Baltimore Judge Orders City to Restore Inspector General’s Access to Records

Court ruling backs Inspector General Isabel Cumming in months-long battle with Mayor Brandon Scott’s administration over access, subpoenas and independence

BALTIMORE — A Baltimore City Circuit Court judge has sided with Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming in her ongoing battle with Mayor Brandon Scott’s administration, ordering the city to restore the watchdog office’s direct access to government records and comply with outstanding subpoenas.

Retired Circuit Court Judge Pamela White said Wednesday that the city must restore the Office of Inspector General’s access to city computer systems and records, a major development in a dispute that has raised questions about government transparency and the independence of Baltimore’s primary watchdog agency.

White granted summary judgment to the Inspector General’s side in nearly every respect and sharply questioned the legal and factual basis for the city’s position during the hearing. The judge said there was no reason to delay the OIG’s work and indicated that details surrounding implementation would be included in her written order.

How Did Baltimore Get Here?

The dispute dates back to January, when Cumming’s direct access to Baltimore’s computer systems was cut off.

The Inspector General’s Office is responsible for investigating allegations involving fraud, waste and abuse within city government. Cumming has argued that direct access to records is necessary for her office to conduct investigations independently without having to disclose the targets or direction of an investigation to the agencies being examined.

Cumming filed suit in February, challenging restrictions placed on her access and the city’s response to OIG subpoenas. Her attorneys argued that the office had enjoyed direct access to city records for years before the policy changed.

The conflict intensified amid an OIG investigation involving the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement and its SideStep youth diversion program. The dispute included heavily redacted documents and disagreements over access to communications and other records.

City Raised Privacy and Privilege Concerns

Mayor Scott’s administration has maintained that its objections are not about avoiding oversight.

City attorneys argued that unrestricted OIG access could expose attorney-client privileged material and other sensitive information. The administration has also accused the Inspector General of abusing her previous access and has called for additional safeguards governing how OIG investigators obtain and use city records.

White, however, expressed skepticism toward the city’s arguments during Wednesday’s hearing and rejected the idea that distrust of the Inspector General should be used to interfere with the office’s independence.

The judge also indicated that the city must produce records associated with the SideStep program and comply with outstanding OIG subpoenas.

Mayor Scott Responds

Following the ruling, Scott’s office said the administration would comply with the law but continues to have concerns about how the Inspector General accesses and uses sensitive information.

The Mayor’s Office said it plans to review White’s written order when it is issued and consider its options.

Scott has also called for legislation establishing additional safeguards over Inspector General access to information, arguing that the watchdog itself should be subject to meaningful oversight.

An appeal remains possible.

Councilman Mark Conway Backs OIG

Baltimore City Councilman Mark Conway, who has publicly supported Cumming, attended Wednesday’s court proceeding and described the decision as supporting accountability and transparency.

Conway has also claimed his recent removal as chairman of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee was retaliation for his support of the Inspector General. City Council President Zeke Cohen has denied that Conway’s position on the OIG dispute was the reason for the committee change.

Conway has proposed further strengthening the Inspector General’s role through a future ballot measure.

Why This Ruling Matters

The case goes beyond a disagreement between the mayor and inspector general.

At its core is a larger question: How independent can an inspector general truly be if the government agencies it investigates control its access to information?

Baltimore voters have repeatedly approved charter changes intended to strengthen the independence of the Inspector General’s Office. Cumming’s attorneys argued that requiring investigators to request records through the very government officials they may be investigating undermines that independence.

The Scott administration has presented a different concern: independence does not necessarily mean unlimited access without safeguards for privileged or sensitive information.

Wednesday’s ruling comes down firmly on the side of restoring the OIG’s ability to obtain the records it needs under its existing authority, while the broader debate over what safeguards should govern that access is likely to continue.

THE BREAKDOWN

This is an important ruling for Baltimore government oversight.

Judge Pamela White’s decision restores Inspector General Isabel Cumming’s direct access to city records and reinforces the OIG’s authority to use subpoenas while conducting investigations. But it does not necessarily end the political or legal dispute.

The Scott administration can review its appellate options and continue pursuing legislation governing access to sensitive information.

For Baltimore residents, the case raises a fundamental government-accountability issue that extends beyond the personalities involved: Who watches City Hall, and does that watchdog have the independence and access necessary to do the job?

That question will remain important long after this particular court fight is over.

YouHaveToListen.com | Charm City Dispatch

Baltimore. Politics. Accountability. You Have To Listen.