ILNews

Federal office: No Hatch Act violations in Dearborn County

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal government office has cleared two Dearborn County officials who’d been accused by the former county attorney of violating federal law that restricts political activity for those involved with federally funded programs.

Ending a nearly three-month public ordeal, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel issued a letter Monday to the Dearborn County Sheriff’s detective who’d been one of two accused of violations. G. Michael Witte, the former county attorney who notified federal authorities of the possible violations, left that position in June to become the Indiana Disciplinary Commission’s executive secretary.

Acting as county attorney, Witte – a former Dearborn Superior 1 judge – wrote a letter to the office’s Hatch Act Unit in May that asked the office to investigate possible county violations of the federal law. The 1939-enacted law is designed to prevent conflicts of interest in government, and it 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 in which 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 believed the county is out of compliance with the Hatch Act provisions on four grants totaling $327,112. At issue were 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.

Witte considered those dual roles as possible Hatch Act violations that could result in the county losing federal grants or being fined, so he wanted the federal office to review the matter because it’s outside the county authority. He raised the issue during a county commissioners meeting May 17, and both McHenry and Messmore maintained they hadn’t violated the Hatch Act.

In its letter to McHenry, Hatch Act Unit Deputy Chief Erica S. Hamrick wrote that the sheriff’s detective and commissioner-candidate didn’t fall under the law’s scope because he didn’t have any job duties specifically relating to any federally funded program. The position with the sheriff’s office is funded solely through state tax dollars and not any federal grants or loans, the office wrote, and his role with the special crimes unit didn’t involve supervising anyone with those duties.

“The argument could be made that because the coordinator, administrative assistant, and part-time deputy prosecutor play an important role in the operations of the SCU, a detective assigned to the SCU would have duties in connection with federally financed activities,” the letter states. “However, we find that your employment ‘can more accurately be said to be in association with such activities.’"

The office cited In re Pearson, 2 P.A.R. 70,71 (1970), in which the Civil Service Commission held that the respondent wasn’t covered by the Hatch Act because his duties in relation to construction of federal highways were in association with, not in connection with, the federally financed activities.

A footnote on the letter’s last page instructs that McHenry should contact the office if his job duties or the federal funding changes, for possible further review.

McHenry told Indiana Lawyer today that he’d received a phone call about “being cleared” a month ago, but just received the letter this week. He also said that the office had previously cleared Messmore after determining the Hatch Act didn’t apply because Messmore had been named by political caucus and not a bipartisan election as the law requires. The federal office couldn’t be immediately reached today and has previously declined to discuss specifics about this or any case.

Witte reviewed the Hatch Act letter and limited his comments, as he no longer represents the county.

“I did what I was required to do, and that was to investigate possible violations and report them to someone with authority to decide what should happen,” he said today. “I did my job, and they did their job. There was nothing nefarious about any of this.”


 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT