Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowDiscontent among City-County Council members over an investigation into the Hogsett administration’s handling of sexual harassment allegations continued to rear its head Monday, with multiple councilors expressing their grievances in different ways.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Crista Carlino, who was one of four councilors to call for Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett’s resignation over his handling of sexual harassment allegations against his former chief of staff, announced Monday that she was leaving the council’s Democratic Caucus. Carlino cited “a continued lack of leadership and accountability, abuse of power and unfair application of our caucus rules for membership.”
- Councilor Jesse Brown, an elected Democrat who was expelled from the caucus earlier this year, introduced a motion that would begin the process to remove Vop Osili as council president and Ali Brown as vice president over their oversight of law firm Fisher Phillips’ investigation into the allegations. Brown’s proposal did not receive enough support from the council to move forward.
- Six council members, including all five Republicans, voted against a measure that would pay Fisher Phillips the remaining $300,000 for its seven-month investigation. The firm had already received $500,000. Brown was the only Democrat to vote against the measure. Before the vote, he urged the council to hold off on the final payment because of “unanswered” questions. “It is wildly inappropriate to pay Fisher Phillips for work that contains multiple errors of fact” and was “not done according to our written requests,” he said. The measure to make the payment passed 18-6.
-
The final report from the Atlanta-based Fisher Phillips has faced intense scrutiny. Two women interviewed by Fisher Phillips told media outlets that the firm omitted details, including texts from the mayor, from its report. The firm told Carlino in a June 9 memo that those texts fell outside the scope of the investigation and clarified that the investigation focused only on allegations against former chief of staff Thomas Cook. Osili and Brown have denied involvement in determining the scope of the investigation.
In its report, the firm said the city acted in compliance with state law, but the firm raised red flags regarding a workplace culture that was “more of a fraternity or sorority … than emblematic of a business setting.”
-
-
-
In late June, Carlino resigned her role as chair of the council’s Investigative Committee over disagreements about the Fisher Phillips probe. By at least one account, Carlino was voted off the Democratic Caucus after she called for Osili and Ali Brown to step down from council leadership but was reinstated after she issued an apology.
On Monday, Carlino said she would continue to represent District 11 as a Democrat but would no longer “caucus with any party for the foreseeable future.”
-
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Osili’s days in leadership are numbered.
Some of this report is inconsistent with previous reporting, which said that Fisher Phillips had already been paid $150k and was now billing an additional $300k. Their contract on the city’s web site has a cap of $150k and apparently they are seeking to bill above that cap for a total bill of $450,000. This report as of 7/8/25 says that they’ve already been paid $500k and are seeking the additional $300k for a total of $800k.
In any event, these amounts are eye-watering for a sexual harassment investigation.
To hide behind “we were only looking at Thomas Cook” is a wildly incompetent position. Consultants should never have blinders on — that’s why you hire firms that have no connections. To not even share the full extent of the women’s reports was irresponsible and they should not be paid. And their fees are exorbitant.
No, neither a government nor a corporation should ever hire a consultant or a law firm without parameters, guidelines, as to the retention. Firms require engagement letters before working, so there is no dispute later as to what work was to be done. This firm was not hired to consult; it was hired to investigate claims of sexual harrasment by a high ranking former city employee, and to provide a governmental body a report as to its findings. A good law firm, like a good consultant, will usually add a section to its report with other findings not within the scope that may be topics for future investigation or work. But it would be negligent on the part of the City County Council, or a corporate management team or board of directors, to hire a firm and give it carte blanche to investigate what ever popped up.
The suggestion these fees are outrageous is uninformed. As any insurance claims examiner who deals with Employment Practices Liability (EPL) claims knows, litigation is very expensive. The firm was retained after an search, headed by Ms. Carlino, to make certain the firm had no connections with Indianapolis government officials. It was an outside firm. Senior partners bill between $450-$600 an hour for this sort of work; associates in the $300 range. Call it a blended rate of $400 per hour. $450,000 at that blended rate would be about 1125 hours of work. If there were three attorneys involved, that’s less than 400 hours each, or about 2.5 months of working only on this case. The firm worked on the investigation for 7 months. So 400 hours, over 7 months, is less than 60 hours a month. The bill seems reasonable. Especially in a high-profile case like this. A simple EPL claim against a corporation can easily run litigation expense of $200,000.
Is there more to this? Likely. But if the cost so far is deemed to high, then further expense will not be favored. Nor is it likely to produce actionable items. Those items were already reported upon, and in theory the change has been started. It would just be political fodder in a war that has already started, and it likely to not change anyone’s minds on the outcome.