IBJNews

  • Home

Connected law firm's deal with Indiana grows

Associated Press
September 20, 2011
Keywords
Elected Officials, Family and Social Services Administration, Government, Government & Economic Development, Governor, Mitch Daniels, State Agencies, State Government
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana's legal bill in its lawsuit with IBM Corp. over a canceled welfare outsourcing contract could grow by more than half its original value, but representatives for the administration of Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels defended the costs Tuesday.

The administration of Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels will pay as pay as much as $8.05 million through June 30 to the well-connected Indianapolis law firm of Barnes & Thornburg to represent the Family and Social Services Administration in the lawsuit with IBM under an amended contract approved Aug. 30 by the attorney general's office. The original contract approved a year ago paid the firm $5.25 million over the same term.

The firm's attorneys on the case include longtime Republican activist Peter Rusthoven and Brian Burdick, the brother of Daniels' deputy chief of staff.

FSSA is suing IBM to recover more than $400 million it paid before Daniels canceled the 10-year contract in 2009 amid complaints about the automated welfare system IBM installed. IBM argues FSSA owes the company about $100 million for costs including computer equipment the state has held onto..

Indiana House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, called the higher costs ""wasted money, good money after bad." Indiana Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Bloomington, said FSSA should be spending the money to help vulnerable people who have seen their benefits cut because of budget cuts.

FSSA spokesman Neal Moore said Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM "is doing all it can to run up the costs in hopes the state will give up."

However, IBM spokesman Clint Roswell said the company has sought to speed up the case but the trial was pushed back to next January at the request of the state.

Julia Vaughn, policy director for the government watchdog group Common Cause/Indiana, said the contract was "a sweetheart deal from get-go" for Barnes & Thornburg.

Daniels Press Secretary Jane Jankowski the firm's attorneys are "among the best in the business" and would not have been chosen if there had been a conflict of interest.

Barnes & Thornburg spokesman Ty Gerig said the firm would have no comment on the contract..

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 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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT