UPDATED: Delay, Deny, Defend Part 3 – Conflicting Figures Cloud Washington County Treasurer’s Salary Discussion

This is Part 3 of our series discussing Washington County Government transparency concerns. Part 1 discussed Washington County’s constructive denial of records related to the ICE Warehouse, and Part 2 discussed how the County appears to be favoring some news outlets with press requests, while stonewalling others (including this one) with cumbersome mandates to use the MPIA process which the County has constructively denied records for in Part 1.

Part 4 is now available, diving into the County’s attempts to prevent disclosure of what happened during the November 2022 ransomware attack.

A recent report from the Washington County Salary Study Commission, scheduled for presentation at the upcoming County Commissioner meeting, includes conflicting information regarding the compensation of the County Treasurer, leaving room for confusion about the actual pay structure for the elected official. The commission’s findings, which are set to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners, suggest two distinctly different salary figures for the same position, creating a discrepancy between a nominal fee and an hourly wage that translates to a significantly higher annual income. Unfortunately, because we have been instructed by the County Administrator to submit requests for information through the Maryland Public Information Act process instead of media requests for simple questions, nobody knows how the Treasurer’s pay is supposed to be structured prior to the March 17th vote.

This article was updated 3/16/2026 to include email communications between RFHC and Washington County

The core of the confusion lies in two separate figures presented for the Treasurer’s compensation. One section of the report indicates that the commission recommends the Treasurer’s salary be set at a “nominal $6,000.” Historically, in some Maryland counties, such a figure has represented a small stipend for an elected official who primarily serves in a titular role, with actual day-to-day operational duties handled by a hired finance director. However, this $6,000 figure is incongruent with a modern, professional full-time salary within a government pay scale.

Contrasting this nominal figure, a different part of the commission’s report, within the “Discussion” section of the agenda item, states that the Treasurer’s position is budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2027 budget at an hourly rate of $38.93. This hourly rate equates to an annual salary of approximately $80,974. This higher figure suggests that the Washington County Treasurer is indeed a working official, actively engaged in the daily administrative responsibilities of the county, rather than a purely ceremonial figurehead.

Further complicating the matter, the Salary Commission report contains contradictory statements about whether the Treasurer’s position is classified within the county’s pay scale. While the agenda of the report asserts that the Treasurer’s position is “not classified” on the pay scale, the report itself states it is “part of the County’s employee grade/step compensation scale.” This inconsistency extends to whether the position is subject to periodic step increases, with one statement indicating it is subject to such increases like other county employees, and another stating it is not, akin to other elected officials. Not even the Treasurer appears to have been informed fully of how the Treasurer’s compensation plan is supposed to work.

These discrepancies appear to stem from a disconnect between the legal or statutory definition of the Treasurer’s role and its operational reality within Washington County. It is plausible that the $6,000 figure represents a statutorily mandated base salary, while the individual currently holding the office is compensated at a professional hourly wage to effectively manage departmental duties, but without official comment from Washington County, we’re unable to verify that.

Despite the conflicting financial details, the Salary Study Commission’s ultimate recommendation for the Treasurer’s salary is notable for its lack of an increase. Unlike other boards, such as the County Commissioners, the Board of Education, the Board of Liquor License Commissioners, and the Judges of the Orphans’ Court, who are recommended to receive an 8.14% salary increase, the Treasurer is recommended to receive a 0% increase. The commission’s proposed approach is to maintain the status quo, suggesting the Treasurer’s compensation should continue to be determined through the standard county employee budget process rather than a fixed elected official’s raise. This implies a desire to keep the Treasurer’s pay tied to the ongoing employee budget, rather than a statutory elected official salary adjustment.

The broader implications of this report for Washington County residents revolve around the transparency and consistency of compensation for elected officials. While the salaries of other elected positions are recommended for adjustment, the Treasurer’s compensation remains a subject of ambiguity, with the report and agenda discussion presenting two markedly different financial realities. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide on the proposed salary adjustments, with the ability to reduce or reject recommendations but not to exceed them.

Normally, news media outlets would submit a request for comment to the County to obtain clarification on how the salary is supposed to be set. However, as of January 28, 2026, Radio Free Hub City has been instructed that “requests for information” must go through the county’s Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) portal, even for simple yes/no questions, a process that can legally take up to 30 days, but in several recent cases has taken much longer without extension requests, contrary to Maryland law. Remarkably, while we are subject to these strict requirements, other local news outlets like the Herald Mail are able to obtain information and quotes directly from the County Government.

This situation only compounds the ongoing issues between the current County Treasurer Breeding and Washington County Government. Recently, a viral letter was leaked on social media with significant accusations against the Treasurer, and while we have been able to debunk some of the claims, a significant number go unanswered as we wait for Washington County to fulfill MPIA requests. Given the County’s current delays in fulfilling some of our previous requests, this process may find its way into mediation as well, pushing the records beyond the primary elections.

“I never took the job for the money,” said Breeding in a statement to Radio Free Hub City, “and as a matter of fact, I’m running for one that pays less than 50% of what I’m currently earning.”

The board votes Tuesday March 17th to approve, reduce, or reject the Salary Commission’s recommendations. The full Salary Commission Report is available on DocumentCloud, and the Treasurer’s follow-up email to us regarding this matter is below. If we receive a response to our Public Information Act request before the meeting, we will publish the responses as quickly as possible so residents can make an informed decision on contacting the County Commissioners regarding the vote.

The Treasurer, not currently under the the County Commissioners or County Administrator, as a separate elected official is not required to follow County Government’s policies regarding news media contact and requests for information, and has assisted us with this matter as best as he possible can.

Part 4 is now available, diving into the County’s attempts to prevent disclosure of what happened during the November 2022 ransomware attack.

On March 16, 2026, having received no response to our MPIA request, Radio Free Hub City sent an email to the County Commissioners recommending delaying the vote.

The following response was sent by the County Administrator, which does not resolve the conflict, or rescind the policy previously sent to us regarding information requests. While this part of the Maryland code establishes the provisions for the County, it does not explain the discrepancy in facts.

The vote for this matter is scheduled for March 17, 2026.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon information from the Washington County Salary Study Commission Report.

---