IBJNews

AG won't appeal ruling clearing ex-utility chief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A court decision dismissing ethics charges against former Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Chairman David Lott Hardy will stand.

Spokesman Bryan Corbin said Thursday that the Indiana Attorney General's Office has determined that an appeal to the state Supreme Court "is likely unwinnable."

Hardy deferred comment to his attorney, David Hensel, who said Hardy was gratified with the Court of Appeals decision that he did not engage in criminal conduct and "glad it's over with and glad to put it behind him."

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled April 29 that state ethics law in effect at the time Hardy was indicted in 2011 only covered criminal behavior and did not apply to administrative misconduct such as that of which Hardy was accused.

The crux of the argument was whether Hardy, who was fired by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels as part of an ethical scandal that eventually also cost three Duke Energy officials their jobs, should be charged with felony misconduct when he did not commit a crime.

Daniels fired Hardy as commission chairman in 2010 for ethical violations including that Hardy failed to disclose private meetings he had with Duke Energy executives about cost overruns at a coal-gasification power plant that the utility was building in southwestern Indiana. The 618-megawatt plant that went online last summer had an original 2007 cost estimate of $1.9 billion, but that eventually ballooned to about $3.5 billion.

Hardy was indicted by a Marion County grand jury on four felony counts of official misconduct in 2011. A Marion County judge later threw out those charges, saying Hardy couldn't be charged under changes the Legislature made in 2012.

The attorney general's office appealed, but the appellate court sided with the lower court judge.

The court said the revised misconduct law applies only to specific criminal offenses by public officials in the performance of their duties, not to violations of ethical or administrative rules.

The General Assembly narrowed the statute after the state inspector general sought clarification as a result of the scandal. The appellate court said lawmakers clearly intended for the change to be retroactive.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Unwinnable?
    When did that ever stop the Indiana AG from appealing a decision or joining a frivilous class action suit (i.e. the ACA, gay marriage, etc)? This is Republicans protecting Republicans..."taking care of business" indeed.
  • Whoops...
    Sorry, auto-correct! Meant to say "they're" and not there...
  • Too Busy
    Perhaps, our esteemed AG and his office are too busy for anything that doesn't affect them directly? Oh, wait, they probably pay utility bills, too. Maybe, they are waiting to start looking into gasoline price increases of 20 to 25 cents either every weekend, or whenever there is a big "event" here in Inday. Oh, wait, they don't see anything wrong with those price increases, either. OK, maybe there too busy filing amicus briefs to other states rallying the troops against marriage equality?
    • Not criminal, but civil?
      So if Indiana Duke customers want a sense of justice should they file a civil suit against Hardy, Duke, or the IURC? Why pay for a plant that doesn't produce? http://www.ibj.com/agency-duke-plant-consumed-more-energy-than-it-produced/PARAMS/article/46614

    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 IBJ 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

    2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

    3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

    4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

    5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

    ADVERTISEMENT