In a lopsided vote that kept a high-stakes oversight fight simmering, the Baltimore City Council on Monday voted 13-1 against fast-tracking a charter amendment that would have restored the city inspector general’s direct access to agency records. The defeat sends the proposal back to committee, and its sponsor, Councilman Mark Conway, says he is not backing off.
Conway had moved to pull the measure out of the Charter Review Special Committee and rush it to the full council so there would still be time to override a possible veto from Mayor Brandon Scott, as reported by WBFF/FOX45. Supporters argued the change was urgently needed after the mayor’s office curtailed the Office of the Inspector General’s access earlier this year. Opponents countered that the council should not bypass its own process on a complex charter change just because the clock is ticking.
What the measure would do
The proposal would name the inspector general as a co-custodian of city records, giving the office broader, real-time access to files and internal systems that investigators say they need to follow money trails and uncover waste and fraud, according to CBS Baltimore. The legislation is already filed on the city’s public docket and, if cleared by both the council and voters, could land on a future ballot as a charter question. Conway has said the change would not take effect for two years even if approved. Backers argue the amendment is about insulating the watchdog from political interference when it investigates city programs such as the MONSE review that helped spark the current dispute.
Council pushback over procedure
Council President Zeke Cohen and several colleagues urged a slower walk, stressing that the Charter Review Committee should fully vet the language and legal consequences before the council takes a final vote, as Baltimore Brew reported. Councilmembers including Odette Ramos and Ryan Dorsey warned against being boxed into a make-fast decision and raised flags about attorney-client privilege and state preemption. Several members said another hearing would give the committee room to refine the wording and weigh the legal risks.
Supporters fill the chambers
On the other side, supporters packed the council gallery and urged members to let voters decide whether the inspector general should have the tools to follow the money, according to CBS Baltimore. Deputy Inspector General Matthew Neil told the committee that redactions and locked-down system access have hamstrung investigations and argued that city-issued devices and emails are taxpayer property, not private correspondence. Conway and allied councilmembers framed restoring access as a matter of protecting the office’s independence, not as a shot at any particular administration.
At the center: a lawsuit and state law
The fight is already in court. Inspector General Isabel Cumming filed a verified complaint in Baltimore Circuit Court in February seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus to enforce the charter’s subpoena and access provisions, according to the verified complaint. The city law department and the mayor have argued that the Maryland Public Information Act controls disclosure and that a local charter amendment cannot override state confidentiality rules, as reported by The Daily Record.
Legal implications
State guidance has only muddied the waters. The Scott administration cited an advice letter from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office in February, but Attorney General Anthony Brown later described that correspondence as an advisory summary rather than a formal, binding opinion, Baltimore Brew reported. That mix of charter language, case law and statewide open-records rules means the core question of whether the city can lawfully grant the inspector general near-unfettered access may ultimately be settled only through more litigation or action by the General Assembly.
What comes next
Conway maintains the bill is not dead and says it will return to the committee for more hearings. The measure remains on the city’s docket for future consideration, per the City Legistar. Even if voters eventually get a say, questions about whether the Maryland Public Information Act preempts local changes could still send any charter fix into another round of court battles.
The council’s 13-1 rebuke slowed any quick resolution but did not settle the deeper tug-of-war between city hall oversight and state open-records law. Until judges or lawmakers spell out whose rules really control, the inspector general’s access to the records she says she needs will remain both politically charged and legally unsettled.
