ILNews

Deal proposed in ex-schools chief's ethics case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The State Ethics Commission is set to review a proposed settlement Thursday in the ethics case against former Indiana Schools Superintendent Tony Bennett.

Inspector General David Thomas filed charges last November alleging Bennett violated state ethics laws by using public employees and state resources for "political campaign fundraising, responding to a political opponent's assertions, scheduling campaign meetings, scheduling campaign telephone calls, and/or other political and/or personal activity."

Both Thomas and Bennett's defense attorney, Jason Barclay, declined to discuss the details of the settlement before Thursday's commission meeting. It will be up to the five-member ethics commission to decide whether to approve the settlement.

An Associated Press investigation found that Bennett and his staff had kept copies of Republican Party fundraising lists on state computers. One list, dubbed "The Big Hitter List" included contact information for mega-donor Christel DeHaan and a suggestion that Bennett press her for more money.

Bennett secretly changed Indiana's school-grading system in 2012 to benefit DeHaan's Indianapolis charter school, Christel House Academy. Bennett resigned as Florida's schools chief last August, shortly after the AP published emails showing his efforts to benefit DeHaan.

In both the ethics case and the grade-change scandal, Bennett has said he did nothing wrong. Bennett hired two of the state's most prominent defense attorneys, Larry Mackey and Jason Barclay, to represent him in the ethics case. Mackey previously led the prosecution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Barclay rewrote the ethics laws in 2005 that Bennett is accused of breaking.

Mackey has become the state's most prominent white-collar criminal defense attorney, defending convicted Ponzi-schemer Tim Durham at the start of his case and successfully defending developer John Bales against fraud charges last year.

It is unclear if anyone else is investigating Bennett. A spokeswoman for Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry, whose office handles prosecutions of state officeholders, did not return a request for comment Monday. Tim Horty, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett, said he could neither confirm nor deny any federal investigation of Bennett.

"We are aware of the IG's investigation and the existence of a report," Horty said.

It is against the law for public officials to use state resources for campaign work. Almost 30 years ago, former Schools Superintendent Harold Negley was indicted on charges of ghost employment and misuse of state resources for having his employees perform campaign work. He submitted a guilty plea in 1985, and was fined $1,000 and forced to do 2,000 hours of community service.

In one email from Bennett, dated August 28, 2012, he asked then-Chief of Staff Heather Neal, then-Deputy Chief of Staff Dale Chu and other top staffers to dissect a campaign speech from his opponent, Democrat Glenda Ritz. Ritz upset Bennett in the 2012 election a few months later.

"Below is a link to Glenda's forum in Bloomington. It is 1:35 minutes. I would ask that people watch this and scrub it for every inaccuracy and utterance of stupidity that comes out of her mouth," Bennett wrote.

Bennett's calendar also listed more than 100 entries of "campaign calls" during the day, although it is not clear if he made the calls from inside the Statehouse -- a violation of state law -- or somewhere else.

Bennett's former Communications Director Cam Savage downloaded one of the fundraising lists to a Statehouse computer in 2009. In other emails, Bennett's staff talked about doing campaign work during normal work hours. Neal resigned as Gov. Mike Pence's chief lobbyist two weeks after the grade-changing scandal was uncovered and took a job with Savage at the campaign firm Limestone Strategies.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT