IBJNews

Ethics ruling keeps Daniels clear for Purdue job

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Gov. Mitch Daniels' selection as Purdue University's next president by a panel he appointed doesn't violate state ethics rules, Indiana's top ethics official says.

Inspector General David Thomas, who was also appointed by the Republican governor, ruled this week that Daniels did not violate conflict-of-interest rules by taking the job because state law requires the governor to oversee Indiana's seven public colleges, including Purdue, and appoint university trustees.

"The investigatory resolution of this issue is clear," Thomas wrote. "The (conflict of interest) rule is not violated if the action is required by that public official through another specific statutory duty."

Purdue's 10 trustees, all of whom were appointed or reappointed by Daniels, selected the governor in June to become the university's 12th president. He will take office in January once his second term as governor ends.

Thomas' ruling, reported by the Journal & Courier on Thursday, is the second informal opinion addressing Daniels' hire.

Daniels in August requested a ruling on whether the state's post-employment rules and restrictions on lobbying applied to him. That came after Thomas and Tim Grogg, the Indiana Department of Administration's executive director of executive branch lobbying, determined that Daniels would not be barred from lobbying the Legislature once he becomes Purdue president.

In the latest ruling, released Wednesday by the governor's office, Thomas said the governor was not subject to the required one-year "cooling off" period because he never negotiated a contract between the state and Purdue.

However, Daniels cannot represent or help Purdue in a matter that he personally participated in as governor, Thomas said. Those would include investigations, applications, business transactions, lawsuits, economic development projects or public works projects.

None of those issues were presented to Thomas for review.

If any arise, Thomas said, Daniels should seek an advisory opinion from the State Ethics Commission.

Thomas also found no support for a complaint filed by Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary. Brown had asked Thomas to look into whether Daniels wrongly used state property for personal reasons by instructing his staff to send an email on a state mailing list Sept. 4 stating that he wanted a $380,000 renovation of the Purdue president's office stopped.

Thomas said it would be hard to prove that Daniels and his staff weren't engaging in "official state business" by commenting on state university activities.

Thomas's opinions are not binding because only the full ethics commission can make a binding ruling.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • The reason you don't see the employment contract
    I suspect the reason we don't see an employment contract is that the contract gives Mitch millions while he sells parts of Purdue to his business friends. But, wow...stupid people believe what Mitch says and ignore what he does.
  • Cronyism
    Mitch will probably do a good job, but the ends don't justify the means. The appears to be cronyism pure and simple. My private sector job requires yearly ethics training, and we are required to avoid even the perception of impropriety. Why aren't our elected officials held to the same standard?
  • Conflict of interest
    Several things pop up here that seem unethical to me. Were the appointments by the governor to Purdue's Board of Trustees conditioned on their agreement to select the governor for the Purdue President's position? For any Inspector General appointed by the governor that then investigates charges against the governor seems to be an obvious conflict of interest. Another conflict of interest, and perhaps the major one, is that Daniels would accept the Purdue President's job knowing the appearance of conflict of interest on the part of the Board of Trustees he's created with his appoints of them to Purdue's Board. Something smells fishy here.
  • Muck Fitch ba Ditch
    Cronyism pure and simple.
  • Who is David Thomas' boss?
    Who appointed David Thomas as Inspector General? Answer from Indiana Code: "Indiana Code 4-2-7-2. Inspector general; powers and duties; appointment and removal; reappointment; compensation IC 4-2-7-2 (c) The GOVERNOR shall appoint the inspector general." Anyone surprised? Sounds a whole lot like the Purdue Board of Trustees appointment/subsequent hire of your man Mitch.

    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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

    2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

    3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

    4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

    5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

    ADVERTISEMENT