Council holds charter amendment altering Office of Inspector General governance after sustained public comment

The Atlanta City Council voted to hold proposed charter amendments that would change the authority and governance of the city’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and ethics office after extensive public comment and committee discussion.

The ordinance in question, referred to in meeting materials as 25-O-1009, would create separate governing boards for the OIG and the ethics office and revise authorities and appointment processes. Supporters of the current OIG governance and outside experts told council the draft contains provisions that would meaningfully reduce investigative authority, constrain evidence access, and reduce community representation on oversight boards.

Devin Franklin, senior movement policy counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, described multiple problematic draft provisions. He said the proposed language narrowing investigative authority — which would prohibit the OIG from conducting criminal investigations — and a revised records-access clause that would require voluntary surrender of city property before subpoenaing it would “unnecessarily complicate, convolute, and delay meaningful investigation into actions of potential harm to the city.” Franklin warned the language was ambiguous and could “kneecap” the OIG’s ability to pursue waste, fraud and corruption.

Board members and oversight experts also objected to governance changes. Andrew Cohen, who identified himself as a member of the OIG governing board and director of research for the Gene B. Blumenfeld Center for Ethics at Georgia State University, said versions he had seen appeared to allow the mayor’s office to appoint representatives to boards whose role is to oversee the OIG. “To me, without fully appreciating what's going on, that just looks like self dealing,” Cohen said. Nicola Hines, chair of the governing board, said proposed removal of seats nominated by the League of Women Voters and seven universities would “jeopardize the trust and balance that has been foundational to our oversight role.”

Union and city employee speakers expressed mixed views. Gina Pagnotta, a union leader representing city employees, said some employees welcomed OIG investigations that brought attention to mismanagement; other speakers said OIG practices had sometimes been mishandled and urged clearer protections, including representation rights for employees during OIG interactions.

Committee action and council votes: the ordinance was forwarded from the finance and executive committee without a recommendation, and the council took several procedural votes during the meeting. Councilmember Liliana Bakhtiari asked to have her sponsorship removed from the ordinance; that amendment was accepted by unanimous consent. A motion to hold the ordinance — to pause final action and schedule a work session for further review — passed on a recorded vote of 13 yays, 0 nays. Council leaders said they expect a work session to be scheduled within roughly 7–10 business days to allow focused discussion with the law department, OIG and ethics office staff.

Speakers urged clarity on specific contested clauses before the council acts. Key issues flagged included: whether the OIG may pursue criminal investigations; whether the OIG’s access to city-owned property and records should be subject to a voluntary-surrender requirement before subpoenas; how compelled-statement language would affect future prosecution; and whether the composition and appointment process for oversight boards should be changed by charter amendment. Several public speakers volunteered to meet with council staff and taskforce members to refine draft language.

Council leadership said the hold is intended to allow targeted work sessions and to resolve differences identified by staff, board members and outside experts. No final vote to adopt the charter amendment occurred at the meeting.