Mayor Scott administration seeks dismissal of inspector general lawsuit

City Hall moved to dismiss Baltimore Inspector General Isabel Cumming’s lawsuit, arguing in court papers that the case should be thrown out and that the complaint is built on unsupported accusations, irrelevant legal claims and language that does not add up to a valid claim for relief. City Solicitor Ebony Thompson said the filing does not show a right to the relief Cumming wants, setting up a major test of how much power Baltimore’s watchdog really has inside the mayor’s government.

The dispute goes to the core of how Baltimore polices itself. Cumming’s office says it needs direct access to records to investigate waste, fraud and abuse. Her February 24 lawsuit asked for a declaration confirming the Office of Inspector General’s independence and subpoena authority, plus an order blocking interference with investigations and confidential systems. The city, meanwhile, says the mayor remains Baltimore’s chief executive officer and that legal authority rests with the law department, giving Thompson control over the city’s legal position.

That clash has been building since Baltimore voters approved charter changes that strengthened the inspector general’s independence. In 2018, voters made the Office of Inspector General an independent agency. In 2022, they backed Question I with 86.52% of the vote, changing the advisory board so it would be free from appointees of the mayor and other elected officials. The city’s own advisory board page says that board appoints the inspector general, conducts annual performance reviews, and reviews, revises and approves the OIG budget.

The immediate fight sharpened nearly five months ago during an investigation into the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, known as MONSE. The inspector general sought records tied to that probe, but the city provided heavily redacted material. FOX45 reported that the request involved financial records and that 200 documents contained critical information blacked out. Cumming then issued subpoenas, and the city refused to comply.

The turning point came with a February 3 opinion from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, requested by Baltimore City Sen. Antonio Hayes. The opinion said a local law or charter provision cannot require disclosure of records covered by the Public Information Act’s mandatory exceptions, including personnel, medical and financial records. The city said in a February 6 press release that the opinion forced major changes to how the inspector general operates, including access to records, files, communications and digital platforms such as Workday.

Cumming and her deputy had told council members the office long had access to city records for investigations, a point the city now disputes. City Hall’s filing says the inspector general does not have an unrestricted right to direct access and argues the proper path is for both sides to follow the Public Information Act. The stakes extend beyond this lawsuit: Baltimore City Council held a hearing in May 2026 on a measure to strengthen the office’s independence, and Councilman Mark Conway has introduced a charter amendment that would make the inspector general a co-custodian of city records. For Baltimore residents, the outcome will help determine whether the city’s watchdog can see enough to police hiring, contracts and conduct inside City Hall.