ILNews

Disciplinary Commission asked to investigate its new leader

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Dearborn County commissioner is accusing the county attorney of wrongly accusing two officials of violating federal law and wants the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission to launch an investigation of its soon-to-be leader who starts in that office in mid-June.

Acting as county attorney, former Dearborn Superior Judge G. Michael Witte on May 17 wrote a two-page letter to an attorney in the Hatch Act Unit of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in Washington, D.C., asking that office to investigate possible county violations of the federal law. The 1939-enacted law is designed to prevent conflicts of interest in government and restricts political activity of some federal, state, and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs.

The issue has surfaced recently throughout the state, most notably in the case of the Terre Haute mayoral election where the Indiana Supreme Court last year upheld a Vigo Circuit judge’s decision that the state statute relating to the Hatch Act and Little Hatch Act didn’t prevent the mayoral election winner from initially being a candidate or subsequently taking office after he’d defeated the incumbent mayor.

After an internal review in Dearborn County, Witte wrote that he believes the county is out of compliance with Hatch Act provisions on four grants totaling $327,112. At issue are two county employees: county commissioner candidate Shane McHenry, who is one of three sheriff’s detectives working in the county Special Crimes Unit that receives three grants; and county councilman Bryan Messmore, who works in the victims’ services area of the prosecutor’s office that receives a federal grant that pays for his salary and benefits.

Those dual roles of each individual could be Hatch Act violations and could result in the county losing federal grants or being fined. He wants the Washington, D.C., office to review the matter because it’s outside the county authority, Witte wrote. He brought the issue up during county meetings on May 17 and earlier this week. McHenry has responded that he hasn’t violated the Hatch Act and says he’ll remain a candidate for the commission.

Another commissioner, Jeffrey Hughes, has publicly said he’s “deeply troubled” by Witte’s handling of the situation and said those actions may be something for the Disciplinary Commission to review. Hughes has requested an investigation by that body.

“I am bringing this issue forward because of my concern and the concerns expressed by the citizens of Dearborn County regarding our attorney’s conduct,” Hughes wrote in a statement.

Earlier this month, the Indiana Supreme Court named Witte as the Disciplinary Commission’s executive secretary, and he starts that job in Indianapolis on June 21.

Witte said today he wasn’t aware of any Disciplinary Commission complaint filed against him and that he didn’t know that any county officials had taken an issue with his work as county attorney on this topic. He declined to comment outside of what his May 17 letter states, saying that he wants to review the statements, the issues at hand, and determine what he can say publicly without infringing on attorney-client privilege or professional conduct rules.

Interim Executive Secretary Seth Pruden is unable to speak on the issue because possible investigations are confidential unless a verified complaint is filed. But he spoke about the procedural issues that would be in play if a complaint is lodged against someone directly involved with the Disciplinary Commission. If someone accuses a commission member, executive secretary, or staff attorney of possible misconduct, the matter is referred to the Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration for another staff attorney to act as investigator on these complaints. That is “very rare” but it has happened periodically through the years, and Pruden doesn’t recall it ever reaching the verified complaint stage in his 15 years with the office.
 

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT