1. INSPECTOR GENERAL AMENDMENT
Presentation by Dale Miller to the Charter Review Commission
May 16, 2018

2. Introduction Amendment adds new Article XV on Inspector General.
Text of proposed amendment is Appendix 1 of full presentation.
Proposal has long history, stretching 6 years.
It was discussed prior to the first Charter Review Commission.
The first CRC proposed a version.
Further discussion on Council after the first CRC.
Current version builds on this work + input from Inspector General Mark Griffin, League of Women Voters, and Executive Armond Budish and his Administration.

3. Relationship to County Charter and Code
Currently, there is no language in the County Charter on Inspector General.
This amendment would provide a foundation under the Inspector General language in the County Code.
The County Code language is mostly consistent with proposed amendment, but would require some updating if amendment passes.
County Code language is provided as Appendix 2 in the full presentation.

4. Reasons to include Inspector General language in the County Charter
Provide permanence and stability. If left to ordinance, people could forget about corruption after a while.
Raises stature of the Inspector General; makes statement about commitment to highest ethical standards.
With proper amendment language, will help ensure that Inspector General has the power and authority to be effective.

5. Precedent for Inspector General language in local charter
Thirteen counties and cities with Inspector Generals were identified.
Five had Inspector General language in their charters, four did not, and in four cases I was not able to access the source document.
Four of the five with Inspector General language provided considerable detail on powers and duties; one had only a few sentences.
The charter provisions from other counties and cities are provided as Appendix 3 in the full presentation.

6. Overview of presentation of amendment language
Having discussed the general rational for an Inspector General amendment, the remainder of this presentation is on the specific provisions.
The proposed new Article XV on Inspector General has 8 subsections of Section on Agency of Inspector General.

7. Subsection 1: Powers & Duties
Establishes the Agency of Inspector General and the Inspector General.
Provides that the Executive and Council will appropriate a “fair allocation” for the Agency’s operations through the regular budget process.
Incorporates language recommended by Executive Armond Budish.
Designed to prevent the County from starving the Agency of Inspector General through the budget process, without providing for a dedicated funding source.
I am not aware of any local government with a charter provision creating a guaranteed dedicated funding source for Inspector General. Broward County has permissive 0.25% fee on all contracts.
County Council is also given authority by ordinance to further delineate the powers and duties of the Agency of Inspector General.

8. Subsection 2: Jurisdiction
The exact boundaries of charter county government’s jurisdiction are still being worked out.
Therefore, the jurisdiction language is made subject to the maximum extent permitted under the Constitution of the State of Ohio and this Charter.
Authority is extended to investigate possible ethical violations involving any employee, official, or appointee of the County and any person or entity doing business with the County.

9. Subsection 3: Qualification
Requires five years’ experience as an inspector general, certified public accountant, auditor, licensed attorney, law enforcement officer, or other investigative officer.
Differs from the County Code, which requires ten years. We received input that reducing the requirement to five years would help ensure a sufficient number of quality applicants.

10. Subsection 4: Appointment and term
The Inspector General is to be appointed by the Executive to a four- year term, subject to Council confirmation.
The term of the Inspector General is staggered to end in the middle of the County Executive’s term.
This provision differs from County Code which has a five-year term. The four year term is preferred because it consistently ends at the same time in relation to the Executive’s term.
Appointment and reappointment are subject to confirmation by Council.

11. Subsection 5: Removal Removal may only be for cause.
Removal requires affirmative vote of eight or more members of Council.
Inspector General must be given the opportunity to be heard prior to vote on removal.
Provisions are designed to make it as difficult as possible to remove an Inspector General for political reasons or to obstruct an investigation.

12. Subsection 6: Vacancy
The appointment process in the event of a vacancy mirrors the regular process: appointment by the Executive subject to confirmation by Council.
When a vacancy occurs with less than two years remaining in the term, the Executive is given to option to nominate a successor for both the unexpired term and an additional term.
This provision is included to benefit candidate recruitment.

13. Subsection 7: Access to County Information
This section was added by suggestion of Inspector General Mark Griffin to help ensure access to documents.
The section provides the Inspector General access to a broad range of County documents, provided that the requested documents are relevant to an inquiry or investigation conducted under the Inspector General’s authority.
The provision provides an exception for legal limitations, such as attorney-client privilege and HIPAA.
The legal exception provision is exemplary rather than exclusive, recognizing that there may be other legal limitations on the availability of documents.

14. Subsection 8: Subpoena Power
This section provides the Inspector General the authority to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths or affirmations, take testimony, and compel the production of documents relevant to in inquiry or investigation conducted under the Inspector General’s authority.
Ample precedent for subpoena power.
Three of the four local government charters having detailed language expressly provide for subpoena power.
In Cuyahoga County government, the County Council, Internal Auditor, and the Consumer Affairs Department already have subpoena power, either by Charter or by ordinance.
This provision is necessary for the strong and effective operation of the Agency of Inspector General.

15. Executive Armond Budish’s Review
Executive Armond Budish very recently reviewed this draft language and made two recommendations.
He recommended that it be made clear that the appropriations for the Agency of Inspector General be done through the regular budget process. The draft language you have was modified to so state.
He recommended that the investigations of the Inspector General including any subpoenas be exempt from being public records until the investigation is completed and the report is filed.
Exemption of public records is a complex and frequently litigated area and I would really desire not to see Charter language be invalidated. Therefore, I’m recommending that this issue be considered through ordinance when the County Code update is done.

16. First Charter Review Commission Proposal
The first Charter Review Commission recommended an Inspector General Amendment.
Their proposal included a lot of similar provisions plus considerable detail.
This proposal failed to make the ballot because Council in 2013 believed that more time was needed to see how the Inspector General operated. They also believed the proposed amendment was too detailed for the Charter.
I agree that details from the first CRC such as on Deputy Inspector General; contracting with other agencies; confidential files; furniture, equipment, and software; and limitations on the Inspector General can be dealt with by ordinance, and that Council should not be required to set up a fixed funding source.
The first CRC proposal is provided as Appendix 4 in the full presentation.

17. Summary and Ballot Prospects
The amendment proposed here contains the essential framework for a strong and effective Agency of Inspector General.
The County’s Agency of Inspector General has operated successfully for over seven years, and I believe that Council is ready to place an Inspector General Amendment on the ballot.
In my opinion, no specific provisions in the proposed amendment create serious controversy. The proposal is the result of much collaboration with interested parties. I believe this specific proposal can make the ballot if recommended by your Commission.