IBJNews

Daniels still waiting on lobbying decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels still is waiting to find out whether he'll be able to lobby the state Legislature next year when he takes over as president of Purdue University.

The Journal & Courier reports that the state inspector general had not ruled as of Friday whether Daniels will be covered by Indiana's "revolving door" law. Jane Jankowski, the governor's spokeswoman, said earlier this week that she was unaware of any report on the issue from Inspector General David Thomas, who was appointed by Daniels in 2005.

Thomas' office does not comment or confirm ongoing investigations.

State ethics rules require a one-year "cool down" for public officials after leaving office. The rule is intended to keep former public employees from working as lobbyists for a year after leaving a job in state government.

But Daniels signed an executive order that differs with the state ethics code on whether the rule relates to lobbying of the Legislature or the executive branch. The governor's general counsel has said the law won't affect Daniels as president.

Daniels said if the law is unclear, he would "lean" against lobbying in his first year at Purdue. If the law does apply to him, he said he would appoint another Purdue official to lobby in his place next year.

The upcoming legislative session will be critical for university leaders as lawmakers craft the state's next two-year budget. Indiana's public universities have struggled with state funding cuts and rising tuition costs. Since 2009, Daniels has ordered more than $150 million in cuts to public education--about $30 million to Purdue.

But there likely will be more money to dole out to cash-starved programs next year. The state's collection of taxes has improved, Daniels amassed a cash savings of roughly $1.8 billion, and a massive error in collecting corporate income taxes resulted in roughly $100 million more annually becoming available to the state.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Trust in Gov't
    It's not hard to see why so few trust government. Daniels makes a rule, but in the name of self-interest, he seeks an exception, for himself.
  • Cronyism at its worstt
    Daniels appointed 8 of the 10 Purdue trustees. It's cronyism at its worst. As Daniel Garza said: "The practice of favoritism based on relationships and connections - rather than someone who demonstrates top credentials and well-suited experience – ultimately results in vastly inferior government service to the public." It's Purdue's shame that Indiana's little Putin will be their next president.
  • Ridiculous
    I like Daniels as a governor. But the fact that he appointed 8 of the 10 Purdue Trustees, who then turned around and gave him a contract worth millions should have people up in arms. Ethics 101, anyone? But I suppose if that's not an ethical issue, then giving him an exception to let him lobby will be a no-brainer.
  • Why Not?
    Why should Daniels have to start complying with any ethics rules that obviously would only apply to others. Why should he change? Also if Purdue has $ issues, it will not be long before the buildings and parking lots will be leased or sold to others. No more budget issues until Purdue wants them back.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT