Three Boston city councillors are backing a new effort to create a local Office of the Inspector General, following an unsuccessful attempt in 2019.

The measure’s lead sponsor, Councillor At-Large Julia Mejia, said in an interview last week that “this is an opportunity for us to restore trust, given the fact that there have been so many different issues that have bubbled up to the top, from White Stadium to the Boston Police Department, the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) – all the issues around zoning.”

In a release issued by her office two weeks ago, the proposed ordinance was described as a way “to bolster transparency, accountability, and efficiency in City government” through proactive and independent oversight. The measure is also being co-sponsored by District 4 (Dorchester/Mattapan) Councillor Brian Worrell and District 7 (Roxbury) Councillor Tania Fernandes Anderson.

“The ordinance aims to create a formal structure to audit and evaluate City policies, procedures, and protocols by providing a process to identify mismanagement, waste, and oversee complaints made against Boston City departments,” Mejia said in the release. The proposed office could investigate employees and appointees in city agencies, quasi-governmental agencies and boards. There would also be investigative power over individuals, organizations, or businesses that receive city-granted funds or other kinds of benefits.

Similar offices exist in several other US cities, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle, Jacksonville, and Hartford. Aside from the Office of the Inspector General for all of Massachusetts, the city has one agency for oversight, the Boston Finance Commission (“FinCom”), which was established in 1909 to “monitor the administrative and financial activities.”

But Mejia insisted that a local Office of the Inspector General would have wider scope.

“From what I understand to be one of the biggest complaints from constituents,” she observed,” is how oftentimes they don’t feel heard or that there aren’t any real checks and balances to the decisions that are being made. And this gives them a vehicle.”

To make the case for a new kind of oversight, Mejia also noted the council’s recent approval of a reform of the BPDA, which would place its planning function from a quasi-independent agency to a line department, more directly under control of the mayor. The change was sought by Mayor Wu and advanced by her as a way to make decisions over development more predictable and inclusive. In the council’s decision on the mayor’s reform, Mejia voted present.

Along with reviewing 597 unadvertised contracts last year, the FinCom monitored planning and installation of bike lanes, as well as investigating complaints from contractors over missing payments and work assigned to a non-winning bidder. The FinCom also produced a report on bidding guidelines for the Boston school bus contract that it said could have reduced competition. The information was referred to the state Inspector General.

Like the proposed city Inspector General’s Office, the FinCom has subpoena powers. But the commission’s executive director, Matt Cahill, said that instead of being applied, the powers are understood as a threat to help obtain information. Along with Cahill, the FinCom has a board appointed by the governor and only two other staff members, with an annual budget of less than $400,000.
In 2019, the FinCom opposed the ordinance for the Office of the Inspector General. But Cahill acknowledged that it would be “difficult” for the FinCom, with its small staff, to accomplish the work of the proposed agency.

“The ability to do what I think they’re asking to do already resides with us,” he said. “If they fund us better, we could do better or do more, but we just can’t do it with three people.”

The 2019 ordinance for the inspector general’s office was filed by former City Councillor and current state Attorney General Andrea Campbell. The filing was triggered by a scandal, with a former BPDA employee agreeing to a guilty plea for accepting a $50,000 bribe to help with a request for a zoning waiver. Just before Campbell filed her ordinance, then-mayor Marty Walsh ordered an outside investigation of the city’s Zoning Board of Appeal.

Before her finalized ordinance came up for a vote in December 2019, Campbell argued that there should be a new city watchdog agency “more expansive” than the FinCom and more locally focused than the State Inspector General’s Office. She also noted that the new agency would do work the city was already assigning to outside investigators.

“Instead,” Campbell said, “Boston taxpayers funded those investigations led by costly private attorneys, whose reports were not public, were not independent, and didn’t lead to any transformative corrective action.” As a later consequence of the bribery scandal, Walsh created new ethical standards for the Board of Appeal, in March of 2020.

As other areas that could be addressed by a “more expansive” city inspector general’s office, Campbell suggested reports of discrimination and sexual harassment on the Boston Fire Dept., and the federal prosecution of overtime fraud on the Boston Police Dept. that would later result in multiple guilty pleas. Along with doing investigations, issuing reports and pushing for enforcement, Campbell argued that a Boston Inspector General could save resources.

“A city inspector general,” she said, “can provide proactive and independent oversight of our government with actually a greater priority to look at the recipients of our contracts, for example, of our grants, to look for opportunities to reduce waste by finding more efficient ways to get things done.”

To allow the Office of the Inspector General to be established without state approval, which is required for amending the city’s charter, Campbell revised her initial ordinance. In her final version, the inspector general would be appointed by the mayor, in a process she described as “informed by the council and certain commissions” to create the independence of similar offices in other cities. After arguments by supporters and opponents, the ordinance was voted down by a count of 9-4. Among those voting against it was Wu, Campbell’s fellow councillor at the time and future rival in Boston’s 2021 race for mayor.

In her remarks before the vote, Wu said that the agreed with the goals of the ordinance. “But, she added, “my concern is that I don’t feel this goes far enough –particularly with some of the charter change fixes, that now this is a position that is directly appointed by the mayor, and I worry about independence in that model.” Wu also maintained that the Inspector General’s office would not have addressed problems with a zoning process that needed systemic reform and changes in structure.

When asked for reaction to the newly proposed ordinance last week, the mayor’s press office responded, by email, “We are reviewing the proposal and look forward to a hearing.”

Twelve of the 13 members voting in 2019 have since left the council. The only one remaining, District 2 (South Boston, South End, Chinatown) Councillor Ed Flynn, had initially voted for the ordinance to be considered, before voting in opposition in December 2019.

When asked for reaction to Mejia’s proposal, Flynn responded with a statement by email. “Transparency and accountability are critical foundations of our city government, and having an independent Inspector General can further ensure integrity and efficiency in our city departments, as well as strengthen public trust,” he said.

“I was supportive of establishing the Office of the Inspector General when it was first proposed in 2019, and I’m still supportive of the creation of this office. I look forward to discussing more in detail about this ordinance and working together with my colleagues on this issue.”