Burke regrets not double-checking rivals' eligibility

Burke says he offered deal to drop litigation

By Arthur E. Foulkes

TERRE HAUTE — Former Terre Haute Mayor Kevin Burke says he made a private inquiry into then-candidate Duke Bennett’s eligibility to run for mayor before the November 2007 election. In a news conference Tuesday afternoon, the former mayor also said he regrets not making a stronger inquiry.

Bennett won the mayor’s race by 110 votes over Burke, who then challenged Bennett’s candidacy under the Little Hatch Act, a law that limits the political activity of people who receive federal funding. While running for mayor, Bennett was employed by the Hamilton Center, which receives federal funding for its Head Start program.

Prior to the election in 2007, Burke said he privately asked Galen Goode, the CEO of Hamilton Center, whether Bennett’s candidacy for mayor was a problem under the Hatch Act and was told there was no problem.

“In hindsight, what I regret now is not double-checking the answer I was given,” Burke said in a news conference in his home Tuesday afternoon. “I readily admit … Kevin Burke made a grave mistake by believing what he was told and not double-checking. I believed what I was told. I trusted the fact that Hamilton Center and its employees were in compliance. That was a mistake.”

Burke called Tuesday’s news conference, which took place in his family dining room, in part to respond to criticism that he should have challenged Bennett’s eligibility prior to the election, not after.

“For a year all I’ve heard is that I’m a bad loser and I’m this terrible guy because I waited until after the election, when I didn’t,” Burke said.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled last week that Bennett did violate the Hatch Act, but it also ruled that Burke was not eligible to retake the mayor’s office because voters were not aware of Bennett’s ineligible status. The court also faulted Burke and Bennett for not dealing with the Hatch Act questions before the election.

The Hamilton Center’s Goode said he was not under the impression his pre-election answer to Burke regarding Bennett’s eligibility would decide whether Burke looked into the question more deeply. He also said he offered Burke a “common sense” answer based on Bennett’s role at the Hamilton Center and his connection to Head Start.

“The inquiry I received from [Burke] was a general inquiry about what did I think in terms of [Bennett] having a problem with the Hatch Act?” Goode said. “In my impression of the Hatch Act at that time, based on that fact that [Bennett] had minimal involvement with our Early Head Start program and that the predominant activity of his work was in other areas … that his involvement with the Early Head Start program was not material enough to create a problem,” he said. “That was how I felt and, to be quite honest from a common-sense perspective, that’s how I still feel,” Goode said.

Goode noted his answer to Burke was not one that would necessarily be reached by the federal Office of Special Counsel or other people who work closely with the Hatch Act. “We all know a lot more about the Hatch Act today, after the fact, than anybody knew about the Hatch Act prior to the complaint being filed,” Goode said.

Burke said he avoided a formal, public inquiry into Bennett’s eligibility in order to protect the Hamilton Center from the possible loss of federal money if it was found Bennett violated the law.

“If you read what the law entails, there are serious consequences to violations of [the Hatch Act],” Burke said. “I’m a part of Terre Haute and I know the significance of Hamilton Center to this community. When [Burke’s campaign] sat down and talked about Duke Bennett being possibly ‘Hatched,’ we said, ‘Oh my God, if he’s ‘Hatched,’ look at the mess we’re in. And more importantly, look at the mess that Hamilton Center is in,’” Burke said.

“My position was, I don’t want to come to you all and say Duke’s ineligible and create a bunch of problems for Hamilton Center. I have friends there. They are a major employer in our community. If I could make a silent inquiry and they could fix the problem, that would be best for Terre Haute,” Burke said.

Burke also said he avoided publicly challenging Bennett because there was a chance he might have been wrong. “I readily admit, folks, I didn’t want to be embarrassed. If I would have just rushed out there and said Duke Bennett’s ‘Hatched’ and been wrong, I would have been embarrassed by that.”

Out of respect for his campaign committee and his supporters, Burke said he decided to settle the question quietly. “I made the decision to move on,” he said.

Burke said he changed about challenging Bennett after the election in part because Bennett held his election victory party – “free of charge” – at a Hamilton Center facility, something Burke called “an obvious Hatch violation.”

Because of Bennett’s violation of the Hatch Act, he could be barred from handling federal money for 18 months, Burke said. That puts Terre Haute’s federal funding at risk, he said.

Also during the news conference, Burke told reporters he offered a deal to Bennett after last week’s appeals court decision was handed down. Under that agreement, both Burke and Bennett would drop all litigation and agree to decide the mayoral question in a special election, something called for by the appeals court ruling. Burke said Bennett turned down the offer.

Bennett did not want to comment Tuesday on Burke’s news conference but will comment today, according to Darrel Zeck, public affairs director for the City of Terre Haute.

In response to a reporter’s question, Burke said he first heard about the Hatch Act while he was mayor and people asked him about the eligibility of two members of the City Council running for re-election while they were serving as Terre Haute firefighters. Burke did inquire into the eligibility of those city councilmen under the Hatch Act, he said. Burke said he made no inquiry into the eligibility of Jim Horrall, who challenged him in the 2007 Democratic Party primary and who resigned his job during the campaign because of Hatch Act considerations.

Also during the 80-minute news conference, which included about an hour of questions and answers, Burke said Bennett has misled the public about the potential cost of a special election. Burke estimated the cost, based on a special election in East Chicago, at less than $70,000. Bennett has put the cost between $300,000 and $580,000 since last week’s court decision was announced.

“Duke Bennett has misled you about the cost of a special election,” Burke said.

Burke said it would be “monumental” for him to try to win a special election. “If the election was today, my chances would probably be very slim because for a year I’ve not defended myself,” Burke said. “For a year I’ve allowed people to say I cheated. But I don’t have to be quiet any

more,” he said.

Arthur Foulkes can be reached at (812) 231-4232 or arthur.foulkes@tribstar.com.

Text Only | Photo Reprints