Baltimore County Inspector General Kelly Madigan last night appeared before the County Council for the last time, pleading in vain for legislation to close loopholes and strengthen the IG office before she leaves office to become Howard County’s IG.

“I’ve been asking for these statutory tweaks since August,” she told The Brew, meeting with council chair Mike Ertel to try to iron out legal obstacles that have hobbled her office’s ability to effectively investigate waste, fraud and abuse in county government.

She got the silent treatment last night, with only two lawmakers, Robert Crandell and Izzy Patoka, expressing appreciation for her work during six tempestuous years as the county’s first inspector general, capped by a showdown with County Executive Kathy Klausmeier, who refused to reappoint Madigan to a second term.

Madigan will leave office on January 2 after conducting a number of high-profile investigations into waste, insider deals and time fraud (here, here and here).

She survived a vociferous attack by two council members, helped put a political operative in jail and forced former County Executive Johnny Olszewski to backtrack from legislation aimed at curtailing her power to freely undertake investigations.

• Kathy Klausmeier’s non-reappointment of IG Madigan: A detailed chronology

“I think it was important for the council – and the public – to hear my concerns before I leave,” she said today. “I don’t think there’s an appetite on the part of the council [for reform]. I asked for simple legislative fixes they could easily have done.”

“I asked for simple legislative fixes they could easily have done”  – IG Kelly Madigan.

For example, while some county agencies will respond to her record requests quickly, others will drag their heels for months, she said. “We’ve had difficulties getting access to records, especially when we’ve gone through the administrative branch.”

She asked Ertel and County Executive Kathy Klausmeier’s staff to draft a bill giving the IG “direct access” to county records. Nothing happened, she said.

Other Asks

Madigan also wanted the county code to reflect the affirmative duty of employees to report wrongdoing in government operations to the inspector general. “It’s a way for employees to say they are obliged to do the right thing if they see a supervisor doing something wrong.”

Currently, a 2023 executive order calls on employees to report suspected fraud, waste or abuse within the operations of Baltimore County government:

“Employees making the report in good faith or cooperating with an investigation shall not be subject to disciplinary action for the disclosure. It is a violation of the code of conduct for an employee to obstruct or attempt to interfere in an investigation or action. Confidentiality will be maintained.”

It is “ridiculous” that this language was not incorporated in the IG statute long ago, according to Madigan, noting that it was one of the recommendations the Blue Ribbon Commission on Ethics and Accountability.

She also wants the county council to make clear that IG reports are not personnel records (which would make them subject to mandatory denials if requested by the public or media under the Maryland Public Information Act) and to require the county attorney, if requested, to provide the IG with a legal opinion.

“Right now, I can’t request a legal opinion from the county attorney. So when a council person moved out of their district and I wanted to know if this a violation of the charter, I couldn’t ask the county attorney.”

The reason? Under the charter, which was written decades before the IG office was created, “only the county executive, county administrative officer, a department head and the legislative branch can make such a request,” she explained.

Madigan’s Statement

Delivered at the December 15 Council meeting under the three-minute public comment rule:

Thank you for my three minutes. I want to come and take this opportunity to speak about ways to strengthen the IG’s office via statute. I want to be on the record as saying that I met with you, Mr. Chairman, in August of this summer and identified a series of things that the IG statute needed so it could be strengthened.

There has been a call from the Baltimore County public for transparency in government and ways to preserve and strengthen the office. I then met with you and members of your staff in October seeking those tweaks that we discussed. I have emails to the administration and have met with the administration asking for those.

I care very deeply about these statutory tweaks. I think they are necessary and will serve to strengthen the office.

The first request I am asking for is that the word “direct” be added to the statute under Section 314-107, powers of the office. In fact, that is a recommendation made by the Blue Ribbon Commission. You may recall, that the prior administration selected seven members from the public. They took testimony and came up with a 217-page report where they identified 20 recommendations. Those were areas that the administration asked them to look into.

“I am now going to the public and pass the baton, and ask them to carry the mission forward”  – IG Kelly Madigan.

Under “IG Access to Materials and Records,” the commission recommends that the office of the inspector general have direct access to government records and materials whenever possible. I would make that request; it’s the best practice in the IG community. It’s what every federal IG has. Most state and local IGs have it.

My second request is that the affirmative duty to report, which is currently an executive order, be added to the statute. It is also a best practice and should be added under the statue to section 314-107-4. The language can be the same, but right now, it’s an executive order, which doesn’t carry the same weight included in the statute that is something the Blue Ribbon Commission also recommended.

I am also requesting that the statute state that IG reports are not personnel records. The statue already states that all IG reports are subject to the MPIA. As an independent office, the IG can never be in the position of issuing discipline. One of the requirements for whether or not a personnel record would be considered a mandatory denial under the MPIA is whether or not the undersigned person was in the position to implement disciplinary action. So again I would request under 314, when it is talking about that IG reports are public reports subject to disclosure, that language be included to say that IG reports are not personnel records.

I’m also requesting that the IG be added to the charter as an agency that has the ability to request legal opinions from the county attorney. I think it’s important to be on the record, as you and I have discussed, Mr. Chairman. I have these emails back and forth that are the position of the office, why they are important and where should be added to the statute. I believe it will strengthen the statute. I’m also going to offer an abbreviated version of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report that was issued on February 16, 2023. There are a few of these recommendations that still haven’t been implemented and would ask that they be implemented.

I am now going to the public and pass the baton, and ask them to carry the mission forward of strengthening the IG statute. Because I think there has been a call for transparency and a demand from the public for a strong IG’s office. Thank you.