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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT