Last month, the world watched the unprecedented indictment of the sitting mayor of New York City, Eric Adams. Adams is accused of serious misconduct: bribery, campaign finance and conspiracy offenses, including receipt of more than $100,000 in luxury travel expenses and the receipt of more than $10 million based on false certification of campaign contributions. In her remarks during the news conference regarding the indictment, Jocelyn Strauber, the commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI), offered the following comments:
“As the city’s inspector general, the Department of Investigation, a city agency conducts its investigations confidentially and wholly independent of City Hall. We handled this investigation as we would any other, following the facts and seeking to hold wrongdoers accountable no matter their role or title. Our unique access to city records and expertise in matters of city government make us a critical partner in the fight to root out corruption, working closely with our law enforcement colleagues at the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
Credit: Handout
Credit: Handout
Strauber’s comments could not be more timely, as Atlanta’s own office of inspector general is under scrutiny for working to root out corruption in this city.
Like DOI, the Atlanta Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is an independent fact-finding city agency that is authorized under the city’s charter to investigate fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption. Unlike DOI, however, OIG has not been afforded the level of access to city records and property needed to conduct independent investigations. A lack of direct access to records or property is not insurmountable; indeed, OIG has managed to complete significant investigations despite its indirect access. But the OIG’s active investigations have been stymied by systemic roadblocks, interference and obstruction, which have delayed and compromised the integrity of the investigations.
Last year, OIG made a series of requests to meet with the mayoral administration to discuss the possibility of receiving direct access to records and email, with the hope that each of us could learn the other’s perspectives and that we could bridge any divide so that each side’s concerns could be addressed. The mayor’s office would not meet. Instead, it summarily denied the access request in a letter, citing a 2022 disclosure of personal identifiable information in response to an Open Records request.
The mayor’s office has stated that the appropriate system for OIG receiving access to city records/property is that OIG should let the mayor’s office know what it needs, and then the mayor’s office would decide what it wanted OIG to have. This system would hold OIG investigations hostage, allowing the very entity being investigated to pick and choose the information it deigns to disclose. This is the antithesis of independence; it would render OIG ineffective, creating an office of inspector general in name only.
Rather than engage in meaningful discussion about OIG’s need for access or the ways OIG investigations have been obstructed, the mayor’s office created a task force to review the office’s operations. The body was given an impossible task: to hold three public meetings to review OIG’s operations and make recommendations to the mayor and the City Council all within 45 days. The newly selected chair said it was not possible for the task force to fulfill its duties during the established official meetings, prompting a discussion about forming subgroups to conduct some of the task force work virtually. However expedient, offline fact-finding meetings of the subgroup would deny the public its right to full transparency regarding the task force’s review of OIG and the critical oversight function it serves.
The New York indictment highlights the importance of anti-corruption work and what good arises when a city respects and empowers its office of inspector general. DOI is just one of many established, effective offices of inspector general across the country. Atlanta deserves to have as robust an anti-corruption function as New York and other cities.
In the wake of Atlanta’s own federal indictments of City Hall leaders, the 2019 Task Force for the Promotion of Public Trust recommended the formation of an office of inspector general in order to “move past the corruption scandals and be recognized for the vibrant culture, economy and people that make this City great.” Significantly, that body noted that “successful IG offices must be imbued with adequate enforcement powers to get the job done. Corruption investigations are complex and challenging, and the tools that these [IG] offices have are vital to fulfilling the mandate of an IG.” OIG welcomes the objective scrutiny of the current task force, as OIG wants to discuss its operations, place its work in the context of the work of offices of inspector general nationwide, and underscore its need for greater resources to best serve Atlanta. But any full and fair examination of OIG will take time. This task force simply has not been given the opportunity for anything approaching the thorough review that this subject and this city deserves.
Shannon K. Manigault is the Atlanta inspector general. She previously worked for the New York City Department of Investigation, where she was the inspector general of New York City’s Fire Department, Department of Sanitation, Taxi & Limousine Commission, Emergency Management and Conflicts of Interest Board.
About the Author
