Charter review commission leans toward exploring independent inspector general after public complaint

Members of the Charter Review Commission debated whether to recommend an independent inspector general or leave investigatory responsibilities to existing agencies after a public comment said the employee had no recourse through HR and resigned.

"I'm gonna come down on the side of, pro office of inspector general," one committee member said during the discussion, arguing that an independent office could provide a nonpolitical avenue for investigations and oversight of projects, budgets and administrative actions. Other members urged caution and asked staff to map existing functions — the internal auditor, the ethics commission and HR — to avoid duplicating roles or creating confusion.

Commissioners discussed appointment methods used elsewhere, the scope of investigatory authority, and whether language should appear in the charter or be left to a council ordinance. Several participants asked for concrete examples: Jacksonville, Gainesville and other Florida cities were cited as models where inspector general offices or similar bodies have exposed misspending or misconduct. One commissioner said such findings are often discovered because an office existed to do the work, noting headlines in other cities where inspector general reports led to recoveries or investigations.

The group conducted a quick show‑of‑hands poll and recorded a rough majority favoring further work on the topic; staff were tasked with collecting job descriptions for internal audit and compliance roles and answering who currently investigates alleged fraud or misuse of city resources. No formal charter change was adopted; commissioners asked for follow‑up information to decide whether to recommend a charter amendment or propose an ordinance.

The conversation closed with a request that staff return with comparative language and with answers about how an inspector general would interact with existing city offices.