Baltimore OIG Critiques Mayor Scott's Proposed Reforms as Control, Not Accountability

BALTIMORE — Tensions are rising between Baltimore City Mayor Brandon Scott and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) over access to records following the mayor's recent reform proposal.

On Wednesday, Mayor Scott unveiled a comprehensive plan aimed at reforming the OIG, which includes both immediate and long-term changes at local and state levels. A significant aspect of this proposal is the inclusion of an attorney from the city's Law Department within the OIG, although Scott reassured the public that a ‘firewall’ would maintain the lawyer's independence.

One of the major components of the plan involves hiring an external firm to conduct a review of the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (MONSE) and the youth diversion program known as Sidestep. “We need someone neutral to restore trust with residents,” Scott stated, emphasizing the need to conclude ongoing investigations.

However, the external firm may not have access to the redacted documents that are at the heart of the dispute. Mayor Scott cited the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) to assert that the firm would not receive any more access than what is legally permitted.

In response, the OIG released a statement condemning the proposed reforms as an attempt to diminish the office's independence and regain control over it. They criticized the mayor's approach, stating, “What he proposes is not accountability, it is control.”

The controversy stems from a recent reinterpretation of the MPIA following a request from a Baltimore state senator for guidance from the Office of Attorney General. Mayor Scott claims that the OIG's previous access was illegal, which the OIG disputes, indicating that they are pursuing legal action to resolve the matter.

City Councilman Mark Conway, a supporter of the OIG, is advocating for further amendments to the city charter to restore the office's access to records. He expressed skepticism about the need for an external audit, calling it a “waste of money” and suggesting it undermines the OIG's work.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the financial implications of hiring an outside firm for the audit, with the OIG stating that it is their responsibility to conduct investigations, not a privately selected entity.

Reported by HarborBeat based on WBFF (source).