Baltimore’s inspector general needs to be allowed to do her job

Listen to this article

In 2018, then-mayor Catherine Pugh named Isabel Cummings as Baltimore’s inspector general. Eight years later, under a new mayor, there is too much tension between the mayor’s office and the inspector general, who is trying to do her job on behalf of the people of Baltimore. As we see her job, it is to examine expenditures made by the city and its agencies, including non-government agencies that are funded by the city, and attempt to ferret out waste and fraud. We would think that the mayor would want the same, so the city could stretch available dollars.

People in Baltimore, as do we, believe they have every right to know how the Baltimore government, led by Mayor Scott, is spending tax and other dollars. How this is done should not be kept a secret from the citizens, and the city’s largesse pointed in the direction of certain recipients should be splayed out in the public view. The inspector general could do this if she wasn’t being stonewalled.

The inspector general is trying to achieve her goal, but the city government appears to be doing its best to thwart her efforts. It has become so bad between the inspector general and the city that the inspector general has engaged independent counsel to file suit against the city to gain access to records that are being either withheld or severely redacted.

And very recently, the mayor has announced he has ordered an outside forensic investigation into the city’s SideStep program, while introducing legislation that could limit how the IG investigates Baltimore government. He claims that he’s attempting to restore public confidence and trust in the process, but we don’t think the public has lost confidence or trust in the IG at all. We believe she’s doing her job, or at least she is trying to. And we think the mayor is trying to control how the inspector general investigates his government.

Financial times are hard for Baltimore and other major cities these days and we would think that the mayor would embrace transparency, but he does not. He fights it. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that the inspector general had flagged potential fraud in a city-run youth diversion office, and also that the mayor’s office had spent $50,000 over three years on crab cakes and wings, catered at the city’s Orioles and Ravens sky boxes. The WSJ did not overlook the nearly $175,000 the mayor caused the city to spend on his new wheels.

Perhaps the genesis of this emanates from a pilot youth diversion program that ended in 2024. It was reported that the inspector general referred two invoices to law enforcement with a suspicion that financial fraud had occurred.

In order to shut down the probe, the city postured that the IG must not have access to “legally protected, confidential work product and communications.” The city cited an opinion of the Maryland Attorney General, as if it had been aimed at Baltimore, but it was not. While Scott once said that he backs this probe, he now has made the IG sue the city to obtain records necessary for her investigation. And that suit has been vigorously defended, even trying to disqualify the IG’s attorneys.

The public and members of this board want to know how and why the city is spending its money. For example, there was $167,000 spent by the mayor’s staff over several years on food. Is this appropriate? We don’t know, but we should. And there are trips and conventions and programs attended. They may be totally appropriate, but we don’t know without access to information.

The mayor defends some of the spending, but we should not be required to take his word alone for it’s appropriateness. And bottom line is that it is not his money. Nor should the mayor be able to regulate how the independent inspector general does her job. He is a representative of the citizens of Baltimore. The IG must be given access to all of the unredacted records that she requires regarding spending in order to engage in the critical job that she was appointed to perform. If there is problem with the city’s spending, we need to know about it. Frankly, we would have thought that the mayor would want the same answers, and that he would drive his new SUV on the high road.

Editorial Advisory Board Members Susan Francis and H. Mark Stichel did not participate in this opinion. Stichel is one of two independent lawyers who have been engaged by the Inspector General that the city attempted to disqualify. 

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.