Six years ago, Baltimore’s then-city solicitor said it plainly: The inspector general’s office needed full access to internal systems and data to fulfill its mandate to taxpayers.

In an email to the city’s head of information technology, Dana Moore, now a senior adviser to Mayor Brandon Scott, said such access was “a critical function of the IG’s Office, the independence of which is mandated by the City’s Charter.”

“Having to request or wait for access to systems or data,” Moore wrote, “would create an undue burden on the OIG investigative process and undermine the mission of the OIG.”

Yet years later, attorneys for Scott and Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming are due in court for a hearing on a dispute over Cumming’s access to city records. City lawyers now say her office’s reach went too far, while the fraud investigator says she’s been kneecapped.

The hearing, which will be held virtually before retired Baltimore Circuit Court Associate Judge Pamela J. White on Friday, is the first since February, when Cumming filed a lawsuit against Scott’s administration asking a judge to weigh in.

“It cannot be said any plainer than this: If the Mayor’s Office ... is to be the final arbiter of what information should be disclosed in investigations of potential fraud, waste, and abuse, then why did the people and taxpayers of Baltimore City establish in the City Charter an OIG in the first place?” Cumming’s pro bono attorneys wrote in court documents ahead of the hearing.

How did it come to this?

Cumming, the city’s inspector general of eight years, began voicing complaints early this year when Scott’s administration redacted records it provided Cumming in response to a request. The records detail the spending of the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, the agency responsible for executing the mayor’s flagship anti-violence program.

Cumming pushed back on social media, posting photos of pages of blacked-out records spread across a table.

In January, Scott’s office announced that it was cutting access for Cumming and her staff to city legal records after officials discovered that the inspector general had “unfettered access” to a city attorney’s files. That access, City Solicitor Ebony Thompson argued, was a violation of attorney-client and work product privileges.

Weeks later, Scott further limited Cumming, this time cutting the office’s direct access to all city documents. The administration cited legal advice it received from an attorney with the Office of the Maryland Attorney General, which said Cumming was subject to the Maryland Public Information Act. That act bars public entities like the city from releasing certain records, such as personnel and financial information.

Scott and his advisers have argued that the restrictions will not hamper Cumming’s ability to do her job, but Cumming said the decisions have severely restricted her work and could expose whistleblowers.

In February, Cumming took the issue to court, asking a judge to reinforce her subpoena power. She is also seeking an injunction.

What will be argued Friday?

White will consider several motions filed in the case, including a request from city attorneys to dismiss the dispute and disqualify Cumming’s attorneys, arguing that she’s part of government and can’t sue to get relief.

“It would set dangerous precedent that any municipal officer who disagrees with the legal opinion of the city solicitor need do no more than engage private counsel, whose personal motivations, abilities, conflicts and allegiances are unknown, to disrupt the legal structure of the city at any time, for any reason,” wrote Renita Collins, an attorney representing the administration.

The charter requires the solicitor and the city’s Board of Estimates to sign off before outside legal counsel can be hired, but no such approval was granted.

Cumming’s legal team, led by attorney Mark Stichel, argues that the same charter empowers the inspector general to take legal action. An amended filing quotes a portion of the city charter that states she may enforce subpoenas “in any court of competent jurisdiction.”

“The aforementioned language reflects a deliberate choice by the unanimous City Council and the voters of Baltimore: the OIG is to have the independence and autonomy to pursue investigations and enforce subpoenas without limitation, oversight or approval by other city entities, including the city Law Department,” Stichel wrote.

Stichel has also asked for a preliminary injunction to “prevent interference with the OIG’s investigations and confidential systems.”

What else is new with the case?

In recent days, both sides have submitted a flurry of filings and exhibits that will be considered by the court. Among them is Moore’s email sent during her tenure as solicitor. The email was directed to Todd Carter, the then head of the city’s information technology office, in response to a concern raised about investigative privileges held by a member of Cumming’s staff.

“The permissions allow the process of investigations to be conducted in an independent and objective manner while maintaining integrity and confidentiality and, again, consistent with the Baltimore City Charter,” Moore wrote.

“These permissions have been in effect for over a year with no issues and several important investigations have been handled by the OIG without any compromise of confidentiality,” Moore added. “Accordingly, please confirm that the privileges remain in place or, if not now in place, will be restored immediately.”

City lawyers want that email and others sealed from public view. On Wednesday, they accused Cumming’s attorneys of violating the rules of professional conduct for lawyers by posting “privileged” communications.

The bigger picture

The legal fight is also interwoven in the city’s deeper political currents.

Scott and Cumming naturally have an adversarial relationship because of the nature of the inspector general’s work investigating city operations. Her work has exposed unsafe working conditions, documented problems with city spending and ensured that Baltimore was following proper processes.

Her recent reports have poked holes in the administration’s spending on Artscape, a pet project of Scott’s, and called out a key adviser for using crass, threatening language on a city messaging platform.

Cumming’s review of MONSE, which is at the center of her legal dispute with the city, has aligned with Scott’s chief critic, Baltimore State’s Attorney Ivan Bates, with whom she works closely. Cumming once posted a photo of her with Bates on social media, labeling them “Baltimore’s Accountability and Oversight Team.”

At times, Cumming’s requests have duplicated those made by Bates, who announced in December that he was cutting off coordination with MONSE. She asked for a list of participants in the agency’s Sidestep program in October. Bates asked for the same information in June.

Cumming told The Banner she did not request the records on Bates’ behalf.