Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Commission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter and resignations spotlight Spencer County Ethics Commission; court resists fines
Summary
A public commenter alleged long-running corruption and urged appointment to the Ethics Commission as two commissioners resigned. The court received a commission letter recommending fines for unfiled disclosures but declined to act, saying fines could discourage volunteers.
Lawrence Trageser told the Spencer County Fiscal Court on May 20 that he had repeatedly pursued open-records and open-meeting complaints and criticized a remark attributed to an Attorney General staffer that Spencer County was the "most corrupt" she had encountered. Trageser said the county's problems were exposed rather than endemic and that he had pursued legal remedies; he told the court he was "up to $36,000" in one case related to the City's Ethics Commission and asked to be appointed to the Ethics Commission.
The court also received two resignation letters from the Ethics Commission. Chris Sullivan, who signed a May 8 commission letter listing four local volunteers who had failed to file required financial-disclosure statements, submitted a resignation effective June 1. Bill Drury also submitted a resignation effective June 6. The commission's May 8 letter recommended the court assess the $25 fines prescribed by the county's code of ethics against four named individuals who did not comply after multiple requests.
Judge John Riley and several magistrates expressed reluctance to levy fines against volunteers. After brief discussion and audience interruption, a motion by Magistrate Beaverson to move forward with the commission's recommendation failed for lack of a second. The judge said he did not want to "hammer" volunteers and asked the new commission members to review enforcement processes and propose less burdensome methods of compliance.
The exchange combined a citizen's public complaint about government conduct with an internal enforcement question: the Ethics Commission urged fines for missing disclosures, while the Fiscal Court signaled it would seek alternative approaches to encourage compliance without deterring volunteer service. The court took no formal disciplinary action at the meeting.
What happens next: the judge asked the incoming or reconstituted Ethics Commission to review enforcement options and report back; the court did not set a date to act on the recommended fines.
Sources: Public comments and letters submitted to the Fiscal Court at the May 20, 2019 meeting. All quotes and assertions in this article come from the minutes read into the record and the Ethics Commission letters presented at the meeting.
