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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT