Bosma: No ethics sanctions against Turner

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

House Speaker Brian Bosma said Tuesday he will not sanction House Speaker Pro Tem Eric Turner after an ethics probe determined the lawmaker did not technically violate state ethics rules.

Bosma said Tuesday he was accepting the committee's recommendation that no action be taken.

"The ethics committee completed its review, and the review was to take no action but to take a hard look at our disclosure statutes and statements, and that's what we're doing now," he said.

Turner helped defeat a proposed ban on the construction of new nursing homes, which would have cost him millions in future earnings. But because he fought the legislation in private meetings of the House Republican Caucus and not the chamber of the House or in committee meetings, the House Ethics Committee found that Turner did not technically violate any of the state's ethics rules.

But the panel added that his actions violated the "spirit" of the state's ethics laws and exposed loopholes that should be tightened. Bosma said work on that review was expected to begin this summer.

Turner declined to answer questions Tuesday about whether he would participate in the upcoming ethics review or whether he would fight the nursing home ban if it comes up again during the 2015 session.

The nursing home ban proposed earlier this year would have blocked multiple projects being developed by Mainstreet Property Group, a company Turner co-owns with his son and others. The state is providing $345,000 in tax credits for a project in Terre Haute that Mainstreet documents show will earn Turner an expected $1.8 million.

A Mainstreet Property document obtained by The Associated Press showed that Turner owns 50 percent of Mainstreet Capital Partners, which holds 76 percent of the company. Turner disclosed his interest in Mainstreet Capital Partners, but never said he was invested in Mainstreet Property or how much of a stake he had.

Kate Snedeker, a spokeswoman for Mainstreet Property, has said Turner's ownership stake outlined in their document is incorrect. But she has declined to say how much stake he does own in the company.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?