Council work session exposes sharp disagreement over proposed OIG charter changes

Atlanta — City council and administration officials spent a two‑hour joint work session on Jan. 29 debating proposed changes to the city charter that would alter the Office of Inspector General’s powers and the oversight structure that governs it.

Inspector General Manigault, who led the OIG presentation, said the office has followed industry standards and rejected several allegations that prompted the legislation. “We’ve never collected or searched anyone’s personal property,” Manigault said, adding that some claims about OIG practices are “lies and misrepresentations” that need public rebuttal.

Why it matters: The substitute legislation under consideration would change how the OIG and a restored ethics board are constituted and how the OIG may use administrative tools such as subpoenas and access city devices. Supporters of the OIG warned changes could limit the office’s ability to detect and deter fraud, waste and corruption; backers of the substitute said the amendments would clarify procedure and protect employees’ rights.

The debate drew a national perspective when a representative of the Association of Inspectors General urged the council to pause the measure and consult experienced inspectors general. The Association representative said the current substitute would “not be in compliance with national standards.”

Administration officials, including Chief of Staff Donald, said the substitute is intended to add guardrails and clarify implementation questions that employees and departments have raised. Donald cited concerns about procedures for device access, attorney‑client privilege and notifications tied to administrative subpoenas, and argued the city needs “clarity” so employees and departments know how investigations will be handled.

Amber A. Robinson of the City Department of Law summarized recent wording changes in the substitute. Robinson said the substitute restores the term “corruption” in two charter sections and clarifies that “investigations conducted by the office of the inspector general are administrative in nature,” and that personnel in the OIG “shall not have the powers and abilities of law enforcement officers as defined in state law, including the ability to conduct criminal investigations.”

Multiple council members asked how the city should draw the line between administrative and criminal investigations and whether the OIG should retain authority to refer matters to prosecutors. An expert from the Association of Inspectors General told the committee that it is common for IG offices to issue administrative subpoenas and to work with courts or law‑enforcement partners if a matter becomes criminal. The expert described the usual sequence as an administrative subpoena followed by a judicial subpoena if a party refuses to comply.

Public commenters and union leaders warned that narrowing OIG authority would make it harder to uncover wrongdoing. Several speakers urged the council to protect the OIG’s independence and to avoid changes that they said would “defang” the office.

What’s next: Councilmembers and staff said they will continue to refine substitute language; no formal vote was taken at the work session. Committee chairs said they will seek more stakeholder engagement before returning legislation to a vote.