Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski (D), now vying for a congressional seat, is embroiled in a controversy over a secret cash settlement with a retired firefighter, who also served as his personal real estate broker.
The settlement, which used public funds and bypassed legal protocols, has raised questions about transparency, ethical governance, and the potential misuse of taxpayer dollars.
This article breaks down the Brew’s excellent reporting and is intended to help readers quickly grasp the minor details of the story.
Overview of the Johnny Olszewski/Tirabassi Brothers Story
Who Are the Key Players in the Story?:
- Johnny Olszewski: The current Baltimore County executive and Maryland’s 2024 2nd Congressional District Democratic nominee;
- Philip Tirabassi: Retired firefighter and former real estate broker for Olszewski;
- John Tirabassi: Brother of Philip Tirabassi, who is also involved in real estate transactions for Olszewski.
What Do Readers Need to Know About This Story?:
- A “secret” $83,675 cash settlement, facilitated by Johnny Olszewski’s administration, was paid to Philip Tirabassi to adjust his retirement benefits;
- The Olszewski administration allocated $550,000 in public funds for legal defense to keep the settlement details confidential;
- The settlement involved improperly transferring service credits to boost Tirabassi’s retirement, which was contested as illegal under county law.
Where Did the Real Estate Transactions Occur?
- The real estate transactions and settlement occurred in Baltimore County.
When Did the Real Estate Transactions Occur?
- The real estate transactions occurred in 2010 and 2016, with the controversial settlement finalized in May 2020.
The Why Behind it All:
- The settlement aimed to resolve a longstanding dispute over Tirabassi’s retirement benefits, which he argued were owed to him for prior service as a Baltimore City firefighter.
- The controversy centers on ethical concerns, potential misuse of public funds, and lack of transparency in government actions.
So, What’s the Controversy?
The apparent controversy centers on a confidential cash settlement with retired firefighter Philip Tirabassi, who also acted as Olszewski’s real estate broker.
The heart of the issue lies in the $83,675 settlement paid to Tirabassi for disputed retirement benefits, alongside the use of $550,000 in taxpayer funds to cover legal defense costs to keep the settlement details secret.
Critics question the ethics and legality of the settlement, particularly given that it involved an allegedly improper transfer of additional service credits to Tirabassi’s retirement account – a move contested as illegal under county law.
The controversy is further fueled by Olszewski’s and Tirabassi’s longstanding personal and financial connections, including real estate transactions and political contributions made by the Tirabassi brothers to Olszewski’s campaigns. The situation is exacerbated by allegations that the settlement was designed to favor Tirabassi, potentially because of these personal connections, despite Mr. Olszewski’s denials of any special treatment.
The use of public funds to conceal the settlement’s details has drawn criticism, raising concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential misuse of taxpayer money.
Who Are The Tirabassi Brothers? How Do They Know Johnny Olszewski?
Philip Tirabassi is a retired Maryland firefighter, and his brother John Tirabassi is a local real estate broker; they have longstanding ties to Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski.
The brothers handled real estate transactions for Mr. Olszewski and his wife, Marisa, dating back to 2010, including purchasing and selling properties for the couple.
The brothers’ realty firm, Advance Realty Direct, facilitated these deals.
The brothers have also contributed to Mr. Olszewski’s political campaigns, including his unsuccessful 2014 state senate bid and his successful 2018 campaign for county executive. Maryland State Board of Elections records show the brothers donating just over $3,000 to Mr. Olszewski’s two campaigns, including contributions made under their realty firm.
Incidentally, Mr. Olszewski’s state political committee, “Friends of John Olszewski Jr.” reimbursed John Tirabassi for organizing volunteer meals and setting up outdoor advertising.
Johnny Olszewski’s Perspective on the Tirabassi Settlement
Mr. Olszewski has publicly addressed the settlement, emphasizing that it was made to protect Baltimore County taxpayers from potential litigation following an “unauthorized” agreement by a former county official that transferred service time to the firefighter’s retirement account.
Notably, the county executive has distanced himself from Philip Tirabassi, stating that he does not have a close personal relationship with him, despite records that show Tirabassi handled real estate transactions for the Olszewskis.
“I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Philip Tirabassi,” Olszewski told the Baltimore Sun, according to the Brew’s reporting.
Moreover, Olszewski stressed that the $83,675 payout was not a favor to Philip Tirabassi or his younger brother, John, who the Brew describes as Olszewski’s friend and former high school classmate.
According to Olszewski, using $550,000 in public funds to cover legal costs was justified to prevent costly litigation that could arise from disclosing the settlement details. He further defended his administration’s actions, arguing that they acted in the best interest of Baltimore County taxpayers and followed legal advice to settle the matter discreetly.
The Ethical Implications of The Taxpayer Settlement
Public officials must act transparently, especially when taxpayer dollars are involved.
The apparent secretive nature of the retired firefighter’s settlement, coupled with the expenditure of taxpayer money to shield the details from public scrutiny, could undermine the public’s trust.
Another critical issue is the potential conflict of interest stemming from the county executive’s personal and professional connections with the Tirabassi brothers. The history of real estate transactions and political contributions could create a perception of favoritism, raising questions about whether these relationships influenced the settlement.
Public officials must avoid situations that could lead to a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety, as these can erode public confidence in government integrity.
Moreover, if proven to be true, the perception of a preferential settlement suggests a deviation from standard procedures, potentially granting benefits unavailable to other county employees.
Such actions challenge the principle of fairness and risk, setting a dangerous precedent for handling similar cases in the future.
Are There Any Legal Implications?
First and foremost, I am not a lawyer.
My analysis is from a layman’s perspective, not that of a qualified legal professional.
Public Fund Misuse
Using $550,000 in public funds to defend the settlement’s confidentiality may become a legal issue if someone is willing to press it.
This expenditure could be scrutinized under laws governing the proper use of taxpayer money, especially if it is determined that the funds were used to conceal actions that might not align with public interest or legal standards.
Breach of Public Trust and Ethical Standards
If the settlement with Philip Tirabassi involved preferential treatment or was made to settle claims that did not have a solid legal basis, one could argue that those involved abused their power or authority.
Confidentiality and Legal Validity of the Settlement
The public may wish to further scrutinize the settlement’s confidential nature and Tirabassi’s directive to “remain silent” about the agreement.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw a cascade of Maryland Public Information Act requests filed about the matter after the Brew reported on it.
Additionally, if the settlement terms deviated from established legal or administrative procedures – such as the improper transfer of service credit – they could be deemed invalid or illegal. Other affected parties seeking similar settlements or challenging the confidentiality clause in court could expose the county to legal challenges or liabilities.
Finally, due to the personal and financial connections between the Tirabassi brothers and Olszewski, further scrutiny is expected regarding the integrity of the administration’s decision-making process.
This situation may prompt additional investigations to ensure ethical and legal standards compliance.
The Settlement’s Political Implications for Johnny Olszewski
Mr. Olszewski’s Republican congressional opponent, Kimberly Klacik, took to X, formerly known as Twitter, and called for him to drop out of the race.
She cited “the illegal use of taxpayer dollars” as grounds for her demand.
The county executive positions himself as a leader committed to ethical governance and transparency, often highlighting his efforts to instill accountability in local government.
However, the secrecy surrounding the settlement and the substantial use of public funds for legal defenses could undermine this narrative, potentially eroding public trust and credibility. As voters scrutinize his actions, this settlement controversy could impact Mr. Olszewski’s appeal, particularly among those who prioritize integrity in government.
Mr. Olszewski’s political opponents are likely to use the settlement issue as a point of attack, questioning his decision-making and the integrity of his administration.
The connections between Olszewski and the Tirabassi brothers and the allegations of preferential treatment provide fertile ground for his political opponents to cast doubt on his ethical standards and commitment to fair governance.
Could This Taxpayer Settlement Impact the 2nd Congressional Race?
Maryland pundits and political insiders consider the 2nd Congressional race to be the county executive’s to lose.
However, the settlement issue could impact his chances in November.
Ms. Klacik and other opponents are likely to use the controversy as a key point of attack, questioning Olszewski’s decision-making and the integrity of his administration.
How the county executive addresses these issues in the coming months will be crucial in shaping public opinion.
The settlement controversy could present a significant challenge for Mr. Olszewski, testing his ability to navigate complex ethical and political waters while maintaining voter trust and support.
As the story unfolds, its implications will likely reverberate through his campaign and beyond.