Howard County IG advisory board hears public concerns about rules, moves to closed session

The Howard County Inspector General Advisory Board held a public hearing on its proposed rules of procedure on Oct. 30, 2025, hearing several residents and community representatives who pushed for greater public access to reports and clearer procedures for selecting and overseeing the county's future inspector general. After public testimony, the board voted to adjourn its open session and meet in closed session to consult with counsel under Maryland law.

The hearing opened with procedural reminders from the board chair that testimony would be limited to five minutes per speaker and that written comments would continue to be accepted for consideration before final adoption of the rules. The board also approved its meeting minutes from Oct. 23, 2025, by voice vote before taking public testimony.

Stu Cone, president of the Howard County Civic Association (HCCA), told the board the current draft of rules is "not ready for prime time" and urged procedures that ensure public input when inspector general reports are issued. "We feel that with the rules of procedure, we need to make sure that we have public input," Cone said, adding he expects the inspector general post to be filled "sometime before the end of the year," subject to ongoing vetting.

Camille Edwards, president of the Pleasant Chase Community in Jessup, asked how the board plans to ensure the inspector general's office will be resourced and how the public will learn about proposed rule amendments. County staff described outreach channels including a county listserv, postings on the council calendar and notices in the Baltimore Sun, and said the board anticipates annual budget submissions to provide staffing and other resources for the office. Edwards also asked whether the inspector general would have jurisdiction to investigate the Department of Planning and Zoning; a board member responded that the IG should have jurisdiction over county employees, vendors and county monies.

A resident who spoke later described a dispute with the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) involving a loan cancellation and alleged that a county employee "deliberate[ly] misrepresent[ed]" the status of a loan to induce the resident to surrender a valid contract. The resident asked the advisory board to direct the future inspector general to investigate the incident, whether federal funds were being properly managed, and whether other borrowers were affected. Board members repeatedly noted the advisory board itself does not conduct investigations and advised the resident to pursue the matter with the inspector general's office once it is appointed.

Joel Horowitz, who previously testified before the board on other matters, urged the advisory board to go beyond the county code language and to codify more detailed procedures for evaluating, interviewing and removing an inspector general. Horowitz also urged the board to examine potential overlaps with the public ethics commission and the county auditor’s authority and to consider whether older resolutions should be repealed to avoid jurisdictional conflict.

After hearing public testimony, the chair moved that the board close the meeting "in accordance with Maryland Code General Provisions Section 3‑305(b)(7) to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter" regarding the proposed rules. The motion was seconded, a roll call was taken and the board voted to move into closed session. The chair concluded the livestream and said no further business would take place in the open meeting.

What happens next: The board said written comments will continue to be accepted and will be considered before final action on the rules; the board moved to closed session to consult with counsel about the draft procedures and indicated the process for appointing and resourcing the inspector general will be coordinated with the county council and county executive.