Baltimore County’s inspector general selection process facing mounting criticism | Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police

Natalie Jones

The Baltimore Sun

July 23, 2025

Government accountability groups are criticizing the process for selecting a Baltimore County inspector general, raising concerns that the current effort to appoint a new watchdog undermines the office’s independence and, according to one, is “irreparably damaged.”

Selection of an inspector general under the existing process “would not, and should not, garner the trust of the public,” Will Fletcher, president of the Association of Inspectors General, wrote in an open letter this week to Baltimore County Executive Kathy Klausmeier and the Baltimore County Council.

“The Association of Inspectors General strongly recommends that the law and processes be reevaluated and that Baltimore County government proceed with careful deliberation and caution.”

Final interviews with the top three candidates for the role, including current Inspector General Kelly Madigan, were completed last week. Now, Klausmeier must make her final decision, which is subject to confirmation by the County Council.

But since the process launched in mid-May, days after Klausmeier gave Madigan a letter stating she would conduct an open search for the role, it has been the subject of intense scrutiny from elected officials, residents, and now, advocacy groups.

Many have rallied behind Madigan, the county’s inaugural inspector general, and called out Klausmeier for initiating a search process rather than simply reappointing her. For her part, Klausmeier has been firm since the start that county code gives her the authority to conduct the search.

County Council members have largely stayed out of the fray, publicly. However, some have questioned the existing process for selecting the inspector general. A majority have said they support Madigan, although the county has not released the names of any candidates.

At issue for critics is how the selection process started, something they claim doesn’t follow county ordinances. The Association for Inspectors General said in its letter that the administration is required to either submit the current inspector general’s name for reappointment to the County Council for confirmation or, if they decline to do that, instead conduct an open search for new candidates.

The six-sentence letter Klausmeier gave Madigan in May encouraged her to reapply for the position if she wanted to remain with the county government.

“Inexplicably, the Administration has chosen to depart from the Ordinance by [conflating] the two distinct provisions by launching the ‘open search’ provision while at the same time inviting the current Inspector General to apply,” Fletcher wrote.

The Democratic county executive received the letter from the national group for government watchdogs and will review it, her spokeswoman said Monday afternoon.

The search process itself has also drawn scrutiny.

In June, Klausmeier announced that a five-member inspector general selection panel would review resumes, interview applicants and make recommendations. After its first meeting, the panel narrowed the field from an initial 23 applicants, extending interviews to eight candidates, four of whom interviewed for the role. Of those candidates, three advanced to a final round of interviews.

Klausmeier, who is ultimately responsible for appointing someone to the role, took part in interviewing the top three candidates last week, raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest and fueling claims that she was influencing the selection. Joining her were Arthur Elkins, a member of the five-person selection panel, and Mandee Heinl, a member of the Baltimore County Ethics Commission. The rest of the five-member selection panel did not participate in the final interviews.

Elkins was not present during the panel’s first round of interviews due to scheduling conflicts, Klausmeier’s spokeswoman said. But he was pulled into the final interviews because Klausmeier wanted his “expertise and input.” Elkins was the first Inspector General for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and a former Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

All of this got the attention of advocacy group, Common Cause Maryland, .

“It’s alarming that the County Executive has inserted herself into final round interviews — undermining a process that was supposed to be ‘independent,’” Joanne Antoine, executive director of Common Cause Maryland, said in a July 18 statement. “Her involvement further stains an already controversial process, leaving many to question whether the Office of the Inspector General is truly free from political influence, no matter who is nominated.”

Antoine was one of eight members of the Baltimore County Blue Ribbon Commission on Ethics and Accountability, a group tasked with studying the county’s existing ethics laws and the inspector general’s office. It recommended preserving the office’s independence in a 2023 report.

The Association of Inspectors General said an “inherent conflict of interest” exists when any person who is subject to an inspector general investigation is also charged with decision-making authority in selecting or reappointing an inspector general. The county administration “appears to treat the selection of an Inspector General as substantially similar to the appointment of other senior staff who are charged to advance the agenda (including the political agenda) of the County Executive,” Fletcher wrote.

Concerns about political influence in the process have ignited calls and efforts to reform the way it’s handled in the future.

A proposed charter amendment introduced by Councilman Izzy Patoka, a Pikesville Democrat, would create an independent board to appoint and reappoint the county’s inspector general to “eliminate real or perceived bias” in the selection process, he said earlier this month.

Antoine, of Common Cause Maryland, asked the council to adopt Patoka’s legislation at the same time as it confirms the inspector general nomination to ensure the “chaotic, clandestine process” is not the standard in the future. The Association of Inspectors General also recommended that county officials reevaluate the existing process, urging Klausmeier to exercise care and “ensure appropriate prophylactic measures are implemented” until the selection process can be tweaked legislatively.

“When a professional organization like that sends a letter to Baltimore County government, we should recognize what they’re saying,” Patoka said Tuesday. “I think they’re trying to advise us on what best practices are so that we’re able to implement those best practices.”

Because Patoka’s measure is a charter amendment, it will need five affirmative votes from the county council to be placed on the ballot in 2026 for voters to approve. It will not impact the current process.

Klausmeier has not announced when she plans to select her candidate for the post. Once she does, confirmation falls to the council.

Councilman Pat Young, a Catonsville Democrat, said in a brief phone call Tuesday morning that he hopes Klausmeier will send Madigan’s name to the council for confirmation.

Patoka, too, said he would support Madigan’s nomination for the role. But, having no information on any other candidates is “problematic,” he said, and the two other candidates shouldn’t be mysteries to the council two months into the process.

Councilman Julian Jones, a Democrat from Woodstock, who has not publicly endorsed Madigan, said applicants should have an equal opportunity to compete in the process.

“The county executive’s job is to select the person. My job is to see if the person is qualified,” he said Tuesday. “That’s the way I see it, not whether the person is my choice or not.”

Contact Us Today