Committee sends amended Bill 20‑824 on retirement governance to full Council after unanimous recommendation

The Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee unanimously recommended to the full County Council on Tuesday that Bill 20‑824, relating to governance of the Montgomery County Employees Retirement Plans, be advanced as amended.

The measure, as amended in the committee packet, would move two duties now described in the county code from the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to the Board of Investment Trustees (BIT): selecting and retaining the actuary for the retirement system and determining actuarial assumptions used for system calculations. Staff also proposed parallel clarifications for the Consolidated Retiree Health Benefit Trust (CRHBT). The amendments aim to draw a clearer line in the code between CAO administrative responsibilities (eligibility, benefit calculation, reporting and distribution) and the trustees’ investment and asset‑management duties.

Ms. Wellens, committee staff, walked members through the relevant code citations included in the packet and said the amendments were drafted to reflect recommendations from the Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO). She summarized three amendment groups: (1) clarify that BIT responsibilities are limited to asset management and investment, (2) enumerate CAO responsibilities for the CRHBT and set actuary selection language for both trusts, and (3) establish a recruitment/supervision framework for the retirement system executive director in which the CAO would oversee recruitment and provide a vetted shortlist to the BIT for final selection, consistent with merit‑system rules and updated MOUs.

Committee members probed how the proposal would work in practice. Councilmember Katz asked what 'supervise' would mean for a board that meets infrequently and whether more frequent meetings or clearer operating procedures would be required. Finance Director Mike Carvey warned that, as drafted, the amendments could "remove some" checks and shift responsibility "almost entirely to the board," increasing risk if lines of accountability are not preserved. He urged caution and called for a more comprehensive operational review. Carvey said, "it removes some of them. It shifts that responsibility, almost entirely to the board, and the board does not necessarily have to talk to the CAO or the executive branch on some of this stuff." (transcript)

Proponents, including the CAO and OLO staff, said the county had already restructured retirement‑plan staff to focus on investment duties and that codifying a shared responsibility between the CAO and trustees aligns the law with present operations. OLO staff noted jurisdictions vary and that trustee involvement in selecting actuaries and assumptions is common elsewhere; he also said the outcome would be safe so long as trustees and staff fulfill their fiduciary duties.

On the specific amendment about the executive‑director hiring process, the committee took a hand vote and accepted the packet language unanimously. After broader discussion the committee voted by hand to recommend the amended bill to the full Council; committee members recorded unanimous support in the meeting (transcript does not record numerical roll call).

The packet and staff memo include cited code sections and a fiscal‑impact statement (added as an addendum). Members said a revised MOU and additional operating procedures would be needed if responsibilities shift in order to preserve day‑to‑day supervision, transparency (including recording and minutes), and internal checks. Several members also noted the inspector general review and past dismissals of senior investment staff as context for heightened attention to supervision and controls.

The committee’s recommendation will be transmitted to the full County Council for consideration on the regular legislative calendar.