We should be proud to have an inspector general

Listen to this article

Like Maryland’s Attorney General, Baltimore‘s Inspector General does not command any military forces. The IG is an “inspector” charged with investigating “complaints of fraud, financial waste, and abuse in the City government.” The IG is more broadly commanded to promote “efficiency, accountability and integrity in city government.”

While the federal government had an early start with IGs during the tenure of George Washington and created the modern federal Inspector General watchdog group in 1978, Baltimore City owes its first IG to an executive order of then-Mayor Martin O’Malley. Our early IG’s were housed in the City Law Department and were hired and subject to being fired by the city solicitor. Their budgets were a part of the City Law Department’s budget and they received the enthusiastic support of the city solicitor. A week after the city solicitor was abruptly fired by the mayor in the summer of 2016, the IG he had appointed was summarily fired a week later, thus ending an active investigation into a city bureaucrat and friend of the mayor’s.

The IG position lay vacant for over a year, after which an elaborate Charter Amendment was proposed in 2018 by Councilman Ryan Dorsey and approved by the City Council and the voters. The debate was informed by a substantial IG generic report on the value of independent IGs published by the Abell Foundation and co-authored by the former city solicitor and IG.

The hiring, oversight and potential removal were placed by the charter in the hands of an 11-member advisory board that was designed to ensure the qualifications and independence of the IG. The IG was to be appointed by the board “without regard to political affiliation and [was required to] have substantial experience in auditing, financial analysis, criminal justice law, management analysis, public administration, investigations, or another appropriate field.“ The IG was to serve a term of six years and may be removed by the board only for “misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform the duties of office, or conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.”

Charter provisions assure an adequate budget for the IG, call for an annual report, spell out the broad territory to be subject to the scrutiny of the IG, and provide for the issuance of subpoenas commanding testimony and document production and judicial enforcement of subpoenas that were not complied with.

The IG removal provisions contained in the Baltimore City Charter are a substantial improvement over the IG removal provisions governing IGs in the federal government. The federal IG legislation provides that the IGs assigned to agencies are appointed by the president, and removal by a president unhappy with their continued service is conditioned only upon 30 days’ notice to Congress and a statement of the reasons for the removal. Federal IGs can be and have been swept aside with the blink of an eye.

It is unfortunate that Baltimore’s IG has been forced to hire outside counsel to enforce her Charter-authorized subpoena of government records. It is sad that the mayor and the IG are at war with one another rather than working together to achieve the commendable purposes described in the 2018 charter amendment.

We should all follow the spirit of the charter. We will benefit by the responsible independent oversight of a robust IG.

Editorial Advisory Board Members Jill P. Carter, Ericka N. King and Angela W. Russell did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

Gary E. Bair

Jill P. Carter

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Liebmann

George Nilson

Steven I. Platt

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.