Baltimore IG Cumming says the Scott administration is blocking her investigations
On Saturday, the OIG was denied access to city records. Today the inspector general fired back, saying, “We basically cannot do our job.” UPDATED with mayor’s office reply.
Above: Financial records requested by the inspector general that were heavily redacted by the Law Department. (@isabel22)
Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming today accused the Scott administration of obstructing her ability to investigate government fraud and abuse by redacting hundreds of pages of financial records, then cutting off her office’s access to “monitor and manage” its own records.
In tweets posted this morning, Cumming said the city terminated the OIG’s access to online city records on Saturday.
This followed a subpoena issued by OIG last Tuesday that demanded the unredacted financial records for a youth program run by the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (MONSE).
“200 pages redacted. Unable to follow taxpayer $$,” the first tweet stated.
A second tweet noted: “Losing Admin access means OIG can no longer monitor and manage who reviews our data including whistleblower, ethics and investigations. Our law enforcement partners have been notified.”
In a brief interview today, Cumming called the city’s moves “unprecedented,” saying, “This has never happened before. For the eight years I have been inspector general, I have had unfettered access to city records.”
“We basically cannot do our job,” she added.
Under the city charter, the OIG is an independent agency “responsible for investigating complaints of fraud, financial waste and abuse in City government and promoting efficiency, accountability and integrity in City government.”
In 2018, the office was separated from the Law Department, and in 2022 voters approved a ballot question that removed the appointment power for members of the IG Advisory Board from the mayor and other elected officials.
City: Breach of Confidentiality
On Saturday, the mayor’s office sent out a press release that accused the OIG of violating attorney-client confidentiality by accessing unauthorized files.
It said a city lawyer had “discovered an unauthorized account had access to their files, including those protected by the confidential attorney-client and work-product privileges. As a result, a permissions audit was conducted, which discovered an account associated with the Inspector General’s Office had gained unapproved and unfettered access to the lawyer’s legally protected confidential work product and communications.”
To assure privileged communications for clients, the Law Department directed the Baltimore City Office of Information Technology (BCIT) “to remove any accounts with unauthorized access to Law Department files and restore the confidentiality to ensure the Law Department is able to maintain its legal and ethical responsibilities.”
Because the OIG did not get authorized access for files for a current investigation, “removal of this access will not impede the lawful work of the Office of the Inspector General,” the statement asserted.
Cumming vigorously disputed the city’s position and said she had no advance notice of the press release, which was issued Saturday afternoon amid the city’s emergency preparations for a winter storm.
The press office has not yet responded to a request for comment about Cumming’s tweets. City Solicitor Ebony Thompson and City Administrator Faith Leach also did not respond.
• UPDATE – Mayor’s office has released this statement to The Brew:
“As noted in the original statement, the removal of the Office of the Inspector General’s unauthorized and unfettered access to the Law Department’s legally protected work product files did not pertain to any current investigation and removal of that access will not impede the lawful work of the Office of the Inspector General.
“The OIG is choosing to conflate two independent issues in an intentional effort to mislead the public about this situation. Additionally, their administrative access over their own files was not impacted so claiming otherwise is also misleading.”
• BELOW – Mayor’s press release on Saturday afternoon:
Investigation of SideStep
Tensions between the OIG and the Scott administration have grown since the OIG began investigating SideStep, a youth diversion program piloted by MONSE in 2022 in partnership with the Police Department’s Western District.
The goal was to prevent young people between 10 and 17 accused of certain crimes from going through the criminal justice system and instead provide them with alternate programming.
In its October 2025 report, the OIG reported that SideStep’s effectiveness could not be determined by an independent evaluator because of poor record retention by MONSE.
There was evidence, however, the report said, that recidivism rates among participants were higher than reported under MONSE’s six-month performance metric.
Because of “concern surrounding the upcoming expansion of the program,” Cumming said her office “will be continuing the investigation and will provide a full report at its conclusion with recommendations.”
State’s Attorney Ivan Bates also complained about lack of access to information about the SideStep program by MONSE Director Stefanie Mavronis.
The Law Department responded to Cumming’s request for further information by treating it as a Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) request, subject to redactions under attorney-client privilege and other restrictions.
MPIA Dispute
On December 3, the IG Advisory Board issued a lengthy position paper arguing that OIG requests cannot be treated the same as public and media MPIA requests.
“An MPIA request is a non-coercive statutory right for the public to inspect or copy government records, subject to fees and exemptions, and enforced only through civil proceedings under the MPIA,” the paper said.
In contrast, “An OIG administrative subpoena is a compulsory, court-enforceable order that can require testimony under oath and document production. . . They are distinct mechanisms and cannot be treated as equivalent.”
Cumming’s office also released a position paper by the Association of Inspectors General saying that IG’s should not be denied access to government attorney-client communications and attorney work product.
“This denial allows political actors or others who wield power within the overseen entity to hide crucial information behind a facade of privilege, with little putative benefit to the public; the practice is a material external impairment to the independence of inspectors general,” the April 2025 paper stated.
