ILNews

Former GIPC chief faces forgery, theft counts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The former executive director of the Greater Indianapolis Progress Committee was charged Thursday with 26 counts of forgery and one count of theft for allegedly misappropriating more than $96,000 of the organization’s money.

Matthew Hendrix is accused of making fraudulent payments to fictitious vendors using program funds, according to Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry.

Hendrix made numerous payments to the fake vendors from GIPC accounts from September 2012 through February 2014, the prosecutor said.

IBJ reported April 25 that GIPC had asked local law enforcement to investigate Hendrix.

GIPC fired Hendrix in March 2014 after a personal expense of more than $5,000 was reported on the organization’s business credit card account, the prosecutor said.

Hendrix was taken into custody by Marion County law enforcement Thursday afternoon and was unavailable for comment.

Hendrix's attorney, Jim Voyles, declined comment to The Associated Press.

GIPC is a public-private advisory group founded in 1965 that works closely with city officials and has an office in the City-County Building. It manages a number of initiatives in partnership with the city.

The prosecutor’s office said Hendrix is believed to have taken funds intended for programs including the Mayor’s Celebration of Diversity Award, Bank On Indy, Indy’s Campaign for Financial Fitness, Volunteer Tax Assistance and the Office of Education Innovation.
 
An initial hearing has not yet been set in the case.

Hendrix joined GIPC in 2008 as a deputy director after working as publisher of the Lebanon Daily Sun and a reporter at the Boone County Reporter. He was named executive director of GIPC in 2009 as one of two staff members.

His position is being filled in the interim by John Ryan, who was a deputy under former Indianapolis Mayor Bill Hudnut and a top staffer in the administration of former Gov. Mitch Daniels.
 
 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT