Atlanta’s new interim watchdog pledges to rebuild public trust

The year-long feud between Atlanta’s Office of Inspector General and Mayor Andre Dickens’ administration came to a head when Inspector General Shannon Manigault resigned on the steps of City Hall on Feb. 17. That followed the resignations of the majority of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) governing board.

Later that day, the Atlanta City Council passed a city charter amendment by a 14-1 vote that made controversial changes to limit the powers of the city’s top corruption watchdog, and dissolved the OIG board.

Just a few days later, Mayor Andre Dickens’ office called LaDawn Blackett — a part-time judge for DeKalb County State Court and the city of South Fulton, who also maintains a private law practice — and asked her to helm the now-leaderless office.

Her first response, she told Atlanta Civic Circle in an hour-long interview on Tuesday, was “no thank you.”

Blackett ultimately accepted the role on an interim basis. She said she doesn’t intend to stay in the role beyond a year from her March 3 start date, and initially declined all media interviews to focus on learning the job and getting to know her staff.

The OIG drama continued, despite Manigault’s departure. The mayor’s office issued press releases in late February and early March attacking both the former inspector general and current OIG staff. Meanwhile, several current and former employees released a whistleblower letter on March 3 alleging wrongdoing and corruption at the highest levels of City Hall.

It’s amid that controversy that Blackett took the unenviable role of leading the Inspector General’s office — an appointment on legally shaky ground to begin with, as the city charter mandates that a citizen-led board, not the mayor, appoints the inspector general.

On a balmy April afternoon, Blackett, who’s also a former state legislator and Fulton County prosecutor, spoke with Atlanta Civic Circle about her goals for the office and its future.

Blackett also provided a copy of her 90-day administrative plan for the OIG, including operational independence and the case review process. Blackett said the OIG has instituted a case-management system in the works under Manigault’s tenure, which prioritizes cases based on both urgency and how long they’ve been open. 

Notably, one of the council’s changes to the OIG was to place a two-year time limit on open cases. The interim inspector general said she has not been in contact with any federal or local prosecutors to whom cases may have been previously referred.

The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

ACC: How were you appointed? All the public saw was a press release announcing you were the interim inspector general. What’s the back story?

LB: I received a phone call from the mayor’s administration — not from the mayor directly — and I understand that they may have compiled a [candidate] list. My immediate answer was no thank you, and that was just for personal reasons. I have a family, kids that I’m taking care of.

However, I am a public servant to my soul. I had no clue about any of the issues that were happening — and so I researched it. When I understood the importance of the office, I took a second look and said that I was willing to serve in a temporary capacity. 

ACC: The city charter says a citizen governing board appoints the Inspector General, but that board doesn’t currently exist. Have you had any conversations with the administration, Atlanta City Council, or civic groups about reconstituting it?

LB: The only duty in this office related to the governing board [appointments] is to make sure that background checks are done. It is the city clerk who is responsible for the actual process of communicating with those outside [nominating] agencies. My job is to be prepared when that governing board gets here.

ACC: You’ve said you’re taking the inspector general role for 12 months. Isn’t it in your interest to make sure the city is moving forward with the governing board?

LB: I’m not there yet. I need 90 days — for good organization, for good administration — particularly in an office where there was a little bit of a morale issue. You have people resigning, people who were concerned. As an administrator, my job is to secure my staff. For them to do a good job, they have to feel comfortable. 

So I’m not really worried about the board until after the first 90 days. But after 90 days, and I get all those things in place, then I might start saying: ‘Okay, where are things?’ 

ACC: You mention morale issues. How are you navigating the, at times, contentious relationship between the Inspector General’s office and the administration?

LB: What I have been highlighting is that independence is not isolation. There is zero reason why this office cannot communicate about administrative processes and procedures with all the other departments. I simply will not communicate about individual investigations until they’ve reached a stage of completion.

ACC: How have you handled the Dickens administration’s public attacks on the OIG? On March 5, you sent a memo to the mayor’s Office of Communications, politely telling them to back off and stating that “recruiting a competent board will be challenging if the rhetoric continues at its current level.”

I need everyone – that’s my staff, the administration, the citizens, the taxpayers – to know I have no control over what happened before I came, but this is how I will operate moving forward: Everything will be aboveboard. Everything will be communicated in writing. Everything will be communicated timely and efficiently.

I’ve had a chance to evaluate each staff member, including those who [signed] the whistleblower letters and are still in the office. We are humans, we have families — and anytime we think our livelihood may be in question, we’re going to act in what is in our best interest. I respect that, even if it’s not the action that I would have personally taken, I respect it. 

And out of that respect, it was my evaluation from talking to my staff members that they are well intentioned. I needed them to understand on all sides that we’re going to do the right thing in the right way.

ACC: Some may view the mayor’s actions as an attack on the independence of the office — especially given revelations that the OIG was investigating senior administration officials. What public assurance can you give about maintaining the integrity of the office under your stewardship?

LB: I think it’s a fair question. People want to make sure that I’m going to do complete investigations. Because we’re still in the first 30 days, it’s hard for me to prove it, based on what’s happened in the office so far.

I am assuming that I was picked because of my reputation. So as a prosecutor, it is very common that I may have a good conversation with the defense attorney, but when it comes to having to deal with whether or not their client is going to have to spend time in jail, the rule is the rule.

The other thing that I can tell them using my history is I’m not very afraid of people. One of the benefits of being an interim is that I don’t have to worry about my own self interest in maintaining this position. I’m certainly not afraid of talking about what an administrator may be doing wrong. 

ACC: Without commenting specifically on any investigation, what can you say about the fate of the open investigations referenced in the whistleblower letter?

LB: I will treat those cases with urgency. Every case that was in my office before I arrived on March 3 is still considered open as of today. All 122 cases that were listed as open before I started have had some level of evaluation.

If anything in the whistleblower letter is known by any [city] employee, citizen, taxpayer, vendor, contractor, they should call the OIG office. Anyone who has concerns, let us know, because additional facts and information will help us evaluate the case. 

Blackett’s 90-day plan states that cases cited in the whistleblower letter are undergoing both an investigative review and a review for “charter compliance.” According to the plan, not all of the cases “were initiated by a complaint or other source as identified by the charter.” -Ed.

ACC: The charter changes — for instance, alerting someone that they’re the subject of an investigation — have raised concerns that the OIG has lost its investigative teeth. Can the OIG still conduct meaningful probes into allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption?

LB: I don’t see that concern for the investigative process. Some of those changes require specific types of notification if someone is going to be interviewed. We have no reason to not inform somebody that they’re a subject of the investigation. 

Another change in the charter was about the subpoenas. What the charter requires is that before a subpoena to a third party is issued [by the OIG], that it is reviewed by a judge in municipal court. That judge can either issue, quash, or limit the subpoena.

I welcome the third-party oversight. As a municipal court judge, I have zero concern that if I go to an Atlanta judge and say, ‘Hey, this is our investigation. We need a subpoena for these and these documents,’ that the judge is then going to go and tell the subject of the investigation. Judges don’t do that. So having a neutral person give us additional oversight doesn’t limit us. It’s an extra step, but we’re going to move our cases quite faster than they were being moved anyway. 

ACC: Will you continue to publicly post completed investigations on the OIG website?

LB: Cases will still be published. I have not determined what method, but they will be open to the public. The website makes the most sense, but that’s part of those discussions that the governing board is going to be helpful with. Nothing will be published as closed, until I’ve had a chance to meet with my governing board when they are formed.

ACC: What is your message to city employees that might be hesitant at this moment to report something to your office?

LB: For employees who want to make reports, I am prioritizing evaluating matters. So even if they’re not certain that this is something our office should handle, report it. 

It is important that within a reasonable amount of time, if someone makes a complaint, they receive a follow up. They should be comfortable that they’re going to get proper communication, and that at the end — whether substantiated or unsubstantiated — someone is looking into what their issue is.