Delegation hears testimony for HB 89 to let Baltimore County inspector general oversee public schools

Delegate Ryan Niraki asked the Baltimore County House of Delegates delegation for a favorable report on House Bill 89, saying the bill would allow the County Council to expand the Baltimore County Office of the Inspector General’s jurisdiction to include Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS).

"This bill would simply enable Baltimore County to expand the office of the inspector general as they requested," Niraki said, adding that the legislation provides tools, not mandates, and leaves the final decision and budgetary choices to the county council.

Why it matters: BCPS accounts for roughly half of Baltimore County’s budget. Niraki and multiple witnesses framed the measure as a transparency and accountability tool — not an immediate transfer of authority — that could identify waste, fraud and abuse and make investigations public.

Supporters who testified included Councilman David Marks (sponsor of the county resolution requesting authorization), representatives of educators and parents, the Baltimore City inspector general and Maryland’s state inspector general for education. Maggie Domonowski, a Baltimore County Board of Education member and parent, said internal budgeting and audit pathways are opaque and urged local oversight so residents can "understand how every dollar in our budget is spent." Mary Taylor, speaking for the Baltimore County League of Women Voters, called the bill an important check on government and noted the school system’s significant share of the county budget.

State Inspector General Rick Henry said he supports the concept and has collaborated with local IGs in Montgomery County. Henry provided operational context: since 2020 his office received hundreds of complaints in multiple counties and has conducted a smaller number of full investigations, and he described existing memoranda of understanding (MOUs) that allow state and local offices to collaborate. He also cautioned that implementing a local IG with education authority can take time; Montgomery County required multiple years to stand up a full office.

Proponents emphasized operational differences between internal auditors and inspectors general: auditors typically conduct scheduled reviews focused on materiality, while investigators respond to hotline complaints, can exercise investigative tools such as subpoenas, and issue publicly posted investigative reports. Isabelle Cummings, Baltimore City’s inspector general, said investigators operate differently from auditors and offered a case where an investigation she led revealed $600,000 in fraud not caught by auditors.

Cost and capacity: Sponsors and witnesses noted the bill is enabling legislation that would require the County Council to authorize and fund any expansion. The delegation heard a fiscal note estimate of roughly $750,000–$800,000 per year to staff and run an IG office with education jurisdiction; speakers argued such costs could be offset by recoveries and cost savings identified through investigations. Niraki cited a Montgomery County figure in which IG work identified tens of millions in question costs in a single year as an example of potential savings.

Questions and guardrails: Delegates repeatedly asked about how a local IG would coordinate with the state IG and other oversight bodies, what priority rules would apply if parallel investigations were open, and whether the county’s upcoming elections and future council composition would affect how authority is exercised. Rick Henry said collaboration is possible and that existing MOUs can be used during any transition; the chair asked that the state IG share the current MOU with Baltimore County so the delegation could compare it to proposed legislation and consider additional guardrails.

What it does not do: Multiple witnesses emphasized that HB 89 does not automatically expand IG authority over BCPS. Instead, it authorizes the County Council to grant that authority in the future and leaves operational, budgetary and procedural details to local decision‑making.

Next steps: Testimony on HB 89 concluded and the delegation moved on to other bills. No final delegation vote on HB 89 was recorded in this session; sponsors and the chair asked for additional material (including the existing MOU) to be circulated to delegates for review.

Ending: The delegation concluded testimony on HB 89 and advanced the agenda to the next items on its calendar.