 12,2009 - Bill 37-08 enacted with amendments
7. July 27,2010 - Bill 45-10 introduced
8. September 28,2010 - Public Hearing on Bill 45-10
9. PS/MFP Committee worksessions on Bill 45-10
October 4, 2010
October 25,2010
November 22, 2010
June 21,2011 (PS/GO Committee worksession)
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Public Hearing
Eleven witnesses testified at the September 28 public hearing. Mark Zifcak, President of
the Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35 (FOP), opposed the Bill. See ©29­
33. Mr. Zifcak argued that the disability retirement system for police officers is fair and that any
changes should be made through collective bargaining. Trang Nguyen (©35), Kristina Venable,
Doug Soskin (©41), and Doug Gross (©43) testified as individuals opposed to the Bill.
Peggy Dennis, on behalf of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, and Joan Fidler
(©36), on behalf of the Montgomery County Taxpayers League, supported the Bill as a fiscally
responsible, yet fair, change to the County's disability retirement system. Dr. Marc Leffer, a
board certified occupational medicine physician, (©37-40) supported the Bill as a step in the
right direction to establishing a best practice system. Dr. Leffer testified that a one-tier disability
retirement system does not accurately deal with the varying nature of disability. Dr. Leffer
suggested that the County add a wellness program to prevent injuries similar to the program he
helped set up for Howard County in order to reduce disability retirements. Tom Wellington
(©34), Dwight Cramer (©42), and Robin Ficker testified as individuals supporting the BilL
October 4 Worksession
Ed Lattner and Amy Moskowitz of the County Attorney's Office answered questions
about the Bill. John Sparks, President of the IAFF, answered questions about the service­
connected disability retirement provisions for IAFF members.
The Committee requested Council staff to draft alternative amendments that would
require a two-tier service-connected disability retirement system, but require the Executive and
the unions to negotiate the details. The Committee did not make any recommendations on the
Bill and agreed to review this Bill again after receiving alternative amendments from Council
staff.
October 25 Worksession
Ed Lattner of the County Attorney's Office, OHR Director Joseph Adler, and FOP
President Marc Zifcak answered questions about the Bill. The Committee discussed the two
draft alternative amendments prepared by Council staff at the Committee's direction that would
require a two-tier service-connected disability retirement system. The Committee did not make
any recommendations on the Bill. The Committee agreed to send a written request to the
Executive Branch, the FOP, and MCGEO to discuss a two-tier or multi-tier service-connected
disability retirement system for their employees. The Committee requested a progress report
from the parties in 30 days and agreed to review this Bill again.
November 22 Worksession
OHR Labor Relations Specialist Stuart Weisberg and IAFF President John Sparks
answered questions about negotiations between the Executive and the unions. OHR told the
Committee that the Executive has discussed service connected disability retirement with both
MCGEO and the FOP and that negotiations are ongoing.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Committee agreed to delay action on the Bill to pennit the parties to continue
negotiations.
June 21, 2011 Worksession
ORR Director Joseph Adler and Wes Girting, ORR, represented the Executive Branch.
IAFF President John Sparks and FOP President Marc Zifcak represented their respective
employee unions and answered questions. The Committee reviewed the Bill and discussed the
issues presented in the Council staff packet.
The Committee recommended (5-1, Councilmember EIrich opposed) approval of the Bill
with amendments. The Committee approved Staff Alternative Amendment 1 (see ©48), but
changed the requirement that any negotiated alternative be a "two-tier" system to a "multi-tier"
system. The Committee did not make a recommendation on the provision in the Bill that would
prohibit the award of a disability retirement pension to an employee who commits an offense that
would justify dismissal.
Issues
1.
Does the effective date of the Bill create a substantial impairment of contract benefits in
violation of the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution?
The Office of the County Attorney (OCA) provided a bill review memorandum dated
September 17. See ©25-28. The OCA raises concern about the effective date of the Bill. The
OCA believes that the Bill's creation of a partial disability benefit may be struck down as a
substantial impainnent of a contract in violation of the Contracts Clause of the United States
Constitution. The OCA recommends avoiding this issue by amending the effective date of the
Bill to apply to injuries sustained after the effective date of the Bill and after the tenns of the
current collective bargaining agreements with the FOP and MCGEO expire. The OCA opinion
acknowledges that this question is unsettled and advises that delaying the effective date would be
the most conservative approach.
Council staff disagrees with some of these conclusions.
In
Robert
T.
Foley Co. v.
Ws.s.c.,
283 Md. 140, 151-152 (1978), the Maryland Court of Appeals set the framework to
detennine if government action unconstitutionally impairs contractual obligations:
Consideration of a claim that particular governmental action invalidly impairs
contractual obligations involves several steps.
See United States Trust Co. v. New
Jersey,
431 U.S. 1, 17-21,97 S. Ct. 1505,52 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977). First, it must be
detennined whether a contract existed. If that hurdle is successfully cleared by
the claimant, a court next must decide whether an obligation under that contract
was changed. Finally, if the second question is answered in the affinnative, the
issue becomes whether the change unconstitutionally impairs the contract
obligation, '[f]or it is not every modification of a contractual promise that impairs
the obligation of contract under federal law ....
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
In
Bd. of Trustees.
v.
Mayor
&
City Council ofBaltimore City,
317 Md. 72, 100 (1989),
the Maryland Court of Appeals held that "under Maryland law, pension plans create contractual
duties toward persons with
vested
rights under the plans."
(emphasis added)
As to when an
employee's right to a disability pension vests, the Maryland courts have held that a public
employee's right to a disability pension does not vest until the employee satisfies the conditions
necessary to receive the benefit. This would include the injury, a determination that the
employee is no longer able to perform the duties of the position, and an application for benefits.
See
Davis
v.
City of Annapolis,
98 Md. App. 707 (1994);
Saxton
v.
Bd. of Trustees of the Fire
and Police Employees Retirement System of the City ofBaltimore,
266 Md. 690 (1972). As the
OCA opinion points out, the decisions in
Davis
and
Saxton
both rely on the date of injury as the
time of vesting. However, neither case raised the issue of whether an employee must satisfy
other conditions for a disability pension before vesting.
It
is, therefore, difficult to predict how a
Court would rule on this issue.
Even if an employee's rights have vested at the time of injury, every modification of a
contract does not result in an unconstitutional impairment. The legislative body always retains
the right to make reasonable modifications to vested rights for an important public purpose. In
this case, the sustainability of the retirement system is an important public purpose.
I
In
addition,
the Bill creates a lower partial incapacity benefit, but also raises the minimum benefit for total
incapacity.
The OCA also raised a concern that the collective bargaining agreements may create a
contractual bar to implementing the Bill during the terms of the existing agreements. The OCA
argued that the Council's ratification of the collective bargaining agreements containing
provisions where the union and the Executive agreed to submit legislation to the Council
establishing the current disability retirement system created a contractual right that is subject to
the Contracts Clause. Although the OCA agreed that a reviewing Court may find the reforms in
the Bill to be reasonable and necessary, and therefore a permissible impairment of the collective
bargaining contracts, they recommend avoiding the issue by amending the effective date of the
Bill to coincide with the end of the current collective bargaining agreements. The current
agreements with MCGEO and the FOP both expire on June 30,2012.
Council staff disagrees with this analysis because
it
misconstrues the role of the Council
in the collective bargaining process. The Council did not generally ratify these collective
bargaining agreements. Under each agreement, the union and the Executive agreed to submit
proposed legislation to the Council, which was ultimately enacted. All disability rights are
created by the law, not the collective bargaining agreement. The enactment of a disability law by
the Council in the 1990's cannot prevent the current Council from exercising its plenary
legislative authority to amend that law.
Committee recommendation (6-0):
amend the Bill to
take effect on July 1,2012 and apply to cases where the disability occurs on or after the date the
Act takes effect. See lines 394-398 at ©16.
2. Should the law bar an applicant from receiving a service-connected disability retirement
pension if the applicant commits an offense that would justify dismissal?
The OCA opinion does not predict whether a Court would find that the creation of a partial disability benefit is a
reasonable modification to a vested right for an important public purpose.
I
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Current law does not bar an applicant from receiving a service-connected disability
retirement pension after committing an offense that would otherwise justify dismissal. This
recently happened when 3 police officers who committed criminal acts that would have justified
dismissal received service-connected disability retirement pensions in lieu of dismissal? A local
newspaper recently reported that a County firefighter applied for, and received, a service­
connected disability retirement 3 years ago after being convicted of sexually assaulting a female
subordinate.
3
Bill 45-10 would prohibit the award of a service-connected disability retirement
pension if an applicant commits an offense that would justifY dismissaL The Bill, as introduced,
inadvertently omitted this provision for a participant of the Retirement Savings Plan who seeks a
disability retirement benefit. The Committee Bill includes this provision on lines 302-304 at
©13. This provision was recommended by the Executive's internal work group in 2008.
The County Attorney's Bill review memorandum questions how this provision could be
applied under the current system. The decision would be made by the Disability Review Panel
and ultimately the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) under the current system. The County
would have to produce evidence sufficient to prove that the employee had committed an offense
that would have justified dismissaL An employee could appeal the CAO's decision to the
appropriate arbitration paneL Alternatively, the CAO could delay deciding the case until the
dismissal is finaL If the employee wins an appeal of the dismissal under the Law Enforcement
Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBR) process (for law enforcement officers), the collective
bargaining agreement grievance arbitration process (for represented employees who are not law
enforcement officers), or the Merit System Protection Board (for non-represented employees),
the CAO would then process the disability application without regard for this provision of the
law.
A service-connected disability retirement pension is a substitute for an employee's future
earnings that are no longer possible due to disability.
It
makes little sense to pay an employee
for future lost earnings that the employee would not have received due to a disciplinary
tennination for misconduct on the job.
Council staff recommendation:
approve the provision
in the Bill as drafted.
The Joint PSIGO Committee made no recommendation on this provision.
Some members
were concerned that this provision was too strict. An employee can be released for conduct­
related or perfonnance-related reasons. For example, the LEOBR provides procedural
protections to a police officer from a conduct-related disciplinary action, but not for a
tennination due to unsatisfactory perfonnance.
Cancelose v.
City
ofGreenbelt,
75 Md. App. 662
(1980). A conduct-related disciplinary action is punitive. A perfonnance-related action is
remedial.
The Council could similarly distinguish between perfonnance-related and conduct-related
tenninations by making an employee ineligible for a service-connected disability retirement
pension if the employee is tenninated for misconduct.
The Inspector General described one of these cases in his report at pages 4-5. The report is available at
httQ:/iwww.montgomerycountvmd.gov/content/inspectorg(<,iisabfinalinterim09090g.pdf .
3
See the
Examiner
article at ©44-45.
2
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Alternative Amendment A:
Amend lines 39-40 as follows:
(E)
the member has not committed an offense that would justify
[[removal for cause)) termination for misconduct.
The Committee also discussed limiting the provision to a termination due to a conviction
of a crime. This alternative could be accomplished with the following amendment:
Alternative Amendment B:
Amend lines 39-40 as follows:
(E)
the member has not [[committed an offense]] been convicted of a
that would justify [[removal for cause]) termination for
misconduct.
Similar amendments could be made for the provision prohibiting a participant of the Retirement
Savings Plan from receiving a disability benefit in lines 302-304 of the Bill at ©13.
At the worksession, the Committee requested information from OHR Director Adler
about the number of terminations of public safety employees over the past several years. A list
provided by OHR showing all 13 terminations of a public safety employee since January 1, 2008
is at ©66.
3. Should the disability retirement system distinguish between partial and total disability?
Before 2001, County law allowed a disability benefit for partial incapacity of 6% of final
earnings for each 10% of permanent disability, with a minimum benefit of 25%. Bill 25-01
eliminated this partial disability pension as part of collective bargaining agreements with the
FOP and MCGEO. Bill 45-10 would create a new disability benefit for partial incapacity,
similar to the partial benefit which currently applies to fire fighters. See the definitions of partial
and total incapacity on lines 255-261 at ©11 and lines 275-278 at ©12. The partial incapacity
benefit for service connected injuries would be at least
52Yz%
of final earnings. The benefit for
total incapacity would be raised to 70% to match the benefit for fire fighters. The Retirement
Plan actuary estimated the annual savings from this provision to be between $1 million and $2.8
million, depending on the assumptions used and the amortization rate. The actuary's report is at
©20-24.
This policy change was recommended by the Council's consultant, Managed Care
Advisors, the Executive's internal work group, and the doctor who spoke at the public hearing,
Marc Leffer. Partial incapacity would require a finding that the employee could not perform 1 or
more essential functions of the position. Total incapacity would require a showing that the
employee is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. The well-recognized Social
Security disability standards would be used to determine total incapacity, as the current law
already requires for fire fighters.
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Partial incapacity status assumes that the employee is capable of substantial gainful
employment. Service-connected disability retirement pensions are designed to be an income
replacement for employees who can no longer work due to an on the job injury. The income
replacement goal would be satisfied by a combination of
52lh%
of final earnings in nontaxable
income plus the ability to earn outside income to make up the difference. The annual savings
from this change could approach $3 million. See the Mercer Actuary Letter at ©20-24. Is
paying all disabled employees for a total incapacity a reasonable allocation of the County's
scarce resources?
Disability retirement benefits are subject to collective bargaining. The FOP President,
Marc Zifcak, argued strongly at the public hearing that the Council should wait for the parties to
bargain changes to the system. In 2009, the Executive and the FOP were in the process of
bargaining over changes to the disability retirement system. The Council amended Bill 37-08 to
make only the changes in the system that had already been agreed to by both the Executive and
the FOP. The Executive sought a two-tier system during bargaining in 2009 and 2010, but no
agreement was reached. Since that time, the Executive and the FOP negotiated an amended
agreement submitted to the Council in May 2010, an out-of-cycle agreement submitted in July
2010, and an amendment to the current agreement submitted to the Council in April 2011.
4
None of these agreements contained changes to the disability retirement system. In the give-and­
take world of collective bargaining, it is unlikely that the parties will negotiate a reasonable two­
tier disability retirement system during the County's current economic downturn.
Committee
recommendation (5-1, Councilmember Eirich opposed):
approve the creation of a partial
incapacity disability retirement and a total incapacity disability retirement as proposed in the
BilL
4. Are there other local jurisdictions with a two-tier disability retirement system for public
safety workers?
a. Fairfax County.
Fairfax County police disability is covered by Fairfax Municipal
Code §§ 3-7-26 to 3-7-38. Service-connected total disability retirement is 66 2/3
%
of final
salary until the employee's service credit reaches 25 years when it is reduced to 60% of final
salary. Fairfax defines partial disability as the inability to perform some of the duties of the
position. Employees on partial disability receive the same benefit, but only if the department
does not have a position that they can perform.
b. Howard County.
Police and Fire receive 66
2/3
%
of final salary for a catastrophic
injury and 50% of final salary for a non-catastrophic injury. The catastrophic injury follows the
Social Security disability standards.
c. Baltimore County.
Police and Fire receive 75% of average final earnings for
dismemberment, paralysis, or anatomical loss of use of certain body parts. All lesser disabilities
receive 50% of average final earnings.
4
This agreement resulted from an arbitration award selecting the FOP proposal on a limited reopener.
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5. The alternative amendments requested by the Committee at the October 4 worksession.
The two alternative amendments for
Bill
45-10 requested by the
PS/MFP
Committee at
the October 4 worksession are at ©48-50 and ©51-52.
Alternative 1,
at ©48-50, would delay the effective date of the
Bill
until the current FOP
agreement expires on July 1, 2012 and encourage, but not require, the Executive to negotiate a
two-tier service connected disability system with the FOP and MCGEO through collective
bargaini
19
in the interim. If the parties agree to negotiate and are unable to resolve the issue, it
may be submitted to the statutory impasse resolution procedure, including arbitration, as a
separate issue. The amendment would also modify the factors to be considered by the arbitrator
to make them relevant to service-connected disability as a separate issue. If the parties reach
agreement or submit it to arbitration, the Council must indicate its intent to approve or reject the
agreement or arbitration award. If the Council indicates its intent to reject it, the parties would
have a statutory 9-day period to re-negotiate the issue and re-submit it to the Council for
approva. The Council would retain ultimate responsibility for enacting a law creating a two-tier
system. The
Bill,
as introduced, would be the default resolution unless the Council enacts a law
based upon a negotiated or arbitrated resolution.
Alternative 2,
at ©51-52, would replace the entire
Bill
with an uncodified section that
requires the Executive to negotiate a two-tier system with the FOP and MCGEO this year as a
separate issue. Again, an impasse would be resolved through arbitration as a separate matter
with the factors to be considered by the arbitrator modified to be relevant to resolving this issue
as a sep,lrate matter. The parties would be required to submit the results of the arbitration to the
Council as proposed legislation for consideration by April 1, 2011. The Council must indicate
its intent to approve or reject the agreement or arbitration award. If the Council indicates its
intent tc reject it, the parties would have the statutory 9-day period to re-negotiate the issue and
re-submit it to the Council for approval. The Council would retain ultimate responsibility for
enactin!, a law creating a two-tier system.
The C[)mmittee recommended (5-1, Councilmember EIrich opposed) approval of
Alternative Amendment 1 with one modification. The Committee would permit the
Executi ve and a union to negotiate a "multi-tier" system instead of limiting the negotiations
to a
"m
o-tier" system.
See lines 399-440 of the
Bill
at © 16-18.
6. What progress have the parties made in negotiations since November 22?
Committee, in a memorandum dated October 25, asked ORR to discuss the creation
of a two-tier or multi-tier service connected disability retirement system with the FOP and
MCGEO. See ©53. ORR and the FOP agreed to engage in good faith negotiations over this
issue, but they did not reach an agreement. A joint letter from ORR and the FOP is at ©54.
ORR also discussed this issue during term bargaining with MCGEO after October 25, but they
did not reach an agreement. Collective bargaining agreements for FY12 with both MCGEO and
the FOP were resolved through last offer by package impasse arbitration awards in favor of the
union. None of the final offers submitted to the arbitrator by the Executive or the unions
included changes to the disability retirement system.
C~he
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
FOP President Zifcak argued at the June 21 worksession that the FOP had offered an
alternative proposal for a multi-tier disability retirement system to both the Executive and the
Council last month without response. This statement, while technically true, was misleading. As
required by the Police Labor Relations Law, the Council, by resolution, indicated its intent to
reject full funding and disapprove certain provisions in the collective bargaining agreement with
the FOP on May 9, 2011. The resolution began the statutory 9-day period for the Executive and
the FOP to renegotiate the provisions that the Council indicated it would reject. As required by
law, the Council appointed the Council President and Vice President as its representatives to
explain the Council's position to the parties during these subsequent negotiations. The Council
was not a party in these collective bargaining negotiations between the Executive and the FOP.
The Council was scheduled to take its straw vote on the FY12 Operating Budget after this
9-day period on May 19. The FOP handed a bare bones alternative package to the Council
President and Vice President during a meeting held in the evening of May 17 that included a
proposed 3-tier disability retirement system. The FOP package proposal is at ©57-65. The FOP
proposal was a 60% benefit for partial incapacity, a 66
2/3%
benefit for total incapacity, and a
90% benefit for certain types of specified injuries. The package included alternatives to the
Council's proposed cap on pension cost of living increases, changes to employee pension
contributions, and changes to the employee health insurance contributions. The FOP package
also included changes to the pension multiplier and the retiree health split for
new employees
only.
Finally, the FOP package included a very generous retirement incentive program for FOP
bargaining unit members.
5
None of these proposals included any information on the estimated
costs. The disability proposal was presented as a part of the entire package as a substitute for the
Council's proposed budget plan. The FOP package may have been an appropriate opening
proposal to the Executive at the beginning of FY12 collective bargaining last September, but it
was not appropriate to present to the Council on the eve of its straw vote on the budget.
Collective bargaining negotiations for a new agreement beginning in FY13 with both
MCGEO and the FOP are scheduled to begin this fall.
7.
Annual report on disability retirement.
County Code §33-51(a)(5) requires the CAO to provide
an
annual report on the status of
the disability retirement system for the preceding calendar year. The report for calendar year
2010 is at ©55-56.
This packet contains:
Expedited Bill 45-10
Legislative Request Report
Mercer January 2009 letter
County Attorney Bill Review Memorandum
Public Hearing Testimony
Marc Zifcak
Thomas Wellington
5
Circle
#
1
19
20
25
29
34
The Council's Office of Legislative Oversight produced a comprehensive report in 2010 explaining that a
retirement incentive program for employees who will be replaced with new, lower paid employees will cost the
County significant money over time. In fact, a significant portion of the unfunded liability in the retirement fund is
due to past retirement incentive programs.
10
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Trang Nguyen
Joan Fidler
Marc Leffer, MD
Doug Soskin
Dwight Cramer
Douglas Gross
DC Examiner Article
Fiscal Impact Statement
Alternative amendment 1
Alternative amendment 2
Committee Memo of October 25
OHR-FOP Letter of November 17
2010 Report on the disability retirement system
FOP Package Proposal of May 17
OHR Report on public safety employee terminations
F:\LAWIBILLS\I045 Disability Total Incapacity, Partial Incapacity\Action Memo.Doc
35
36
37
41
42
43
44
46
48
51
53
54
55
57
66
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BiII No. ....:4:!.!o5!--1.:..::0::...-_--:---:::-:---:-:-:::-:--­
Concerning: Personnel - Disability
Retirement - Eligibility - Total and
Partial Incapacity
Revised: June 22, 2011 Draft No. _7_
Introduced:
July 27,2010
Expires:
January 27,2012
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: --!,.:N...",oC!..!.ne"'---_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ , Laws of Mont. Co. _ _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Trachtenberg, Andrews, Berliner, and Council Vice President Ervin
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
create a partial incapacity disability retirement benefit for certain employees;
create a total incapacity disability retirement benefit for certain employees;
prohibit an employee who commits certain offenses from receiving a service
connected disability retirement benefit; and
generally amend County law regarding disability retirement.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 33, Personnel and Human Resources
Sections 33-43,33-128,33-129, and 33-131
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
*
* *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedjrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedjrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.45-1 0
1
2
3
4
Sec.
1.
Sections 33-43, 33-128, 33-129, and 33-131 are amended as
follows:
33-43.
Disability retirement.
*
following meanings:
*
*
5
6
7
(b)
Definitions.
In this Section, the following words and phrases have the
*
*
*
8
9
10
Partial incapacity
means
~
member's inability to perform one or more
essential functions of the position the member holds because of
impairment that;
11
12
ill
is unlikely to resolve in the next 12 months;
may be permanent; and
does not prevent the member from performing any other
substantial gainful activity.
m
ill
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
*
*
*
Total Incapacity
means the member's inability to perform substantial
gainful activity because of an impairment that;
ill
is unlikely to resolve in the next 12 months; and
may be permanent.
m
(f)
20
21
22
23
24
*
*
*
Service-connected disability retirement.
(l)
A member may be retired on a service-connected disability
retirement if:
(A) the member is totally or partially incapacitated [for duty
or partially and permanently incapacitated for duty] as
the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring,
25
26
F:\LA W\BILLS\] 045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partial Incapacity\BilI 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.45-10
27
28
or an occupational disease incurred or condition
aggravated.1 while in the actual performance of duty;
(B) the incapacity is not due to the member's willful
negligence;
(C) the incapacity is likely to be permanent; [and]
(D) the member is unable to perform the duties of either:
(i)
29
30
31
32
33
the occupational classification to which the
member was assigned [at the time] when the
disability occurred; or
34
35
36
(ii) a position of comparable status [within] in the
same department for which the member is
qualified; and[.]
(E) the member has not committed an offense that would
justify removal for cause.
{£} For an accidental injury that does not cause mental
impairment, the member must:
(i)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
[reports1 report the claimed accidental injury as
soon as practicable, but no later than one year after
the applicant knew or should have known that the
injury is likely to be disabling; or
47
48
49
(ii) [submits1
submit
a
claim
for
Workers'
Compensation benefits for the accidental Injury
that is not dismissed as untimely.
[(F)]
(Q)
The time periods for reporting in subparagraphs
(i)
50
51
52
and (ii) do not begin while the member is unable to report
because of incapacitating injuries.
(j)
F:\LAW\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiII 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
N0.45-1
0
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
[(G)] (H)
For an accidental injury that occurs after July 1,
2009, the member must apply for disability benefits:
(i)
within one year after separation from County
service or before July 1, 2010, whichever is later;
and
(ii)
if the applicant is a member of Group F, within 5
years after the date of the accident causing the
impairment or before July 1, 2014, whichever is
later, unless the member is in a chronic incapacity
duty assignment.
*
(i)
*
*
Amount ofpension at service-connected disability retirement.
( 1)
Total incapacity.
The County must pay a member [, other than
a Group G member,] who retires on service-connected
disability retirement with total incapacity an annual pension
calculated under Section 33-42(b)(1), [subject to the following
exceptions] except that:
(A)
the County must substitute final earnmgs for average
final earnings; and
(B)
the pension must be at least [66 2/3 percent] 70% of the
member's final earnings.
(2)
[The County must pay a Group G member who retires on a
service-connected disability retirement an annual pension
calculated under Section 33-42(b)(1), except that the County
must substitute final earnings for average final earnings.
However, if this] If the benefit calculation under Section 33­
42(b)(l) is greater than any other benefit under this subsection,
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
@
F:\LAw\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiIl7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.45-10
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
the County must pay a Group G member who retires on a
service-connected disability retirement between June 26, 2002,
and June 30, 2007, a pension based on the member's average
final earnings if that member's average final earnings result in a
greater benefit than final earnings.
(3)
[The County must pay a Group G member who retires on a
service-connected disability retirement an annual pension
calculated under Section 33-42(b)( 1), but the benefit must be at
least 70 percent of final earnings if the Chief Administrative
Officer finds, based on a recommendation from the Disability
Review Panel, that] The Disability Review Panel must
recommend
~
finding of total incapacity if the member's
service-connected disability is severe enough to meet the Social
Security Administration's requirements for disability, meaning
that the member is unable to engage in any substantial gainful
activity because of a medically determinable physical or mental
impairment that can be expected to end in death or has lasted,
or can be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12
months.
The member does not have to qualify for Social
Security disability benefits to be eligible for benefits under this
subsection.
(A)
The Panel must base its determination of whether [or not]
an individual is able to engage in any substantial gainful
activity on an assessment from an independent vocational
expert that considers the member's age, education, work
experIence, transferable skills, and residual functional
capacity.
(J)
F:\LAw\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiIl7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill
N0.45-10
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
(B)
The Panel must determine the member's residual
functional capacity and provide this information to the
independent vocational expert.
(C)
A Panel determination that the member's servlce­
connected disability is severe enough to be considered a
disability by the Social Security Administration is not a
recommendation that the member is entitled to, or should
be granted, a disability benefit by the Social Security
Administration.
(D)
If
a member has already been granted disability benefits
by the [U.S.] Social Security Administration when the
member applies for a service-connected disability
pension, the County must pay the member a pension of at
least 70% [percent] if the Disability Review Panel finds
that the award of disability benefits from the Social
Security Administration was based primarily on the same
medically determinable physical or mental impairment
on which the Disability Review Panel awards the
member a service-connected disability benefit.
(4)
The County must pay a [Group
G)
member who retires with
partial incapacity on a service-connected disability retirement
an annual pension calculated under Section 33-42(b)(1), but the
benefit must be at least
52Y2
%
[percent] of final earnings if the
Chief Administrative Officer finds, based on a recommendation
from the Disability Review Panel, that:
(A)
the member meets the standards to receive a servlce­
connected disability benefit under subsection (f); and
@
F:\LAW\BlllS\1045 Disability Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiII 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.4S-10
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
(B)
the member is not eligible to receive a benefit for total
incapacity under subsection (i)(3).
(5)
(A)
The County must increase the partial incapacity service­
connected disability pension benefit of a [Group G]
member calculated under Section 33-42(b)(1), from a
benefit of at least 52
Yz
%
[percent] to a benefit of at least
70
%
[percent], if:
(i)
the [U.S.] Social Security Administration awards
disability benefits to the member;
(ii)
the member submits all relevant information about
the award of disability benefits from the Social
Security Administration to the Disability Review
Panel within 60 days after the member receives the
award;
(iii)
the Disability Review Panel finds that the award of
disability benefits from the Social Security
Administration was based primarily on the same
medically
determinable
physical
or
mental
impairment on which the Disability Review Panel
originally
awarded
the
member
a
servlce­
connected disability benefit; and
[(a)] (iv) the member applies for disability benefits with
the Social Security Administration within 90 days
after the [date on which the] Chief Administrative
Officer notified the member that the [amount of
the] service-connected disability pension benefit
would be calculated [under Section 33-42(b )( 1),
(j)
F:\LAW\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity. Partiallncapacity\Bill 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
N0.45-1 0
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
but at least 52 Y2 percent; or] as
!!
partial
incapacity.
[(b)
the Chief Administrative Officer awards a service­
connected disability pension benefit calculated
under Section (b)(1), but at least 52 Y2 percent to
the member between March
1, 2000, and
December 1, 2003, and the member applies for
disability benefits with the
Social
Security
Administration no later than February 29,2004.]
(B)
[For] If a member [who] qualifies for an increased
pension benefit under [subsection (5)] subparagraph (A)
[above], the County must increase the member's service­
connected pension retroactively to the date [on which]
when the pension began.
*
(7)
*
*
The County must pay a Group F member who retires on a
service-connected disability retirement on or after June 26,
2002, an annual pension calculated under subsection
(i)
(1) or
subsection
ill
ill.
However, if [the]
~
greater benefit results
from the calculation under Section 33-42(b)(1), the County
must pay a Group F member a pension based on the member's
average final earnings if that member's average final earnings
result in a greater benefit than final earnings.
U)
Adjustment or cessation ofdisability pension payments.
(1 )
If
a member receiving service-connected disability penSIOn
payments reaches the first day of the month [following] after
the member's normal retirement date, the amount of pension
F:\LAw\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity. Partiallncapacity\Bili 7.Doc
o
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.45-10
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
then payable must not be less than the amount that would have
been payable under [the provisions of] Section 33-45(c)[,1 if the
member had terminated service [on1 when the [date1 disability
pension [commenced1 began and had not elected a return of
member contributions with credited interest.
(2)
(A)
The Chief Administrative Officer may reduce the amount
of the disability pension payments of a member retired
with total incapacity who:
(i)
(ii)
has not reached the normal retirement date; and
is engaged in, or is able to engage in, an
occupation that pays more than the difference
between the disability pension payments and the
current maximum earnings of the occupational
classification from
disabled.
(B)
If a member other than a Group F member meets the
criteria in subparagraph (A), the Chief Administrative
Officer may reduce the member's disability pension
payments until the disability pension payments plus the
amount that the employee earned or is able to earn equals
the maximum earnings of the occupational class from
which the member was disabled.
which the
member
was
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
*
(3)
*
*
~
211
212
213
If the earnmgs capacity of a disability retiree with
total
incapacity changes, the Chief Administrative Officer may
change the amount of the disability retirement pension. [For
the purpose of] In this subsection, "disability pension" is the
214
@
F:\LAw\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partial Incapacily\Bili 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No.45-1 0
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
amount of pension payable without election of a pension
payment option.
(A)
For a disability retiree other than a group F member, the
Chief Administrative Officer must ensure that the amount
of the revised pension does not exceed:
(i)
the original disability retirement pension plus cost­
of-living increases; or
(ii)
an amount that, when added to the amount the
member earns or is able to earn, equals the
maXimum
classification
disabled.
(B)
earnmgs
from
of
which
the
the
occupational
member
was
For a Group F member who receives a non-servIce
connected disability pension, the Chief Administrative
Officer must ensure that the amount of the revised
pension must not exceed:
(i)
the original disability retirement pension plus cost­
of-living increases; or
(ii)
an amount that, when added to the amount that the
member earns or is able to earn, equals 120 percent
of the maximum earnings of the occupational
classification
disabled.
from
which
the
member
was
(4)
A member who receives !! disability retirement pension for
~
total incapacity must submit to the Chief Administrative Officer
Qy
May 30 of each year!!
£QPY
of that portion of the member's
federal income tax return which shows the member's income.
§
F:\LAW\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\Bili 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill
No.45-1 0
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
If a member [receiving] who receIves disability pension
payments [fails or refuses to] does not supply the Chief
Administrative
Officer
[whatever]
any
information
[is
determined necessary] the Chief Administrative Officer needs
to [make a decision on] decide the amount of retirement pay
legally due, the Chief Administrative Officer must suspend the
member's pension payments [must be discontinued] until the
member submits the [requested] needed information.
*
33-128. Definitions.
*
*
In this Division, the following words and phrases have the following
meanmgs:
*
*
*
Partial incapacity
means!! member's inability to perform one or more
essential functions of the position the member holds because of
impairment that;
ill
ill
ill
is unlikely to resolve in the next 12 months;
may be permanent; and
does not prevent the member from performing any other
substantial gainful activity.
*
*
*
Residual functional capacity
means what the individual can still do,
despite the individual's impairment. The County must give the term
residual functional capacity the same meaning as the term is given by
the Social Security Administration.
Substantial gainful activity
means a level of productive work that
reqmres significant physical or mental duties, or a combination of
F:\lAW\8lllS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiII 7,Doc
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.45-10
269
270
271
272
273
274
both, performed for payor profit on a full- time or part-time basis. An
individual is able to perform a substantial level of work if the
individual
is able to
earn more than the
Social
Security
Administration's current monthly earnings limit for a disabled person.
The County must give the term substantial gainful activity the same
meaning as the term is given by the Social Security Administration.
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
Tota/Incapacity
means the member's inability to perform substantial
gainful activity because of an impairment that;
ill
ill
is unlikely to resolve in the next 12 months; and
may be permanent.
33-129. Disability benefits.
*
(d)
*
*
Initial service-connected disability benefits. An employee may receive
disability benefits for a period of 36 consecutive months, subject to
this plan, if the administrator finds that:
(A)
the employee has incurred an initial service-connected
disability; and
(B)
for an accidental Injury that does not cause mental
impairment, the employee:
(i)
reports the claimed accidental Injury as soon as
practicable, but no later than one year after the
applicant knew or should have known that the
injury is likely to be disabling; or
(ii)
submits a claim for Workers' Compensation
benefits for the accidental injury that is not
dismissed as untimely.
(C)
The time periods for reporting in subparagraphs
(i)
and
F:\LAw\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity. Partiallncapacity\BiII7.Doc
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No.45-10
296
297
298
299
(ii)
do not begin while the applicant is unable to report
because of incapacitating injuries.
(D)
For an accidental injury that occurs after July 1, 2009, the
applicant must apply for disability benefits within one
year after separation from County service or before July
1, 2010, whichever is later.
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
3]0
311
!Ill
An employee who has committed an offense that would
jystify removal for cause must not receive service­
connected disability benefits.
*
(1)
*
*
~
The Disability Review Panel must recommend
finding of total
incapacity if the member's service-connected disability is severe
enough to meet the Social Security Administration's requirements for
disability, meaning that the member is unable to engage in any
substantial gainful activity because of
S!
medically determinable
physical or mental impairment that can be expected to end in death or
has lasted, or can be expected to last, for
~
312
313
continuous period of at
least 12 months. The member does not have to qualify for Social
Security disability benefits to be eligible for benefits under this
subsection.
(1)
The Panel must base its determination of whether an individual
is able to engage in any substantial gainful activity on an
assessment from an independent vocational expert that
considers the member's age, education, work experIence,
transferable skills, and residual functional capacity.
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
F:\LAw\BILLS\1045 Disability Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiIl7,Doc
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.4S-10
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
ill
The Panel must determine the member's residual functional
capacity and provide this information to the independent
vocational expert.
ill
A Panel determination that the member's service-connected
disability is severe enough to be considered
Social Security Administration is not
~
~
disability
Qy
the
recommendation that
~
the member is entitled
!Q,.
or should be granted,
benefit
Qy
the Social Security Administration.
disability
ill
If
~
member has already been granted disability benefits
Qy
the
Social Security Administration when the member applies for
~
service-connected disability pension, the County must give the
member
~
total incapacity benefit if the Disability Review Panel
finds that the award of disability benefits from the Social
Security Administration was based primarily on the same
medically determinable physical or mental impairment on
which the Disability Review Panel awards the member a
service-connected disability benefit.
(g)
The Disability Review Panel must recommend
incapacity if:
~
finding of partial
ill
ill
®
the member meets the standards to receive
disability benefit; and
the member is not eligible to receIve
incapacity under subsection
.a1
~
service-connected
~
benefit for total
The County must increase the partial incapacity service-connected
disability pension benefit of
~
member to
~
total incapacity benefit if:
ill
the Social Security Administration awards disability benefits to
the member;
@
F:\LAw\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiII 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.45-10
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
ill
the member submits all relevant information about the award of
disability benefits from the Social Security Administration to
the Disability Review Panel within 60 days after the member
receives the award;
ill
the Disability Review Panel finds that the award of disability
benefits from the Social Security Administration was based
primarily on the same medically determinable physical or
mental impairment on which the Disability Review Panel
originally awarded the member
benefit; and
~
service-connected disability
ill
the member applies for disability benefits with the Social
Security Administration within 90 days after the Chief
Administrative Officer notified the member that the service­
connected disability pension benefit would be calculated as
partial incapacity.
~
ill
If
~
member qualifies for an increased pension benefit under
subsection
ili1
the County must increase the member's service­
connected pension retroactively to the date when the pension
began.
ill
Role ofthe Disability Review Panel.
(1)
The Disability Review Panel must consider an application for
disability benefits to determine if the applicant is eligible for
disability benefits under subsection (a), (b), (c), (d),
[or]
(e),.
Lt1
{g1
or (h). The Panel may consider any information or material
submitted by the applicant, the certified representative, or the
County. Within 60 days after the application is filed, the Panel
must meet in person,.
Qy
telephone conference, or
Qy
video
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiII7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.45-10
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
conference, to review all evidence submitted to the Panel.
[An
action by the Panel under this Section requires a majority vote of
3] A Panel must include either
2.
or
members must vote in favor of
under this Section.
~
1
members.
At least
2.
decision to take any action
*
33-131. Amount
of
benefits.
*
*
(a)
Service-connected disability.
The annual amount of service-connected
disability payments payable for total incapacity equals [66 2/3
percent] 70% of the employee's final earnings, less any reductions
provided in section 33-134. The annual amount of service-connected
disability payments payable for partial incapacity equals
employee's final earnings.
%
of the
*
Sec. 2.
*
*
Implementation.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including §33-80(a)(7) and §33-107(a)(7), the implementation of any amendment
to County Code Chapter 33 in Section 1 of this Act concerning disability
retirement is not subject to collective bargaining with a certified representative of
employees in any bargaining unit.
Sec. 3.
Effective Date.
This Act. other than Section 4, takes effect on
July 1, 2012. Section 4 takes effect 91 days after the Act becomes law. The
amendments to County Code Chapter 33 made in Section 1 ofthis Act apply to any
[[application for]] disability [[retirement filed]] occurring on or after the date this
Act takes effect.
Sec. 4.
Collective bargaining.
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1045 Disability - Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiII 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.45-1 0
400
401
402
403
W
It is the policy of Montgomery County that all County employees
$hould have a multi-tier service-connected dis:;tbility retirement
system which includes a:
ill
partial
incapacity
service-connected disability
retirement
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
benefit for any illjury or illness that prevents an employee from
continuing in the employee's current position but does not
prevent the employee from engaging in other substantial gainful
empl ()ymetlt; and
al
total incapacity service-connected disability retirement benefit
for any injury or illness that prevents an employee from
engaging in any other substantial gainful employment.
£J2j
It is also the policy of the County that disability benefits are a
mandatory subject of collective bargaining with each appropriate
certified employee representative.
W
Notwithstanding any. County law to the contrary, the County
E?Cecutiye Illay separ:;ttely negotiate the terms of an appropriate multi­
tier service-connected disability retirement system with the certified
employee representative for the police bargaining unit and the
certified representative for the OPT and SLT bargaining units. i
Il
each
case not later than March 1, 2012. If in either case the parties are
unable to reac}1 agreement on an appropriate multi-tier. system, the
parties may submit this issue for resolution through the applicable
jmpasse procedures under the
C<rnnt:y'~olice
labor relations law and
the County collective bargaining law as a separate matter, not part of
or linked to any other collective bargaining procedure. The impasse
neutral for the police bargaining unit and the mediator/arbitrator for
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1045 Disability- Total Incapacity, Partiallncapacity\BiII7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
NO.45-10
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
Approved:
the OPT and SLT bargaining units must choose the final offer of
either party
aft~r
considering equally the following factors:
ill
service-connected disability retirement systems for similar
employees of other public employers
Metropolitan Area and in Maryland;
III
the Washington
W
best practices for service-connected disability retirement
systems for similar employees in the United States;
ill
ill
the interest and welfare of the public: and
the long-term ability of the employer to finance a disability
retirement system. and the effect of the cost of the system on
the normal standard of public services provided by the
employer.
(Q)
The Executive must submit the results of any collective bargaining
process regarding this issue to the Council for legislative action not
laterthan April
1.
2012.
443
444
Nancy F1oreen, President, County Council
Date
445
Approved:
446
447
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
448
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
449
450
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
@
F:\LAw\BILLS\1045 Disability Total Incapacity, Partial Incapacity\BiII 7.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 45-10
Personnel- Disability Retirement - Eligibility - Total and Partial Incapacity
DESCRIPTION:
The
Bill
would create a two-tier service-connected disability
retirement system for most employees consisting of a partial
incapacity disability retirement benefit and a total incapacity
disability retirement benefit. The
Bill
would also prohibit an
employee who commits certain offenses from receiving a service
connected disability retirement benefit, and generally amend County
law regarding disability retirement.
The current system provides the same service-connected disability
retirement benefit for both partial and total incapacity for all
employees except fire and rescue employees. This
Bill
would create
the same two-tier system that fire employees have for all others. The
Bill
would also eliminate the right to a service-connected disability
benefit for an employee who has committed an offense that would
justify removal for cause.
To provide a two-tier service-connected disability retirement system
for all employees and to prevent an employee from avoiding a
termination for cause by applying for a service-connected disability
retirement benefit.
Office of Human Resources, County Attorney
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
NA
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OB.IECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
NA
f:\law\bills\1045 disability - total incapacity, partial incapacity\lrr.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Aquil Ahmed, ASA, EA, MAAA
Worldwide Partner
MERCER
~
,
MAR5H
MERCER
KROLL
GUY CARPENTER
1255 23rd Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20037
202331 5200 Fax 202 296 0909
www.mercer.com
OllVH,
WYMAN
January 9, 2009
Ms. Belinda Fulco
Office of Human Resources
Montgomery County Government
101 Monroe Street, Seventh Floor
Rockville, MD 20850-2589
Via lectronic Mail
E
Subject:
New Legislation Proposal on Disability Provisions for ERS
Dear Belinda:
This letter summarizes cost estimates for proposed disability provisions affecting group A, E,
F, G and H of the Montgomery County Employees' Retirement System (ERS).
The estimates are based on the July 1, 2008 actuarial valuation data. The actuarial
assumptions and methods are the same as those used in our July 1, 2008 actuarial
valuation report unless otherwise noted. Actual costs will depend on the actual data and
experience of the plan. The benefit changes are assumed to apply only to active ERS
members, not to retirees or terminated vested members. We have projected all costs from
the July 1, 2008 valuation date to an assumed effective date of July 1, 2009 using standard
actuarial approximation techniques. By cost, we mean the increase in Normal Cost and an
amortization of any changes in unfunded liability. Cost will change over time as experience
develops.
Any pay increases due to an increase in covered positions that result in 2009 valuation pay
exceeding the 2008 valuation pay by more than 4% will result in the County's FY2010 or
FY2011 costs exceeding those implied by the figures shown below.
Description of Proposed Plan Provision Changes
• The service-connected disability retirement benefit amount for groups
A.
E, F, G and H
is:
1. For total incapacity: The greater of the accrued benefit or 70% of final earnings.
2. For all other disability, the greater of the accrued benefit or 52.5% of final
earnings. If the member meets the definition of Social Security disability, the
minimum benefit is 70% of final earnings.
A new approval board will be created by the County to review all disability claims.
Consulting. Outsourcing.
Investments.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MERCER
MARSH
MERCER
KROLL
OUVEH
WYMAN
GUY CAf./PHlTER
Page 2
January 9, 2009
Ms. Belinda Fulco
Montgomery County Government
• The non-service-connected disability retirement benefit amount and other plan
provisions are the same as described in our July 1, 2008 valuation.
Actuarial Assumptions
Assumption used are as follows:
The disability rates described in the July 1, 2008 valuation report have decreased by 2%
to reflect the anticipated change in disability rates due to the new disability approval
process.
For groups E and F, 90% of disabilities are still assumed to be service-connected.
However 63% of disabilities are assumed to collect the 52.5% benefit, and 27% are
assumed to take the 70% benefit.
For groups A and H, 45% of disabilities are still assumed to be service-connected.
However 22.5% of disabilities are assumed to collect the 52.5% benefit, and 22.5% are
assumed to take the 70% benefit.
For group G, 93% of disabilities are still assumed to be service-connected. And 62% of
disabilities are assumed to collect the 52.5% benefit, 26% are assumed to take the 70%
benefit and 5% are assumed to take another job (valued by reducing the disability
decrement by 5%).
All other assumptions are the same as those used in the July 1, 2008 valuation.
Per your request, we also estimated the impact on groups E and F based on the
following assumptions:
-
Scenario 1- 60% of disabilities would receive the 52.5% benefit and 30% would
receive the 70% benefit.
Scenario 2- 30% of disabilities would receive the 52.5% benefit and 60% would
receive the 70% benefit.
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
M RCER
MARSH MERCEf{ KROll
GUY CARPENTER OLIVER WYMAN
Page 3
January
9,2009
Ms. Belinda Fulco
Montgomery County Government
Estimated Costs of Proposed Changes
~~~!1l!~tSavings
usi'!9
40-~ear a.~orti.zati~_n
__._".__.,".. . . .
~
__
For represented and non-
represented members
For represented
members only
Group
A
Group E
(3r?~p~
.
$(98,000)
$(895,000)
$0
$(808,OOq)
.
§t<:)~pg
Group H
All groups
.
$(1,?9,!.99q)~( 1,?~,!.qqqt
....~(?~:qq9L
$(5!,qqq)
. . .
$(126.000)~(12§~900)
$(2.771.000)
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
$(2.526.000)
_~nnuC!L§avin9.s usin9~:~ear am()~r:tization~.~
______________
For represented and non­
represented members
For represented
members
. Group
A:
(3r?up E
Group F
Group G
Group H
All groups
O?,qqq)
.
~(~28,OqO)
.....................................................................................................................................................
$0
~(~~.8,00QL
..
$(1.652,000)
$(E31.00q)
$(132.000)
$(2.875,000)
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
$(1,59Q,000)
.~(E3Q,OOO)
.
. .
$(1~2:qOO)
~(?'E319,
ooq)
_Q~.~!~!se
in
A~!~arial
Accrued Liability
For represented and non­
represented members
For represented
members
Group A
E
Group F
(3r<:)~E§
$(877,000)~(3,000)
..
~.~~(~.~!§:OqO)
.....
$(1?,§'!E3,
oqq)
..................
_~~tE3!?~~cooq)
..
$(613.000)
Group':"i
.~(~:~ ?~,q09).....
............................_......~(~:~??:OqqL
~ AII~~~p~~
. .
~
.....
~............
........
~~(??,§?~!OOO)...._~
__..
.._.~JE9, 351·~OqL_._
.._ . . . . .
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
$(1?,O~?:OOq)
. . .
.~(?~~:OqqL
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MERe R
M"f
i
MARSH MERCER KROLL
GUY CARPENTER OLIVER WYMAN
Page 4
January
9, 2009
Ms. Belinda Fulco
Montgomery County Government
Scenario 1 - 60% of disabilities receive the 52.5% benefit and 30% of disabilities
receive the 70% benefit
Ar~nual
savings based on 40-year or
30-~ear
amortization
For represented and non­
represented members
For represented
members only
$E~~,900)
--~--------------
amortization
Group E
(3r(juP£
.~_...
All groups
30-yr amortization
$(
84
9,9
00 )
...
~~ !(!!~~~,090).~
$(2,615,000)
.......
~
..
~.m_ ._~._~(1
,437,000)
$(?,~~9,Q9Q)
.
Group§
Group F
AII.9.~(j~p~_
..~(8!1.qQO)
$(1,548,000)
.
...!(?!.!1~,9Q.QL....
Scenario 2 - 30% of disabilities receive the 52.5% benefit and 60% of disabilities
receive the 70% benefit
~_!,n!!!I.al
savings based
on_!Q-~ear
or
30-~ear
. :.; a;. .;. m; . .; o;. . rt.;. i.;. za.;. t; .;. io.:___________
~
.-n
For represented and non­
represented members
For represented
members only
amortization
Group§
(3E(jIJP .
~
. .
. . .
~.II
. .
9E(j.~P~
.
~
30-yr amortization
$(29
9,999)
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$(~~~,99Q)
. . . . . .
..............................!(1.!9~!~9q9)
.........................
. . ..............m.............................................
!(?E)E),999t . .
$(473,000)
..
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....!(~?~·q99L
_(3~C>IJP_
E
Group F
.~119EC>IJP~
!.(~91..!
.
Q9QL . .
.!.(?9~,9Q9)
$(1,099,000)
.............. ..!(?Z6.
0992.....
.....
!(~~1..gQO)
.._.. _._. .
,_,_,
" ___ , ••• ____________ u,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
!(
~e;~,9g9)
..
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MERCER
i
i
I
MNf
MARSH
MERCER
KROll
OLIVER WYMAN
GUY CARPENTER
PageS
January
9, 2009
Ms. Belinda Fulco
Montgomery County Government
""§c::~!1ari~t
and 2-
pec::~~!!~_!"
in Actuarial
~cc_r.;....u_ed_L_i_a_b_i_li!y"",--
_________
For represented
For represented and non-
represented members
members only
''',,''¥~~''''_~'m~_N~
"'~"''''''''''''
_ _'___
~''''''''''''N'''',"'''''''''''u,.".''''''''_N'''N'''''~_N
Scenario 1
"~"._.~,~~~_""_~,_'"''''
60%
of disabilities receive the
52.5%
benefit and
30%
of disabilities receive
the
70%
benefit
, . ,"",."
~~~"'''''~''''~,~
_ _ _, _ .___,_._."_ _ .........
m~n~.
,,~,,
_ _
N'~'
. Gr()LJp E
Group F
All groups
Scenario 2
$(6,874,000)
$(11!~57,000)
..................
~(E)~1!5?,999)
(~~~!~3E),qq9)
$(21,~~?,900)"
~~~)~,?10,000)."
..........................
30%
of disabilities receive the
52.5%
benefit and
60%
of disabilities receive
the
70%
benefit
...............................................
...... .... .
...$(2,~E)9,oqq)
$(3,967,000)
$(9,039,000)
~(2!.?~!5?qqq)
$(3,849,000)
Group E
Group F
All groups
. . . . .
~E,~q7}qqO)
Other Considerations
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any further information. I can be
reached at 202331 5211. I meet the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of
Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained in this letter. I am not aware of any direct
or material indirect financial interest or relationship, including investments or other services
that could create a conflict of interest that would impair the objectivity of our work.
Sincerely,
JJp~ ,9f,~.
Aquil Ahmed, ASA, EA, MAAA
Worldwide Partner
Copy:
Wes Girling, Montgomery County Government
Doug Rowe, Mercer
The information contained in this document (including any attachments) is not intended by
Mercer to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
i:lcli\rngewas\2009\disability costinglupdated new disability provisions .mpact.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Marc P. Hansen
Acting County Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CC:
Kathleen Boucher
Robert Drummer
Wes Girting
Marc Hansen
Edward Lattner
Amy Moskowitz
September 17,2010
Disability Retirement Legislation
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
You asked our office to review Bill 45-10. Similar to our review of Bill 37-08, our office has
concerns whether the proposed disability retirement legislation violates the contract clause of the
United States Constitution. Although uncertain, we believe that valid arguments can be made
that the effective date of the legislation substantially impairs the rights participants have under
collective bargaining contracts and under the Montgomery County Code in violation of the
contract clause. A Contract Clause violation can be avoided if the legislation applies to injuries
after the effective date of the legislation and after the expiration of the current collective
bargaining agreements (i.e., July 1,2011 for MCGEO and July 1,2012 for FOP). Because IAFF
already has partial disability benefits, the changes do not affect IAFF. A more detailed analysis
of the contract clause largely taken from our January 21, 2009 memorandum on similar changes
to the disability retirement law is set forth below. We also note that the Council's attorneys
disagreed with the January 21, 2009 memorandum.
Another concern regarding the legislation is that a participant will forfeit the right to a service
connected disability if "the member has committed an offense that
would justify removal
for
cause." We are unsure what this phrase means and how it would be implemented and/or
determined. Presumably as the administrator of the retirement system the CAO would make the
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
detennination but the legislation does not specify who makes the decision and how the
detennination is made. In other words, who supplies the proof that the offense committed would
justify removal for cause? The supervisor? A contract arbitrator? The Merit System Protection
Board? A court? The legislation should specify a detenninable standard (e.g., conviction by
court; plea or admission of guilt (including probation before judgment); detennination by Merit
System Protection Board).
Contract Clause Analysis
Article I, §10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall ... pass any
Law impairing the Obligations of Contracts ... ". Courts have held that this clause does not
prohibit governments from impairing contracts but limits a government's right to do so. A
contract violation occurs only if the government substantially impairs a party's right under the
contract. Legitimate expectations of the parties detennine whether the impainnent was
substantial. However, a government may substantially impair a contract if reasonable and
necessary to serve a legitimate public purpose. Courts generally defer to the government in
detennining the reasonableness and necessity of a particular measure, unless a government seeks
to impair its own contracts. Even where the government acts to impair its own contracts some
degree of deference is appropriate. Reasonableness is detennined in light of whether the contract
had "effects that were unforeseen and unintended by the legislature". Necessity means that the
government did not have a less drastic modification available and the government could not
achieve its goals without altering the contractual tenns. United States Trust of New York v. New
Jersey, 431 U.S. I (1977); Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234.
Maryland courts have held that pension plans statutes contain contractual rights between
employees and the government. Although the pension plans constitute contractual benefits,
under certain circumstances governments can modify the tenns as long as the changes do not
adversely affect the benefits, or if adversely affected, are replaced with comparable benefits.
City of Frederick v. Quinn, 371 A.2d 724 (1977). In Baltimore Teachers Union v. Mayor and
city Council, 6 F.3d 1012 (4
th
Cir. 1993) the Court noted that Supreme Court provided little
guidance as to what constitutes substantial impainnent, but assumes that a substantial
impainnent occurs where the right abridged was one that induced the parties to contract in the
first place ... ". In the employment context, the right to a specific pay is a key inducement.
The contract clause prohibits retroactive impainnent
Generally a contract clause issue only exists if the legislation operates retroactively to change
existing law and not prospectively. Maryland State Teachers Association, Inc. v. Hughes, 594 F.
Supp. (1984). In addition, reasonable modifications may be made before the occurrence of the
defined contingencies. Davis v. City of Annapolis, 635 A.2d 36 (1994). In Davis, the City
changed its disability law after the appellant's injury occurred. The Court held that the appellant
became vested in the benefit after the occurrence of condition necessary for benefits. The Court
did not discuss contract impainnent because the appellant's rights to disability benefits vested
under prior to adoption of the new law. Similarly, Howell v. Anne Arundel County, 14 F. Supp.
2d 752 (D. Md. 1998) recognizes that the contract clause only protects against retroactive
2
101 Monroe Street, Rockville, Maryland 20850-2540· amv.moskowitzrGimontgomervcountvmd.gov
240-777-6793 • TTD 240-777-2545 • Fax 240-777-6705
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
diminution of vested benefits and no contract clause violation occurs when legislation applies
prospectively to non vested plan benefits.
In order for a contract clause violation to occur for a pension plan statute, the legislation must
operate retroactively. The County Code contains the retirement plan which includes disability
retirement provisions and forms a contract. The legislation appears to operate prospectively
because it applies to disabilities filed after the legislation becomes effective. However, as
indicated in Davis and Howell, a right becomes vested after a party satisfies all conditions
necessary to receive the benefits. Therefore, this legislation may have a retroactive effect
because a party may have incurred an injury before the effective date and may file the
application after the legislation's effective date. While Council attorneys note that filing the
application is a condition necessary to receive the benefit, the Maryland courts have clearly
stated that it is the occurrence of the event which is a condition of becoming entitled to the
disability benefit. But a Contract Clause violation can be avoided if the legislation applies to
injuries incurred, rather than applications filed, after the effective date of the legislation.
The collective bargaining agreements
The County Code provides that unions and the County Executive negotiate certain rights,
including retirement and benefits, which includes disability retirement benefits. After a union
and the County Executive reach an agreement, the County Council can reject provisions
requiring legislation and provisions requiring funding. The current collective bargaining
agreements, which are also contracts, provide the right to specific disability retirement benefits
or provide that the parties will submit legislation regarding disability retirement. The agreements
detail what terms the legislation will include. Even after the parties submit the legislation and
the legislation becomes incorporated into the County Code, these disability retirement provisions
remain in the agreements. For example, even though the agreement states that the parties will
submit legislation by July 1, 1999 providing a certain level of benefits, by incorporating the
language into the current contracts, the parties intend that the benefits remain for the terms of the
contracts. By agreeing to the existing legislation, the County Council agrees to these terms with
the collective bargaining agreements becoming contracts of the County.
The collective bargaining agreements have terms lasting until 2011 and 2012, therefore the
legislation alters the terms of the existing contracts. Even though the legislation alters the
contracts, the County Council may do so if the changes do not substantially impair the existing
contract and the reason for the change is necessary and reasonable for the public good. The
change must be due to "effects that were unforeseen and unintended by the legislature" with no
other less drastic modification available and the County Council cannot achieve its goals without
altering the contractual terms.
One can argue that the legislation does not substantially impair the contract because the
legislation provides for an additional benefit, a partial disability. Therefore, more participants
may become entitled to a disability benefit whereas they may not have qualified for a complete
disability. In addition, the legislation does not remove disability retirements, and only alters the
benefits in certain cases. More importantly, the disability retirement benefit differs from a
retirement benefit because a participant only receives a disability benefit upon disability which is
3
101 Monroe Street, Rockville, Maryland 20850-2540' amv.moskowitz@montgomerycountvmqgQY
240-777-6793· TTD 240-777-2545· Fax 240-777-6705
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
an uncertainty and no participant can rely on the existence of a certain or specific disability
retirement benefit which he/she may never become entitled to receive.
One can also argue that the legislation does substantially impair the contracts. First, the unions
specifically bargained these benefits and presumably gave up other rights and benefits. Although
the legislation contains a partial disability, the legislation imposes a stricter standard in order to
receive a permanent disability and therefore becomes likely that a participant may receive a
lesser benefit. The January 2009 letter from the actuary assumes a cost savings because
participants will no longer qualify for a full disability and only qualify for a partial disability.
Data supplied by the Office of Human Resources in May 2009 supported this finding. For
inducement into taking certain jobs (e.g., police officers) participants will argue that they want to
ensure adequate financial protection in case of a disability and relied on the existence of these
benefits.
Because arguments may be made that the effective date of the legislation substantially impairs
the rights participants have under collective bargaining contracts, the next inquiry is whether any
impairment is permissible as a legitimate exercise of power. This turns upon the necessity and
reasonableness of the legislative act.
The necessity and reasonableness of a particular legislative act is a factual inquiry, making
comparison with other cases somewhat problematic. In Baltimore Teachers Union v. Baltimore,
6 F.3d 1012 (4
th
Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1141 (1994), the Fourth Circuit reversed the
district court and held that a city salary reduction plan adopted to meet immediate budgetary
shortfalls did not violate the Contract Clause. While the court found that the plan was a
substantial impairment, it concluded that the city's action was reasonable and necessary. The
city's financial integrity was a significant public purpose justifying city action.
It
is not enough to reason, as did the district court, that "the City
could have
shifted the burden from another governmental program," or that "it
could have
raised taxes."
Id.
(emphases added). Were these the proper criteria, no impairment
of a governmental contract could ever survive constitutional scrutiny, for these
courses are always open, no matter how unwise they may be. Our task is rather to
ensure through the "necessity and reasonableness" inquiry that states neither
"consider impairing the obligations of [their] own contracts on a par with other
policy alternatives" or "impose a drastic impairment when an evident and more
moderate course would serve its purposes equally well," United States Trust, 431
U.S. at 30-31, 97 S. Ct. at 1522, nor act unreasonably "in light of the surrounding
circumstances,"
id.
at 31, 97 S. Ct. at 1522. Andrews v. Anne Arundel County,
931 F. Supp. 1255, 1262-63 (D. Md. 1996) 931 F. Supp. 1255,1262-63.
The integrity of the disability retirement system, fiscal or otherwise, is a significant public
purpose justifying governmental action. But, as with significant impairment, it is difficult to
predict whether a court would conclude that this proposed bill is a legitimate exercise of power
under the Contract Clause. The most conservative course of action would be to make the
legislation effective after the term of the current collective bargaining agreements.
4
101 Monroe Street, Rockville, Maryland 20850-2540· amy,moskowitz(almontgomervcountvmd.gov
240-777-6793 • TTO 240-777-2545 • Fax 240-777-6705
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc.
18512 Oftice Park Drive
Montgomery Village,MD 20886
Phone: (301) 948-4286
Fax:
(301) 590-0317
/1J) )
Statement of Fraternal Order of Police,
Montgomery County Lodge 35, in opposition to bill 45-10
September 28, 2010
Once again over eleven hundred police officers find their certified representative with
just 180 seconds in a political forum to address the merits of legislation that could
place them and their children in financial jeopardy. That's 0.16 seconds per officer-­
an impossible task.
I remind you that we are not some "special interest" seeking something from the
government. We are Montgomery County police officers, county government
employees. We work for you. We have an employee-employer relationship with
you, not all that different than the one you have with your own well-compensated
staff. Do you consider the CAO a "special interest"? Your council staff director?
The OHR director? We are an important part of government function and mission.
Police officer disability benefits are critically important to police officers, their
families, and the community that relies on them in life and death situations 365 days a
year,
2417
-
while you sleep and in all sorts of weather and on family holidays.
We do not have time here to give this matter the justice both it and your police
officers deserve. The playing field here is not level. For instance, a 52.5% benefit is
proposed by this legislation, but the origins of the 52.5% figure are not revealed other
than to say that Group G fire employees have that level benefit. Similarly, maybe
someone should ask why Group F police employees are not seeking a 70% benefit.
There has been no discussion of the different criteria that apply to a Group G service­
connected disability versus a Group F service-connected disability.
There has been little interest in changing the disability benefit for police management
who do not have collective bargaining rights, yet the poster boys for the issue are
former well-compensated management assistant police chiefs who went on to other
law enforcement positions before applying for disability benefits.
The bargaining table is where this matter belongs at the appropriate time and where it
can be given due attention by the parties. That is where facts trump politics and
distortions, and biased media hype. (This anti-Collective Bargaining bill is an
unconstitutional attempt to impair a valid, just executed contract.)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
By way of quick example, we repeat what has been ignored by the media and
detractors:
We already have a two-tier system of disability.
The absolute,
unadulterated truth is that all eligible disabled officers get at least tier 1 - 66 2/3
percent. More severely disabled officers receive the tier 1 benefit
plus
the integrated
retirement pension system's tier 2 benefit provided by Social Security.
Only through Collective Bargaining can this critically important issue receive the
attention it deserves and can unintended consequences be avoided. (The issue was
indeed raised by the Executive this year and dropped by the Executive who made the
decision to not take it to arbitration, as was his right.)
For twenty-eight years, FOP Lodge 35 has abided by the spirit and intent of the
collective bargaining law.
It
served us well until the process was violated by the
County. We want to bargain in an orderly manner according to process, so our
member police officers can serve the community without distraction or disruption.
We do not end run the process, but this legislation is a short-sighted attempt to tum
back the clock.
It
was through collective bargaining that we voluntarily gave up 4.25% General wage
Adjustments two years in a row.
However, no police officer should ever be forced to hesitate before taking action.
This bill heads in the wrong direction. Our position has been consistent since the
early 1980s. We do not want the County to retire disabled police officers. We want
the County to keep as many service-connected disabled officers as possible
productively employed with dignity and respect in meaningful police officer
positions. That is the intent of our Contract Article 11. We do not want officers
forced out through assignment of degrading work, disrespect, and harassment.
The County cannot have it both ways by forcing officers out then complaining that
they have received a benefit
There is no emergency here. Just last year we agreed to new reporting timeframes
and a five-year disability application deadline. (Bil137-08.) These new time frames
have not been given a chance to achieve their intended purposes.
Our normal retirement benefit is lower than area jurisdictions. For example, the
normal retirement in Fairfax County is better than the disability benefit for a
Montgomery County officer. The disability benefit for a Fairfax County police
officer forced from his/her position is 66 2/3 percent.
The provision that an employee who "has committed an offense that would justifY
removal for cause" has not been bargained and has not been given the consideration it
demands. Who decides "would justifY"? What if an officer is severely injured saving
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
demands. Who decides "would justify"? What if an officer is severely injured saving
lives and is in great pain and, as a direct result of the pain caused by the injury, s/he
abuses drugs and alcohol that leads to other problems that arguably "would justify
removal for cause," is it the position of this Council that this officer isn't injured?
That s/he did not perform admirably resulting in a job-related injury? Or simply that
we need to punish injured officers for not handling their pain the way the County
Council in an election year thought they should?
There is a lot more to say. I am out of time.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
..
-'-"'"
By KENNETH WEISS
.
"~.'!
Joum.1
Slatf W",er
9
DisabjE~d
Officers
May
'Forced
Out
Be
Police officers
who~'an
no longer' work on the street because of
dio:;abilities should be forced to retire early to save the department
money, a top police administrator has recommended.
The recommendation;
in
an
inu~rnal
memorandum from Major
Frederick Chaney
to
Chief Bernard D. Crooke, proposes that nine
disabled officers be forced
to
seek disabilitv retirement because they
are holding desk jobs that "could be absorbed by civilian personnel
at a much lower
cost.'~
,
Chaney said no on"e
has
been targeted for early retirement and no
decisions have been made because the memo is still only a
r~ommendation.
.
'But news of the recommendation - and the list of name!' - has
leaked out
to
the nine officers. who are now worried about losing
their careers. And the police union
is
taking their side,
"They are deciding to dean house lacking
an':
compassion for
any
officers involved," said one eight-year pollee ofricer. who was in
Please see DISABLED, /,,7
...
-----------------------------­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
DiSabled:
Nine
Officers
May
Be Forced to Retire
, ",
T;;.
"
~.
!,worn officer, includinj: the ninE' listed. should be
given jobs of comparable pay elsewhere in the
......-
-
"
county government or refelTed to the retirement
"Thev make me feel like dead wood." said the board, the memo says.
officer;. 'who asked to remain anonymous. ''They
Ofc. Walter Bader. president of the Fraternal
make me fei!ltike I'm of no value,"
, -' 'Order of Police, said
il
isn't fair to ask a career offi­
Seven of tht'nine officers work in desk jobs or cer
to
give up his career or take'a substantial re­
duction in pay by going on disabilir.v.
hold other:"sedentary positions" that do not de­
mand the
~esponsibiiitiel"
of a full-sworn officer,
Bader. who said he has talked to several of the
including having arrest powers. wearing a uni·
targett'd officers, said they fear for their jobs. "To
form, handling a gun and driving a police car,
f!0
from
528.000
a year to $7000 a year ion disabil­
Chaney
said..
';i·::':
1..·~
,
'
ity retirement) is Quite a shock," he said.
~
..These.. .
officerS·~e·
at a dea'd
~nd
for any
possi~
"It
is a difficult issue,' with no eas\' answers ..
ble upward mobility and they are functioning in
Major Chaney said. "The whole issue 'of disabilitv
positions that could be .absorbed
by
civilian per­
is
very sensitive..
"
..
­
sonnel at a much lower, co,st,"
his
memo says.
"It is difficult
~o
place
sometl~e
wh? cannot
pe~.
: The memo includes a
draft.
oT a letter to be sent
form the functions of a sworn police officer ..
to
the disabled officers urging them to retire.
-'.
'
Chane\' said.
.
. "If
you do not apply for disability, retirement
Bufhe
~d
he felt it isprofitable'for the county .'
v..'ithin thirtv davs from the date of
this
letter. the
government to keep long-time officers - even If
department
will~
institute the necessary proceed­
they are disabled - because of their valuable
.ings." the letter :says. '
.;..~
_.,
experience.. . ,
- A
dWibilit,Y p'ari'ei, comprised of die three police
"There are a number of
offi~ers
who have been
department majors, is responsible for reviewing
in the department for a number of years. I don't
each case and deciding the fate of injured or
dis­
think
it
would be
fair
to them or to
t!"i
county gov­
abled 'officers.. -. "
-
.
.'"
.-.....
ernment
to
push them out," he
said,:~:,',~.··
. The memo was sent
to
Crooke as a recommend­
Chaney said the disability
paner;eli~;=~n
doc­
-ed change in policy following a panel meeting May
20.:
L
.", ,'.
'
'.
.
tors' suggestions as to what kind of job each in­
.
..
''­
jured officer is capable ofbandling. __ ' , ,
Chief Crooke said through a spokesman that he
John
H.
Conrad. a Rockville attomev who has
has sent the memo back
to
his staff for additional
handled
man~'
disabilty cases for county emplov­
information.
ees. said it
is
not unusual for the government to
· According
to
the memo, the department's dis­
to
force employees to retire
earl~'
on disability
t~
· Ability pohcy si/Zlled by Crooke
in
1980
"has a very save mone,\',
.liberal approach in dealing 111'1th officers. The po­
'lice disability panel supports a more strict inter­
He said the county government is self-insured
pretatlOn
in
the 8."8lgnment of police officers who and has
to
bear the full brunt of workmen's com­
an·.medically cenified as
ha\in~
a permanent dis­
pensatloll claim.'; while an employee is recuperat.
From PageA1
jured in an automobile accident while on dutv.
"
~
.
-
-,/
':.
m
· ohlm" JnJury:'
mg.,
· . As
it
is
now, disabled officers are found compa- '
~rable
jobs within the depanment.which they can
rperform with their disability. Or, at their option..
'the-
officers may' be transferred toa comparable
job somewhere else in the county government. . :
The pro-po;ed "strict approach" makes.8
di~~
tinction between disabled officers who can' per­
·form.most.of the duties of a sworn. officer, such be­
ing
pb;ysically
prePAf!!d
to
&JT~t
someone or shoot.:
i:
~~/:~~d;f::'~~;#~ ~~~:le~ ~~~c:~ra~w~o
...
~u:.;ocov;::=ti:n~:the eo~ty m.0~e~~ w~rk.
ChBneysald there are.12
~~ficer8
wh<! :- af! -,
These
offict;~.
the memo suggests.
8ho~ld
be
placed m a po8Jtion of
com~arable
rank Within the
depa.rtmeD~,
or elsewhere
l~
the
~ounty
govern­
menL
If
neither type of Job
18
available, then the
officer sbould be referred for retirement, the
memo proposes. .
.
Pohce who cannot perform all the dutIes of a
Conrad said hjs experience has been that
lnt:
county government
will
try
to
force the employeE:
to retire on permanent disabilty because it holds a
permanent disability retirement policy with AET­
NA Insurance
Co.
~~
':'''' :.-
~
...
Aot: .../
Since the county
paid
itS
premiums
f~r
the
disability retirement plan, it co.StB the county
nothing for
II
person
to
retire.
.. But
if
a diSabled worker doesn't immediately rt'­
!
i
has
II
~perform
all the d\ltles ofa sworn officer.
~hough
they have
~ome
dlsablhty - contmue to
"What they are
d~ing
is
legal
b\if-ouj' .
un­
fair," Conrad said.
"If
you work
fOT
IBYf.anlwere
hurt on the job, you'd get both (long and short-
tem disability). Buf working for the county,
VOU
may not get both.
­
"What really galls
me
is
when they move in ear-
Iy,
and not give enough time
to
the injured man or
';"oman who hasn't gone through the treatment to
see
if
they can
be
cured and come back to work,"
he said.
.
to
I
I
.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(o(s
September 28, 2010
13512 Bonnie Dale Drive
1'\orth Potomac, MD 20878
Reference:
Bill 45-10, Personnel- Disability Retirement - Eligibility - Total and Partial
Incapacity
Good afternoon, President Floreen and members of the council.
I am Tom Wellington, a resident of the North Potomac Area and speaking for myself today.
I would like to repeat my support for Bill 45-10 as presented in earlier testimony. I am in favor
of modification to the present provisions of Montgomery County for police disability. As
presented in earlier testimony, there is an urgent need for "middle ground" in the definition of
disability available to our public servants. Bill 45-10 will allow the county to make a
determination ofless than total disability in the cases of retirement provisions for our police
officers. Having an option for determining partial disability will allow a more fair and equitable
determination of disability benefits in these cases. This option will also provide a consistent
definition of partial disability for all Montgomery County Public Safety employees.
In addition, I ask that the Council request the Office of the County Executive to continue review
of the existing cases on the disability rolls to detern1ine \vhether these benefits should be
continued.
Both measures will have a positive effect on reducing the future revenue requirements to be
placed on Montgomery County taxpayers while providing a fair method of compensation for our
dedicated police officers who may be injured in the line of duty.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
Thomas C Wellington.
301
51-0311
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony of Trang Nguyen
Opposition of Council Bill No. 45-10 to Reduce Disability Payments for MCPD Officers
Date: September 28,2010
I am here to today to oppose Council Bill No. 45-10 to reduce disability benefits for the police
officers who patrol our streets and keep us safe. You have denied them extra manpower and
funding for new equipment. You have denied them their increments and cost of living increases.
And now you are going after their disability - to what end? To save another penny so favored
pet projects can be funded for specialty groups that are currently politically favored?
However, what is almost always forgotten and rarely acknowledged in a positive light is that
police officers are the people you expect to instantly respond to your
911
calls for help. They are
the ones that you expect should deal with the criminal element of society. They are the ones
you expect to put their lives on the line to "protect and serve" because they swore an oath when
they accepted the badge and gun.
What is the value of someone who chooses this profession over a private sector job with great
benefits, physical, and financial security? Should consideration be taken for their sacrifices in
exchange for their selfless services? For life of service to our community. what benefits should
they receive if they were to get injured in the line of duty? Yes- consideration should be taken
for a group of people who opted for a life of community service over taking a fat salary and a
corner office.
As a tax paying, law abiding citizen of Montgomery County I would rather have my taxes be
used for our police officers then used for the over bloated salaries of County managers and
wasteful projects like funding wooden decks for HUD homes or a nice bathroom for day
laborers.
You should not be looking to cut disability payments to any police officer who has been injured
in service to this community and is therefore unable to continue in his/her chosen profession.
You should not be looking to cut disability benefits of the late Officer Hector Ayala who died
while responding to a call in his district leaving a young wife and four small children under the
age of 4 behind. With such small children. she needs all the financial help to raise them.
You should not be looking to cut the disability payments of former MCPD Officer Don Cox who
nearly died when his cruiser got t boned while he was on patrol and now has to live in constant
pain for the rest of his life.
And why do you care you ask me? My husband is County officer. I worry about his safety and
well being every single time he walks out the front door, and now you are asking me to worry
about his long term welfare and the well being of our family should he get disabled while
performing his duty ..
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony before the County Council
on Bill 45-10, Personnel-Disability Retirement- Eligibility-Total and Partial Incapacity
September 28, 2010
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Bill 45-1 0 related to disability retirement. I
am Joan Fidler, President of the Montgomery County Taxpayers League and I am here today to
commend Council members Trachtenberg, Andrews and Berliner for sponsoring this bill. You
have shown considerable courage in devising this new two-tier system for disability retirements,
one that I'm sure will not gain you many kudos from the unions. As taxpayers we thank you for
recognizing the fiscal unsustainability of the current system and its drain on the greatly
diminished revenues of Montgomery County.
Let me state, at this juncture, that the problem lies not with County employees (though there have
been several egregious examples of abuse by County public safety personnel), the problem lies
with the current system that invites abuse. Thus from 1985 - 2008, 40 percent of retiring police
officers retired on disability pay. The current system, not the people, needs strengthening. This
new, two-tiered system is a more fair approach to dealing with disabilities incurred by employees
in the discharge of their duties and is an important step in the right direction.
It
distinguishes
between employees suffering total incapacity and thus unable to engage in gainful employment
and those who suffer a temporary incapacity for 12 months. A clearer definition of the two
might be more useful in the implementation of the BilL The devil,
in
implementation, will lie, as
usual, in the details.
Many, if not all, of the surrounding jurisdictions, employ a two-tier system for disability
retirements and none of them appear to have lost the ability to either recruit or retain highly
qualified personneL Fairfax County, yes in a right-to-work state, has a handful of disability
retirements. Howard County has had no disability retirements of its public safety personnel in
the last 12 months. Both Fairfax and Howard counties exercise substantial follow through.
There are many positives in Bill 45-10. To name two:
(1)
retirees receiving disability-related
pensions must, on an annual basis, send a copy oftheir federal tax return to the Chief
Administrative Officer in the absence of which the pension payments are suspended. (2) the
Disability Review Panel must rely on the assessment of an independent vocational expert to
base a determination regarding "substantial gainful activity".
A few recommendations from the Taxpayers League: (1) the definitions of total and partial
incapacity should be more sharply delineated, and (2) annual reviews of the status of those
receiving disability pensions should be conducted by medical personnel independent of both
management and labor.
The Taxpayers League supports Bill 45-10.
Thank you.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARC LEFFER, M.D., M.P.H.
23 Latimore Way
Owings Mills, MD 21117
SSN: xxx-xx-2610
Home: (410) 363-4844
Cell: (410) 215-8151
e-mail: mleffel'(iVcomcasLnet
EDUCATION
University
of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia PA
Fellowship in Occupational Medicine for Working Professionals
August 2007-June 2008
Selected as one of eight fellows from a large pool of working
professionals. Coursework included comprehensive review of cutting
edge theory in all aspects of occupational medicine by leaders of the
business community (including nanoteclmology, focus on the healthy
worker and the economics of the workplace, the worker environment,
toxic exposure in the workplace, epidemiology, worker outcomes
research). Also included hands-on media training in front of television
cameras focusing on how to stay on message and use bridging to
accentuate the positives of a company's response to a public health
issue.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public "Health, Baltimore MD
NIH Post-Doctoral Fellowship, 1990-1992
Fellow in Health Service Research
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD
Master of Public Health, 1990-1991
Polyclinic Medical Center, Harrisburg PA
Chief Resident, Family Practice, 1988-1990
Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston SC
Family Practice Residency, 1985-1987
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York NY
M.D., 1981-1985
UNDERGRADUATE
EDUCATION
University
of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia PA
B.A., GeneticslMinor Psychology, 1977-1981 (Phi Beta Kappa)
University
of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh Scotland
Exchange Program, 1979-1980
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Senior Occupational Medicine Consultant, Federal Occupational Health
STG International, Inc.
November 2009 - Present
Employed by STG International, Inc. under contract to Federal Occupational Health within the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Consult with multiple federal agencies concerning
occupational health policies, including U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Emergency
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Leffer (page 2)
Management Administration (FEMA); Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Medical Director for Injury Care and Wellness, Division of Government Contracts,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
August - November 2009
Provide administrative services as well as patient care for multiple federal and local government agencies,
including U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and Montgomery County, MD fire department.
Medical Director, Bureau of Engraving and Printing,
U.S.
Department of the Treasury
STG International, Inc.
March - August 2009
Employed by STG International, Inc. under contract to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of
Engraving and Printing. Serve as medical director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) on-site
occupational health clinic. Provide and supervise occupational health and wellness services to all BEP
employees and contractors,
includi~g:
yearly medical monitoring examinations of employees; injury care;
supervision of occupational health nurses and other on-site staff; administrative support to BEP, including
assistance in adjudication of workers' compensation claims and arrangement for independent medical
evaluations (IMEs) as necessary, including identification of outside physicians for consultations.
Occupational Medical Director, Concentra Medical Centers
2005-March 2009
Columbia MD (2007-present)
Baltimore, MD (2005-2007)
Provide medical direction and clinical services for over 150 corporate clients representing thousands of
employees. Provide clinical toxicologic expertise for multiple workplace exposures. I have performed
yearly toxicological screens for hundreds of employees, including evaluation of lead, zinc, protoporphyrin,
arsenic, cadmium, RBC cholinesterase- for organophosphate exposure and mercury. I have performed
numerous walkthroughs in various facilities, encouraging engineering innovations as the ideal way to
minimize toxicological exposures in the work place. Other occupational medical services that I provide
include: the evaluation and treatment of occupational injuries; emergencies; pre-placement physicals; stress
testing; immigration physicals; surveillance for blood borne pathogen exposures; travel consults; dive
physicals; respiratory physicals, including evaluation of pulmonary function tests; fitness for duty
evaluations; workplace walkthroughs; workplace evaluations; Department of Transportation exams for
commercial drivers licenses. Supervise a staff of 16 employees, including a physician assistant, numerous
part time physicians, an occupational therapist, a radiology technologist, a center administrator, multiple
medical assistants, multiple front office staff and sales personnel. Thorough working knowledge of
National Fire Protection Association regulations. Obtained FBI clearance to perform medical evaluations
on FBI employees. Consulted with multiple employers for toxic exposure issues and other public health
Issues. Significant achievements:
Strong professional commitment to concept that healthy employees operating in a culture of
workplace wellness is the key to workplace cost containment, while striving for a safe work
environment with objective of zero hazard risks.
Demonstrated ability to bridge differences and align incentives across diverse constituencies in a
cardiac fitness intervention that I initiated and am in the process of carrying out with the Howard
County Fire Department. Successfully brokered a win-win arrangement among the Howard
County firefighters, their union, the Howard County municipality and corporate Concentra
management.
Personally developed and carried out a workplace wellness initiative at the Columbia, MD clinic
focused on fast food cessation, paying employees not to eat fast food and documenting a 200
calorie decrease in daily calorie intake among participating employees.
Personally developed and carried out a workplace pedometer study in two Concentra medical
centers documenting a 0.9mile per day difference in distance walked over the course of the
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
All Opinions Are Local - The Disability Debate Redefined
Page 1 of 4
Hello mleffer
NEWS
Sign Out
LOCAL
Subscribe
POLITICS
Mobile
Multimedia
Today's Paper
Business
Arts
&
Living
Going Out
OPINIONS
SPORTS
. .,j
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . ._... .-.. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.
..
..
AT& T
covers
97%
of
0/1
Americar
washingtonpost.com
>
Opinions
>
All Opinions Are Local
All Opinions Are
Local
A
forum
on
hot topics
in
D.C.,
Maryland
and
Virginia
SEARCH THIS BLOG
The Disability Debate Redefined
By
Marc Leffer
Owings Mills, Md.
As an occupational medicine physician in the Washington area, I have
been following the debate over
bgY'{1~refQ~rnMQ[lJ9QJI1E;l.lYs:;;_QIdJJ1Y-~~
9J§?!?lUt.yr~liI~m~nt$.y$.t~m.
RECENT POSTS
• A proper tribute to
Sister Denise
• The human cost of
immigration
dysfunction
• Virginia's education
backsliding
The diagnosis of disability varies from worker to worker and over time.
Any disability "rule" that lumps all injured workers into one category
permanently makes no sense.
Yet a more important question in this debate remains unanswered. The
uproar in Montgomery started because data surfaced showing that 60
percent of police officers who retired between 2004 and 2008 were
collecting disability payments. The question that should have been asked
(and answered) in the first place is: "Is it acceptable to any of the
stakeholder groups in Montgomery County to have 60 percent of police
officers retire as disabled?" I think that the obvious answer is no.
So what needs to be done to reduce this rate of disability?
Over the past two years, I have been working with the Howard County
Fire Department and the FBI office in Baltimore. With the Howard fire
department, I have been involved in a two-year health initiative to
implement the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) health
standard. The NFPA devised this standard because roughly half of all
firefighter deaths nationwide were the result of heart attacks. The NFPA
set out to change these statistics.
1:
;
:~:;::::::~
:::Od
for truffles from
Safeway?
I •
Baltimore
• D.C.
I •
Chesapeake Bay
• Confederate flag
• D.C. politics
• DC United
1
1~~~i:!:~~~:t:~Ory
• Arlington
httn" /
/voi~p<::
w~<::hin{1tonno<::t ~om/lo~~
l-oninion<::I?OOOIO"lthp
c1i<::~hilitv c1ph~tp
Tpc1pfinph
O1?7J?010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
All Opinions Are Local - The Disability Debate Redefined
Page 2 of4
• DC Vote
• DMV
• Fairfax County
• Fenty
• Georgetown
• HIV
• HotTopic
• Inauguration
• Local Bloggers Network
• Local blog network
• Marion Barry
• Maryland
• Mayor Fenty
• Metro
• Montgomery County
• My Endorsement
• National Mall
• PG County
• Pimlico
• Prince George's County
• Prince William County
• Purple Une
• Takoma
• Tysons Corner
• UDC
• University of Maryland
• Va. Politics
• Virginia
• arts
• crime
• day care
• development
• disability pay
• domestic violence
• economy
• education
• energy
• environment
• faith
• guns
• health care
• history
• housing
• immigration
• media
• military
• parks
Because work-related injuries are linked to disability rates, Montgomery
County should try to curtail its disability rate among police officers by
putting a similar health initiative in place. In the Howard County program,
firefighters are responsible for keeping themselves in good
cardiovascular shape and passing a yearly cardiovascular endurance
test. However, the fire department helps by funding a gym in the
firehouse, allowing exercise time during the workday, and providing all
age-based preventive health services free of charge to firefighters.
In this system, all the stakeholder groups have incentives to keep
firefighters healthy. As a result, the Howard County Fire Department
recorded a 40 percent reduction in work-related injuries in the first year
after the initiative was implemented and a 60 percent reduction in work- .
related injuries after the second year. In addition, for every dollar spent
on this program, $4.50 was saved on injury care.
Although a national standard has not yet been completed for police
officers, the FBI's Baltimore field office has applied a similar health
program for its agents. It requires a cardiovascular endurance test and
provides a great workplace gym, as well as work time for exercise.
The stakeholders in Montgomery County -- including police officers, their
union, the county executive and political representatives -- could agree
on a sensible policy to keep police officers healthy. They could also
agree on rules for handling the reduced number of officers with
disabilities on an individual basis. Money could be saved on the disability
retirement program as well as on police department medical costs. The
stakeholders could then focus on what to do with all their vibrant, active
retired police officers.
By Marisa Katz
I
May 24, 2009; 12:00 AM ET
Categories: Montgomery County , disabilit:i..mll'
Spon
Penn
Save
www.
Mort!
If you
Progr
'/'lww.
Save & Share:
'fg
Previous:
Th~LG.QQ...(t
an.!L6.!'!{tof
TIaffic;.E.nfim::elll.!tlJ.t
Next:
WrongW~Y.1Q.EigIJLG~tlg.crj1J1e
II
; Sponsored links
Penny Stock to Watch - RMGX
Save the planet AND make money! Consider investing today.
www.dPoliution.com
Mortgage Rates Hit 3.25%
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
www.SeeRefinanceRates.com
Travel Guard© Insurance
20+
Years of Travel Experience! Coverage Starting at $30.
www.TraveIGuard.com
Buy a link here
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2009105/the~
disability_debate_redefine.h...
9/27/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
To:
Montgomery County Council
Doug Soskin
From:
Date:
Re:
9/28/10
Bill 45-10
Message:
GDod Afternoon: My name is Doug Soskin and I am a resident of Poolesville Maryland. I
am here in support of the Men and Women of the Montgomery County Police
department and I oppose this bill.
We ask our police force to protect and serve. They do so while accepting their role as
police officers has inherent risks that many other professions do not share. These risks can
put our officers in harm's way to ensure our children and neighborhoods remain a
safe place. As a community our goal should be to attract and retain the very best officers.
We can accomplish this with a benefits package that ensures in the event they are injured
protecting our community the community
will
in
tum
do our best to protect them.
We put a lot of trust in our officers. We trust them to keep our children safe, our homes
secure and our communities' crime free. We also trust that they respect their fellow officers
and the community for which they work and do not misuse their roles or their benefits.
It
is this trust that makes our community unique and one of the nation's best places to live and
work.
My concern with this bill is it may cause officers to question if they should take some of the
risks we ask of them, or that we lack the trust and respect for the role our police officers
have
within
our community. For this reason I oppose this bill.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
Testimony on Bill 45-10
Dwight Cramer
September 28, 2010
I am a long time resident of this county, since 1965, and have testified before this Council
before, as well as before various Maryland legislative committees.
In this period of fiscal trauma, it is reasonable that the County Council should be looking
for ways to save money. There is one way now under consideration, Bill 45-10, that
would do that. At the same time, the bill would achieve its primary purpose of providing
a fairer system of disability compensation for county employees.
Under bill 45-10, it would be possible to provide the more rational system of disability
benefits to county employees that is eminently fair. The change, to provide a two tier
system of benefits, would hurt no one.
As well defined in the bill, those qualified for partial disability would receive 52 12% of
final earnings. As the system now works, such employees receive the maximum amount
of 70%, regardless of degree of severity of the disability. This is obviously an unjustified
charge against the county budget as the employee would be able to continue to eam a
salary in certain other capacities. The two tier system used for the fire and rescue
employees shows the way for the enactment of this bill.
It
is only fair that all the county
employees receive comparable disability compensation. Some should not benefit more
than others. At the same time the county could save about $2.7 million. What can be
wrong with that??
Once again, I stress that no one will be hurt if this bill is passed, disabled employees will
receive a fair amount for partial disability, the same as the Fire and Rescue employees,
and the county could save $2.7 million, not an insignificant amount
in
these difficult
times.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
!o//}__
Good Afternoon, my name is Douglas Gross and I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak
to you on this very important topic.
I am speaking as a private citizen but I come with a unique perspective of having represented
law enforcement officers in this community for greater than 20 years with regard to personal injuries,
workers' compensation benefits and more recently with disability retirement benefits. I am concerned
regarding the proposed bill § 45-10 and the rush to which it is sought to be implemented.
As an attorney, I am troubled by the bill's language and use of the phrases "disability,"
"impairment," and "incapacity" seemingly interchangeably as well as the reporting time for
psychological and occupational disease claims which by definition are slow and insidious in nature.
These are terms of art and have independent meanings.
But the bigger issue for me as a citizen and an outsider to the process, concerns the manner in
which this is being sought to be implemented. The current SCDR system was arrived at through arms­
length bargaining with a quid pro quo.
The police, through their union, sought to give emphasis to a solid disability retirement
program that would ensure that those law enforcement officers injured in the line of duty would be
financially taken care of and would be able to provide for their families and loved ones should they no
longer be able to work as an officer due to the inherent hazards of their profession. However, those
same officers gave up other important benefits to achieve this. This Council now seeks to unilaterally
void the agreement without the quid pro quo.
What are the unintended consequences of such actions? I know from my experience that the
vast majority of all officers want to continue working and continue to serve the department and this
community. When this bill was raised last year, however, a panic was created so that anyone who
might have been eligible for SCDR was put in fear of their benefits changing, further skewing the
numbers ofthose officers applying. What are the other unintended consequences.
This is a complex issue on multiple levels and must be considered in relation to the entire
retirement structure. Modifications to the system should be made through collective bargaining and
done so with a scalpel, not a sword.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
www.dcexaminer.com» Local News
Page 1 of2
(!~
PRINTTHIS
Local News
[print] LEmaill
Firefighter who quit after sex assault conviction
draws disability payments
By
Alan Suderman
Examiner Staff Writer 2/16/09
A Montgomery County firefighter who quit the force three years ago after he was convicted of sexually
assaulting a female subordinate is currently receiving tax-free disability payments from the county.
To some county officials, it's another example of a broken disability pension system that needs to stop
approving payments for county workers if they've committed a crime or some other act that would get
them fired.
Public safety unions have opposed those efforts. Union officials say that any of their members who are
hurt on the job ought to be compensated, regardless of future or past transgressions they are accused of
committing.
In August 2005, Aaron Weitzman was a lieutenant in the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service
when he locked himself in a bathroom with a female co-worker, lifted up her shirt and started kissing
parts of her body against her wiH, according to court records. A jury convicted Weitzman in December
2006 of assault. He was sentenced to a year of unsupervised probation.
A month after his conviction, Weitzman quit the fire department with an application pending for service­
related disability pay. In June 2006, he was notified that he had qualified and would receive payment
going back to Jan. 20, 2006, his last day on the job.
Reached by phone, Weitzman confirmed that he was a former Montgomery County firefighter who was
receiving pay for neck and arm injuries, but declined further comment.
Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association President John Sparks declined to comment
specifically about Weitzman's case but added: "I don't see a connection between ajob status and the
disability retirement process .... They're not intertwined."
A county spokeswoman said Weitzman's final salary when he left county employment was $61,558 a
year, but added the county could not release information about Weitzman's disability pay, including
how much the county is paying him a year and whether he applied for disability payments before or after
he was charged.
http://www. printthis.c1ickabiJity .comJptlcpt?action=cpt&title=www.dcexaminer.com+%3E...
2117/2009
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
www.dcexaminer.com
»
Local News
Page 2 of2
In
a report last September, Montgomery County Inspector General Thomas Dagley highlighted four
fonner Montgomery County police officers who applied for disability pay either shortly before or
directly after pleading guilty to various crimes, including theft and misconduct in office. The three
officers who received disability pay averaged more than $30,000 each in tax-exempt pensions last year.
Two members of the County Council and County Executive Ike Leggett have said they were working to
change the way the county detennined disability benefits to be able to exclude fonner county workers
who've been fired for intentional wrongdoing. Union officials have promised to oppose those efforts.
Find this article at:
http://www.dcexaminer.comllocaIlFirefighter-who-quit-after-sex-assault-conviction-draws-disability-payments_02_17-39688397.html
D
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
http://www.printthis.clickability .comlptlcpt?action=cpt&titie=www.dcexaminer.com+%3 E...
2/17/2009
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Joseph F. Beach
Director
MEMORANDUM
September 24, 20 I 0
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Joseph
F.
Beach, Dire
\"\
1
1
,'"
Expedited Bill 45-
1r,'
ersonnel Disability Retirement Eligibility - Total and Partial
Incapacity
The purpose ofthis memorandum
is
to transmit a ftseal and economic impact statement
to the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
This legislation creates for all eligible County employees a two-tiered service connected
disability retirement system identical to the system now in place for uniformed Fire and Rescue
Department employees.
It
also prohibits employees who commit certain offenses from receiving a
service connected disability retirement benefit:, defines partial and total incapacity, and makes other
changes.
FISCAL_AND ECONOMIC SUMMARY
This legislation provides either a partial incapacity benefit of at least
521h%
of fmal
earnings or a total incapacity benefit ofat least
70%
of fmal
earnings.
The current system provides
a
service-connected disability retirement benefit ofat least
66%%
offmal
earnings
for partial and for total
incapacity for all except uniformed fire and rescue employees.
The fiscal impact of
this
legislation cannot
be
precisely estimated since it depends on
how many disability retirees fall into each ofthe two tiers. Mercer, the plan actuary, has provided
estimates ranging from
60«%
ofdisabled retirees receiving a benefit for
partial
incapacity and
30%
receiving
a
benefit for total incapacity to
30%
receiving partial and
6()o/~
receiving the total incapacity
benefit
1,
resulting in annual savings ranging from
$1.0
million to
$2.6
million. The decrease in the
actuarial accrued liability ranges from $9.0 million to $21.3 million. lfmore applicants receive the lower
benefit, the savings will be greater;
if
more applicants receive the higher benefit, the savings
will