ILNews

State senator named Logansport city attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sen. Randy Head, a sitting state senator, is now the city attorney for Logansport.

Before that could happen, guidance was requested from the Indiana attorney general to ensure that a state senator serving as a city attorney would not be a conflict of interest. The AG said that the position of city attorney is not considered a “lucrative” position, and filling that role would not conflict with the legislative office.

With a new mayoral term beginning in 2012, Logansport Mayor Ted Franklin named Head, R-Logansport, as the city’s new legal counsel on Dec. 30. The announcement came after the mayor-elect had learned his first choice, Logansport attorney Matt Barrett, couldn’t serve in that capacity because of his involvement in an ongoing lawsuit against the city.

Head has been a state senator since 2008. He unsuccessfully applied for an open position on the Indiana Court of Appeals prior to his election to the Indiana Senate and served as Cass County deputy prosecutor from 2003 to 2008.

Before Head could take the appointment, he had to wait for a verbal opinion from the state AG to determine whether he could hold both jobs – one as a part-time legislator and the other as the city’s legal counsel. Spokesman Bryan Corbin said no formal written opinion had been issued and attorney-client privilege prohibits any specific statement on this situation. But he referred generally to the Dual Office Holding Guide that classifies the city attorney position as a “non-lucrative” job and is allowed according to a 1964 official opinion.

The Logansport mayor’s office said Head would be withdrawing as co-counsel in a lawsuit against the city involving seven retired city firefighters who allege they weren’t fairly compensated for six weeks of unused vacation time after taking a buyout.

During the legislative session, which reconvenes on Wednesday and concludes in March, Logansport attorney Don Tribbett will serve as city attorney.

 

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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT