100 Holiday Street, Suite 400

NICK J. MOSBY Baltimore, Maryland 21202

410-593-4804 • Fax 410-539-0647
Council President
council.president@baltimorecity.gov

BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202

December 5, 2022

The Hon. Brandon M. Scott, Mayor

100 Holliday St., Rm. 250
Baltimore, MD 21202

MAYORAL VETO OF CITY COUNCIL BILL 22-0292

Dear Honorable Mayor Scott,

While the City of Baltimore — like much of the country — has appropriately taken steps to create conditions
for people from all backgrounds to run for elected office, your veto of City Council Bill 22-0292 sets us
back.

We must actively remove barriers for citizens to seek public office, or else we risk perpetuating
circumstances that ensure only the wealthy and well-connected can serve. Often, elected officials must walk
away from their carefully planned and established careers to serve. We should be creating more
opportunities for some of our most talented minds from all walks of life and every corner of Baltimore City
to run for office and have an opportunity to create stability for their families once in office.

What’s more, because of the passage of the Fox45 News-funded Question K charter amendment, your veto
creates even more confusion and complexity in Baltimore’s pension system — and looks to establish three
classes of elected officials and potentially discourage representative diversity of those who seek to hold
office.

As you are aware, Bill 22-0292 is a companion bill, designed explicitly only to be enacted with the passage
of Question K, that aligns Elected Officials Retirement System eligibility with the two-term limitations
imposed by Question K. Officials, like me and you, elected before December 2016, have access to the old
pension system with the broadest eligibility requirements. Our colleagues elected after December 2016 have
less favorable eligibility criteria. Now, with the passage of eight-year term limits, yet another class of elected
officials has been created to further complicate the pension system and put junior elected officials, those
sworn in during December of 2020 at a disadvantage. Further, future City elected officials will find it
absolutely illogical to pay into a pension system that has structural, intentional obstacles, designed by the
creators of Question K and supported by your veto, that will keep them from becoming vested in the
pension. Accordingly, the requirements of the retirement eligibility will have to ultimately be reduced to
eight years, as written in City Council Bill 22-0292.

Again, the legislation, as you fully understand, sought only to create a fair system that would put current
members on the same footing as any new members who may potentially be elected in 2024.

While I respect the work and inquiry of the Ethics Board, I respectfully disagree with the assessment in their
letter dated November 28, 2022. No other body nor person has the chartered authority to address the
imbalance that the eight-year term limits have created other than the Baltimore City Council. At no point did
the Ethics Board see fit to provide written or verbal testimony regarding concerns, despite the tremendous
amount of media attention the legislation received. They did not attend the publicized committee hearing.
They did not submit written testimony. Nor did they contact my office before issuing their public letter. The
Office of the Council President did not evade the review of the Ethics Board, which was not an agency our
office nor the Department of Legislative Reference expected to have an interest in this manner. Likewise, the
City’s Law Department reviewed and approved the bill for legal sufficiency.

Finally, we missed a chance, once again, to work together to resolve your concerns through the legislative
process. As in the past, the Council learned about your veto of Bill 22-0292 at the same time you announced
your decision publicly. Although it provides fodder for the media, residents are truly tired of the
disconnection of city government and officials. As the leaders of Baltimore’s two branches of government,
the city we both love would be better served if you and your administration would do more to open the lines
of communication between the Council and the Mayor’s Office.

The impact of this veto speaks directly to the question of representative democracy in Baltimore, a City
filled with haves and have-nots. Without immediately aligning pension eligibility to the new charter-
amendment requirements, one of the main motivations of Question K will be successful by curtailing the
racial, gender and socioeconomic diversity among Baltimore’s elected officials. In turn, Baltimore will hand
over more institutional control to special interest groups like the one who spent close to a million dollars to
pass Question K and is currently funding the campaign that support you and your veto.

Sincerely,

Nick J. Mosby

Cc: Baltimore City Council