Editor, Times-Union:
In northeast Kosciusko County, nestled at the north end of Lake Wawasee, sits the town of Syracuse. What began as concerns over bookkeeping has erupted into statewide controversy, the alleged misappropriation of public funds. For this sleepy, summer resort community, the news is deeply troubling.
The focus of the lawsuit is the town council’s long-standing practice of using taxpayer funds to pay for private health care premiums — for themselves, their spouses, and certain town employees — outside of the town’s official health insurance plan. According to a December 2024 audit by the State Board of Accounts (SBOA), current and former council members and employees collectively owe over $503,000. Rokita’s complaint pushes the figure even higher, alleging more than $617,000 in misappropriated funds, plus $74,000 in investigation costs.
The council contends this was a cost-saving measure, historically accepted by the SBOA. In 2023, Councilman Larry Siegel contacted the SBOA for guidance, and claims he was advised to continue the practice. However, the supporting email did not directly address the legality of reimbursing private insurance premiums and explicitly warned it should not be construed as a legal opinion.
Adding fuel to the fire, Indiana State Police uncovered that Councilman Paul Stoelting and his ex-wife, Martha, were receiving insurance benefits despite divorcing in 2007. Stoelting explained this by personal family struggles. This explanation offers context, it doesn’t excuse the prolonged use of public funds for personal benefit.
The controversy deepens with the town council’s history of expanding benefits through local ordinances. In 2008, they broadly authorized spending on health insurance. By 2019, amendments explicitly allowed reimbursements for Medicare premiums and supplemental insurance for council members and their spouses — a move that, according to Rokita and the SBOA, exceeds the limits of Indiana law. Rokita’s complaint points out that council members and clerk-treasurers are not considered full-time employees and were thus ineligible for such benefits.
In defense, the council hired Indianapolis law firm Bose, McKinney & Evans, arguing that Indiana Code 5-10-8-2.6 permits these reimbursements when authorized by ordinance. Their attorneys warn that disallowing this practice could have broader implications for how local governments compensate officials statewide.
Rokita isn’t convinced. His lawsuit extends beyond individual officials, naming the town’s insurers, seeking to recover the alleged losses under bond and crime insurance policies. He demands full restitution, legal fees, and the return of any “ill-gotten gains.”
The case, consolidated with the Town of Syracuse’s countersuit against the SBOA, is set for hearing on May 8. There, a judge will weigh the town’s defenses against allegations of fraud, misfeasance, and mismanagement.
What does this mean for Syracuse? At a minimum, it exposes severe lapses in judgment. Whether through negligence or self-interest, the town council appears to have placed personal benefit above their responsibility to taxpayers. Even if they win in court, one has to wonder: is this the leadership the citizens of Syracuse deserve? I’ll dial back the hyperbole — but I can’t say I feel confident in the content of their character.
David Abrell
Syracuse, via email