Baltimore Mayor Restricts IG Access to Law Department Records: What This Means for Oversight

This past weekend, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott took steps to cut off the Inspector General’s office from accessing records maintained by the city’s Law Department, citing concerns surrounding attorney-client privilege.

In a press release issued on Saturday, Mayor Scott stated that the office of Baltimore Inspector General Isabel Cumming “had gained unapproved and unrestricted access” to files belonging to a city attorney, which the mayor’s office deems confidential. Consequently, the city’s Information Technology office revoked the access of this unauthorized account.

The Mayor’s team asserted that the Inspector General’s office “did not obtain approved access to these files for a current investigation” and insisted that this new limitation “will not obstruct the lawful activities” of the Inspector General’s office.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) operates as an independent watchdog entity tasked with uncovering instances of waste, fraud, and abuse within the city’s administration. This office transitioned from being a part of the Baltimore City Law Department to an independent agency in 2018, following decisions made by the City Council and local voters.

This action comes amid an ongoing OIG inquiry into the usage of the messaging app Slack by the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement. Inspector General Cumming acquired Slack messages through a subpoena, but the Law Department proceeded to redact certain information, interpreting her request as governed by the Maryland Public Information Act.

In the wake of the Mayor’s announcement, Cumming utilized social media platform X to emphasize the critical nature of the OIG’s independence and its right to access all records pertaining to the city. Her posts featured clips from a recent virtual meeting held with the OIG Advisory Board on December 3rd.

She asserted that the OIG serves as a co-custodian for all city records, with its access to documentation being fundamentally different from that of the general public.

“The Office of the Inspector General operates on behalf of the public, yet it is not equivalent to the public,” Cumming explained to the advisory board, as stated in her post shared on Monday morning. “Our request for documents differs from that of the public. We possess the capacity to obtain documents directly; therefore, it is not merely a Maryland Public Information Act request.”

In conjunction with her video remarks, Cumming shared a position paper highlighting that her office’s document demands are distinct from the requests typically made by civilians under the MPIA. She contended that the OIG should be identified as the “de facto or, at the very least, constructive co-custodian of all records and communications produced by city employees.”

“Subpoenas are an investigative tool. MPIA requests are aimed at public accessibility,” her position paper elaborated. “These two processes serve entirely different purposes and impose distinct obligations on the involved parties: compliance with the MPIA is constrained by record availability and specified exceptions. In contrast, OIG subpoenas may necessitate the submission of documents that would be exempt from disclosure under other circumstances, enforceable through judicial means.”

Cummings also referenced a position paper published in April 2025 by the national Association of Inspectors General, which asserts that Inspectors General “must have unfettered access to materials belonging to entities they oversee, even if those materials might otherwise be shielded from disclosure to external parties.”

It remains uncertain how the future relationship between the OIG and the Law Department will evolve. Cumming’s office has not provided a response to the inquiries about how this decision will impact her operations and how her office will ensure attorney-client privilege is maintained. The Mayor’s office acknowledged receipt of a request for comment but did not respond before publication.