Baltimore County?s former auditor Wednesday launched an appeal of his retirement allowance, accusing county administrators of withholding $87,000 and shortchanging other employees.
Citing a dispute over the way the county calculated his pension, Brian Rowe, 60, resigned in April after 12 years as county auditor. Rowe took his case to the county?s Board of Appeals on Wednesday.
“They should not be able to hold this man hostage for money he is entitled to,” said Rowe?s attorney, Virginia Barnhard.
The county hired Rowe in 1995 after 18 years as chief financial officer of the state?s retirement system. State law requires counties to credit employees who transferred from government jobs with noncontributory retirement plans.
The county can reduce pensions by the amount the employees would have contributed during time in the other system, plus 5 percent interest compounded annually, Barnhard said.
Maryland?s attorney general has said the county should be deducting the “regular” rate of interest, which, for other employees, is 5 percent. The county withholds almost 8 percent interest, compounded monthly.
Assistant County Attorney Suzanne Berger said state law does not specify interest rates and accused Rowe of deceiving lawmakers when he urged them earlier this year to adopt a law changing calculations.
Rowe did not disclose his personal benefit and told lawmakers the change would have no fiscal impact, Berger said.
“He knew this was front and center,” Berger said. “Clearly he knew there was a huge difference in the two rates.”
As many as 150 current employees are also affected, officials said. Adopting Rowe?s methodology would add $10,000 to his annuity ? estimated at $120,000 ? and cost $400,000 per year for other employees.
Cole Weston, president of the county?s police union and a member of the retirement fund?s board of trustees, said the agency approved Rowe?s allowance despite knowledge of the ongoing dispute.
Five hours into the hearing, Berger requested the dispute be remanded to that agency.
The board scheduled another hearing date for Feb. 12. The retirement fund trustees may chose to review the matter before then, but not after, the board ruled.
