Dave Davies reported in today's Daily News that Philly's Commerce Director, Andy Altman, was cited recently by the Washington D.C. Inspector General for an ethics violation during his time there. I haven't seen the report, and the details in the paper, with a back and forth over what really happened, don't shed a whole lot of light on whether there was really an issue. So, I am passing zero judgment over whether there is really an issue here for Altman.

However, there is something in the article that struck me as really odd. And throughout the course of the day, I have emailed a bunch of people, looked around, and everyone came to the same conclusion as me. Heck, even my bff's at Phillyblog seem to agree. Specifically, this:

Philadelphia ethics officials have challenged a finding by the inspector general of Washington, D.C., that a member of Mayor Nutter's Cabinet committed an "ethics violation" when he was a top development official in the nation's capital.

....

After the accusation appeared in the Washington paper The Examiner, Nutter's chief integrity officer, Joan Markman, and Philadelphia Inspector General Amy Kurland reviewed the allegations. They later wrote to Willoughby, calling them "simply unfair."

They said that Alschuler had worked as a consultant for the D.C. planning office, not as Altman's subordinate, and they said that the D.C. auditors hadn't interviewed Altman or Alschuler in the course of their review.

"The accusation unfairly and without basis sullies the sterling reputation of Mr. Altman," Markman and Kurland wrote.

Neither Altman nor Alschuler returned calls for comment. Administration spokesman Doug Oliver said that Altman's conduct was consistent with the highest ethical standards.

Is that kind of exchange really appropriate for our city ethics officials? I don't exactly know what Joan Markman's job description is as Chief Integrity Officer, so I will leave her out of it. But, I think I have at least some idea of what an Inspector General is supposed to do, and this is not it.

The mission of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is to enhance the public confidence in the integrity of the City government by rooting out corruption, fraud, misconduct, waste and mismanagement. The OIG is the watchdog for the taxpayers of the city. The OIG has jurisdiction to conduct investigations and audits over all departments, agencies, commissions and boards under the Mayor's jurisdiction, as well as in contracts with individuals or companies receiving City funds and doing business with the City. The OIG also provides investigative expertise to any agency or authority requesting assistance.

So, let me get this straight. The DC IG conducts an investigation of a now-Philadelphia official. Our own IG reads the findings, probably has a chat with Altman, but doesn't appear to actually conduct an investigation herself. (If she actually conducted an investigation, she certainly has not released it. And frankly, I am not entirely sure that would be totally useful, when it is about Washington, DC?) And then, for some reason, Kurland decides to turn into Altman's personal attorney, and defends him in a leaked letter to the DC Government? Huh?

Doug Oliver, the Mayor's press spokesperson did largely the same as Kurland:

Administration spokesman Doug Oliver said that Altman's conduct was consistent with the highest ethical standards.

Of course, Oliver's response makes sense, considering he is the Mayor's Press Secretary. The question is, why are Kurland and Markman acting like they are, too?

Kurland is in theory an independent investigator of city fraud. Yet, she is spending her time defending a high level Mayoral appointee? This is really disturbing to me, and makes it seem that the Inspector General is basically taking on a role as a mouthpiece for the administration, instead of an independent investigator. It is not, under any circumstances, her job to fight Andy Altman's battles in DC, whether they are legitimate or not. Did she conduct an investigation here? If not, then what is going on?