ILNews

ACLU of Indiana selects new leader

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Indianapolis Deputy Mayor Jane Henegar has been named executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. She begins work immediately and will join the organization full time Sept. 4.

Henegar's appointment builds upon the ACLU of Indiana's "Raising the Bar for Civil Liberties" campaign to expand the organization's capacity for education outreach and legal assistance throughout the state. Henegar succeeds Gilbert Holmes, who retired March 31.

 "The ACLU, through steadfast dedication to the principles of liberty, has righted the course of this country many times," Henegar said. "I am honored to have the opportunity to lead the ACLU of Indiana through the tough work of protecting and defending individual liberties guaranteed to all in our state by the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions."
 
Henegar recently led the Indiana Bar Foundation's Project Citizen to teach civics to kindergarten through 12th-grade students in Indiana and taught political science at Butler University. She served as interim director of the Coalition for Homelessness Intervention and Prevention following her service as Indianapolis deputy mayor from 2000 to 2006. Henegar has held various positions in government, including state director in the office of Sen. Evan Bayh, and deputy commissioner and general counsel in the Indiana Department of Administration.

 The Bloomington native earned her law degree in 1988 from Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT