Indianapolis City-County Council Ethics Committee Meeting - July 23, 2026

The Ethics Committee of the Indianapolis City-County Council met on Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 5:34 PM in Room 260 of the City-County Building. The meeting was called to order by Chair Jessica McCormick (District 16) and included members Josh Bain (District 21), Michael Paul Hart (District 20), and Justin Brown (District 13). The purpose was information gathering and clarification on several ethics-related topics; no voting items were on the agenda, and no public comment was taken. The committee discussed a proposed governance disclosure framework, constituent recommendations on ethics and transparency, and administrative process improvements. The committee will reconvene after budget season for further discussion and public comment before any proposals are introduced.

Governance Disclosure Framework

• Chair McCormick presented a framework to expand existing ethics disclosures by requiring counselors to report appointed or elected governance roles (including nonprofit boards) where the counselor, spouse, or dependent has voting or decision-making authority over entities that do business or seek to do business with the city or county. These roles are non-compensated. The framework aims to supplement current disclosures, which only ask for organization name and address, by adding role title, nature of organization, duties, and whether the position is appointed or elected.
• Councilor Bain suggested adding a dollar amount disclosure for contracts with the city (similar to the $5,000 rounding used in employment compensation), but Chair McCormick clarified that the framework covers non-compensated roles only. Councilor Bain also noted that the existing $5,000 disclosure for contracts could be extended to board memberships.
• Councilor Hart asked whether political boards (e.g., GOP club) would be included. Chair McCormick said this is a question for further legal review, along with the breadth of family members covered (e.g., siblings, parents). The current form covers spouse/partner and dependent children.
• Councilor Brown expressed support for transparency, noting his service on the Indianapolis Community Land Trust board, which does not currently do business with the city but could be relevant in housing discussions. He also raised concerns about the burden on counselors and staff, noting that the council has no budget for ethics enforcement and that any new requirements would need to be balanced with staff capacity.

Constituent Recommendations on Ethics and Transparency

Councilor Brown presented a list of recommendations gathered from constituents, organized by topic. He explained that constituents are concerned about perceived conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and the difficulty of filing ethics complaints. The committee discussed each topic without reaching conclusions.

Disclosure and Transparency (Items A-G)

• A (Stocks): Constituents want counselors to disclose stocks in companies doing business with or lobbying the city. Councilor Bain noted he introduced a similar proposal in 2024 that was voted down. He suggested clarifying that only individual stocks (not mutual funds or blind trusts) should be disclosed, given the part-time nature of the council.
• B (Travel, meals, entertainment): Constituents want disclosure of travel, meals, and entertainment funded by entities doing business with the city. Councilor Hart noted that the city already has a local lobby registry, but it may be underutilized. Chair McCormick added that the current disclosure form includes a section for gifts over $100 (or $250 aggregate) from entities doing business with the city, but travel is not explicitly listed.
• C (Salary, consulting profits, fringe benefits): Constituents want disclosure of annual salary, consulting profits, and fringe benefits. Councilor Hart questioned the definition of "fringe benefits" and noted that such disclosures could be overly burdensome. Chair McCormick explained that the council is part-time by state statute, and most counselors have full-time jobs; requiring detailed salary disclosure could create difficulties with employers.
• D (Ownership stakes and gifts): Constituents want disclosure of all ownership stakes and gifts, even from organizations not directly contracting with the city. Councilor Brown noted the difficulty of tracking all gifts, especially small ones like a cup of coffee.
• E (Board memberships for extended family): Constituents want disclosure of board memberships for counselors, spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandchildren, cousins, nieces, nephews, including non-compensated boards. Councilor Brown expressed concern about not knowing the board positions of all family members, especially those with whom he is not close. Councilor Hart noted that not all blood relatives are considered family, and the scope may be too broad.
• F (Financial institutions): Constituents want disclosure of all financial institutions where counselors and spouses hold accounts. Councilor Brown admitted he did not understand the rationale fully, but the constituent suggested this could help track changes in wealth over time.
• G (Searchable database): Constituents want an easily searchable database of financial disclosures rather than separate PDFs. Councilor Hart noted that the clerk's office has requested funds to modernize campaign finance records, which could address this concern.

Conflicts of Interest and Recusal (Item 2)

• Constituents want counselors to be banned from lobbying or participating in votes involving their employers, major donors, or organizations that have provided major gifts or in-kind support. Councilor Brown noted that the current rule requires abstention for actual conflicts of interest, but constituents want it extended to perceived conflicts, including major donors. Councilor Hart questioned the definition of "major" and noted that councilors do not vote on contracts (those are approved by appointed boards). Chair McCormick added that the committee's focus should be on the perception vs. actual conflict, and that writing rules for every possibility could deter good people from serving.

Gifts and Benefits (Item 3)

• Constituents want either a complete prohibition on gifts or a requirement to report all gifts, regardless of amount. Councilor Brown gave an example of Wisconsin legislators who cannot accept any gifts, even a beer, except for a specific carve-out for buying rounds. Chair McCormick noted the current form requires reporting gifts over $100 (or $250 aggregate) from entities doing business with the city, but tracking every small gift is impractical. The committee discussed the city suite at venues, which is provided by the Capital Improvement Board and not considered a gift.

Ethics Process and Accountability (Items 4A-D)

• A (Public complaints): Constituents want a method to lodge complaints about counselors publicly. Currently, only another counselor can file an ethics complaint. Councilor Hart noted the risk of perjury if complaints are filed without proper vetting. Chair McCormick explained that opening complaints to the public would require at least one full-time staff person to handle the volume, and many complaints received by council staff are not within the committee's jurisdiction (e.g., complaints about tweets or personal interactions).
• B (NDAs): Constituents want counselors barred from signing non-disclosure agreements. Councilor Brown noted that NDAs are sometimes necessary to access information (e.g., data center proposals) but acknowledged they undermine transparency. Councilor Hart added that the IEDC frequently uses NDAs, and the council cannot unilaterally ban them. Chair McCormick clarified that this would apply to council work, not to a counselor's private employment.
• C (Code of conduct): Constituents want a code of conduct requiring respectful treatment of constituents. Councilor Brown noted that council staff has received complaints about tweets, but enforcing such a code could be a waste of time and raise First Amendment concerns.
• D (Censure for lying): Constituents want counselors to be censured if they lie to constituents. Chair McCormick noted that the council has a censure process, but defining "lie" is difficult and could infringe on free speech.

Public Reporting and Engagement (Item 5)

• Constituents want counselors to report monthly or quarterly on their work (e.g., meetings attended, constituent emails responded to). Chair McCormick noted that attendance at committee meetings is public record, but tracking other activities is discretionary and varies by district. Councilor Hart added that the council office has only 12 staff members for 25 councilors, and its budget is less than 2% of the total city-county budget. Councilor Brown noted that he publishes a weekly newsletter, but not all councilors do. The committee agreed that the request reflects a misunderstanding of the council's part-time, understaffed nature.

Structural/Charter Considerations (Item 6)

• Constituents want a recall process for councilors. Chair McCormick stated that recall is not allowed under state law for municipal elected officials in Indiana; the only remedy is the ballot box. The council does have a censure process, but it cannot remove a councilor from office.

Process Improvements and Clarifications

• Chair McCormick announced that the committee will implement a review for completeness of ethics disclosure forms before publication on the website. This review will check for missing sections or boxes, but not for accuracy. Each counselor remains responsible for the accuracy of their filing under penalty of perjury.
• She clarified the distinction between the Ethics Committee (which reviews councilor conduct under Chapter 151) and the City-County Ethics Commission (which handles violations for city employees, board appointees, and county elected officials under Chapter 293). The commission does not have jurisdiction over city-county councilors.
• The committee discussed the need for better guidance on self-employment, employers, and board memberships (compensated or not) on disclosure forms.

Key Outcomes

• No votes were taken. The committee concluded its information-gathering phase and will continue to digest the discussion after budget season.
• The next committee meeting will include public comment and will refine concepts for potential proposals. Any draft amendments will be introduced to the full council after committee review.
• Chair McCormick noted that the committee's standing monthly meetings will be paused during budget season to focus on the city's $1.8 billion budget (2026 budget, up from $1.7 billion in 2025).
• Councilor Brown thanked the committee for conducting public business in public, and the meeting adjourned without further business.