A proposal by Baltimore County Council Chairman Julian Jones to establish an advisory board for the inspector general appears to be dead in the water.

His six fellow council members told WYPR they either will not support it or have grave reservations.

At a public hearing Tuesday, there was a brief, contentious exchange between Jones and Councilman Izzy Patoka when Patoka raised questions about who would serve on the advisory board.

Jones quickly shut him down.

Jones asked, “Are you going to vote for the amendment?”

Patoka responded, “I don’t think so. No, I am not going to vote for the amendment.”

“Then don’t worry about it,” Jones said.

In interviews before the hearing, Patoka and other council members said they have been inundated with hundreds of calls, emails and texts opposing Jones’ call for an advisory board.

Republican Council members Todd Crandell and Wade Kach plan to vote against establishing an advisory board, as does Democrat Pat Young.

Democrat Mike Ertel and Republican David Marks said they are likely to oppose it as well.

At the beginning of the public hearing Jones, a Democrat, made his case for giving the inspector general, who roots out fraud waste and abuse in county government, oversight.

“I believe that everyone in county government should have some level of accountability,” Jones said. “Government checks and balances are good and what helps strengthen our government.”

David Riley, a Towson resident, agreed.

“Watchdogs can easily turn into attack dogs if they’re ever compromised by personal animosity of political agendas,” Riley said.

But Jones’ motives were called into question by Timonium resident Ann George.

“Mister Jones has had his own concerns with the IG in investigations, and it almost seems like a vendetta,” George said.

Jones twice has been the target of investigations by Baltimore County Inspector General Kelly Madigan. 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.

Jones has questioned the validity of those investigations and said they were not why he is proposing an advisory board.

Baltimore City’s Inspector General, Isabel Mercedes Cumming testified that Jones’ proposed advisory board is “shocking” and “unheard of.” When Jones pointed out that Cumming has an advisory board in the city, she said that board is far different than what Jones is proposing.

“My advisory board works with my budget and they work on my review, that’s it,” Cumming said. “They have no idea what investigations my office is doing. That is a pillar of independence.”

Among other things, the advisory board Jones is proposing for the county would be notified of any investigations being conducted by the inspector general and would complete an annual review.

Jones also wants to require the inspector general to have a judge sign off before getting a subpoena to go after anyone’s private records.

“I strongly believe there should always be some checks and balances to protect employees and all others’ privacy, particularly against unreasonable searches of employees' private information,” Jones said.

But Inspector General Madigan said multiple members of county government, including Jones and the county council, can issue subpoenas.

“I disagree with this idea that an inspector general is running loose and issuing subpoenas,” Madigan said. “That is not true. In fact, it’s false.”

The firestorm over Jones’ amendments has overshadowed the original legislation from County Executive Johnny Olszewski, designed to strengthen the inspector general.

It would enshrine the inspector general’s office in the county charter to protect it from being dismantled by future county leaders.

The legislation also would make it more politically difficult for the county executive and the County Council to reduce 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.

Olszewski’s proposals are based on the findings of The Blue Ribbon Commission on Ethics and Accountability which did a months-long study of the inspector general’s office.

The County Council is expected to vote on Olszewski’s legislation, as well as Jones’ amendments on December 18.