A two-and-a-half-hour Atlanta City Council work session last Thursday, with limited public comment, offered no clear indication of how the council would handle a hotly contested bill to overhaul the city’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).
If anything was clear, it’s that the council may need more time to carefully consider the legislation, which also affects the Atlanta Ethics Office. Councilmember Antonio Lewis urged caution. “I want to make sure we’re careful how we move as a city,” he said.
Inspector General Shannon Manigault was given just 15 minutes to present, and she yielded five minutes of her time to Dave McClintock of the Association of Inspectors General — the national organization that sets best practices for inspector general offices.
City employee union leader Gina Pagnotta expressed outrage at the limited public comment period. Like other members of the public, the president of Atlanta’s Professional Association of City Employees (PACE) was allotted only three minutes to speak. Her primary concern: ensuring union members are guaranteed union representation when dealing with the Inspector General’s Office.
“What kind of work session is this?” Pagnotta asked council members, pointedly reminding them that they’re all up for election later this year.
Revised bill
More clarity came Monday morning when the Committee on Council considered a substitute version of the bill that it subsequently forwarded to the full city council.
The revised bill appears to address concerns raised by Atlanta Ethics Officer Jabu Sengova, incorporating nearly all of her recommendations. That included restoring the independence of the governing boards for both the Inspector General’s Office and the Ethics Office by removing a provision that would have allowed the mayor and city council each to appoint a board member. Currently, a single board governs both offices, with members appointed by citizen groups.
“The substitute legislation appears to resolve our concerns raised at the work session. The mayoral and council appointee language has been removed, and the substitute includes the additional revisions that we requested,” Sengova said in an email Monday.
However, the Inspector General’s Office was not provided a copy of the substitute bill before the Committee on Council meeting, OIG spokesperson Felecia Henderson told Atlanta Civic Circle in a text message Monday..
The original bill, backed by Mayor Andre Dickens’ administration, would have granted the mayor and city council one board seat nomination each out of seven total seats. The revised version eliminates those provisions. Councilmember Howard Shook, who authored the original bill, introduced an amendment in committee to restore seats on the OIG board — but not the Ethics Board — for the Atlanta-Fulton County League of Women Voters and the Atlanta Planning and Advisory Board (APAB).
Under the revised legislation, the Ethics Office board would shrink to five members, all appointed by citizen groups. Nominations from the Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants and the city’s seven major universities remain eliminated from both the new OIG and Ethics boards.
Unresolved issues
Still unresolved after the Committee on Council meeting were key questions about:
- the OIG’s ability to conduct criminal investigations.
- whether the OIG’s interviews of city employees for investigations must be compelled – which means they can’t be used in any potential criminal prosecutions later – or if interviews can be voluntary.
- the OIG’s authority to subpoena financial records from third parties, such as banks.
- the OIG’s access to city records.
The Committee on Council voted down a motion to hold the bill by 4-3, then voted by 5-1-1 to adopt the substitute bill. Councilmember Liliana Bakhtiari voted against the substitute bill, saying she wanted her constituents to have time to review the changes, while Councilmember Amir Farokhi abstained.
Full council moves bill forward, with more changes
The full council added more changes to the bill on Monday afternoon. Councilmember Matt Westmoreland successfully introduced an amendment restoring the OIG’s ability to refer any findings of potential criminal wrongdoing to local or federal prosecutors.
However, some council members and the city attorney maintain that the OIG should not conduct any investigation that could rise to the criminal level. “I don’t think it is the place of the city’s IG to work on anything criminal,” councilmember Marci Collier Overstreet said.
Overstreet also introduced an amendment explicitly prohibiting the OIG and the Ethics Office from using “covert surveillance technology” in their investigations. The amendment passed 8-6.
The city council unanimously approved the latest version of the bill by 14-0. Now it will undergo another round of committee hearings. The earliest that the legislation could become law is Feb. 17.
City accuses OIG of ‘illegal’ subpoenas
Meanwhile, Mayor Andre Dickens’ office accused the OIG of violating state law at least 50 times by issuing administrative subpoenas for financial records without notifying the individuals whose records were accessed. City Attorney Patrise Perkins-Hooker warned that the violations compromised privacy protections and could lead to legal challenges.
In response, the OIG admitted the mistake, saying the subpoenas were issued in “good faith” and that the office “owns its missteps.” The OIG said it was unaware of the statewide notification requirement until Jan. 30, when the mayor’s office raised the issue, and that it immediately updated its policies. The OIG also said the situation underscores its need for a dedicated in-house lawyer.
Some of the subpoenas for financial records were “issued in connection with criminal matter(s) tied to prosecutor(s),” the OIG added. Depositors at financial institutions do not need to be notified for subpoenas issued in conjunction with a criminal investigation, according to state law.
