IBJNews

Former foundation exec to plead guilty to felony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The former not-for-profit executive who allegedly admitted to buying Gucci and Neiman Marcus merchandise with the foundation’s funds has decided to plead guilty to a felony charge of corrupt business influence and repay nearly $38,000.

Trevor Bradley, the former executive director of the Meadows Community Foundation, entered into a plea agreement filed on Aug. 14 in Marion County Superior Court consenting to a five-year sentence, with two years suspended. A court hearing on the agreement is scheduled for Oct. 30.

Prosecutors charged Bradley in March with corrupt business influence and seven counts of theft.

Bradley, 48, was hired as the foundation’s sole employee in June 2011. Its mission is to help revitalize the troubled Meadows neighborhood near 38th Street and Millersville Road on the northeast side.

Civic leaders and philanthropists such as Warren Buffett have championed plans in the area for mixed-income housing, a grocery store, green space and a health and wellness center.

Court records said in the eight months after Bradley was hired, he had spent $170,000 of foundation funds “with little or no progress made in the foundation’s initiative.”

The records said that after board members began questioning Bradley in the spring of 2012 about why only $22,000 remained in bank accounts, Bradley admitted using some of the funds for personal expenses, including merchandise from Gucci and Neiman Marcus, airline tickets and a stay at a Ritz Carlton hotel.

Further digging turned up other problems, including payments to a consulting firm Bradley formed, payments to friends and the purchase of a $378 Dyson vacuum that was shipped to his home.

In total, court records alleged that Bradley racked up nearly $38,000 in illegal expenditures before being fired from the $60,000-a-year job in April 2012.

In the plea agreement, Bradley promises to pay $37,818 in restitution to the foundation. The state has agreed to dismiss all charges beyond the count of corrupt business influence.

"The foundation was disappointed that we suffered the setback we did, but that being said, we are satisfied with the result," said John Neighbours, president of the foundation. "We think justice has been done, particularly because it includes full restitution."

Foundation directors have acknowledged they failed to thoroughly vet Bradley. Had they done so, they would have unearthed something alarming: a 1994 forgery conviction stemming from a bogus-check cashing spree. Under a plea agreement, he served two years at a work-release center.

Bradley “had been on the board of a neighborhood organization, and that caused him to come with a high recommendation,” Neighbours told IBJ earlier this year. “We probably skipped a step.”
 

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.

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. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

  2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

  3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

  4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

  5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....

ADVERTISEMENT