The Baltimore County Council Tuesday will debate whether an advisory board for the county inspector general is a matter of checks and balances or an infringement on the office’s effectiveness and independence.

County Council Chairman Julian Jones, a Democrat, who has twice been the subject of an IG investigation, is proposing the advisory board.

“I’m well aware of the optics,” Jones said. “All I’m trying to do is create a level, a small level of checks and balances. That’s it.”

The advisory board would be notified of any investigations being conducted by the inspector general and would complete an annual review.

The idea of establishing such a board was rejected by The Blue Ribbon Commission on Ethics and Accountability, which conducted a months-long study of the IG’s office.

The commission said it was not recommending an oversight board “in deference to the need to protect the independence and decision-making of the Inspector General.”

Baltimore County Inspector General Kelly Madigan said, "The only reason to offer an advisory board is you are disagreeing with the decisions that the inspector general has made."

The county council finds itself in a messy debate over the inspector general. It will hold a public hearing Tuesday on legislation that will determine the future of the IG office.

Votes on proposals to strengthen the office were delayed last week following the leak to the news media of proposed amendments that would weaken the office’s autonomy.

The makeup of the proposed advisory board has changed since it was first floated last week.

It initially was going to be packed with county officials, including the county attorney, the county auditor, the county council secretary and the executive director of the county ethics commission.

Now the amendment being proposed by Jones calls for a seven member board with one county employee, the head of the ethics commission.

The other six would be appointed by other agencies, such as the American Bar Association, The American Civil Liberties Union, and the Schools of Law at the University of Baltimore and the University of Maryland. All would be county residents.

Jones said the original proposed makeup of the board “were simply ideas that never really got anywhere.”

Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski said he supports the original legislation that does not include any sort of advisory board.

“At the end of the day, they reflect the recommendations of the blue ribbon commission, and they’re the bills that I stand by,” Olszewski said.

He would not go so far as to say he would veto legislation if the advisory board is included.

“I hope that the council sees the wisdom in passing the legislation that we put forward,” Olszewski said. “If there are changes to the legislation, we will certainly have to review what those changes are and decide following that action.”

The original legislation proposed by Olszewski would enshrine the inspector general’s office in the county charter to protect it from being dismantled by future county leaders. If the council passes the charter amendment, it would go before the voters in November 2024.

The legislation also would make it more politically uncomfortable for the county executive and the County Council to gut the inspector general’s budget, which is under their control. If the IG office’s annual budget is cut, it has to be explained in writing and in time for public hearings on the county’s spending plan.

It also reduces the time the inspector general has to wait before issuing a subpoena for county documents from 90 to 30 days.

The inspector general investigates fraud, waste and abuse in county government.

Chairman Jones twice has been the target of Madigan investigations. In one instance he was tagged because his official emails included a donate button for his campaign. In another Madigan said Jones helped to pave the way for a commercial alley to be repaired by the county.

In both instances, Jones said he had done nothing wrong and at times has questioned Madigan’s practices.

The chairman said his proposal for an advisory board has nothing to do with those previous investigations.

“I have a job to do and I need to do my job to the best of my ability and not be so concerned about how it’s going to make me look,” Jones said.