Atlanta, Georgia— The City of Atlanta Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established as an independent watchdog to ensure integrity, transparency, and accountability in City of Atlanta government following past instances of corruption. Recent Atlanta City Council legislation (25-O-1009) threatens to undermine the independence of OIG, limiting its ability to investigate corruption and hold public officials accountable. On Monday, February 17, 2025, City Council will vote on the legislation. If passed without further change, this legislation will strip the OIG of its ability to do its job and render it functionally ineffective.
The Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) and the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) have been shining light on government corruption for 49 and 80 years, respectively. We know that official opacity obscures from public view the mechanisms by which people in criminal legal systems are harmed.
The legislation as written would prohibit the Office of the Inspector General from investigating many matters of consequence to the residents of Atlanta. We have made our organizations available to City Council through public comment, attendance at public meetings, one-on-one meetings, and advocacy letters. While the City Council has thankfully addressed some of our concerns, there are two critical areas that have yet to be amended:
The United States Supreme Court in Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) held that where an employee is given a choice between forfeiting their job or self-incrimination, compulsion of a statement by the employee violates the protections against self-incrimination provided by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
While the limited scope of Garrity is properly described in the legislation, the compulsion of statements has been held out by some officials during Council meetings as a categorical protection from criminal prosecution for employees. Such interpretation conflates the admissibility of evidence with the ability of prosecutors to go forward with prosecution. This causes City of Atlanta employees to be misinformed about the impact of this legislation on their rights.
“The Office of the Inspector General has offered a policy recommendation to take only voluntary statements – an action that affirms employees’ right to decide whether to offer evidence that can subsequently be used against them. Rejecting such a policy recommendation unnecessarily complicates an established area of law and strips employees of their right to not offer evidence that could be used against themselves in a process that would encourage the Inspector General to make criminal referrals,” said Devin Franklin, Senior Movement Policy Counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights.
“Atlanta needs an impartial, independent Office of the Inspector General that can address corruption and hold public officials accountable. This bill is poised to undermine powers that are integral to the function of the OIG,” said Victor Dempsey, Senior Community Organizer at the Legal Defense Fund. “While we appreciate the changes the Atlanta City Council has made to improve the bill, there is more work to be done to ensure that the OIG is able to live up to its mandate and effectively investigate governmental misconduct and abuse. We are hopeful that City Council will act to undo the limits that have been imposed on the OIG’s authority.”
