Charter commission debates broad inspector-general proposal; members ask staff to narrow scope

Legal staff presented draft charter language to create an office of inspector general (OIG) that would be a charter office, include a selection/retention committee, and carry investigative and reporting powers. The staff presentation noted the draft was modeled in part on other cities and included an implementation window, options for contract staffing and a selection committee drawn from civic leaders and officials.

Commissioners raised multiple concerns. Several said the proposal as written would be too broad for a single office and could duplicate internal‑audit functions; others warned of budget and political risks if subpoena power is broadly granted. Debate focused on the scope of authority (routine oversight vs. targeted investigations), whether the office should be a chartered, full‑time department or use contracted specialists, and how to balance independence with accountability. The commission directed staff to narrow statutory delegations, tighten language on powers (including subpoenas), revisit selection committee composition, and extend periodic review intervals before returning a redraft for consideration.

Representative remarks: The City attorney introduced the draft as a charter office designed to provide independent review and periodic reporting. One commissioner summarized a principal critique: “If what is created here is a super broad inspector general, ... Some of which we already have people do, some of which may be better in their entirety,” urging more focused scope and feasibility analysis. Another commissioner cautioned specifically about subpoena power, calling it a sensitive authority deserving narrow drafting and procedural checks.