Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski finds himself embroiled in controversy over a confidential cash settlement, the details of which have recently come to light. The settlement, initially concealed under a pseudonym, has raised questions about Olszewski’s connections to its recipient, Philip Tirabassi, a retired firefighter.
Olszewski, currently campaigning for the Congressional seat left vacant by retiring Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, has attempted to distance himself from Tirabassi. “I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Philip Tirabassi,” Olszewski stated to the Baltimore Sun, responding to reports from The Brew that exposed the settlement.
The county executive contends that the $83,675 payout was a measure to protect taxpayers from potential litigation. According to Olszewski, the settlement stemmed from an “unauthorized” agreement offered by a former county official, which transferred service time to Tirabassi’s retirement account.
Olszewski has vehemently denied any suggestion that the settlement was a favor to Tirabassi’s younger brother John, whom he knew from their days as classmates at Sparrows Point High School. However, public records reveal a web of business and political connections between Olszewski and the Tirabassi brothers that complicates this narrative.
In 2010, Advance Realty Direct Inc., a company wholly owned by Philip Tirabassi until its closure in December 2022, represented Olszewski and his wife in the purchase of their two-story brick house in St. Helena. John Tirabassi served as the company’s agent for this transaction. The Tirabassi brothers earned a 3% commission on the deal.
Six years later, the same realty firm, with Philip as broker and John as agent, facilitated the Olszewskis’ acquisition of a $135,000 plot on Miller Island. This picturesque lot, boasting sweeping views of the Chesapeake Bay, later became the site of a $400,000 home built by the couple.
The ties between Olszewski and the Tirabassi brothers extend beyond real estate transactions into the realm of politics. State Board of Elections records reveal that the brothers made contributions totaling just over $3,000 to Olszewski’s political committee. These donations came during his unsuccessful bid for the state senate in 2014 and his surprise victory in the county executive race in 2018. The contributions were made in their personal capacities and in the name of Advance Realty Direct.
Furthermore, John Tirabassi played an active role in Olszewski’s campaign efforts. Financial records show that “Friends of John Olszewski Jr.” reimbursed him $950 for organizing volunteer meals and arranging outdoor advertising for the campaign.
Despite these connections, Olszewski and his press office have remained silent on the matter. They have not responded to two sets of questions sent by The Brew regarding his relationship with the firefighter. Similarly, when reached at his Cockeysville home, Philip Tirabassi declined to comment on the situation.
The most recent real estate transaction involving the Olszewskis and the Tirabassi brothers occurred in April 2020. Advance Realty handled the sale of the Olszewskis’ St. Helena home for $189,900. Notably, this sale took place just one month before County Administrative Officer Stacey Rodgers and County Attorney James R. Benjamin Jr. signed the confidential settlement with Philip Tirabassi.
The existence of this settlement came to light as part of a Maryland Public Information Act lawsuit filed by former county administrator Fred Homan. In a recent ruling, Circuit Court Judge Michael Finifter determined that the county had improperly withheld documents from Homan. The judge ordered the administration to disclose emails and other correspondence related to the Tirabassi case.
A review of the extensive document trove obtained by Homan reveals a persistent two-year campaign by Tirabassi to augment his county retirement benefits. His goal was to add the time he served as a Baltimore City firefighter in the 1980s to his county service record.
“I can’t begin to express to you the positive impact this would have on my retirement if I can finally get this time added to my credited work history,” Tirabassi wrote to County Benefits Administrator Kathy Limpert in 2018. This initial plea set off a barrage of emails from Tirabassi to various county officials, characterized by increasingly urgent and sometimes angry tones. Throughout these communications, Tirabassi frequently referenced “Johnny,” “Johnny O,” and “the CE,” suggesting a level of familiarity with the county executive.
Tirabassi particularly targeted Patrick Murray, Olszewski’s chief of staff, in his efforts to advance his cause. “Is he someone Johnny appointed?” Tirabassi inquired about then-Budget Director Keith Dorsey. He pressed further, “Should I try to meet with him or should I wait for you and Johnny to get back to me first?” Murray’s prompt reply, “Please set up a meeting with Keith and keep me posted. I spoke with him yesterday,” indicated an active engagement with Tirabassi’s concerns at the highest levels of the administration.
Tirabassi’s frustration mounted as he faced delays in receiving responses. In one email, copied to Olszewski’s campaign email address, he complained, “With the request coming from Kathy, you and Johnny O, I would at least expect a response. I’m trying to be patient.”
The crux of Tirabassi’s argument was that he was entitled to transfer his service credits from his time with the city fire department because he had never received written notification of the option to do so. However, Budget Director Dorsey initially denied this request, explaining that the six-month window for transferring service credits between jurisdictions had expired in 1990.
Undeterred by this setback, Tirabassi appealed directly to Olszewski. The county executive responded by instructing his new budget director, Edward P. Blades, to review the case and tasking his top aide, Stacy Rodgers, with overseeing the matter.
On September 10, 2019, Blades wrote to Tirabassi, “At the request of the County Executive, we reviewed Mr. Dorsey’s findings and the additional documentation that you provided to Ms. Stacy L. Rodgers, County Administrative Officer.” Despite this high-level review, Tirabassi’s request was once again denied.
Blades stated, “We regret that you were not able to transfer your service time. We firmly believe that the County exercised appropriate notification and acted in good faith in implementing the 1990 state legislation governing transfer of service time.”
Two months later, Rodgers reaffirmed this position in an email to Olszewski, though she presciently added, “Candidly, I’m sure it will not be our last [response] to Mr. Tirabassi.”
As Rodgers predicted, Tirabassi’s persistence only intensified. Elevating his approach, he engaged Jay D. Miller of the Peter Angelos law firm. Miller ratcheted up the pressure on the county, threatening legal action if his client’s claim wasn’t satisfied.
In a pointed message to County Attorney James R. Benjamin Jr. on February 21, 2020, Miller wrote, “I am imploring you to reconsider, as the publicity that may be generated is not something any of us want.” He added bluntly, “Call me, but it doesn’t make sense to debate this.”
The threat of a potential lawsuit sparked a flurry of internal communications among Olszewski’s aides. Chief of Staff Pat Murray quipped to County Administrator Stacy Rodgers on March 5, “It’s the song that never ends,” reflecting the growing frustration within the administration.
Despite earlier rejections and expert opinions, the administration finally yielded in May 2020. They crafted a settlement that would transfer one year and one month of Tirabassi’s Baltimore City service to his 30 years of county service. This agreement would provide Tirabassi with a special DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Program) lump sum payment of approximately $125,000 upon his retirement, though the exact figure remains undisclosed.
The settlement, signed by Rodgers, Benjamin, Tirabassi, and Miller, was shrouded in secrecy. Tirabassi was instructed to “simply remain silent” if questioned by fellow firefighters or union representatives. The agreement included specific directives on how to respond to inquiries:
“The Employee will respond with a mutually agreeable statement to be supplied by Baltimore County (e.g., ‘that matter is done’ or ‘I retired and I am done with all that’). But the Employee and his attorney specifically agree that they will not indicate that the matter was settled. The Employee’s attorney, in order to comply with the spirit of the Confidentiality Clause, will not talk to anyone in a union or talk to any union members about this case.”
Interestingly, while the agreement barred Tirabassi and his attorney from discussing the case, it did not extend the same restriction to county employees.
This settlement, however, immediately encountered a significant hurdle. Suzanne T. Berger, the in-house counsel for the Baltimore County Employees’ Retirement System (ERS), argued that the settlement was illegal. She contended that the administration lacked the discretion to grant something that state law would not allow, especially without the approval of the ERS’s Board of Trustees.
In a December 2021 memo to the ERS Board, Berger wrote, “Until this case, no County Attorney and no one in the County Administration has ever, to my knowledge, negotiated a ‘secret’ settlement of a retirement case. To do so is illegal under the County Code, Sections 5-1-247 and 5-1-249.”
Remarkably, just a week after voicing her opinion, Berger, a veteran attorney with 24 years of county service, was informed that her employment was terminated.
The Tirabassi settlement and its aftermath have cast a long shadow over Olszewski’s administration, raising questions about transparency, use of public funds, and potential conflicts of interest. These issues have become particularly pertinent as Olszewski campaigns for a seat in Congress, emphasizing his “bold and transformative leadership” as county executive and his commitment to “instilling principles of equity and accountability back into our government.”
The controversy has taken on new dimensions with the revelation that the Olszewski administration is spending $550,000 on outside counsel to defend against the lawsuit seeking details about the $83,000 payment to Tirabassi. This expenditure of public funds to potentially conceal information about another use of public funds has drawn criticism and scrutiny from various quarters.
The situation has also highlighted the complex web of personal, professional, and political relationships that often underlie local government operations. The connections between Olszewski and the Tirabassi brothers, spanning real estate transactions, campaign contributions, and now this controversial settlement, illustrate the potential for perceived or actual conflicts of interest in public administration.
Moreover, the case has brought to light questions about the limits of administrative discretion in matters of public employee benefits. The objections raised by the ERS in-house counsel point to potential legal and ethical issues in how the settlement was negotiated and implemented, particularly without the involvement of the retirement system’s board of trustees.
The abrupt termination of Suzanne T. Berger, the attorney who questioned the legality of the settlement, adds another layer of complexity to the story. It raises concerns about potential retaliation against employees who voice dissent or raise ethical concerns within the administration.
As this story continues to unfold, it serves as a case study in the challenges of maintaining transparency and accountability in local government. The Tirabassi settlement, initially hidden from public view, has become a focal point for broader discussions about governance, ethics, and the use of public resources.
For Olszewski, navigating this controversy while campaigning for higher office presents a significant challenge. His ability to address these issues transparently and satisfactorily may well impact his political future and the public’s trust in his leadership.
As the legal proceedings initiated by Fred Homan continue, and with Judge Finifter’s order for the county to disclose more information, further details about this case may yet come to light. The ultimate resolution of this situation could have far-reaching implications for how Baltimore County handles employee benefits, settles disputes, and manages public information in the future.