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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

    2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

    3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

    4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

    5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

    ADVERTISEMENT