Atlanta committee refers charter change on inspector general to full council after hours of public comment

Councilmember Shook presiding over the Finance Executive Committee on Jan. 15 moved to refer substitute ordinance 250-1009 — a proposed charter amendment that would split and alter oversight of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Ethics Office — to the Committee on Council for further review. The committee voted to refer the substitute, with the tally recorded as 5 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention.

The measure drew sustained public comment from city employees, union leaders, civil-rights lawyers and national oversight experts who warned that some changes in the substitute would weaken the OIG’s independence and its ability to investigate alleged waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. The substitute restored the word “corruption” in two places from an earlier draft, but left other procedural changes that prompted disagreement.

The substitute as presented would (among other changes) create separate governing boards for the OIG and the Ethics Office, change which civic organizations may nominate board members, require some subpoenas for sensitive third‑party records to be approved by a municipal judge, and clarify that OIG investigations are administrative and not criminal prosecutions. Amber Robinson of the City of Atlanta Law Department outlined the charter-amendment timetable under the Georgia Home Rule Act and said the earliest possible final approval under the schedule would be Feb. 3 if no advertisements must be reissued.

Union leaders and public‑interest groups pressed lawmakers to preserve strong investigative powers and employee safeguards. Crystal Jeffrey, secretary‑treasurer of AFSCME, said the committee should “uphold the task force recommendations” and urged protections including the right to union representation and non‑pervasive interview tactics. Tiffany Roberts, public policy director at the Southern Center for Human Rights, urged the committee to “hold or file proposed ordinance 250‑1009,” saying the substitute as drafted would “obliterate the separation of powers as it pertains to abuses of the public trust.”

Several speakers with professional oversight experience urged preserving full and timely access to records. Ian McCann, describing himself as a longtime performance auditor, said narrowing “immediate access” to require written requests or internal cross‑references would “restrict the timeliness in which OIG staff can effectively do their jobs.”

Inspector General (name not provided in the transcript) told the committee she had received a copy of the substitute shortly before the meeting and said her office still had “very significant issues even with the changes that have been proposed.” She urged public discussion with outside experts and noted that national best practices and the Association of Inspectors General support independent oversight offices with broad access and protections against interference.

The substitute attempts to address several points raised during public comment. In two places where the original draft removed the word “corruption,” the substitute restores language that the OIG’s purpose is to investigate “allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption” while also clarifying that OIG staff are not law‑enforcement officers under state law and cannot perform criminal investigations. The substitute also narrows the list of civic organizations that may submit direct nominations for governing‑board slots, and it preserves a role for both the mayor and the council in confirming appointees.

On subpoenas for third‑party records, city attorneys explained the substitute would require the OIG to provide a copy of any subpoena seeking a person’s financial, medical, or personal telecommunications records to the subject at the time it is issued to the third party. Patrice Perkins, City Attorney, said that provision was drafted to give the subject notice and the opportunity to move to quash the subpoena and to make the process clear; she said it applies only to third‑party subpoenas and not to city‑owned devices or records.

A number of council members asked for a joint public work session so the public could hear the OIG and council discuss disputed points in real time. Councilmember Shook said the substitute is a “living document” that can be amended between referral stops so long as the caption advertised in public notices does not change; Robinson (law department) confirmed changes that are substantial enough to require a new notice would reset the Home Rule Act timeline.

The committee’s referral sends the substitute 250‑1009 to the Committee on Council. Robinson outlined the prescribed process under state law: charter amendments require adoption at two regular consecutive meetings and a published notice period; if the committee approves the measure at later stops in the schedule it can be read and adopted by the full council and then sent to the mayor for signature or veto. The committee’s action does not adopt the substitute; it only advances the item for additional committee and council consideration.

The meeting included repeated calls to hold a public work session and to include national oversight experts — specifically the Association of Inspectors General — in the review process. Retired Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, who chaired the city’s temporary task force and described the task force’s process as “rigorous and inclusive,” asked the committee to consider the task force record and the public hearings that informed the recommended reforms.

What’s next: the ordinance was referred to the Committee on Council; that committee and the full council will have additional opportunities to amend the substitute and to hold the public work session many speakers and council members requested. Amber Robinson said that if the caption of the substitute remains the same, the schedule she described could permit final action as early as Feb. 3, but any substantial change that requires republication would reset the Home Rule Act timeline.