Mayor Brandon Scott yesterday summoned the media to City Hall to hear about City Council bills he is proposing to impose new restrictions on the Baltimore Office of the Inspector General, which is charged with investigating complaints about waste, financial fraud and abuse in city government.

Scott’s legislation would, among other things, designate the office as “part of the City of Baltimore legal entity” and subject it to the oversight of a “designated legal representative” appointed by the city solicitor, who, in turn, is appointed by the mayor.

Today Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming released her response to the mayor’s plan, included here in full:

Since its inception, the Baltimore Office of the Inspector General has taken every step to protect the independence of its office to investigate fraud, financial waste, and abuse in city government.

That independence was overwhelmingly supported by the people of Baltimore when they voted in 2018 and 2022 to remove the OIG from control by elected city officials and political appointees.

Yesterday Mayor Scott used a press conference to introduce proposals that would change the public’s OIG. His proposed plan is an effort to undermine the voters of Baltimore, eviscerate the independence enshrined in the OIG, and regain power over what should be a truly independent office. What he proposes is not accountability, it is control.

The mayor represented to the people of Baltimore that the OIG has violated state and federal law. The mayor’s statement is based on his interpretation of the law. The OIG strongly disagrees and has, through its lawsuit, taken the steps necessary to let a court resolve that dispute.

The OIG agrees with Mayor Scott that oversight, transparency and integrity are not a political football. This is not about politics; it is about ensuring that the people of Baltimore know where their tax dollars are being spent and why.

It is also about ensuring that the critical information needed to answer those questions is not shielded from the public by city officials, and that, when it is, a court, not the city, gets to determine what must be produced.

“The OIG employs protocols, policies and procedures that protect the identities of individuals who bravely come forward to report instances of abuse, and it meticulously documents each of its investigations through robust policies, procedures and internal systems”  – IG Isabel Mercedes Cumming.

The OIG’s staff members are held to the highest national standards set by the Association of Inspectors General and the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.

The OIG employs protocols, policies and procedures that protect the identities of individuals who bravely come forward to report instances of abuse, and it meticulously documents each of its investigations through robust policies, procedures and internal systems.

It is the OIG – not a private entity selected by the mayor and paid for through taxpayer dollars – that has the responsibility to conduct those investigations.

It is disappointing and disheartening that the mayor has engaged a private company to usurp the role of the OIG without any clarity as to what information will be provided to that entity and without assurance that it will be held to the same standards set for inspectors general across the country.

The OIG will continue to fight for the people. Through the OIG’s lawsuit, a court – not elected officials and their appointees – will determine what the law is.

The OIG has retained independent pro bono counsel approved by the Citizen Advisory Board. The city attempted to disqualify the independent pro bono counsel, and a court rejected that argument.

The OIG looks forward to continuing that fight while upholding the integrity of the office, so that a sound judicial resolution, free from political motivation, can be reached.