Atlanta council adopts first reading of charter changes for inspector general and ethics office after debate over subpoenas and surveillance

The Atlanta City Council on Feb. 3 voted to adopt, on first reading, a package of charter changes intended to clarify the powers and oversight of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Ethics Office.

The move came after public testimony and council debate about recent OIG subpoenas for financial records and whether the office has been using covert methods. The council approved the amended charter language by a recorded vote of 14-0 and then referred the measure back to the Committee on Council for the second adoption the charter process requires.

The change restores several oversight details removed in earlier drafts: the OIG governing board will be structured as a seven-member panel that includes appointments tied to the Atlanta Planning Advisory Board and the Fulton County League of Women Voters; language making clear that the OIG and Ethics Office should report suspected criminal violations to appropriate law enforcement agencies was restored; and some phrasing that had been read as expanding law-enforcement powers was deleted to rely on existing state law limits.

Council members also approved a separate amendment prohibiting the OIG and the Ethics Office from using covert surveillance technologies during investigations. That amendment passed on a roll-call 8-6 before the full package was approved.

The debate revisited a complaint raised repeatedly at the meeting: that subpoenas seeking bank records had been issued in a manner inconsistent with state procedures. City attorney Amber A. Robinson told the council that the office does have the authority to issue subpoenas but that subpoenas for financial institutions must include contemporaneous notice so an account holder can seek to quash the subpoena. "The OIG has the power to subpoena documents and records," Robinson said, "and if those documents happen to be financial records, they have to provide notice in advance" to allow legal challenge.

Several public speakers and council members said they were alarmed by what they described as improper requests for private financial information. Community activist Duane Robinson urged more fundamental action, saying the council should "scratch the OIG and start over," arguing the office had been "hook, wink, and lied to" in its setup and practice. That call was not adopted, but the council did accept multiple language changes to tighten reporting and procedural safeguards.

Council member Matt Westmoreland led a package of technical amendments that, among other things, restored language clarifying that employees interviewed by either office should be informed of their duty to cooperate while preserving protections against compelled statements being used in criminal prosecutions. The law department confirmed those changes do not grant investigatory law-enforcement powers to either office beyond state law. The city attorney also said the OIG had been told to stop issuing subpoenas in the way that had triggered complaints.

The charter amendment now returns to the Committee on Council for the second adoption required by the city charter; it must receive a second council vote at a later meeting to become final. Council members and the city attorney said the administration may brief the council in executive session on legal exposure and next steps.

What happens next: the charter amendment requires a second adoption vote and additional committee review. Council members said they expect further technical refinements to be made in committee before final passage.