Editorial: The OIG Made the Defendant the Judge in Montgomery County
When a citizen brings a case of alleged government misconduct to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), they expect an impartial arbiter. What I received in Montgomery County with Complaint C-26-138 was a stunning betrayal of that trust. The OIG did not just close the case; they committed an act of institutional sabotage. In a conflict of interest so brazen it defies belief, the OIG converted the defendant into the prosecutor and judge for the victim.
The Case the OIG Ran From
The OIG was presented with a serious indictment of the County’s power structure: a detailed complaint alleging that high-ranking officials in the County Council and the Executive Branch had arbitrarily and unconstitutionally denied press access to an independent publisher, The Montgonion.
The complaint was a core challenge to the government's respect for the First Amendment. Adding to the gravity, the County's handling of related Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) requests compounded the offense. The Montgonion had already faced administrative stonewalling, forcing an escalation after the County initially claimed "no responsive documents," only to later admit to possessing multiple drafts and legal memos on the restrictive press policy.
In short, the OIG was asked to intervene in a situation where the government was already accused of violating two fundamental legal rights—press freedom and transparency law—and then covering its tracks.
The Verdict: Institutional Sabotage
The OIG’s duty was to provide the independent scrutiny that the Executive Branch had already proven incapable of providing. Instead, the OIG declared the matter "closed on our end" and performed the administrative equivalent of a kickback: they referred the entire complaint to the County’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Richard Madaleno.
The complaint had explicitly informed the OIG that Mr. Madaleno was an alleged participant in the decisions that denied press access. Yet, the OIG proceeded anyway, washing its hands of all responsibility, stating they would retain no oversight and leaving the outcome entirely to the CAO's discretion.
The OIG, the agency constitutionally bound to ensure integrity, has chosen to shield the powerful. It has guaranteed that the final review will be an internal whitewash. If the OIG cannot even recognize a flagrant, system-discrediting conflict of interest when it is spelled out in bold type, then the entire function of the office is compromised.
We demand an immediate retraction of the "closed" status for Complaint C-26-138. The OIG must cease protecting the Executive Branch and commit to an external, truly independent investigation, or stand exposed as an administrative accomplice in the government’s systematic suppression of press freedom and public records. The integrity of our local institutions depends on the OIG finding the courage to do its job.
Publisher's Note: The complete text of OIG Complaint C-26-138 is copied below. Referenced exhibits are available on request to montgonion@gmail.com.
OIG Complaint C-26-138
To: Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General
From: Glenn Fellman, Publisher, The Montgonion
Date: October 23, 2025
Subject: Complaint Regarding Improper and Arbitrary Restriction of Press Access by Montgomery County Council and Executive Branch, Including Potential Violations of Transparency, Due Process, and First Amendment Principles
Dear Inspector General,
I am submitting this complaint to request a formal investigation into repeated denials of press access to Montgomery County government press briefings by both the County Council and the County Executive’s Office (through the Office of Public Information, OPI). These denials, which have persisted since December 2024, appear to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacking in transparency or due process. They raise significant concerns about compliance with constitutional protections for press freedom, fair governance, and transparency in rule making and enforcement. As the publisher of The Montgonion (www.montgonion.com), an independent online publication covering Montgomery County news, politics, and social issues through a mix of satire, parody, and straight reporting, I have been systematically excluded from participating in these briefings despite multiple requests and efforts to address stated concerns.
Background and Timeline of Denials
Since December 2024, I have submitted numerous written requests to attend and participate in press briefings hosted by the County Council and the County Executive. These requests have been consistently denied, with the Council citing a restrictive January 2023 media-access policy that emphasizes subjective judgments about editorial content (e.g., satire and "activism"), and the Executive Branch providing no written policy or explanation at all. The result is a lack of any fair, transparent, or constitutional pathway for independent media outlets like The Montgonion to engage in these public-facing events. Below is a chronological summary of key interactions (supported by attached Exhibits):
County Council Denials:
December 9-11, 2024: Initial request to attend Council President’s Media Availability denied by Sonya Healy, who stated The Montgonion is not "news media" and could only observe via livestream (Exhibits – pages 1-3).
January 27, 2025: Follow-up denial by Healy, citing the Council's policy and emphasizing that satire disqualifies participation (Exhibits – pages 4-5).
February 22, 2025: Renewed request denied on the same grounds (Exhibits – pages 6-7, 9).
August 5-12, 2025: Request for reconsideration after website updates to highlight non-satirical content; denied by Healy as "primarily focused on satire and activism" (Exhibits – pages 10-11, 13).
August 21-23, 2025: Council attorney Christine Wellons cited website "deficiencies" (e.g., lack of certain disclosures) and confirmed no appeal process exists (Exhibits – pages 15-17).
August 24-September 25, 2025: Further website revisions made; Wellons acknowledged changes but denied access again, this time referencing voluntary standards from non-profit journalism societies (Exhibits – pages 22, 27, 29). No response to my September 25 challenge.
September 9, 2025: Request to attend a press event for Montgomery County's 250th anniversary celebration denied (Exhibits – page 25).
County Executive Denials:
September 16-17, 2025: Request to Mary Anderson for access to Executive Marc Elrich’s briefings denied without explanation (Exhibits – pages 30-31).
September 18, 2025: Direct appeal to Elrich demanding access and a basis for denial; no response (Exhibits – page 32).
MPIA Requests for Policies and Records:
To clarify the basis for these denials, I submitted MPIA requests on August 23, 2025, seeking:
Current written rules governing media access (e.g., policies, procedures, criteria).
Prior versions since January 1, 2018.
Documents on how current rules were created (e.g., approvals, stakeholder input).
Council Response: Provided only the January 2023 policy for #1; confirmed no prior policy for #2; stated no responsive documents for #3 (Exhibits – pages 36, 42).
Executive Response: Stated "no records exist" responsive to the request (Exhibits – page 35).
On September 8, 2025, I submitted a follow-up MPIA to the Council expanding on #3 (Exhibits – page 37). The Council acknowledged locating numerous responsive documents but withheld them entirely, citing attorney-client privilege and the MPIA exemption for intra-agency deliberative memoranda (Exhibits – pages 43-44).
Key Issues
The denials by both branches of government exhibit the following clear problems:
Content- and Viewpoint-Based Discrimination (Council): The Council's January 2023 policy relies on subjective evaluations of a publication's "editorial approach," explicitly penalizing satire, parody, and perceived "activism." This constitutes viewpoint discrimination, as it favors traditional media formats while excluding innovative or critical voices, in violation of First Amendment protections for press freedom.
Arbitrary Denials Without Standards or Explanation (Executive): The Executive Branch admits to having no written policies, yet denies access without providing any rationale, criteria, or appeal process. This ad hoc approach lacks transparency and accountability, allowing for unchecked bias.
Absence of Due Process and Appeals: Neither branch offers a formal appeal mechanism, leaving denied parties without recourse. This systemic gap undermines fair governance.
Lack of Transparency in Policy Creation and Application: The Council's refusal to release documents on the policy's origins (despite locating them) suggests potential impropriety in its adoption. The Executive's complete lack of records raises questions about whether denials are based on informal or unwritten biases.
Potential Conflict of Interest: Council attorney Christine Wellons was involved in creating the January 2023 policy, denying my access requests, and withholding MPIA documents. This multiple-role involvement may represent an unrecognized conflict, compromising impartiality.
Violation of Legal Precedents: As established in Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Cir. 1977), government entities granting press access must use clear, content-neutral standards and provide due process for denials. Montgomery County's practices—subjective judgments by the Council and no standards by the Executive—fail this test, potentially infringing on constitutional rights and eroding public trust in government transparency.
Request for OIG Investigation
I respectfully request that the Office of the Inspector General conduct a thorough, independent investigation into these matters, including but not limited to:
The process by which the Council's January 2023 media-access policy was developed, adopted, and applied, including any internal deliberations, stakeholder consultations, or external influences, to assess compliance with transparency and governance standards.
The Executive Branch's practice of denying press access without written policies, explanations, or appeals, and whether this constitutes arbitrary or discriminatory action.
Whether the denials by either branch involve viewpoint discrimination, content-based restrictions, or other violations of First Amendment principles, including an analysis of how similar requests from other outlets have been handled.
The absence of appeal processes in both branches and whether this represents a broader deficiency in County governance procedures.
Any potential conflict of interest involving Christine Wellons or other officials in the policy's creation, enforcement, and MPIA responses, including recommendations for mitigation if found.
Compliance with MPIA requirements in the handling of my requests, particularly the use of an attorney who likely was involved in the creation of the requested policy formation documents, and who enforced the application of the policy against me and my publication.
Recommendations for corrective actions, such as establishing clear, neutral press-access standards, appeal mechanisms, and training on constitutional obligations.
Conclusion
The combined actions of the County Council and Executive Branch have effectively barred The Montgonion—and potentially other independent voices—from meaningful participation in government press briefings, stifling press freedom and public accountability. These practices are not only arbitrary and discriminatory but also contrary to established legal principles requiring neutrality and due process. I urge the OIG to investigate promptly and recommend reforms to ensure Montgomery County upholds transparency and constitutional standards for all media outlets. I am available to provide additional information or discuss this complaint further. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Glenn Fellman
