Below is a transcript of the December 15, 2025 testimony by Baltimore County’s former Inspector General Kelly Madigan.
Kelly Madigan: “Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of County Council. Thank you for my three minutes. I wanted to come and take this opportunity to speak about ways to strengthen the IG’s office via statute.
I want to be on the record as saying that I met with you, Mr. Chairman [Ed. note: Councilman Michael Ertel], in August of this summer and identified a series of things that the IG statute needed so that it could be strengthened. There has been a call from the Baltimore County public for transparency in government and ways to preserve and strengthen the office. So I wanted to… I then met with you and members of your staff in October seeking those tweaks that we discussed. I have emails to the Administration and have met with the Administration asking for those. I care very deeply about these tweaks; I think they are necessary and will serve to strengthen the office.
The first request I am asking for is that the word ‘direct’ be added to the statute under Section 3-14-107, Powers of the Office. In fact, that is a recommendation that was made by the Blue Ribbon Commission. You may recall that the prior administration selected seven members from the public to carry their work in the public domain. They took testimony and came up with a 217-page report where they identified 20 recommendations. Those were areas that the Administration asked them to look into.
I’m going to offer this as an exhibit for part of my testimony. Under ‘IG Access to Materials and Records,’ the Commission recommends that the Office of the Inspector General have direct access to government records and materials whenever possible. I would make that request. It’s a best practice in the IG community. It’s what every federal IG has, most state and local IGs have it.
My second request is that the affirmative duty to report [fraud], which is currently an Executive Order, be added to the statute. I believe this is also a best practice and that should be added to the statute under Section 3-14-107(4). The language can be the same, but right now it’s an Executive Order, which doesn’t carry the same weight as including it in the statute. It’s also a best practice and was something that the Blue Ribbon Commission also recommended.
I’m also requesting that the statute state that IG reports are not personnel records. The statute already states that all IG reports are subject to the MPIA [Maryland Public Information Act]. And as an… I guess that’s my time? Oh, I can keep going? …As an independent office, the IG could never be in a position of issuing discipline. One of the requirements for whether or not a personnel record would be considered a mandatory denial under the MPIA is whether or not the undersigned person was in a position to implement disciplinary action. So again, I would request under 3-14-110(A), when it’s talking about that “IG reports are public reports subject to disclosure”, that language be included to say that IG reports are not personnel records.
I’m also requesting that the IG be added to the Charter as an agency that has the ability to request legal opinions from the County Attorney. I think it’s important to be on the record, as you and I have discussed, Mr. Chairman. I have these emails back and forth which are the position of the office, why they’re important, where they should be added to the statute. I believe they will strengthen the statute.
I’m also going to offer an abbreviated version of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report that was issued on February 16, 2023. There are a few of these recommendations that still haven’t been implemented, and I would ask that they be implemented.
And then I am going to turn to the public and ask the public… I’m going to pass the baton and ask them to carry the mission forward of strengthening the IG statute and strengthening the office, because I think there has been a call for transparency and demand from the public for a strong IG’s office. Thank you.”
——END TRANSCRIPTION——
What a great final “mic drop” moment. Let’s translate what Ms. Madigan just said from “polite bureaucrat” to “hardcore reality.” She left the Baltimore County Government because they stonewalled her. Here is what her requests actually mean:
1. The “Direct Access” Fight
- What she said: Add the word “direct” to Section 3-14-107.
- What it means: Currently, when she asks for a file (like the purchase orders for snow removal contracts), the County Attorney or the Department Head gets to review it first, redact it, or delay it before she sees it. She wants the power to walk into the office, open the file cabinet, and take the damn file without asking permission.
2. The “Personnel Record” Loophole
- What she said: IG reports are not personnel records.
- What it means: This is the #1 trick they use to hide corruption. If the IG finds that an employee stole money, the County labels the report a “Personnel Record” (HR matter). Under Maryland law, personnel records are confidential. By slapping that label on the report, they legally bury the crime from the public. She is demanding that loophole be closed.
3. The “Independent Counsel” Issue
- What she said: Ability to request legal opinions.
- What it means: Right now, if she wants to sue the County for access to records, she has to ask the County Attorney for permission. The same County Attorney who defends the people she is investigating. It is a conflict of interest designed to keep her and any IG on a leash.
Bottom Line: Kelly Madigan gave them the blueprint to fix the corruption on her way out the door. Now we watch to see if the Baltimore County Council burns it. Given they just passed that $100 million bond amendment without blinking, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
