Maryland lawmakers move to close public-records loophole that can stall local inspector general investigations

Legislation responds to disputes over access to documents, subpoenas and confidentiality in several Maryland jurisdictions

Maryland lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation this week aimed at clarifying that local inspectors general can obtain government records for official investigations without being forced into the state’s public-records request process, a change supporters say is needed to prevent agencies under scrutiny from delaying or narrowing oversight.

The proposal was introduced Feb. 26, 2026, by Del. Ryan Nawrocki, a Republican, and Del. Vaughn Stewart, a Democrat. The measure is designed to address a conflict that has intensified in Baltimore and raised broader questions for inspector general offices in other counties.

What the bill seeks to change

At the center of the dispute is how the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) applies when an inspector general seeks records for investigative work. Agencies have argued that certain categories of records must be withheld or redacted under mandatory MPIA exemptions, even when an inspector general has subpoena authority under local law. Inspectors general have countered that treating them like outside requesters can leave investigations dependent on the cooperation of the very agencies being examined.

The new bill would clarify that MPIA restrictions governing public access requests do not control an inspector general’s ability to obtain records when acting within legally authorized investigative duties. The proposal also seeks to reduce conflicting interpretations of inspector general authority across cities and counties.

Baltimore lawsuit heightens urgency

The legislation comes days after Baltimore City Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming filed suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court, seeking a declaration that her office is independent under the city charter and can enforce subpoenas without interference. The lawsuit also seeks court orders aimed at preventing obstruction of investigations and protecting confidential investigative systems.

The dispute escalated after city officials took steps that limited the inspector general’s access to certain materials, including redactions of subpoenaed documents and changes in access to internal data systems. City leaders have argued those limits were intended to align city practices with state law and to protect privileged or confidential information.

Statewide implications for local watchdog offices

Inspectors general in several Maryland jurisdictions have publicly signaled that the underlying legal question is not confined to Baltimore. Watchdog offices in Montgomery County, Howard County and Baltimore County have indicated support for the legislative fix, arguing that investigative work requires timely access to personnel, financial and other sensitive records that often cannot be meaningfully reviewed if heavily redacted or delayed.

Inspectors general also note that they are typically bound by confidentiality requirements in their work and in the way they publish findings, creating a distinction between investigatory access and what can be disclosed publicly.

Key questions lawmakers must resolve

• How to define the scope of records access for inspectors general while preserving privacy protections and legally recognized privileges.
• Whether subpoena authority granted by local charters and ordinances should be explicitly recognized as separate from public-records request procedures.
• How to create uniform rules that apply across jurisdictions with different inspector general structures and enabling laws.

As the bill moves through the General Assembly, it is poised to shape how independent watchdog offices conduct investigations and how quickly they can obtain evidence in disputes involving government agencies.