Multiple whistleblowers have come forward expressing concerns that the Seattle Office of Inspector General (OIG) may not be fulfilling its legal and charter responsibilities as mandated.
An investigation by The Urbanist has tied various claims about misconduct to evidence that suggests Inspector General Lisa Judge may be routinely withholding, altering, and even destroying public records.
This alleged misconduct seems aimed at protecting officials within the Seattle Office of Inspector General, the Office of Police Accountability (OPA), and the overall administration of Mayor Bruce Harrell.
Among those Judge reportedly sought to shield is former OPA Director Andrew Myerberg, who, after serving in that role, was promoted to the Mayor’s cabinet in 2022.
Moreover, there are claims that the OIG interfered with investigations concerning former Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz, including withholding crucial handwriting samples related to allegations of misconduct.
Last year, Judge terminated Lacey Gray, the former records manager for OIG, which many view as an act of retaliation following Gray’s whistleblowing on the office’s improper handling of records in the Diaz investigation.
The state ruled in favor of Gray, stating her dismissal was without cause, subsequently awarding her full unemployment benefits.
Initially, Mayor Bruce Harrell defended Diaz, but he later fired him in December, accusing him of lying about his relationship with Chief of Staff Jamie Tompkins.
This decision partly hinged on the analysis of handwriting connected to a controversial note associated with that personal relationship.
The OIG was established as one of three police accountability bodies in Seattle, functioning under a federal mandate resulting from the 2012 consent decree.
According to information on the OIG’s official website, the office is tasked with overseeing Seattle Police Department’s practices and policies, in addition to those of the OPA.
However, the OIG is now facing intensified scrutiny, particularly following its response to police conduct during protests in 2020.
Legal and ethical complaints regarding the office are not a new issue; Judge and the OIG have been the subject of prior ethics complaints, including allegations of violating Washington’s records laws.
The City dismissed a recent complaint against Judge, suggesting it did not meet their standards for ethics violations, although subsequent reports have corroborated some of the key issues flagged in that complaint.
Despite these incidents, minimal action has been taken to rectify the highlighted legal concerns, other than creating a new records management position that ultimately went to Gray.
Currently, the OIG has not returned any requests for comment regarding these serious allegations.
After scrutiny from The Urbanist revolving around an investigation into Myerberg, additional records suggest Judge sought to manipulate procedural practices to obscure sensitive records.
According to Gray, Judge considered routing the investigation through the Seattle City Attorney’s Office (CAO) to invoke attorney-client privilege, effectively claiming that the records were exempt from disclosure.
Gray asserts that Judge’s interpretation of the law was flawed, as the third party involved was not conducting attorney-client work but was involved in a misconduct investigation.
Additionally, Judge maintained that records could be withheld due to the ongoing nature of investigations, a stance Gray clarified was also incorrect.
Upon joining the OIG in 2022, as part of a move by the Seattle City Council to improve records management, Gray discovered that the office had been improperly denying access to investigation records long before her arrival.
Gray stated, “Prior to me starting, OIG had been blanket denying open cases, withholding documents, so they had been doing things illegally up until when I arrived.”
During her employment, Gray reported that Judge ordered her and other staff to withhold valuable records under the pretense of various legal exemptions.
In an alarming exchange, Judge specifically instructed Gray to withhold ‘anything of value’ regarding ongoing investigations to keep the requestor from receiving vital information.
Gray noted that such directives often led to an expectation that requestors would abandon their queries if faced with minimal or irrelevant records first.
After Gray voiced her concerns to Aaron Valla at the CAO due to the legal implications of Judge’s instructions, he advised her to document everything for her protection.
Information received by The Urbanist outlines numerous instances where Judge allegedly directed staff to conceal records, especially those that could portray the office or the City in an unfavorable light.
Gray emphasized that she had no choice but to maintain the integrity of the office’s public disclosure practices, a sentiment echoed in her whistleblower complaint from 2021.
During her tenure, Judge also reportedly pushed employees to destroy drafts of reports and investigations to avoid retaining potentially compromising information, although such actions are illegal under state law.
Retention policies dictate that many documents must remain available for 5 to 10 years, while certain records could require permanent retention.
Gray alleged that Judge would sometimes assert that records no longer existed or had been ‘lost,’ even when she had the means to recover them.
“Unless the record is transitory, destroying records before they reach the required retention period is illegal,” Gray explained.
For instance, in one case involving a public records request for phone records, Judge initially claimed she had lost her phone but later changed her story.
When pressed, she stated she remembered the password but subsequently admitted that many texts had already been deleted, which is against the law.
Moreover, Gray claimed Judge would instruct her to collect and erase drafts from ongoing investigations, undermining transparency and accountability in their operations.
This allegation raises significant questions not only regarding legal compliance but also about possible broader implications for the city’s governance and transparency.
Gray’s warnings about the office’s illegal practices indicate that OIG operated against principles established by state law, raising concerns for accountability advocates.
The Urbanist obtained several communications suggesting Judge implemented internal directives to stifle external requests for legal opinions concerning public records.
In emails from July 2023, Judge explicitly instructed OIG staff to cease communication with the City’s Law department regarding Public Records Act inquiries.
A confidential records folder was suggested by Scott, which Judge approved, containing information deemed sensitive and subject to exemption under public disclosure laws.
However, the development of such a folder raises serious concerns about compliance with applicable laws, as internal legal guidance was not consulted during its establishment.
In another troubling incident, records related to a high-profile investigation regarding a supposed affair involving former Chief Chief Diaz and Tompkins were allegedly mishandled by the OIG.
Internal investigators reportedly excluded substantial evidence during this investigation, specifically samples that could have clarified the handwriting analysis linked to the allegations against Tompkins.
The chaotic nature of OIG’s internal process casts doubt on the validity of their procedural standards and highlights potential undermining of the investigative process.
Lack of oversight and mismanagement appear to be significant issues within OIG, indicated by a pattern of ignored legal compliance and ethical guidelines.
Gray, who has been locked in a battle for recognition and protection regarding her whistleblowing, now pursues legal action against the City of Seattle for perceived wrongful termination.
The claims against Judge and the operations of the OIG resonate deeply with public accountability advocates who argue that such ethical lapses undermine the credibility of institutions created to ensure transparency.
“A failure to operate lawfully and transparently puts the integrity and the public’s trust in jeopardy,” said George Erb with the advocacy group WashCOG.
The gravity of the allegations against Lisa Judge and the OIG underline the critical necessity for unwavering adherence to laws that protect the public’s right to access government records, especially from an organization intended to uphold and serve as a watchdog over public safety operations.
As the situation develops, both the investigation into these allegations and Gray’s legal proceedings remain closely watched by stakeholders invested in integrity and accountability within public offices.
image source from：theurbanist
