Atlanta moves to next phase of inspector general overhaul
Atlanta leaders are looking for fresh faces to serve on the Office of Inspector General's governing board a week after the City Council passed legislation to overhaul the agency.
Why it matters: Mayor Andre Dickens' administration says changes approved last Monday will ensure employees are informed of their rights, but critics argue say some of the changes will make it harder for the OIG to root out City Hall corruption.
The latest: Atlanta's Department of Labor and Employment Services on Friday released an Employee Bill of Rights, which outlines how employees should respond to investigations.
Mayor Andre Dickens said Friday in a press release that the list (and an accompanying guide) "balances transparency and accountability for the city's public servants, while making clear their rights and responsibilities."
Zoom in: The governing board for the OIG, which also oversaw the Ethics Office, was disbanded immediately after the City Council passed the charter amendments and Dickens signed them into law.
Both offices will now have separate governing boards.
Letters were sent last Monday evening informing members of the dissolution.
Organizations tasked with putting up nominations for the board were made aware of change and will now have to toss new names in the hat for consideration.
What they're saying: Former governing board chair Nichola Hines, who said she resigned on Feb. 14, before the council's action, told Axios the legislation is faulty because it allows the OIG to notify people if they are being investigated.
Hines also said criticism from the administration about how former inspector general Shannon Manigault conducted investigations "has weakened the office because people are not going to feel comfortable regardless of who else you put in that space."
"If I do my job, you're going to do the same thing you did to the last inspector general," she said.
The seven members of the governing board, which is tasked with hiring an inspector general, will serve three-year terms. The chair must be an attorney that has "no less than five years of investigative experience."
Appointments to the board are required to be confirmed by the City Council and approved by the mayor.
Any employee interviews done by the OIG must take place during their working hours and in city-owned buildings.
The office is prohibited from using "convert surveillance technology" as part of its investigations.
Between the lines: The inspector general is now required to give quarterly reports to the board, submit standard operating procedures — including its investigative policies — to the board for approval, and provide an annual report to the mayor and city council.
The other side: The new ordinance is needed because it gives the governing board more responsibility over the Office of Inspector General, said former board member Todd Gray.
The old ordinance did not have any protocols for how the inspector general should report to the board, he told Axios.
"I don't feel, as a board member, I should find out in the news what's going on in the OIG office," he said. "That's not where I should find out spy pens were purchased."
What we're watching: It's possible that nominating organizations could select the same people who served on the governing board before it was dissolved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
6 hours ago
New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary
NEW YORK -- New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary election Tuesday, a system that takes some explaining, even for New Yorkers who have used it before. Voters' understanding of how ranked choice works could play a role in which candidate comes out on top in a race that features former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, progressive upstart Zohran Mamdani and several other current and former public officials, including City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and City Comptroller Brad Lander, who was arrested last week at an immigration court. The system is based on a simple premise: Democracy works better if people aren't forced to make an all-or-nothing choice with their vote. Rather than pick just one candidate, voters get to rank several in order of preference. Even if a voter's top choice doesn't have enough support to win, their rankings of other candidates still play a role in determining the victor. The system is more complex than a traditional election, making it tough to forecast a winner. It could also take longer to get results. In New York City's version, voters get to rank up to five candidates, from first to last, on the ballot. If one candidate is the first choice of a majority of voters — more than 50% — that person wins the race outright, just like in a traditional election. If nobody hits that threshold, ranked choice analysis kicks in. Vote tabulation is done by computer in rounds. After the first round, the candidate in last place — the candidate ranked No. 1 by the fewest amount of people — is eliminated. The computer then looks at the ballots cast by people who ranked that candidate first, to see who they ranked second. Those people's votes are then redistributed to their second choices. That process then repeats. As more candidates are eliminated, voters' third, fourth and even fifth choices could potentially come into play. Rounds continue until there are only two candidates left. The one with the most votes wins. Eleven candidates are on the ballot in the Democratic mayoral primary. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams isn't one of them. He's a Democrat but is running as an independent. The Republican Party has already picked its nominee, Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa. The computerized process of tabulating votes takes little time, but it doesn't start right away. Polls close at 9 p.m. Tuesday. Within a few hours, preliminary results should give a picture of how the candidates are doing based on voters' first choices. The ranked choice tabulations, however, won't start until July 1 because the city needs to wait for the arrival of mail-in ballots. The July 1 tabulation could potentially give a clear picture of who won, but the result won't be official. Further rounds of ranked choice analysis will be done as additional absentee ballots come in until the board certifies the election July 15. This will be the second time New York City has used ranked choice in a mayoral primary. The first time, in 2021, things went haywire when elections officials neglected to clear test data from the tabulation program. That led to an inaccurate vote tally being reported until officials realized the error. Officials are hoping things go smoother this time. One benefit is that nobody 'wastes' their vote by picking an unpopular candidate as their first choice. Voters can rank someone they like No. 1, even if they suspect the candidate doesn't stand a chance. If that person is eliminated, voters still get a say in who wins based on their other rankings. Another benefit is that it's tough for someone to get elected without broad support. In a traditional election, it's possible for someone with fringe political views to win in a crowded field of candidates, even if they are deeply disliked by a majority of voters. That's theoretically less likely in a ranked choice system. A candidate could get the largest share of first-choice votes but still lose to someone who is the second or third choice of a large number of people. The system is tough to grasp. It requires voters to do more research. It also makes races less predictable. Transparency and trust are also potential problems. Ordinarily, candidates, the public and news organizations can see votes coming in, precinct by precinct, and know exactly who is leading and where their support comes from. Under the ranked choice system, the process of redistributing votes is done by computer. Outside groups will have a harder time evaluating whether the software sorted the ranked votes accurately. That's a challenge for news organizations, like The Associated Press, that analyze vote tallies and attempt to report a winner before the count is complete. There may be instances when candidates who seem to have a comfortable lead in first-place votes on election night lose because relatively few voters rank them as their second or third choice. That could lead to people questioning the results.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Newport News considers major changes to city charter
Newport News' Charter Review Committee is considering several changes to City Council, which could drastically change how city elections are conducted. The main item being considered during the committee's June 12 meeting was the idea of making City Council races partisan, which would create a partisan primary for City Council candidates. State law prohibits party designations in local elections from appearing on ballots. However, it does not prevent the city from creating a partisan primary to ensure the two final candidates that appear on the ballot are implied to be from different parties. 'We have, as it is in Newport News and other cities without partisan elections, large numbers of candidates from one ideological or partisan faction who run for office and split the vote amongst themselves,' committee member Ben Lambert said during the meeting. 'This spoiler effect has been a problem for Newport News elections for a long time.' The committee delayed the vote on whether to recommend the change to City Council to June 26, according to co-chairs Cathy Williams and Lee Vreeland. They also shot down a proposed recommendation that would shift the power to remove department heads from the city manager to the mayor. 'I feel it's overreach for City Council to be involved in that,' Williams said during the June 12 meeting. At its May 22 meeting, the committee approved a recommendation that City Council appoint school board members appointed rather than elected, and a recommendation to make the mayor a full-time position, limited to two terms. Additionally, the questions of considering ranked choice voting came up during last month's meeting. However, the committee opted not to recommend ranked choice voting. Williams declined to comment on the group's discussions surrounding potential charter changes. The committee has been working through these revisions since September, according to Williams, and has received community feedback on several of the proposed changes. The idea of appointed school board members received letters of support, along with while a full-time mayor received pushback. Feedback on ranked choice voting has also been divided. The committee will submit its final report to the city clerk on June 30, who will then provide it to City Council for review. Devlin Epding, 757-510-4037,
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Oakland, a city desperate for improvement, looks to charter reform for help
Steve Falk has been talking to people all over Oakland about his plan to make the city's government work better. Perhaps no one crystallized Oakland's problems to him better than the unidentified City Council member who said: 'In Oakland, the buck stops nowhere.' Falk has lived that dynamic. The UC Berkeley Graduate School of Public Policy lecturer has worked for 39 years as a city manager in six California cities, including two stints each in Richmond and Oakland. 'This city is more dysfunctional than any other city I worked for,' Falk said earlier this year. 'It's because of the charter.' And now he wants to fix it as a leader of the Oakland Charter Reform Project, which sounds like the nerdiest, most boring thing imaginable, but it could be one of the best fixes that new Mayor Barbara Lee and the City Council could adopt. Much of the work being discussed was explored in a 2021 report on Oakland 's government by the policy think tank SPUR. Oakland's government is structured like the federal government's tripartite system of checks and balances, which is OK for a nation of 340 million, but not for a medium-size city of 436,000 that's trying to move quickly to fix potholes and provide public safety. Under the current system, the mayor only appoints the city administrator, holds no veto power and does not supervise, evaluate or set goals for city departments. The city attorney is an elected position, which the SPUR report said blurs who they are supposed to represent. The City Council, meanwhile, doesn't select, direct, oversee or evaluate the city administrator or any department heads, leaving members and their constituents frustrated when city workers don't carry out their policy directions. Plus, as Falk wrote recently on the Oakland Charter Reform Project's Substack, 'it has resulted in high turnover of the professional city administrator (six in the last five years!), which, in turn, negatively impacts the city's budget, workplace culture, and operations.' Oakland residents aren't happy, either. Last October, 75% said the city was on the 'wrong track,' up 10 points from 2022, according to the annual survey. Council Member Janani Ramachandran told me that when her constituents ask her, 'Why can't you fill my pothole, council member?' she replies, 'Well, I'm prohibited by the charter from directing staff, and I have no authority over city administrator. I don't even have the power to fire him in my role on council.' 'Right now,' Ramachandran said, 'the buck is being passed from one part of the city to another, to another on every other issue.' Ramachadran said the need for charter reform 'speaks to the dysfunction that a lot of Oakland residents are seeing right now, and why they feel like they can't have a voice in the process.' Lee is on board with improving the charter, too, though she wants to hear from the community first. Part of her plan for her first 100 days in office includes appointing 'a task force of League of Women Voters, ethics and good government experts to modernize Oakland's Charter and strengthen government accountability.' Ramachandran told me that in the next week or two, she will introduce a resolution to create that task force, which will spend months gathering community input all over Oakland and creating a reform plan to put on the June 2026 ballot. Lee, Ramachadran, City Council President Kevin Jenkins and Falk's team met last week to discuss changing the charter. Getting voters on board will not be easy, as this can be dense, wonky stuff. City leaders will need to spend a lot of time educating Oaklanders over the next year about how changing the way city government is structured could make it work better. (It helps that this is happening during the Ezra Klein-supercharged 'Abundance' moment of the political zeitgeist, which is challenging Democratic-led cities to show that they can accomplish something beyond virtue signaling.) Ramachadran, who frequently explains legislation on Tiktok and Instagram posts, conceded that charter reform will test the limits of her explanatory abilities. Hell, talking about charter reform might melt TikTok. 'Often the problem with these kinds of citywide initiatives and ballot measures that don't necessarily reflect what the average voter knows or understands is we're not speaking their language,' Ramachandran said. 'Usually, politicians and people that write these ballot measures are talking to people already involved in politics. You know, the people involved in the League of Women Voters and the neighborhood council leadership, not the 21-year-old from down the street or 55-year-old who only votes every four years.' Ramachadran said she is keeping an open mind about what system would be the best for Oakland and will let public input be her guide. She and Falk agree that the answer isn't the current system. Oakland's system is an outlier in California. Falk said 97% of cities have a council-manager form of government. Under this system, the council sets policy and supervises an appointed city manager who oversees daily operations. The mayor is selected from among the council members and serves as its president, leads meetings and holds a vote equal to other members. The city attorney is appointed by the council, not elected, and represents one client: the municipal government. Cities including San Jose, Long Beach and Riverside employ a similar system. Falk proposes tweaking this system slightly. He calls it a 'unitary strong mayor plan' — to give the mayor some form of a veto, which likely would be one of the most contentious provisions debated over the next year. But he believes it would make the mayor and council more responsive to residents and more nimble. 'That new power to vote — if paired with veto power — would make (the mayor's position) the most powerful mayor Oakland has seen in over a century,' Falk and his team wrote on Substack. Empowering a mayor like that comes with a potential downside, Falk acknowledged: 'A mayoral veto centralizes tremendous civic power in one individual. A mayor with a veto could diminish the city council's role in policymaking and, in so doing, generate resentment among council members and community groups who feel their influence is reduced. A veto could also be abused by the mayor to block popular legislation for personal or political reasons.' But mayors in six of California's top 17 cities have veto power. That will get worked out over the next year. What is indisputable is that change is needed. As Ramachandran said, 'There's no one magic (move) here that's going to solve Oakland's dysfunction. But I really believe this is going to be a major piece to starting to break down that dysfunction.'
