Unions and administration clash over home interviews, subpoenas and device access in OIG investigations

Atlanta — City employees’ rights, subpoena rules and the OIG’s access to devices and records drew sustained attention at the Jan. 29 joint council work session.

Several union leaders and workers told the council they have been denied representation during investigations and that OIG investigators have, in at least one instance, appeared at employees’ homes without prior notice. Crystal Jeffrey, secretary‑treasurer of AFSCME Georgia, said: “This is a direct violation of the city charter, and it must be corrected immediately.”

Why it matters: The substitute charter language aims to define procedures for investigations, including whether interviews are voluntary or compelled, whether targets must be told their status (witness or subject), and how subpoenas and device access should be handled. Those details affect employee due process, legal privilege and the city’s exposure to liability.

Administration officials presented an example and said they had received an email from an employee describing an unannounced home visit by an OIG investigator. Chief of Staff Donald read an excerpt and played a short video excerpt the administration said showed an investigator approaching an employee’s home. Donald said the employee reported receiving a no‑caller‑ID call after a business card was left and that the investigator told the employee “yes, it's within my jurisdiction” when the employee asked if the home visit was appropriate.

Donald said the administration’s review of OIG subpoenas and procedures raised compliance concerns under state law that requires depositors be notified when financial records are sought unless a court directs otherwise. He told the committee that an open‑records review showed instances where banks were instructed not to notify account holders, and he said the city must add guardrails to ensure notification and protections for sensitive records.

Unions and employee advocates urged the council to codify worker protections. Gina Pagnotta of the Professional Association of City Employees (PACE) said employees must have the right to representation when interviewed in a way that could lead to discipline: “This right for representation is a fundamental protection for our members and all employees.” Crystal Jeffrey (AFSCME) repeated that investigators should inform employees at the outset whether the employee is a witness or the subject of the investigation.

Legal experts at the session cautioned that civil‑rights decisions such as Garrity and state open‑records law are sometimes misunderstood; Southern Center public policy director Tiffany Roberts said Garrity addresses compelled statements introduced in criminal court, not the use of administrative information in other proceedings. The Association of Inspectors General representative explained that administrative subpoenas are common and are often complied with; if an entity refuses, the usual path is to seek a judicial subpoena from a court.

What’s next: Councilmembers asked the law department and OIG for clearer, written procedures that address notification, representation, device and data access, and timelines. Several members signaled support for immediate, narrow fixes — for example, requiring prior notice before an unannounced home interview and clarifying representation rights — while broader charter changes will be subject to further review.