At a meeting of the Prince George's County Compensation Commission on Oct. 8, 2025, members reviewed three models for adjusting pay for the County Executive and County Council and approved minutes from the Sept. 3, 2025 meeting.

The commission considered three primary approaches: pegging future increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), using a fixed dollar increase, or a hybrid that freezes salaries in the first year of a term and then applies CPI or a fixed amount. "Do you want to program in any increase? Because it certainly is within your purview to recommend no increase over the term," presenter Mr. Hamlin said, summarizing the decision points before the commission. He described CPI linkage as a common option because "it's tied to inflation, cost of living, and what have you." Mr. Hamlin also noted the current-code-style approach that ties increases to CPI but caps them to avoid unusually large single-year jumps.

Commission members discussed specifics in the draft illustrations. One option in the materials used a 2.5% CPI cap in its example; commissioners said the county's current code ties CPI increases to a 3% maximum. "Current is CPI up to a maximum of 3%," Ms. Hammond said when asked to confirm current law.

Commission member Taylor raised questions about how implementation would affect newly elected members: "So for example, if I'm new, newly elected to the council, I would not get a I would get the standard salary for that year." Commissioners confirmed that under the freeze-first-year approach all members would be treated the same and that stipends for chair and vice chair remain separate.

One proposal discussed a dollar cap of $2,500 on annual increases. Commissioners asked whether a budget caveat could limit increases when funds are not available. Legal counsel advised against that language, saying there was no official designated to make a year-by-year budget determination and that such a provision would be unenforceable unless it established defined parameters tied to a clear authority.

The commission did not take a formal vote on any compensation formula at the meeting. Instead, members agreed to continue discussion and prepare recommendations at the next meeting.

Procedural actions taken during the session included a motion by Mr. Simpson, seconded by Delaney Lalor, to approve the Sept. 3, 2025 minutes; the motion passed on a voice vote with the chair saying "the ayes have it." The chair proposed canceling the Oct. 15 meeting and holding the next meeting on Oct. 29 so the panel could be "in a posture of ready to make a recommendation or at least discuss the recommendations and then be in the posture of moving something forward." Commissioners present agreed to that schedule. The chair also instructed staff to set up a single group contact list for questions and directed commissioners to address interim questions to staff members including Josh, Ms. Canning, Ms. Pugh and Paulette Gresham.

Seeing no further business, a motion to adjourn was moved and seconded and the commission adjourned by voice agreement.

The commission indicated it would revisit the compensation models and aim to make or forward a recommendation at the Oct. 29 meeting. If commissioners are unable to attend in person, the chair said the commission will make a remote option available but that comments and recommendations must be delivered in the open forum at the meeting rather than in advance.