ILNews

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.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT