Had the restrictions recently placed on the Office of the Inspector General by the Scott administration gone into effect in 2018, the city’s corruption watchdog would have been stymied in more than 100 of its successful investigations, the agency asserted in a court filing.

“Of the 324 investigations conducted by the OIG since January 2018, 104 involved cases that would have shielded information from the OIG under [the administration’s new rules]. In those 104 cases, the OIG identified approximately $38.9 million in fraud, waste or abuse,” an amended complaint to Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Pamela J. White noted.

The 38-page complaint, filed late on Friday, countered arguments by the Scott administration that only the city solicitor can enforce subpoenas, despite language in the City Charter that gives the IG the power to both issue and execute subpoenas.

“If the city solicitor, who serves at the pleasure of the mayor, is to be the final arbiter of what information should be disclosed in investigations of potential fraud, waste and abuse, then why did the people and taxpayers of Baltimore City establish in the City Charter an OIG in the first place,” the complaint asks.

How can I do my job?

The OIG receives about 60 complaints a month regarding potential instances of fraud. “In the past, the OIG’s direct access allowed for the prompt culling of information that could remain confidential within the confines of the office.”

But under changes imposed in January by City Solicitor Ebony Thompson, at the behest of Mayor Brandon Scott, information “the OIG could previously gather within hours or days will now take months to collect” and could be redacted by city lawyers invoking attorney-client privilege as well as the Maryland Public Information Act.

Cumming asks how her office can promote accountability and uncover financial waste if it does not have access to city documents.

“The OIG cannot investigate complaints lodged against city officials, employees, contractors, or recipients of city funds if the city solicitor unilaterally determines that the OIG cannot be privy to information pertinent to those investigations,” Cumming asserted, calling on Judge White to reaffirm that OIG subpoenas have the full force of the law and compel the city to produce all requested materials without redactions.

The complaint includes correspondence from former City Solicitor Andre M. Davis endorsing the right of the OIG to enforce its own subpoenas, and from Acting City Solicitor Dana P. Moore instructing the city’s technology office to provide the OIG with full access to city servers and databases to “allow the process of investigations to be conducted in an independent and objective manner while maintaining integrity and confidentiality.”

Information Blackout

The catalyst for the heated dispute was the OIG’s investigation of SideStep, a pilot youth diversion program administered by the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (MONSE).

The IG found that MONSE failed to track youth outcomes to the extent that SideStep’s effectiveness was called into question. Last November, Cumming requested invoices and payroll records in connection with more than $350,000 in SideStep payments made to community-based organizations.

The law office responded by heavily redacting more than 200 pages of documents, claiming they contained confidential personal financial or health information.

The law department then did not respond to an OIG subpoena for the unredacted documents, and City Solicitor Thompson refused to allow Cumming to hire independent counsel to argue for the information.

That led to the decision by the OIG Advisory Board to hire attorneys H. Mark Stichel and Anthony J. May – on a pro-bono basis – to represent the board and IG in its lawsuit against the city.

Judge White has scheduled a preliminary remote hearing on the city’s request to dismiss the case and Cumming’s request for a court-mandated subpoena on Friday.