ILNews

Ex-IURC leader’s criminal charges dropped

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The former chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission won’t face trial on felony charges stemming from an ethics scandal at the agency, a judge ruled Monday.

Marion Superior Judge William Nelson ordered official misconduct charges dismissed against former IURC Director David Lott Hardy, who was fired by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels when allegations surfaced.

Hardy was accused of allowing former IURC administrative law judge and general counsel Scott Storms to work on a number of Duke Energy cases pending before the commission at the same time Storms was trying to land a job with Duke.

Hardy in 2011 was indicted by a Marion County grand jury. Hardy also was accused of improper ex parte communications with Duke employees in 2008 and 2010 regarding cost overruns at the on Duke Edwardsport coal gasification plant.

Nelson wrote that the official misconduct statute under which Hardy had been charged, I.C. 35-44-1-2, was amended by the Legislature in 2012 to clarify that it applies to a public servant who “knowingly or intentionally commits an offense” in the performance of duties.

Nelson noted in the order that “the quick action of the Indiana Legislature in responding to Inspector General (David) Thomas’s request to clarify the application of the Official Misconduct is indicative of the legislative intent to apply the amendment retroactively.”

Peg McLeish, spokeswoman for Marion County Prosectuor Terry Curry, said the office had “received the order and will be reviewing any possible action we might take,” which could include appealing Nelson’s order.

Hardy’s attorney David Hensel, of Pence Hensel LLC, said after the ruling, “It was clearly the right decision.

“What (Hardy) did was not a crime,” Hensel said. “If we’d gone to trial, we would have proved that even what he was alleged to have done didn’t happen the way the state alleges it did.”


 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT