ILNews

Indiana ethics cases find frustration in lack of disclosure

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The three major ethics cases involving Indiana officials this year have one thread that ties them together: frustration from ethics watchdogs over a lack of disclosure and transparency.

Inspector General David Thomas talked at length about both last week as he released an 81-page report formally clearing former Indiana Department of Transportation chief of staff Troy Woodruff of any criminal wrongdoing in a series of land deals and a bridge reconstruction benefiting his family.

Thomas said that four years of scrutiny and two separate investigations could have been avoided if Woodruff had simply listened to his agency's ethics officer in 2009 and disclosed his stake in the land being bought by his agency as part of an Interstate 69 project. Instead, because he hid his interest, his office, federal investigators and The Indianapolis Star spent extensive amounts of time digging into his interests and potential conflicts of interest.

"I think that's what people want. They want to feel there is not something hidden," Thomas said.

He pointed to cases in which special prosecutors are appointed at the federal level.

"The indictments are not for what they started to look at, it's for the cover-ups," he said.

In the three top ethics cases decided this year -- involving Woodruff, House Speaker Pro Tem Eric Turner and former Indiana Schools Superintendent Tony Bennett -- investigators found the officials withheld crucial information from their peers and the public.

In the case of Turner, who helped defeat a ban on nursing home construction that would have been disastrous for his family's nursing home construction company, the House Ethics Committee determined that he did not break any formal rules. But afterward, lawmakers expressed surprise at the amount of his personal stake in the company and a report that $345,000 in state tax credits was awarded on of his family's projects.

In Bennett's case, confusion statewide from educators about how he determined "A-F" school grades in 2012 was cleared last year with the publication of emails showing he secretly overhauled the system twice to ensure a charter school run by a top Republican donor received a top grade as he'd pledged it would. A legislative review found that other schools benefited from two changes Bennett made as well, but the donor's charter school was the only one to benefit from both changes.

Bennett was fined $5,000 for using state resources to campaign, but state investigators found no other ethical violations against Bennett or Turner.

All three decisions left ethics experts shaking their heads.

Thomas acknowledged that Woodruff danced close to the ethical line. House lawmakers had similar views of Turner's push to kill the proposed nursing home construction ban.

Stuart Yoak, executive director of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics at Indiana University, said many of the problems stem from the fact that a hard-and-fast legal system is not always suited to handling questions of public integrity.

"There is a clear distinction between the narrow area of the law and the much broader are of ethics," Yoak said. "And so you've got an IG who is doing what his job tells him to do, which is to find on matters of fact related to the law, and in this case he came to the conclusion there were no legal violations he could recommend prosecution on."

House lawmakers considering ethics reforms in response to the Turner case say they are going to look at new transparency rules for lawmakers. In his report on Woodruff, Thomas reached the same conclusion: Better disclosure is needed.

"The OIG (Office of the Inspector General) and prosecuting attorney authorities are frequently asked to remedy situations where state workers engage in conduct that is close to, but does not actually violate, criminal and/or ethics laws. We believe these types of situations illustrate the reason why the Indiana Legislature authorizes the OIG to recommend potential solutions to these circumstances," Thomas wrote.

A series of ethics scandals under Democrats 10 years ago led former Gov. Mitch Daniels to campaign hard against a "culture of corruption" at the Statehouse. Upon taking office in 2005, he pushed through ethics reforms that created the inspector general and appointed Thomas.

A decade later, Democrats are the ones howling about a "culture of corruption" under Republican leadership.

Whether the problems uncovered in the three cases result in new ethics reforms is a question for the General Assembly.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Quote unquote
    "Steal a little and they throw you in jail/Steal a lot and they make you king" - typifies Dylan's attitude to US politics in this era.

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 have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT