IBJNews

Indiana officials face deadline on anti-nepotism law

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

County, city, town and township governments across Indiana are racing to adopt new rules against nepotism ahead of a July 1 deadline.

Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a new law in March that prohibits local officeholders from hiring their relatives or from having public contracts with them without making certain disclosures. The law also prohibits public employees from holding any office that controls money or policies that might benefit them. Under that provision, those employees couldn't run for re-election, though they wouldn't be kicked out of office.

The Anderson City Council will review a proposed anti-nepotism ordinance next week, and Madison County commissioners will vote on a county ordinance June 19.

Alexandria has had a policy in place since 2009, and officials there plan to amend it to conform to the state law at a meeting June 18.

Mayor Jack Woods said the only major difference between Alexandria's ordinance and the state law is that the state law prohibits elected officials from hiring family members.

"When you don't have a nepotism law or policy, it can get out of hand," Woods told The Herald Bulletin. "You can have a city full of family members, and that creates a lot of problems."

During his campaign last year for mayor of Anderson, Kevin Smith criticized the former administration for hiring and promoting too many relatives.

City Attorney Jason Childers began work on a new nepotism policy earlier this year and incorporated language from the new state law when it was passed.

The law means that "individuals are placed in their positions based on their merits, rather than as a favor," Childers said.

Childers said that the statute defines the term "relative" as spouse, parent, stepparent, natural or adopted child, stepchild, brother, half brother, sister, half sister, stepbrother, stepsister, niece, nephew, aunt, uncle, daughter-in-law or son-in-law. The Anderson proposal would also cover grandchildren and first and second cousins.

The Elwood City Council adopted the law Monday, Mayor Ron Arnold said. He said he understands the law's intent, but thinks some of its provisions could be difficult for small communities.

"I would much rather have seen local municipalities have more control," he said. "Our federal government and state government sometimes uses an anvil to kill an ant, and if you don't seriously think through the ramifications, you'll hamper a small community in ways you were never intending to."

ADVERTISEMENT

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