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. 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