Everybody Wants Accountability Until the Accountability Office Starts Asking Questions
government · August 31, 2026
An oversight body that can investigate only what leadership is comfortable allowing it to investigate is not much of an oversight body.
Accountability is one of the easiest words to use in government.
Everybody supports it.
Mayors support accountability. Agency heads support accountability. Elected officials campaign on accountability. Organizations create policies, oversight offices, reporting systems, audits, ethics procedures, and investigative bodies in the name of accountability.
Then the questions start.
That is when we find out how committed people really are.
Baltimore is getting a very public lesson in that distinction.
The Fight Is Bigger Than One Lawsuit
Baltimore Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming is involved in an ongoing legal battle over her office's access to city government records and the authority of the Office of Inspector General to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse independently.
The dispute intensified after the Inspector General's direct access to city records was restricted while her office was investigating the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement and its SideStep youth diversion program.
The city's Law Department has argued that certain records can be restricted based on privileges, confidentiality protections, and provisions of Maryland law.
The Inspector General has argued that those restrictions interfere with powers granted to her office through Baltimore's City Charter.
That distinction matters.
This is not simply an argument about documents.
It is an argument about who gets to decide what an independent watchdog is allowed to see while investigating the government it was created to oversee.
Baltimore voters have already weighed in on the broader issue.
Charter amendments approved by voters in 2018 and 2022 strengthened the independence of the Office of Inspector General.
Circuit Court Judge Pamela J. White cited that history when she rejected the city's attempt to dismiss the Inspector General's lawsuit on August 14, 2026.
Her ruling contained a sentence that gets directly to the heart of this conversation:
"OIG reports directly to Baltimore citizens."
Independent Until Independence Becomes Inconvenient
Organizations often love independent oversight conceptually.
Operational independence can be much less comfortable.
There is a difference between creating an office that is called independent and allowing that office to behave independently.
An oversight body that can investigate only what leadership is comfortable allowing it to investigate is not much of an oversight body.
An investigator who must depend upon the organization being investigated to determine what information the investigator receives creates an obvious structural tension.
That does not mean every request for information should automatically override legitimate legal protections.
Attorney-client privilege matters.
Personnel protections matter.
Confidential information matters.
Due process matters.
Government should not casually discard any of them simply because an investigator requests information.
The city has raised precisely those concerns, arguing that responsive records may contain privileged, confidential, personnel, medical, juvenile, criminal, whistleblower, and other legally protected information.
Those arguments deserve serious consideration rather than dismissal as mere obstruction.
But there is another side of that distinction.
Protection cannot quietly become prevention.
Safeguarding legitimately protected information is one thing.
Creating a structure that makes meaningful oversight practically impossible is something else.
The Numbers Should Make People Pay Attention
According to Cumming, her office had issued 67 subpoenas for records since the restrictions were imposed.
She told the OIG Advisory Board that only four had been fulfilled, with one of those only partially fulfilled.
The city disputes the characterization that it is delaying the process and says records are being produced on a rolling basis.
That disagreement is exactly why this deserves public attention.
Government accountability should not depend upon citizens choosing which government official they personally believe.
Systems should be designed so the process itself can be trusted.
Then the Court Stepped In
Judge White denied the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on August 14 and ordered the Law Department to respond to outstanding OIG subpoenas.
She concluded that the Inspector General's investigative authority was not restricted in the manner argued by the city.
The city subsequently sought clarification or reconsideration.
That request was denied on August 24.
The Scott administration then asked the court to halt the proceedings and records-production order while it pursued an appeal.
On August 26, Judge White denied that request as well and scheduled another hearing for September 16.
The litigation continues.
That means nobody should pretend the broader legal questions are completely settled.
But Baltimore residents do not need a law degree to understand the institutional question sitting underneath the legal one.
Who Watches the Government?
Baltimore's Office of Inspector General describes its mission as promoting accountability, efficiency, and integrity while investigating allegations involving fraud, financial waste, and abuse.
Think about what that means operationally.
The office exists because government recognizes that government sometimes needs to be investigated.
That requires access.
It requires independence.
It requires investigators who can follow evidence into places where leadership might prefer they did not go.
Otherwise, we have created something that looks like accountability without necessarily possessing the power required to produce it.
That is the distinction.
Accountability Is Supposed to Be Uncomfortable
Good accountability occasionally irritates good leaders.
That is not necessarily evidence that the system is broken.
Sometimes it is evidence that the system is working.
A legitimate investigation can be inconvenient.
An audit can expose embarrassing weaknesses without uncovering criminal wrongdoing.
A records request can consume resources.
An Inspector General can ask questions that leadership believes are unfair.
None of those things automatically justify weakening oversight.
Leadership is not demonstrated by supporting accountability only when accountability confirms what leadership already believes.
Leadership is demonstrated by building systems strong enough to examine leadership itself.
That principle applies far beyond Baltimore City Hall.
It applies to corporations.
It applies to public safety agencies.
It applies to nonprofits.
It applies to unions.
It applies to schools.
It applies anywhere someone has authority over someone else.
Oversight Cannot Depend on Personalities
There is another reason Baltimore should be careful here.
Government systems should not be designed around whether residents trust Brandon Scott, Isabel Cumming, or whoever occupies those positions next.
People change.
Power remains.
A rule created because you trust today's leader can become dangerous when tomorrow's leader inherits it.
That is why strong institutions distribute authority.
It is why governments have auditors.
Inspectors general.
Ethics boards.
Courts.
Legislative oversight.
Public-record laws.
Independent review.
These mechanisms are not insults to leadership.
They are recognition that unchecked authority is a bad organizational design.
The Question Baltimore Should Be Asking
The political question is easy:
Whose side are you on?
That is also probably the least useful question.
The better question is:
What system would we want if the person we trusted least was running City Hall?
Would we want an Inspector General capable of independently examining government records?
Would we want legitimate confidential information protected?
Would we want clear rules determining where those authorities intersect?
Would we want disputes resolved by established law rather than whoever holds the most organizational power?
I would.
Because accountability should not require us to trust the right person.
Good systems are built precisely because eventually the wrong person will occupy the right position.
The Distinction
There is a difference between supporting accountability and submitting to accountability.
Supporting accountability is easy.
You can put it in a speech.
You can include it in a strategic plan.
You can campaign on it.
You can create an office dedicated to it.
Submitting to accountability is different.
That happens when the questions become uncomfortable.
When records are requested.
When decisions are challenged.
When investigators start looking somewhere you would rather they did not.
When someone with independent authority says:
Show me.
Baltimore's courts will continue sorting through the legal questions surrounding the authority of the Inspector General and the obligations of the city.
Baltimore residents should pay attention to something larger while they do.
Do not judge government's commitment to accountability by what its leaders say about transparency when everything is going well.
Watch what happens when the accountability office starts asking questions.
That is when accountability actually begins.
Anthony Washington Sr. writes about leadership, systems, public service, accountability, and the distinction between what organizations say and what their actions demonstrate.
All articles