Mayor Brandon Scott today announced legislation to go before the City Council that would effectively strip Baltimore’s inspector general of independence and tie the office to the city law department.

While saying the measures would restore “faith in the city’s oversight and transparency structure,” the mayor outlined proposals that would drastically change, if not curtail, how IG Isabel Mercedes Cumming conducts investigations that have recently exposed lavish spending by the mayor’s office and uncovered alleged fraud in a crime-diversion program.

The legislation would designate Cumming’s office as “part of the City of Baltimore legal entity” (thereby restricting its role as an independent agency) and subject it to the oversight of a “designated legal representative” (appointed by the city solicitor, who, in turn, is appointed by the mayor).

A “new audit trail,” according to Scott, would govern how the inspector general makes her requests to investigate complaints of government waste and fraud, and mandatory quarterly reviews would track the performance of the office.

Scott denied that the proposals flew in the face of voter referendums in 2018 and 2022 that established the IG’s independence from the mayor and removed his and other electeds’ representatives from an advisory board in favor of citizen members.

“It’s about protecting the law and making sure the citizens of Baltimore’s rights and everything are being protected”  – Mayor Brandon Scott.

Asked by The Brew if he was changing by legislation what voters had approved in charter amendments, Scott said, “No, it has nothing to do with that at all.”

Shouldn’t voters decide, he was asked, how much transparency and independence the inspector general has?

“It doesn’t impact transparency at all,” Scott replied, further explaining, “This is not about me. It’s about protecting the law and making sure the citizens of Baltimore’s rights and everything are being protected.”

If so, why not put his proposals before voters this fall, we asked.

“Because we can do this right now,” the mayor answered, indicating he wants his “oversight and transparency package” approved as soon as possible by the City Council. In a written release, the timeline for passage of his legislative package is listed as summer 2026.

Bad Publicity and a Legal Setback

The mayor outlined his proposals at a City Hall press conference that followed this morning’s front-page Wall Street Journal article that described the mayor’s clash with Cummings as “a flashpoint for outrage . . . surfacing across the U.S.,” quoting a local resident saying that Scott’s shielding of records is “no different than the Epstein files.”

Adding fuel to the political firestorm is a lawsuit against the city by Cumming and two members of the IG Advisory Board, requesting judicial enforcement of an IG subpoena for unredacted records from the MONSE SideStep diversion program.

Last month, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Pamela J. White appeared to side with Cumming, saying the law department had “cut off, foreclosed [and] shot down” the IG’s ability to investigate fraud and waste. More hearings in the case are expected in June.

Cumming today declined to comment on the mayor’s plans for her office. “Pending the ongoing litigation, I cannot comment at this time,” she said.

On Monday, the City Council rejected a move by Councilman Mark Conway to advance his bill, mired in committee, that would have allowed voters to decide this November whether to give the inspector general direct access to city records.

In explaining their vote, several lawmakers complained that the bill was flawed and rushed, and repeatedly cited the importance of a “deliberative process” to pass such legislation.

“Sounds like a system where the inspector general can investigate government misconduct only through procedures controlled by the mayor’s lawyers”  – Councilman Mark Conway.

Conway today called the mayor’s plan “a cosmetic measure” to protect his administration’s reputation.

“What has been described by the mayor today sounds like a system where the inspector general can investigate government misconduct only through procedures controlled by the mayor’s lawyers and politically contaminated oversight structures,” Conway said in a statement.

“If this goes through, the OIG’s access will be, once again, subordinate to the law department and suffer the same suffocating executive pressure that has smothered other oversight structures like the Police Accountability Board,” his statement continued.

“Let’s be clear: anything short of restoring full direct access to the inspector general is a cosmetic measure designed to protect City Hall, not the public.”

Three Additional Steps

Scott’s plan was one of four steps he said he intends to take to “prioritize transparency and oversight while making sure inspector generals remain within state law.”

The other steps are described as “Completing the MONSE investigation,” “Change to state law” and “Charter amendment updating the OIG.”

Rather than letting the IG complete her investigation of SideStep, which Scott said has become a “political football,” he said he would hire a team from Baker Tilly, a global forensic accounting firm, to conduct “a thorough and neutral investigation free from politicalization [stet].”

Scott said upon completion of the investigation, he would hold any “perpetrators accountable no matter who they are.”

Critically, however, Baker Tilly would not get to review the unredacted MONSE payroll records that Cumming also can’t see because they are exempt from public disclosure by the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA), according to Scott and the law department.

During the 2027 General Assembly in Annapolis, the mayor said he would support changes that would exempt local inspector generals from the limitations of the MPIA and would advocate for “a new state law that provides a centralized oversight framework to standardize the work of inspectors general across local jurisdictions.”

Finally, if the state law changes along the lines he wishes, Scott said he would push for changes in the City Charter in 2028.

Those changes would include:

• amending the IG Advisory Board’s makeup, selection process and oversight authority to comply with state law. The board appoints the inspector general and is currently made up of local citizens and the deans of the University of Maryland and University of Baltimore law schools.

• requiring that, in addition to an annual report, the Advisory Board conduct “quarterly performance and status reviews of the OIG’s investigatory work.”

• outlining an investigatory process “to ensure it is clear and transparent, including an investigatory ‘request’ system and audit trail.”

• and amending “the IG requirements for clarity and consistency with updated local and state law.”