Bill would provide oversight for key state appointments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill set to be introduced in the upcoming legislative session would give Indiana lawmakers oversight of key state appointments made by the governor.

The legislation, filed on Tuesday by State Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, is in direct response to an Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission ethics scandal that led to the firing of the IURC's chairman.

“It would give the Legislature a role in the process of appointing people to critical administrative jobs,” DeLaney said. “It’s designed to put some sunlight on the process and take some burden off the governor.”

The IURC’s five commissioners, including its chairman, would be subject to hearings conducted by a committee comprised of eight legislators from both the House and Senate.

Commissioners of the Department of Environmental Management, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation and the Family and Social Services Administration also would fall under the additional oversight, according to the bill.

The legislative committee would review nominations and provide recommendations to the governor, who still would make the appointment.

In giving the Legislature an advisory role in appointments to several commissions, the bill would repeal a state statute that applies only to appointees to the IURC. The statute created a legislative nominating committee for IURC commissioners only. The 7-member committee provides three candidates to the governor for consideration.

Ed Feigenbaum, publisher of the political newsletter Indiana Legislative Insight, is uncertain whether the proposed bill would make much difference in who the governor appoints to various commissions.

“I’m not sure to what extent it would change things,” he said. “I’m not sure it amounts to anything more than an empty rhetorical exercise if they don’t have confirmation power.”

DeLaney has discussed the bill with several staff members of the governor’s office, which opposes the measure.

“The [State] Constitution sets forth a clear separation between the legislative and executive branches, and this bill would not be binding for those appointments,” spokeswoman Jane Jankowski said.

The bill also would prevent an appointee from taking office until 45 days after the legislative committee has been notified.  

“I don’t think anyone would want to see a department be unmanned for upwards of 45 days or so,” Jankowski argued.

DeLaney’s bill stems from an ethics flap involving a former IURC administrative law judge who presided over a number of cases related to Duke Energy Corp.’s controversial Edwardsport coal-gasification plant while simultaneously seeking a job with the utility.

Gov. Mitch Daniels fired IURC Chairman David Lott Hardy this fall for failing to pull Scott Storms from Duke cases after learning Storms applied for a job at Duke.

Disclosure of e-mails between Hardy and Storms emerged recently that raised new concerns. Hardy and Storms, in e-mails the agency recently disclosed, made light of the Indiana Ethics Commission procedures required to clear him for a job with Duke, which he accepted in September. Storms also traded e-mails with then-Duke Indiana president Mike Reed about his potential employment with the utility.

Duke put Storms and Reed on administrative leave after media disclosure of the e-mails, obtained through public records requests. Duke later fired both. Another Duke executive, who enjoyed a chummy relationship with Hardy, stepped down or was fired from his job this week.

Meanwhile, the IURC concluded an internal investigation that found Storms “did not deviate in his rulings or decisions from commission procedure or standard practice,” the state agency said Tuesday in a prepared statement.

If DeLaney’s bill moves quickly through the upcoming session and ultimately is signed by the governor, the candidate to replace Hardy as IURC chairman could be subjected to legislative hearings, DeLaney said.

DeLaney suggested the Indiana Inspector General’s office and the Indiana Ethics Commission might need additional oversight as well. Neither is included in his bill.

The Inspector General investigates criminal and ethics violations by state employees and contractors and forwards those complaints to the Ethics Commission. The Inspector General and the five ethics commissioners all are appointed by the governor.

“I think the problem is broader than any one agency,” DeLaney said. “This is only part of what we need to clear up the problem, but it’s an important part.”


  • Expanding Bad Process?
    "In giving the Legislature an advisory role in appointments to several commissions, the bill would repeal a state statute that applies only to appointees to the IURC. The statute created a legislative nominating committee for IURC commissioners only. The 7-member committee provides three candidates to the governor for consideration."

    I hope I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like DeLaney is trying to expand the oversight policy that led to a corrupt IURC appointment and is justifying its expansion by saying we had a corrupt IURC appointment.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing