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

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT