The Atlanta City Council voted 14-1 at its Monday, Feb. 17 meeting, to approve revisions to the powers of the Office of Inspector General.
The vote was made roughly eight hours after Shannon Manigault announced her resignation as inspector general during a morning press conference on the steps of city hall. Manigault said she and her staff have been consistently harassed for months because their investigations “uncovered corruption at the highest rungs of city hall.”
The revisions are part of a charter amendment that required two votes by the full council. Council member Liliana Bakhtiari cast the sole no vote.
Check back for updates.
Original story
Atlanta’s first inspector general resigned Monday, Feb. 17, hours before the city council is expected to make controversial changes to the office’s powers and as the office faces a federal lawsuit.
Shannon Manigault, who has helmed the watchdog agency since December 2020, made the announcement at a morning press conference at city hall. She said her decision to resign was made in part due to an organized campaign by some in city leadership to discredit her and the work of the inspector general’s office.
“For the last several months, the City of Atlanta Office of the Inspector General and I have been subjected to threats, bullying, intimidation, and harassment at the hands of people who have been the subjects of our investigations,” Manigault said.
Manigault said the attacks against her “have been systematic, sustained and savage.”
“Pure and simple, it’s retaliation,” she said. “City leadership has made it crystal clear for them that a real, functioning, effective Office of Inspector General is not welcome in Atlanta.
“I wish that there was more that I could do, but ultimately, I can’t make the leadership of this city do right by the public,” she said.
Manigault added the legislation the council is expected to approve today will eliminate its independence and “destroy the office.” Changes focus on limiting how the inspector general conducts investigations, such as restrictions on access to employee records.
The proposed legislation also includes creating a separate board for the Office of Inspector General; currently one board governs the inspector general and Ethics Office.
How and when a new inspector general will be selected is to be determined. The city thanked Manigault for her service.
“We look forward to working with a new inspector general and independent board in the near future,” said a city spokesperson. “Ethical government has been one of the mayor’s four pillars since day one. The city will continue advancing policies and practices that reinforce public trust and protect taxpayer resources, while also ensuring all oversight efforts respect the rights of our employees and are conducted with fairness, transparency and accordance to the law.”
The contentious relationship between the Office of Inspector General and Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens’ administration began last year when Manigault told the city council, during public comment of a regular meeting, that her office faced a crisis because top city officials were obstructing investigations. It was an issue she hoped the council would help fix.
Instead, Mayor Andre Dickens created a task force to review the procedures of the Office of Inspector General and recommend changes to its role. City officials said changes were needed after city employees complained of harassment.
Some city leaders have also accused Manigault of abusing her power, necessitating the changes to be voted on by the council today that specifically limit how the inspector general can conduct investigations.
The city established the watchdog office in 2020 to root out corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse. The office was created in the wake of a massive federal investigation at City Hall that centered around bribery, kickbacks and misuse of city resources during former Mayor Kasim Reed’s tenure.
City attorney sends inspector general cease-and-desist letter; federal lawsuit filed
Manigault did not name anyone when she talked about the attacks against her and her office. But on Feb. 3, City Attorney Patrise Perkins-Hooker wrote the inspector general a cease-and-desist letter claiming the office has issued more than 50 illegal subpoenas for financial records.
Perkins-Hooker said because the inspector general conducts administrative investigations, the office must notify anyone when their private financial records are subpoenaed. Doing so allows them the chance to contest the subpoena. Failing to notify a person their private financial records are being subpoenaed violates state law and places the city of Atlanta at risk for liability, the city attorney said.
The inspector general’s office said it was not aware of this requirement and immediately corrected its process. The office also noted that some of the subpoenas sent to financial institutions were in “connection with criminal matter(s) referred to prosecutor(s).”
Several days after the cease-and-desist letter was made public in a news release from the mayor’s office, attorney Stephen Katz filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Bernard Tokarz against the city, the Office of Inspector General and Manigault as an individual.
The lawsuit alleges Tokarz’s constitutional rights were violated when his financial records were subpoenaed by the inspector general without notice during an investigation into financial ties between his company, Cloverhurst Strategies, and city officials. The lawsuit cites the cease-and-desist letter from Perkins-Hooker.
Tokarz is a lobbyist who has worked for city council member Michael Julian Bond and whose company, Cloverhurst Strategies, is contracted by the city to provide security at parks department events. The inspector general’s office recommended the city discontinue contracting with Tokarz’s company because it gave the appearance of “cronyism.” The city continues to do with business with Cloverhurst.
Katz told Rough Draft in a recent interview that Tokarz has been damaged by what he deemed reckless conduct by the Office of Inspector General. He said Manigault’s claim she was unaware of the state law that requires people be notified when their private financial records are subpoenaed “doesn’t pass muster.”
“We’re dealing with somebody who routinely boasts about her ability as an inspector general and talks about how good she is, that she’s an Ivy League trained lawyer who is paid to conduct investigations within the law,” he said. “When she says, ‘Hey, gee, I didn’t know about that,’ well, that just doesn’t get her to first base.”
Katz said he doesn’t oppose the city having an Office of Inspector General. The objection, he said, is that the inspector general not conduct investigations outside the law and does not retaliate against people who speak out against investigations.
IG governing board says conflict exists with city attorney, hires outside counsel
The governing board of the inspector general held a special called meeting on Feb. 13 and voted 6-1 to hire attorney James Radford to represent the Office of Inspector General and Manigault individually in the federal lawsuit.
Members said outside counsel was needed because it would be a legal conflict for Perkins-Hooker to represent the Office of Inspector General due to her adverse position against the office, notably the cease-and-desist letter.
Perkins-Hooker said the governing board does not have the authority to assign legal representation to Manigault personally. She said that as city attorney she would represent the city and the Office of Inspector General in the Tokarz lawsuit. Manigault would have to hire her own attorney because she is being sued individually, Perkins-Hooker said.
In a Feb. 16 letter, Radford said it is common practice when the city is sued along with one of its officials that the city offers legal counsel to the individual. He added not doing so is considered retaliation and discrimination as well as a violation of the whistleblower protection law.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
