As City Council begins to decide whether to move the Office of Inspector General back into the fold at City Hall, one point has become abundantly clear: The office doesn’t want to go.
“All the reasons for moving us do not hold up,” interim Inspector General Steve Rohan told members of the council Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee on Tuesday. “I cannot articulate one reason for us to move.”
A council committee decision that could have been made this week now might be more than a month away.
Council Vice President John Crescimbeni has brought the issue to a head with a resolution seeking to move the independent office from the Yates Building.
One of the driving concerns was a $100,000 build-out the office attempted to secure this year through salary lapses.
Another was an abundance of space on the second floor where the city’s Ethics Office is located.
However, Rohan told the committee the plans for the build-out have been abandoned.
The only upgrades would be a needed $25,000-$30,000 investment in technology and equipment to improve security at the Yates space.
Rohan said maintaining that space is important for public perception and witnesses, who would view the move back as the Ethics Office or council “putting its thumb” on the independent agency.
Carla Miller, the city’s ethics officer, told the committee it was her opinion independence didn’t necessarily mean where the office was located.
Instead, she said, it was providing comfort to whistleblowers who seek assistance and voters who have assurances the office has no interference.
The location is a philosophical choice for council members, but she believed integrating the office was best.
Rohan disagreed, saying separation was better and there “was no reason to bring it back.”
The office when it was initially created in late 2014 was housed at City Hall. Prior to that, an office created by prior mayoral administrations was housed under the mayor’s office.
Rohan said the office in place now is independent.
With the build-out plan now in the past, some council members seemed to favor letting the office stay.
Committee member Reggie Brown talked about his meeting with the office and filing a complaint, only to receive a phone call from someone asking how it went.
The situation made him nervous enough to obtain a concealed-carry permit. He said he wouldn’t go to the office if it were in City Hall, given his experience.
Comfort of witnesses coming forth has been an argument Rohan has made to stay.
He asked the group to withdraw the resolution, which some members pushed for before Crescimbeni instead received a two-cycle deferral.
He wants to spend time contacting other inspectors general to find out their office arrangements.
The Rules and Finance committees this week are scheduled to discuss the issue, but could end up taking a cue from Tuesday’s group.
Outside of council chambers, the search for a permanent inspector general could be a step closer to ending this week.
The Inspector General Selection and Retention Committee is scheduled to meet Thursday to review the open call for applicants that ended Tuesday. It attracted 17 candidates, nine of whom were deemed eligible to move on for further vetting.
The process was extended in July when an advertisement attracted 28 applicants with only eight possibilities.
(904) 356-2466