Atlanta Inspector General alleges high-level interference in investigations, faces council backlash

Atlanta Inspector General Shannon Manigault made an urgent plea to the City Council during Monday’s public comment, alleging that high-level city officials had interfered with her office’s investigations.  

“I’m here today…because the Office of the Inspector General is facing an emergency,” Manigault told the Council. “That’s not hyperbole. That’s not an exaggeration in the slightest.” 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is tasked with “rooting [ing] out fraud, waste, abuse, corruption, and misconduct” in the city. It was adopted into the city’s charter in 2020 in response to a wave of federal corruption convictions of former employees and contractors of the Kasim Reed administration.  

Since its creation, the OIG has released reports on corruption and misconduct. These include details about corruption in the Reed mayoral administration, misuse of funds for the annual senior ball under Andre Dickens’ mayoral administration, and most recently, a case of nepotism and retaliation by Department of Human Resources Commissioner Tarlesha Smith. In response to the latter, the mayor’s office has initiated an independent investigation into Smith’s actions and placed her on administrative leave pending the outcome.  

Manigault, who came to Atlanta after six years working as an inspector general in New York City, told the City Council Monday that high-level city officials, including an executive director and commissioner, were interfering with her investigations. That interference, Manigault said, included department leadership requesting and receiving a summary of a confidential interview conducted by the OIG and an executive director instructing an employee to “recall” an email so that it could not be turned over to the OIG.  

Manigault did not publicly name those employees; instead, she requested that the council enter an “executive session” closed to the public so she could discuss the subject in more detail. The council did not call for the executive session Manigault requested.  

Disrespecting the elected body? 

During Monday’s meeting, Council Member Antonio Lewis stood alone in supporting Manigault, acknowledging her courage to speak out publicly. However, other members expressed concerns about Manigault’s approach and the potential overreach of the OIG’s authority. 

Rather than address the serious issues the inspector general brought forward, Council Member Marci Collier Overstreet expressed concern regarding Manigault’s decision to engage with the council through public comment.  

Manigault offered to provide more context regarding her decision, and Overstreet responded, “I don’t want any more context. Not today.”

Overstreet was not alone in challenging Manigault; Council Member Andrea Boone questioned why Manigault did not inform the council of her findings regarding Commissioner Smith before releasing those findings to the media. “I hope that we are not disrespecting the elected body by not letting them know about a very serious investigation. I never got it,” Boone said.

An email obtained via open records request confirmed that the OIG sent a copy of the report to all council members, including Boone, before sending it to the media. A second email obtained through the same request also showed that nearly a week before releasing the report, Manigault sent a referral letter regarding Smith to Council Members Howard Shook and Alex Wan, the chair and vice chair of the Finance/Executive Committee (FEC) respectively. The FEC oversees the Human Resources Department.

The public watchdog at risk

Overstreet signaled a desire to limit the power of the OIG.

“I will definitely be looking into legislation to close this up so that this doesn’t happen again,” Overstreet said regarding Manigault’s decision to speak at public comment.

Manigault says her decision to present her case publicly is justified and that the interference issues she brought before the council threaten the city.

“I raised the issues I raised today because this office won’t have the ability to gather facts to form any of those [reports],” Manigault told the Atlanta Community Press Collective (ACPC). “It’s a restraint and interference of our investigation. So, we won’t have any information that will then be reported, and it feels very much like that is the goal.”

Boone also questioned how Manigault’s office was conducting its investigations and mentioned unverified claims from employees alleging the OIG had used aggressive tactics in its investigations, such as showing up at their homes, examining their financial transactions, and confiscating equipment.

“I definitely implore this body to do a thorough, deep dive of [the OIG],” Boone said, drawing boos and chants of “shame!” from the members of the public still at the meeting.

Manigault says that the investigative steps her office has taken align with the standards of other Offices of the Inspector General.

Failure to address the interference the OIG is facing, Manigault told the Council, “create[s] a shell of an Office of Inspector General and a façade of integrity oversight, which is worse than having no IG at all in the city of Atlanta.”

The clash between the Inspector General and the City Council highlights the ongoing challenges in maintaining transparency and accountability within the city government. 

“If we are not allowed to do our jobs,” Manigault told ACPC, “then the same corruption that was at the heart of the federal indictments will go unchecked, and that will impact all city of Atlanta taxpayers.”