Police union calls decision to scrap gunshot detection system 'short-sighted'
POLITICS

Ethics panel: Rep. Eric Turner did not violate rules but actions lacked transparency

Tony Cook and Barb Berggoetz

A powerful Indiana lawmaker did not break any ethics rules when he secretly worked to kill legislation bad for his family's business, according to a report issued by a House ethics committee on Wednesday.

But the six-member panel of legislators said the case revealed weaknesses in the state's conflict-of-interest rules that need to be fixed. A government watchdog group says lax rules have allowed lawmakers to engage in self-serving behavior for years.

The committee's decision regards the actions of Rep. Eric Turner, who successfully urged fellow lawmakers in private Republican caucus meetings to quash a measure that would have temporarily halted new nursing home construction. Turner and his family own various companies that develop and invest in nursing home facilities.

The ethics committee unanimously adopted a six-page report with little comment during a two-minute meeting at the Statehouse on Wednesday.

"While the committee does not find that technical violation has occurred, we are concerned that Representative Turner's actions have not achieved the highest spirit of transparency," the report says. "Remaining questions about his conduct, while he is in compliance with our rules, gives us concern that our rules do not require enough disclosure."

To that end, the committee will review House rules, the chamber's ethics code, and state law regarding annual financial disclosure forms lawmakers are required to file. The goal is to recommend any revisions before the beginning of the 2015 legislative session.

"Those rules haven't been changed for the most part for the last 20 years," said Rep. Clyde Kersey, D-Terre Haute, the committee's ranking minority member. "This whole thing pointed out the fact that we need to make some changes."

Committee Chairman Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, agreed that "an entire review" of the ethical requirements governing lawmakers was necessary.

Government accountability groups, which have pushed in vain for ethics reforms for years, lamented that Turner will go unpunished.

"We should be disgusted that this kind of self-serving behavior isn't against the rules," said Julia Vaughn, policy director for Common Cause Indiana. "While it's disappointing that Rep. Turner will emerge from all this without even a slap on the wrist, it's good to know that there are some people inside the building who think that the rules are too lax and are willing to work on reform."

Turner, who didn't attend the ethics meeting, issued a statement later in the day.

"I always believed I acted clearly within the House rules and the House Code of Ethics while offering my expertise on a particular issue," he said. "A core function of a citizen legislature is for members to bring their expertise to share with other members of the General Assembly."

House ethics rules prohibit lawmakers from voting or sponsoring legislation in which they have a direct and substantial financial interest. But the rules don't address public or private debate.

Turner abstained from voting on the nursing home moratorium. But his arguments against the moratorium behind closed doors concerned some Republican lawmakers who felt he had a conflict of interest.

"There is a difference between offering expertise and lobbying and the committee didn't seem to want to delve into that," Vaughn said. "I think it is important that members who care about the integrity of this body ensure that public behaviors match what goes on behind closed doors."

After the ethics meeting, Turner's attorney, Toby McClamroch, called the committee's report "an exoneration."

"All of the evidence that was submitted to the committee supports the idea he complied in every way with the code of ethics of the House and the rules of the House," he said.

If the legislature would like to look at changes in the House code of ethics that Turner would be "more than happy to help" with that process, McClamroch said.

Members of the ethics committee said Turner's case highlighted the need for better disclosure of lawmakers' financial interests.

State law requires lawmakers to disclose companies in which they are a member. Turner, who has been involved in at least 15 companies with ties to the nursing home industry since 1997, did not list some of them on his annual financial disclosure form.

He has said his ownership interest in the undisclosed companies was indirect — through other companies he owns — and therefore he was not a "member."

Business law and ethics experts have said that loophole makes it easy for lawmakers to hide the extent of their business interests.

"We feel like that's one area we need to address to make sure there is full disclosure of any business interest that a state legislator has," Kersey said.

The Associated Press reported that Turner owns 38 percent of Mainstreet Property Group and had millions on the line in the debate over the nursing home moratorium.

Turner's son and Mainstreet CEO Zeke Turner said Tuesday the measure would not have hurt the company, despite several planned developments in Indiana. Instead, it would have forced the company to build in other states, costing Indiana millions of dollars in new investment and hundreds of jobs, he said.

Supporters say the moratorium is necessary because of low occupancy rates and concerns about the quality of care for Medicaid patients.

Call Star reporter Tony Cook at (317) 444-6081. Follow him on Twitter: @indystartony.