Clarification on Kennedy Firm Status, Ryan Vaughn, and Attorney Silence

I reported last week that Melina Kennedy is a partner at the Indianapolis law firm of Baker & Daniels. In addition, when a commenter stated (preposterously, in my opinion) that Kennedy was mum because she was looking forward to her cut from the legal fees generated by the Citizens Gas deal, I rebutted by stating that she'd be lucky to make $1,800 given the total number of B&D partners.

Here's the problem. She's not a partner. Her relationship with Baker & Daniels is "of counsel," which means she doesn't get a cut. People can pick whatever reasons they want to vote for or against a candidate, but they should be factual, and if I get it wrong, I make amends. My apologies to Ms. Kennedy.

Many have asked about what makes an attorney unable to speak against a government action like the Cit Gas deal, and there are many prohibitions at play in the Rules of Professional Conduct for Indiana attorneys.

Rule 1.6 makes confidential information disclosed in the attorney-client relationship. Rule 1.8(b) states that a lawyer "shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client unless the client gives informed consent." Rule 1.9 makes the prohibition in 1.8 apply to former clients as well, and these prohibitions are imputed to all personnel in a firm.

What does this mean?

Attorneys such as Republican City-County Council President and Barnes & Thornburg attorney Ryan Vaughn (go Wabash!) may find themselves unable to engage the bully pulpit to speak out against a deal that would be bad for their constituents, even in cases where the firm had created a "Chinese wall" to keep information out of that particular attorney's hands. On the flip side, if some unknown positives for the Councillor's constituents were in the details, he couldn't go out publicly to sell it in a way he might without the ethical prohibitions in place).

(I asked Vaughn via Facebook if B&T has any connection with the City's water deal as counsel or if it anticipates becoming involved on the bond work, financing, etc., and if so, whether he would recuse himself from voting on the deal. He has not responded yet, but as soon as he does, I will let everyone know his reply).

Not to give fuel to people who are harsh about lawyers, but because we have a stronger obligation to our clients than most professions, we have a higher burden to bear. We can only hope that our elected official reach the right balance and recuse themselves when a conflict exists between their professional duties and their electoral ones.

Clarification on Kennedy Firm Status, Ryan Vaughn, and Attorney Silence

Mansfield Pushes Plowman Out the Door?

Sometimes political officials step down because they realize it's necessary to restore a broken public trust. And sometimes they step down because they're about to get busted wide open politically.


Let's play a game called, "Which one describes Lincoln Plowman?"

Word has been circulating all last week about City-County Councillor Angela Mansfield's (D-District 2) planned ethics complaint against Plowman, which was filed today. iPOPA suspects that buzz prompted Plowman's expedited resignation, which will be delivered on Monday. Kudos are due to Mansfield for speeding the return of integrity to the 25th District.

As Mansfield rightly points out, because Plowman has essentially pled the 5th on why he is on administrative leave and being talked to by the FBI, the council cannot ascertain whether any conflict of interest exists in his service. This is problematic because it could potentially jeopardize future votes.

Republican Council President Ryan Vaughn and GOP Chair Tom John are undoubtedly ecstatic to see Plowman go, whatever the cause, as there was a radioactive glow of corruption and chicanery lingering over the entire Marion County Republican Party before Plowman's administrative leave.

As I've said repeatedly, a party label is a brand. Right now, the Marion County GOP is the Toyota of Indiana politics.

Plowman Complaint[1]

Mansfield Pushes Plowman Out the Door?

Truth Gets Plowed by Plowman

Say you are suspended from your job, and say a few weeks later, the media asks you why.

What is the percentage chance that you'd say you don't know? Probably zero. Unlessss...you're Lincoln Plowman.

In a staggering interview with WTHR-13's Mary Milz, Plowman says he doesn't know why he's being investigated. When asked about whether the inquiry against him is personal or professional (counsel-related), Plowman pleads the 5th, literally.

Counsel President Ryan Vaughn also says he doesn't know any details. How do you keep your own caucus in the dark? Is Plowman working as a confidential information now to fry a bigger fish?

What is it with Republicans clinging to office long beyond the point of losing the public trust, which was further eroded today. (Everybody doing the Elephant Walk knows he's as problematic as Brizzi. One GOP councillor even referred to Plowman as "a selfish idiot.")

I don't know either. But on behalf of Democrats who are going to campaign in 2010 on the GOP's culture of shady financial dealings and influence-peddling, I thank you.

Truth Gets Plowed by Plowman

Dizzy on Brizzi Improprieties Yet?

Fox 59 reports that "there was dicussion" about relocating the Metro Drug Task Force two years ago, and the location pushed was owned by John Bales, Carl Brizzi's business partner and campaign donor. The story notes that Bales has a contract that provides him 3% of any lease he negotiates for the City, so he would apparently have double-dipped as owner and negotiator. The other tenant already at that location? Tim Durham.

The move did not happen because law enforcement and a female prosecutor who would have worked there thought it was an unsafe dump. (Fox reports that the prosecutor who opposed the move was demoted and reassigned by Brizzi).

Hamilton County Sheriff Doug Carter stated, "There was discussion early on about the possibility of a move northeast and there was discussion about a specific piece of property on the westside," said Hamilton Co. Sheriff Doug Carter.

Lawrence Police Chief Paul Whitehead: "Well, unfortunately, the particular facility we looked at..." started Lawrence Police Chief Paul Whitehead.

Kudos to Russ McQuaid for breaking this story, but it doesn't go deep enough for my tastes.

Who set up the viewing of the property? Who pushed it? To whom? Are there letters or e-mails? Is it a coincidence that Lawrence Police Chief Paul Whitehead was involved? He works for Lawrence Mayor Paul Ricketts, to whom GOP bagman Tim Durham donated a staggering sum in excess of $80,000 over the past few years and to whom Brizzi donated $1,000 in 2008.

As a quick aside, Ricketts donated $250 of that money back to Brizzi in 2008. To all the newbies out there, passing the same money back and forth between political friends is a great way to inflate the value of your political stock because it looks like you've raised more money than you really have. (You can also do this with actual stock, but you might go to prison).

Here's another sidebar Fox missed. Why would a GOP Hamilton County Sheriff air Brizzi's dirty laundry? Does it have anything to do with the fact Brizzi's campaign committee donated $200 to Scott Baldwin, who is opposing Sheriff Carter's hand-picked successor in the May primary?

Of course, despite the GOP's efforts to run from Brizzi/Durham money, it permeates all levels of GOPdom. In the past two years, Brizzi has given $1,650 to the Hamilton County GOP, $1,250 to the Wayne Township GOP, $800 to Washington Township, $500 to Perry, $400 to Warren, and $250 to Lawrence.

Brizzi has given to GIRFCO ($2,500), the Marion County GOP ($2,250), City-County Council President Ryan Vaughn ($2,000), Hamilton County Prosecutor candidate David Wyser ($2,500), City-County Councilor Mike McQuillen ($250), Friends of Todd Young ($500), Mitch Daniels ($1,000), Tony Bennett ($1,000), Hupfer for State Rep ($1,000), Friends of Jim Banks ($1,000), the House Republican Campaign Committee ($5,000), Mike Murphy ($500), and the Committee To Elect Lisa Bentley (Township Board)($250). Brizzi even in-kinded a campaign worker to Attorney General Greg Zoeller. (Who knew indentured servitude still existed in the 21st century?)

GOP Secretary of State candidate Charlie White donated to Brizzi (who also donated to White), and Vaughn gave to Brizzi, who, as mentioned above, gave to Vaughn. (Though we are fellow Wabash men, I don't mind telling Vaughn and White that they both need to pick better company).

Every time I look at Brizzi's campaign finance reports, I get more discomfited. I previously reported that Brizzi was using his campaign committee as his personal bank account. Today I noticed that attorney Mario Massilamany received $1,900 from the Brizzi Committee for reimbursements, mostly for a call phone. Why is the Brizzi campaign reimbursing an attorney for his cell phone to the tune of several hundred dollars per month?

I'm THIS close (holding fingers millimeters apart) to filing a complaint with the Indiana Election Commission. Not only has Brizzi sullied his office, he's making a mockery of Indiana election law. Indiana Code 3-9-3-4 states:

Money received by a candidate or committee as a contribution may be used only:

(1) to defray any expense reasonably related to the person's or committee's:

(A) campaign for federal, state, legislative, or local office;

(B) continuing political activity; or

(C) activity related to service in an elected office;

(2) to make an expenditure to any national, state, or local committee of any political party or another candidate's committee; or

(3) upon dissolution of a committee, in a manner permitted under IC 3-9-1-12.

(b) Money received by a candidate or committee as a contribution may not be used for primarily personal purposes by the candidate or by any other person except as described in subsection (a).

Kudos to Terry Burns at Indianapolis Times for bringing this story to my attention.

Dizzy on Brizzi Improprieties Yet?

Randolph Accounts for Account

In response to my post, I received an e-mail message from Ike Randolph stating that all his money is safe and sound, and that there have been no transactions for the 2009 year. He states an amended report is on its way.

That being the case, Randolph's $11,546 represents one of the biggest cash-on-hand money stashes of any sitting City-County Councilor or Councilor contender. Former at-large city-county councillor Ron Gibson has a similarly tidy sum of $11,134.

The only people with more than Randolph and Gibson are both current council members. Democrat Joanne Sanders leads her caucus with $13,993 cash-on-hand, and Toby McClamrock, who has nearly three times the money of anybody else, stands at $36,168. What makes McClamrock's figure all the more astounding is that he hasn't raised money since the Clinton administration. McClamrock raised approximately $90,000 in 1999, and he's been politically trust funding it ever since.

Council President Ryan Vaughn demonstrated fundraising acumen with $16,933 raised in 2009, but all but 3 grand was spent, with four thousand going to Vaughn's senate campaign. What is most interesting is the $1750 and $500 donations Vaughn gave to the GOP of Hamilton and Hendricks counties, respectively, from his City-County Council campaign committee. (Hey, if that helps sell GOP state reps and senators on the a "regional" solution for the CIB, I say send them more of your money, Mr. President).

iPOPA gives respect to Vaughn for donating $250 to Indiana Equality. While many Republicans are obsessed with generating "wedge issue" votes on symbolic issues like a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage, Vaughn has the moxy to give to a group fighting that very amendment. If only Vaughn could talk some sense into House Minority Leader, Brian Bosma, and Senate Majority Leader, David Long, maybe we could accomplish something meaningful at the General Assembly.

Randolph Accounts for Account