Brizzi Shows No Favoritism For Pacer Players

Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi's decision to prosecute charges against two Pacer players in connection with a recent westside bar fight shows he's not cutting any slack for professional athletes in this town who can't seem to behave themselves. Jamaal Tinsley has been charged with a Class D felony for intimidation and three lesser misdemeanors, and Marquis Daniels faces misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct charges. The Star's Jon Murray reports:

A Marion County grand jury has indicted Indiana Pacers Jamaal Tinsley and Marquis Daniels in a Feb. 6 fight at an Indianapolis bar after a game.

Tinsley was charged this afternoon with intimidation, a Class D felony, and three misdemeanors -- battery, disorderly conduct and intimidation. Daniels was charged with battery and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors.

In the incident, Tinsley and Daniels were accused of assaulting the manager of 8 Seconds Saloon, 111 N. Lynhurst Drive, at 2:15 a.m.

"There were very forceful threats made by Mr. Tinsley," Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said late this afternoon. One included Tinsley saying "I will kill you" to the bar's staff, according to the grand jury indictment, and that threat elevated the first intimidation charge to a felony . . .

The trouble began when several bar employees, including manager Mark Nicholson, 42, attempted to subdue a person who was trying to steal patrons' coats, according to the police report. The club does not have video of the incident.

During that scuffle, members of the Pacers' group "began to yell obscenities towards staff members," Nicholson told police.

The manager "stated that he approached Jamaal Tinsley, who he knows through sporting events and personally (from) prior meetings inside the business, that the incident did not involve him, or the others in his party," according to the report.

The grand jury took over the investigation because it has the authority to compel witnesses to talk.

After an unrelated brawl outside Club Rio last October involving several Pacer players, Brizzi pursued felony charges against then-Pacer player Stephen Jackson.

What's Up With SB 65, Sen. Hershman?

During this year's debate on SJR-7, there has been extensive debate about the unintended consequences of the second paragraph, which reads: "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Among the arguments surrounding the unintended consequences of this language is the impact it will have on domestic violence statutes which currently protect unmarried partners in Indiana. In Ohio, for example, some courts have ruled that a similar state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages had the effect of making domestic violence statutes inapplicable to unmarried partners.

Making its way through this legislative session with little discussion is SB 65, which was originally introduced as a vehicle bill by Senate President Pro Tempore David Long (R-Fort Wayne). Last week, after Sen. Brandt Hershman (R-Wheatfield) replaced Long as the principal author, the bill was reassigned from the Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee to the Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters Committe. New language was inserted into the bill which deals oddly enough with the subject of domestic violence. As the LSA synopsis reads:

Amends the definition of "family or household member" in IC 35-41-1-10.6 to include (1) a person who lives or formerly lived in the same household as the other person or (2) is the present spouse of a former spouse of the other person. Amends definition of domestic battery to provide that the offense is committed if the prohibited behavior results in the bodily injury of a family or household member of the person engaging in the behavior. Makes conforming amendments.

The bill replaces the current statutory language defining a "family or household member", which now reads:

(a) An individual is a "family or household member" of another person if the individual:
(1) is a current or former spouse of the other person;
(2) is dating or has dated the other person;
(3) is or was engaged in a sexual relationship with the other person;
(4) is related by blood or adoption to the other person;
(5) is or was related by marriage to the other person;
(6) has or previously had an established legal relationship:
(A) as a guardian of the other person;
(B) as a ward of the other person;
(C) as a custodian of the other person;
(D) as a foster parent of the other person; or
(E) in a capacity with respect to the other person similar to those listed
in clauses (A) through (D); or
(7) has a child in common with the other person.

I don't profess to be a legal expert on Indiana's domestic violence laws, but I would be interested in hearing other's opinions as to what Sen. Hershman is up to with respect to SB 65 and how it relates to the impact of his discriminatory SJR-7 constitutional amendment. It seems to me Hershman is trying to remove language which equates the relationship between a married couple and an unmarried couple living together as if they were a spouse for purposes of our domestic violence statutes, but specifically, the criminal statute for domestic battery. In the domestic battery statute this language is struck: "(1) is or was a spouse of the other person; (2) is or was living as if a spouse of the other person." Because SJR-7 will not permit a statutory law to confer the "legal incidents of marriage" on an unmarried couple or group, the domestic battery statute couldn't be interpreted to apply to a person "living as if a spouse of the other person" as it currently does.

What Hershman's legislation does is divide those protected by the domestic violence statutes between those who are "family" members as opposed to merely "household members." Of course, an unmarried domestic partner of another person would be a mere "household member" for purposes of these statutes as opposed to a "family" member.

Looks like more mean-spiritedness to me, but I would like to hear from others who understand these laws more than I do. Hershman appears to be anticipating an outcome in the courts like what has happened in Ohio if SJR-7 is enacted, and he is trying to head it off so it doesn't become an issue here. If Hershman doesn't believe there will be so-called "unintended consequences" from the enactment of SJR-7 as he says, why does he need SB 65?

McGoff Flunks First GLBT Test

Dr. John McGoff is being interviewed by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz as we speak on WXNT. Abdul threw a question out to McGoff about his position on SJR-7. He first said it was a state and not a federal issue, although we know the FMA has been an issue in Congress as well. McGoff then said he was born and raised a Catholic, and he believes marriages can only be between one man and one woman. He ended his comment right there, not adding anything like, "but I don't believe a person should be discriminated against because they're gay." I can't say I'm surprised. It seems Dr. McGoff's unenlightened views of gays and lesbians is what I recalled from several years ago when I first came to know him. In the case of a medical doctor, his intolerance bothers me even more because the American Medical Association has long since concluded that being gay is not a psychological disorder, but rather a natural phenomenon. As a medical professional, he should know better. So would McGoff support ENDA, the federal non-discrimination legislation, or oppose it just as Burton has all these years? The early signs aren't very promising.

Woodlan Principal Upset Over Student Editorial Urging Tolerance Of Gays

PRINCIPAL SAYS STUDENTS EXPOSED TO "INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL"
If you had any doubt about how much further Indiana has to go in the struggle to understand that being gay is a natural phenomenon and not a lifestyle choice, you need look no further than what happened at a Fort Wayne area public school after a 10th-grade student wrote an editorial urging tolerance of gays. Woodlan Junior-Senior High School Principal Edwin Yoder called the editorial "inappropriate material" and demanded that he be allowed to review all school newspaper content prior to its publication in the future. Journalism teacher Amy Sorrell was warned by Yoder she would be fired if she didn't comply with his order. Kelly Soderlund of the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette writes:

A student editorial in the Woodlan Junior-Senior High School newspaper calling for more tolerance for gays and lesbians sparked the principal to seek approval of each edition before it goes to print and issue a written warning against the journalism teacher.

About 10 students attended the East Allen County Schools board meeting Tuesday night to ask members whether the issue could be put on the next meeting’s agenda. Superintendent Kay Novotny denied their request and suggested they meet with Assistant Superintendent Andy Melin instead.

“That’s probably a better forum than the board,” Novotny said.

Sophomore Megan Chase wrote an opinion piece – her first for the newspaper – that appeared in the Jan. 19 issue of the Woodlan Tomahawk that questioned people who believe it’s wrong to be gay or lesbian. Chase said she wrote the piece after a friend disclosed to her he was gay.

“I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society,” Chase wrote. “I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you. There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they’re just different than you.”

Principal Edwin Yoder wrote a letter to the newspaper staff and journalism teacher Amy Sorrell insisting he sign off on every issue. Sorrell and the students contacted the Student Press Law Center, an advocacy group for student newspapers, which advised them to appeal the decision. Last week, Yoder issued Sorrell a written warning for insubordination and not carrying out her responsibilities as a teacher. He accused her of exposing Woodlan students, who are in grades seven through 12, to inappropriate material and said if she did not comply with his orders she could be fired.

Yoder would not comment for this story, but Melin, who said he hasn’t read the editorial, said school officials do not have an issue with the topic but with the lack of balance and thoroughness in the opinion piece. Sorrell also should have consulted with Yoder before the article was printed, Melin said.

Melin would not comment on any disciplinary actions taken against Sorrell.

The students are naturally upset with Yoder's decision and have asked him to clarify exactly what the school's policy is on the tolerance of gay and lesbian students. An assistant principal told the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette "there is no policy and didn’t think the board should have to go as far as to write one." The school cites a Supreme Court decision to defend its censorship of the school's newspaper. "Melin cited the 1988 Supreme Court case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which ruled St. Louis school officials had the authority to censor stories about teen pregnancy and divorce in its high school newspaper." But check out the response from the Student Press Law Center to that argument:

Adam Goldstein, attorney at the Student Press Law Center, said the Woodlan situation does not fall under the Supreme Court precedent, which permits a school to interfere with student expression only when it can provide a legitimate educational basis for doing so.

In the Hazelwood case, school officials were able to prove the articles went against what was being taught in the classroom.

“If students are not being taught tolerance in the classroom, their problem is much larger than this particular incident,” Goldstein said.

Yoder is practicing an illegal form of censorship, Goldstein said, and the Student Press Law Center has available attorneys who are willing to donate their time if the Woodlan students take the case to court.

So what Goldstein is saying is that the only way the school can rely on the Hazelwood case to defend its actions is if the school's policy to to teach students they should not be tolerant of gays and lesbians. Sadly, Yoder's actions in this particular case suggest that is what he believes. The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel has a story on Woodlan's censorship of the gay tolerance editorial as well. It includes this comment from assistant principal Andy Mellin defending the censorship. “It’s the content of the article in terms of its level of its appropriateness and its balance. You have seventh- and eighth-graders that are far less mature than 11th- and 12th-graders.” The maturity level of the children in this case doesn't seem to be the issue. It's the school administrators.

Here's the full text of Megan Chase's poignant editorial which sent the school's administrators into such a hissy fit:

We live in a world where we grow up being taught that it is only acceptable for a boy and a girl to be together. So how do you think you would feel if as you grew older and more mature you started noticing people of the same sex as you, rather than the opposite?

I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society. I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you. There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they’re just different than you. I’ve heard some people say that they think there is a cure to being homosexual. I can’t believe anyone would think that. It’s not a disease, or something that you catch from someone else; it’s something that they don’t have control over. In saying that, I also believe that homosexuality is not a choice. Almost everyone that I talk to says that a person chooses to be gay or straight. That, again, is something that I believe to be very wrong. If people made the choice to be homosexual, there wouldn’t be anyone who committed suicide because they were too afraid of what people would think of them, and kids wouldn’t be afraid of being disowned if they came out to their parents.

There is also the religious aspect to the argument, where people say that if someone is homosexual, they are automatically sent to hell. To me, that seems extremely unfair. So what are homosexual Christians supposed to do? The answer that I constantly get to that question is, “Just don’t acknowledge that they’re homosexual and live a ‘normal’ life.” Excuse me? So they’re just supposed to never find a partner, or marry someone of the opposite sex, have kids, and pretend they’re “normal?” I don’t think that’s right, or fair. I wouldn’t want to believe in something that would condemn me over something that I didn’t even choose.

It is fact that as many as 7.2 million Americans under the age of 20 are homosexual, and of those that have already come out, 28% of them felt compelled to drop out of school due to the constant verbal assault that they experienced after people found out. Now, if you think that is terrible, this is even worse: According to pflagupstatesc.org, every day 13 Americans from the ages of 15-24 commit suicide, and homosexual youths make up 30% of the completed suicides. I don’t understand why we would put so much pressure on those people, that they would feel that they have to end their lives because of their sexuality. Would it be so hard to just accept them as human beings who have feelings just like everyone else? Being homosexual doesn’t make a person inhuman, it makes them just a little bit different than the rest of the world. And for living in a society that tells you to always be yourself, it’s a hard price to pay.

Star Bolsters McGoff's Campaign Against Burton

One of the biggest challenges facing any candidate who takes on an incumbent congressman is convincing the news media you are a credible candidate worthy of news coverage. Dr. John McGoff's campaign to unseat U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R) in the 2008 Republican primary has already crossed that huge hurdle judging by today's coverage in the Star. Political columnist Matt Tully all but endorses McGoff, saying he did a "huge favor" to the voters of the 5th District by entering the race. Tully writes:

Many people are going to call John McGoff an unfaithful Republican.

That's what happens when you challenge an incumbent in your own party. You face the wrath of a system rigged to protect politicians in power.

But party politics aside, McGoff did the 5th Congressional District a huge favor Tuesday when he walked into the Statehouse and announced he would challenge longtime U.S. Rep. Dan Burton next year. He did everyone a favor by ensuring voters finally would have a choice in the only election that really matters in the Republican-dominated district -- the GOP primary.

Given Burton's misguided ways, and recent rash of embarrassing headlines, McGoff emerges as a credible, if underdog, candidate. The party's political structure will stand behind Burton -- at least officially -- but McGoff is counting on restless rank-and-file Republicans.

He's counting on Republicans who wouldn't vote for a Democrat but who think Burton has overstayed his welcome.

Any doubt that Burton has done so was erased in January, when he skipped a week of House votes to golf in California, after casting the sole House vote against ethics reform. That was just the latest in Burton's long, strange career.

When the political writer for the State's largest newspaper is singing your political theme on day one, your job as a challenger is made all the easier. And that means McGoff is going to find it easier to raise the much-needed money he will need to go up against Burton's million-dollar plus war chest. The Star's news pages also feature a lengthy story on McGoff's announcement yesterday. And it has more nice things to say about McGoff. "He's one of the smartest men I've ever met -- calm and rational and has a good perspective on how government should be," quoting former Marion County Clerk Doris Anne Sadler, a fellow Republican. One of the things that struck me with the news coverage is there is no major Republican figure who is dissing McGoff's candidacy or criticizing him for challenging a long-time incumbent officeholder. That is very telling.

Clark Doing More Hating On Hate Crimes Bill

There's nothing that quite stirs up the religious right like the thought of discouraging people from beating up or otherwise doing harm to someone because they're different in some way. The American Family Association's Micah Clark felt compelled to send out another missive to his members spewing more anti-gay bigoted rhetoric against HB 1459, the hate crimes bill. Clark writes:

ALERT: Action Is Needed Now to Defend Fairness and Freedom!

Posted Tuesday 2/20/07 11:59 am

The Indiana House of Representatives is poised to vote upon a potentially dangerous bill granting special legal protections to people engaging in homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors.

House Bill 1459, a hate crimes bill, destroys the concept of equal justice under the law. Under this radical bill, an assault against a homosexual man in his 30’s leaving a gay bar would carry a stronger punishment than the same crime against a grandmother leaving the grocery store. This injustice would occur simply because the man engages in certain sexual behaviors.

AFA believes that crime should be punished in an equal manner, regardless of the irrational or unhinged thoughts of a criminal and regardless of the private behavioral choices of the victim. HB 1459 does not do this. It grants special protections to certain groups.

Worse, in many states and countries so-called hate crime measures have led to the persecution of Christians for "hate speech" crimes if a pastor, for example, preaches from Romans 1 and mentions what the Bible says about homosexuality. *

We have made it easy for you to send a message to your State Representative about HB 1459. With our system, in less than one minute, you can make your voice heard about this misguided hate crime legislation . . .

It's bad enough that guys like Clark and Miller approach their legislative battles against the GLBT community in this deplorable fashion, but what's even worse is the complete lack of attention to these tactics being paid by the mainstream media. Instead, eggheads like RiShawn Biddle at the Star want to make the folks fighting to end the hatred and discrimination they face in daily life at the hands of this ilk the subject of public scorn. In an act of rubbing more crap in the faces of Indiana's GLBT community, Biddle flatters the sponsor of SJR-7. Biddle writes, "As seen in the case of Brandt Hershman, who has maintained a relatively moderate tone during his advocacy of SJR-7, it's easier to get people to buy into an idea if presented with reason than to oppose an idea through the use of extreme rhetoric." This he speaks of a man who tried to cut off funding to Purdue if it didn't end its domestic partner benefits, and whose wife tells us forced her to get an abortion before filing for divorce after 7 years of marriage.

Clark, Miller and all the rest of the anti-gay bigots will go on engaging in their underhanded discourse on the hate crimes bill and other issues pertaining to Indiana's GLBT community because they can do so with impunity and will actually be comforted by the folks in the mainstream media. I have said it before and I will say it again and again, those who embrace the agenda of Clark, Miller and others on this score are embracing the same sort of agenda the KKK pursued against disfavored minorities in this state during the 1920s. To argue otherwise is simply to be ignorant of our history.

And while Biddles says of the comparison of this Christian right agenda to the KKK of the 1920s-- "To insinuate this belittles the principled cause of those gay activists who are reasonable -- and alienates those heterosexuals who generally agree with their cause--look at who is belittling a principled cause. City-County Councilor Angela Mansfield and neighborhood leaders in her northside district fought for over a year to close the illegally-operated Savoy nightclub last year. As Mansfield describes those efforts:

[A] nightclub was operating illegally in an area zoned as a hospital district. It was located forty-feet from a nursing home, close to single-family homes, and across the street from St. Vincent Hospital and the St. Augustine Home for the Aged. The nightclub brought crime to the area including a knifing, public intoxication and slashing someone with a broken beer bottle, in addition to excessive noise and trash. Many of the law enforcement reports were written by the nightclub’s own off-duty police officers between the hours of midnight and 4am. The nursing home residents and employees expressed concerns on noise and safety regarding the nightclub and its patrons. Many of the area businesses were concerned about how the crime, noise and trash would affect their businesses. The fire department had issued a citation for several violations. After reviewing all of this information as well as listening to the constituents in the area, I strongly opposed the nightclub’s petition to get a variance to allow the nightclub to continue to operate as a nightclub. To have allowed such a petition to be approved would have severely negatively impacted District 2 in the long-term.

What does Biddle have to say about Manfield's and other neighborhood leaders efforts? "On the matter of Savoy, I noted that Bill Mays didn't follow the rules and handle his business," he concedes in a comment this week on this blog. "At the same time, I noted that it was quite likely that the motivation behind those demanding the closure of the club was racial in nature." These good folks aren't amused at Biddle suggesting they are racists. "It's so easy to make this a huge social issue but if he would just put himself in other people's shoes and imagine what he'd do in the same situation he would see it's just people reacting to a bad situation," responded Ellen Meagher, one of the neighbors who complained about the Savoy. Biddle would do well to take Meagher's advice.

The Religious Right's Crack Up Over HPV Vaccine

Indiana has witnessed a crack up on the part of religious right in reaction to the legislative effort of Sen. Connie Lawson and other female legislators to get young girls vaccinated against HPV, the virus which causes cervical cancer in women. They so far haven't succeeded in killing it, but their opposition has forced it to be watered down from required vaccination of sixth-grade girls to purely educational in nature. The religious right seems to think young girls will be more promiscuous if they face one less life-threatening, sexually-transmitted disease.

During third reading debate last week, Sen. Mike Delph (R-Carmel) impugned the integrity of Sen. Lawson and other female legislators who participate in Women In Government, suggesting they had been bought off by Merck, the only pharmaceutical company which manufactures the vaccine against HPV. Delph expressed outrage that a private company would use the legislative process to enact laws to improve its bottom-line revenues. Delph's protestations seem a little specious when you consider the fact he earns a living as Senior Director of Government Affairs for Comcast, a publicly-regulated utility. The last time I checked, the cable TV industry had a very active lobby at the federal and state level, which works hard to improve bottom-line revenues for their industry. Senate President Pro Tem David Long (R-Fort Wayne), according to eyewitnesses, wasn't amused by Delph's comments, who say Long gave Delph a little tongue-lashing when he concluded his comments on Lawson's legislation.

So who does Delph turned to for consolation after earning the wrath of his Republican leader? Why none other than the American Family Association's Micah Clark. As Clark explains in an item entitled, "Senator, You shouldn't say what others are saying":

I got a call from Senator Mike Delph on Monday evening on his drive home to tell me of the vote on Senate Bill 327. To no one’s surprise the HPV vaccine bill passed. It was a lopsided vote of 45-5.

The heated, hour-long debate focused on cervical cancer far more than the effectiveness of the new vaccine or the rights of parents to be provided the fullest amount of information and choices regarding an STD vaccine for 9-12 year old girls.

Senator Delph took a verbal beating from some very emotional legislators, just as Senator Jeff Drozda had a few days earlier when he tried to amend SB 327 to give parents more information. Senator Delph irritated the bill’s authors, and Senate leadership, by bringing up a topic that has been widely addressed in the media from publications like The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Houston Chronicle, The Indianapolis Star. Delph’s offense was citing the huge amounts of money that Merck not only stands to make with this STD vaccine, but also has been pouring into campaign coffers, and lobbying efforts. Senator Delph questioned the propriety of such efforts to quickly rush through bills like SB 327 in two dozen states.

Well, if Sen. Lawson and other female legislators were outraged by the antics of Delph, Drozda, Clark and other members of the religious right, they should get a load of what's happening next door in Illinois, where similar legislation is being debated. As State House reporter Rich Miller explains, opponents there went so far as to make an issue of the sex life of the bill's sponsor after she candidly admitted she had HPV. An anti-abortion lobbyist, Jill Stanek, had this to say about Sen. Debbie Halvorson (D) after she acknowledged she had HPV:

So when state Sen. Debbie Halvorson admitted she had HPV and worried others might get it, you would think she'd focus on her behavior that caused her to contract that sexually transmitted disease.

Halvorson would be most helpful by discussing the health consequences of pre- or extra-marital sex. Here are some potential topics:

• Halvorson could discuss the number of sex partners she has had throughout her lifetime and how each one increased the likelihood of contracting HPV. If Halvorson even had only one sex partner aside from her husband, she could discuss how one can contract HPV from a sole encounter.
• Halvorson could discuss whether she realized at the time her sex partner carried HPV, which most trusting, vulnerable women don't.
• Halvorson could disclose whether it was her husband who passed HPV on to her after sleeping with other women, demonstrating another reason for chaste
  behavior outside the marriage bedroom.
• More uncomfortably, if Halvorson contracted HPV through rape, she could discuss ways to avoid rape.
• But no, Halvorson does not advocate avoiding a risky behavior that leads not only to HPV but to 20+ other STDs and their strains, along with unplanned pregnancy. Halvorson merely advocates trying to avoid the consequences of risky behavior. Shame on her.

Shame on Stanek. In reacting to Stanek's comments about Halverson, Miller said, "I’ve always liked Jill, but her remarks crossed the line of decency and could backfire." "The legislation could pass just because of the tactics used against it." "This slash and burn stuff might work in the national media (although its influence seems to be fading fast), but people here are a bit more reasonable than the DC gasbags." I would add to Miller's comments, do you think Stanek would ask those same questions of Marilyn Quayle, who is a cervical cancer survior, or suggest she acquired it because former Vice President Dan Quayle was sleeping around?

Gays are used to these kinds of tactics. The religious right has been saying from the very beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that people who get it are to blame and deserve to die because they engaged in "immoral" and "risky sexual behavior." The tactic is frought with problems, though, with respect to HPV because of the sheer numbers of people infected with it. Unless Stanek lives under a rock, most of the people she associates with on a daily basis are either infected or have a close family member or friend who is infected. Can you imagine what their reaction will be if researchers ever develop a vaccine against HIV? Wouldn't you want your children vaccinated? You can bet the religious right will oppose it on the basis it would encourage people to engage in "homosexual sex."

Police Investigate Possible Theft Of State Dems Funds

The Star's Jon Murray and Vic Ryckaert are reporting an Indianapolis police investigation into $73,000 in missing funds from the Indiana Democratic Party. The reported theft may have been accomplished through unauthorized credit card charges. The story reads:

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police are investigating the embezzlement of $73,000 from the Indiana Democratic Party.

Party officials discovered an unauthorized credit card last month that had been used for nearly two years and billed automatically from a party account, said Mary Chandler, general counsel for the state party. No charges have been filed, but a police report was written today by Detective Gerald Rieger. It mentions Kim Bostic, the former comptroller responsible for the party's internal accounting.

Bostic stopped working for the party during the third week of January, Chandler said, and her departure was "mutually agreeable."

The unauthorized credit card was discovered after Bostic's employment ended, Chandler said.

An audit determined that $94,000 had been charged to the card since February 2005, Chandler said. Of that, she said, about $73,000 in charges were unrelated to the party.

A phone message left this afternoon for Marcel Pratt, Bostic's attorney, has not yet been returned.

You may recall Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi (R) prosecuted staffer Brad Hiller for embezzling more than a $100,000 from the Indiana Republican Senate Majority Campaign Committee. Hiller worked as a lobbyist for Bose Treacy when the missing funds were discovered. He served a prison sentence after pleading guilty.

McGoff To Challenge Burton

At last a Republican has emerged to challenge U.S. Rep. Dan Burton's hold on the 5th congressional district. Dr. John McGoff announced today he would not be running for mayor this year, but he does intend to take on Burton in next year's congressional primary. Matt Tully reports:

Former County Coroner John McGoff has spent several weeks on the fence, thinking about running for mayor. At a 10:30 a.m. news conference today, McGoff will announce his candidacy. But it won't be for mayor.

Instead, McGoff has announced he will challenge U.S. Rep. Dan Burton is the 2008 Republican primary.

McGoff, an emergency room physician who was elected coroner twice, will be taking on an incumbent who lately has attracted notice for skipping a bunch of House votes to go golfing in California.

There are many Burton critics. But his Republican district ensures he never has a serious general election opponent. The primary could be a different matter.

"We need to restore integrity back to Washington," McGoff said today.

After thinking about running for mayor, McGoff said he decided a run against Burton, "was a better fit for me."

McGoff's announcement today will come as pleasing news to many Republicans. Let's hope that McGoff's strategy will not include pandering to the religious right as Burton has become accustomed to doing. I got to know McGoff several years ago fairly well when we both participated in the Indiana Leadership Forum. I hope some of his views on social issues have become more enlightened.