A state employee sues for wrongful termination.

One utility's proposed solution for dealing with data center costs.

Plus, the state will release an audit of the IEDC and more.

From the television studios at WFYI, it's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending September 26th, 2025.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations.

This week, the ACLU of Indiana has filed a lawsuit against Ball State University's president over the firing of an employee who posted about Charlie Kirk's death on social media.

IPRs Stephanie Wiechmann reports.

Last week, Suzanne Swiercs private Facebook post calling Kirk's death a tragedy, but also pointing to the quote violence, fear and hatred, he sowed, was shared online by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita.

Since 2023, she was director of health promotion and advocacy at the Muncie School until she was fired on September 17th for the social media post.

Swierc says she does not regret her post and would not take back what she wrote.

I believe that I, along with every other person in this country, have first Amendment rights and to be able to speak on a number of things.

In a statement last week, ball states that her post caused significant disruption to the university.

Steve Pachter with the ACLU of Indiana says Swierc didn't create the disruption herself, but those like Rokita, who amplified it online, did.

She is not the one who widely disseminated this post.

And of course.

It wasn't only the attorney general of the state of Indiana that did, but he certainly did.

When asked for a response, both State University said it does not comment on pending litigation.

Our schools courting trouble if they fire employees for social media posts about Charlie Kirk.

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief of the Indiana Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Mike, what should schools do here?

I don't think it's just schools.

I think it's what should everybody do here?

schools have to be, you know, have the leverage of the government breathing down their neck.

of George.

Will's in town this week.

He did an event.

I want some speak, and he.

He said what I agree with, which is what we don't need right now in these situations that were caused by the political environment being too hot and the temperature being too high is to make it hotter.

you need someone who can come in the room and go, and each of us in our own circles.

That's the tragedy, right?

I mean, in our own circles, whenever we, you know, fire up Facebook, you know, what are we saying to our little universe of people?

what are our conversations like with, you know, friends that may be on the other side of the aisle?

and just cool off.

You know, this was a tragedy of a father, a young guy.

you know, I think we can all agree that we we the outcome cannot be when you get on TV and mouth off for a half an hour every Friday, that the result of that might be someone disagree with me and shot me on the way to my car?

Yeah.

When I was, when I was done.

Search to do that.

So we, I mean I haven't I kept from it but but you know so what we also what we don't need is leaders saying we're going to use every power of the government to destroy your life.

If you post something in your private time and your private time.

Yeah, on social media, everyone just needs to cool it or this is going to keep happening.

And it's and it's both parties and no parties, that are doing this to each other and it's and it's got to end.

It's one thing when, you know, we saw some like, companies fire employees who posted on the company's accounts kind of thing, things that were maybe perceived as insensitive about Charlie Kirk stuff.

But when you're posting is a private person.

And, you know, I asked about schools because when you're a public school, that's when the first that's when the First Amendment really comes to action.

And yeah, they're going to get a lawsuit and they're going to lose because the First Amendment says she can do exactly what she did.

And the reason it's stirred up is because of Todd Rokita.

He's the one that's stirring the pot on this.

What she said was perfectly reasonable.

She termed his death a tragedy, which of course it is.

But she went on to say that he said, and he has said in so many words that the Second Amendment, if there's collateral damage from the second Amendment, well, we have to have the Second Amendment.

Well, we have to have the First Amendment to.

And the essence of a democracy is that people can feel free to speak their mind not to yell falsely crowded, you know, fire in a crowded movie theater, not to do that, but to speak your mind and to disagree.

And this is McCarthyism at its at its peak.

There are trying to censor both by firing comedians on late night television and going after teachers for postings on their private social media and firing employees at state universities.

It is just the kind of McCarthy like tactics which are not and shouldn't be present in a democracy.

So shame on Ball State for caving to the kind of McCarthyism that Todd Rokita stands for.

We've seen, K-12 schools around the state and not just in Indiana, but around the state kind of dealing with this, too, with employees who made comments perceived as insensitive or controversial about Kirk's death.

And the attorney general, Todd Rokita, came out this week and basically urged them to either discipline or fire those employees.

If you're a school right now, are you kind of not doing anything and hoping this all kind of dies down?

Well, I mean, I think each case is facts specific.

First of all, they're obviously speech is not 100% always protected.

But one of the big things that all of this is going to turn on is in precedent.

And legal precedent is whether it causes a disruption.

You know, a lot of these none of these that I'm aware of were said in a classroom in front of students or anything like that.

That obviously would probably amp up a disruption.

Sure.

So I mean, it's just do you consider getting 50 complaints a disruption because, you know, it's being shared on, you know, and basically the South Bend, Attorney General Rokita went after a specific case in South Bend trying to explain why they were free to fire him.

And they basically came back and said, look, we know our community, our school boards here.

We know what a disruption is and we'll handle it up here.

But thanks for your advice.

I mean.

Yeah, you'll get disruption.

You'll get you'll get 50 angry emails if you change the color of the basketball teams uniforms.

And if you didn't wear a pin supporting some team.

Or something, you know, my my alma mater, the Missouri Tigers.

John, you're you're something of a free speech, almost absolutist.

I imagine you don't like what's happening right now in Indiana, and I'm.

Sure I am.

I do consider myself essentially a First Amendment absolutist.

And I think that's what has made our country great and distinguished it from all of the other societies that have other virtues.

This is sort of our bedrock.

and I hate to see that in danger.

We can stipulate up front that this really falls into two categories private employers.

And in Indiana, for instance, which is an at will state, I don't even need to hear you say anything or see anything you've posted.

I can just say, you know what?

I don't like you.

Or I don't like reading your mind, and I don't like the way you're nodding at me right now, even though you're agreeing with me.

So go ahead and not, but, any reason or no reason.

The difference, of course, as has been pointed out, is public employees.

And, and it's not even posting.

I've seen, yeah, the star and other organizations have looked at this statewide.

New York Times just did a piece looking at it nationally, and it's not even something as explicit or specific as posting thoughts.

It's a watercooler conversation in some cases where another employee, almost in a Stasi like fashion, if this were the old East German, police sort of ratting.

Out your neighbors people to do.

Which is which is problematic.

but I do.

And I would say I'm trying to think if there's any precedent for this in Indiana is universities and colleges.

There was an IU professor a few years back who made comments again privately and to a certain extent publicly, about which some viewed as misogynistic, that men, were naturally more inclined to excel in business and sorts of other things.

Now, he, I grant, I if memory serves.

He was a tenured professor, and that carries with it a different, set of protections.

But I would think that a University of Ball State standing would, would want to adhere to, executives and administrators, such as the one that was identified here.

Again, nobody is happy that somebody lost his life.

It's a tragedy.

We'll all stipulate that.

Ironically, I think Charlie Cook with Kirk Kirk would be very, distressed to see any crack down on free speech because he was quoted as saying on numerous occasions, hate speech and free speech are essentially one in the same.

All right, time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question is should school employees be fired for social media posts about the death of Charlie Kirk that are considered controversial?

A yes or B no?

Last week, we asked you whether Indiana should pause the state sales tax on utilities to help address Hoosiers rising utility bills.

60% of you say yes, 40% say no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, got a wfyi.org/iwir and look for the poll.

Well, several electric utilities in Indiana are looking to build new power plants to meet the huge energy demand from AI data centers.

And that comes with a hefty price tag.

A northern Indiana utility says setting up a separate company will protect its customers from those extra costs.

Nipsco got approval to create a subsidiary to charge data centers for all the new infrastructure they'll need to operate, insulating its current customers from big rate hikes.

But the consumer and environmental advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition has concerns.

CACs Ben Inskeep says Nipsco hasn't provided a lot of info on how this would work, so there's no guarantee that customers won't end up paying for new power plants in the long run.

The subsidiary would also negotiate with tech companies privately, rather than going through Indiana's public rate making process.

The public will have no idea whether or not this is a fair deal overall.

Or maybe the data centers are getting a sweetheart deal that the public is being kept from seeing because of that confidential nature.

Nipsco also filed plans with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to build a new gas plant to serv Ann DeLaney, we've talked a lot on this show about these data centers and their high energy needs.

Could this be a positive solution to that question?

There are so many unanswered questions about this, and it's hard to say.

I mean, all right, fine.

They're going to build their own.

Are they going to build it adjacent to the data center, or are they going to use the transmission lines?

What does that do to service for everybody else?

And you know, in a in a world where everybody except us in Indiana here are moving to wind and solar for cheapness and the impact on the environment, we're going to gas.

Now, granted, gas is better than coal, but it is not as good as wind and solar.

And we won't let that come here.

We won't let those lines come from Kansas.

And the governor won't stand up and demand that the senator from Missouri get with it and let us have those power lines.

So when you look at this, it sounds okay, except we're not going to go through the air HRC for whatever they're going to get.

And on top of that, my question is there's going to be more demand for natural gas.

What does that do to the price of natural gas?

What does that do to homeowners reliant on National Guard and natural gas for their heat and all?

So there are a lot of questions that seem to me that need to be resolved favorably for ratepayers who own homes.

Before we jump to buying these or building these plants, I. Mean, this is starting to move pretty quickly.

They already got the approval to for the separate company.

They they are applying to idem to build this natural gas plant, which would be the third biggest polluter in the state behind U.S.

Steel and Gary and one other that I can't remember off the top of my head.

is it moving a little too fast for all of those questions?

That and kind of just for.

The whole conversation, is this it's this takes years.

And so I'm moving nearly fast enough to service the demand that's trying to come into the state now.

Jim Houston, the chair that I see on Wednesday, there was an interim city committee on utilities, reflexivity, and he reported on the move and all these sources, coals and half natural gas is still a lot of that.

Yeah, a lot of that space.

but we've doubled renewables in the last five years.

you know, and we could continue to if we could figure out how to stop allowing locals to kill statewide things that affect the entire state.

Yeah, because they don't want a solar field outside of their town.

you know, so.

Let's let's try that out.

A little bit about it.

There was a there were no there was a big issue there.

Was it.

Yeah.

The last by one, one vote three years ago.

Yeah.

That's it's been an uphill climb ever since the citizens Action Coalition is bewildering to me.

This is conceptual, right?

It's a great concept, and it's a great concept that I would think serves their mission.

And I've been doing this for 25 years.

I've not seen the Citizens Action Coalition have one good day at the statehouse.

And now you've got a of a proposal where that we're investor owned utility is saying, no, we're going to wall off the residential ratepayers and protect them from this high end user.

Right.

And make them pay for it.

Right.

If that's not the mission.

There's I mean, what are we doing here?

What is the impact on gas prices are going to be though we don't.

We don't know.

That you're regardless of this.

We don't even if they didn't do this.

But they can build these things in other states and still service us.

They don't have to be here.

It doesn't mean a lot of jobs for us.

Does this deal with other states?

But we're we're not Texas.

We're not like an isolated grid.

Going in Illinois and Michigan.

Let them build them.

They're not dependent that that that we're saying that.

They want to regulate it.

does does this feel like a good solution for ratepayers?

Yeah.

I think if you look at it and take it at face value, if you are, if you are in fact walled off as a consumer, what's not to like?

Again?

We don't know how these things turn out.

And that's the problem with this whole issue.

it's a case of first impression in so many ways.

Data centers.

Yes.

We've had the Industrial revolution, other sorts of manufacturing operations that have.

Taxed.

The grid at times.

But this is a takes it to a new level and we're kind of between a rock and a hard place.

If we want to have the economic development that goes with data centers.

And then, of course, there's another argument about is how valuable are they in terms of job production versus just the, being able to say, hey, we have one look at us.

but you do that, but then you put more pressure on the grid.

But if you don't do it, then you don't.

You're not seen as a, a tech hub, and you're.

And then employers that may not be building, data centers, but certainly rely on the, the, the capacity that they generate.

They want them to be they want them to be.

But there's been varying levels of skepticism.

It feels like in the General Assembly about these data centers, and particularly how it's going to play out with our energy future.

How how comfortable do you think lawmakers are going to be with this solution, which does shield this separate company from some of the same level of oversight at the IU?

RC yeah, taking away oversight is is a big deal.

And I also think we need to have a larger philosophical discussion like, yeah, this sounds great.

Okay.

This they get their own plant and my bill doesn't go up.

But the question is, you know, is that going to trickle down to all big.

You know consumer users, industrial users.

Does a steel plant have to have their own plant if they want to grow.

And so I mean, the the sort of base of the system we have now is everyone contributes to the grid.

Right.

And so now we'll be separating that out.

And so I think that is a fair philosophical discussion to look at.

All right.

Governor Mike Braun said the state will release the results of an independent audit into the Indiana Economic Development Corporation after a legal review, and that no criminal findings were uncovered.

Braun ordered an independent forensic audit of the agency earlier this year after allegations of ethics violations and self-dealing by staffers employed by IDC affiliated organizations, including Elevate Ventures.

The governor says his administration is implementing changes at the quasi public agency in a bid for more transparency.

One requires that all votes must be taken by the full ITC board, not smaller committees.

Another says investment activity must remain in Indiana, and Braun wants to wind down the Indiana Economic Development Foundation.

The foundation is the nonprofit arm of the IDC.

It raises money that's been used in the past for gubernatorial economic development trips overseas, but has long resisted fully disclosing its donors.

Jon, chances are these all positive signs from Mike Braun.

And about transparency, I guess.

We'd have to.

Your question needs to be completed with the phrase for whom?

Good news for.

That's true.

I don't think we know enough yet, even though we had the report has been issued, but not publicly, has been, is under review by the governor's staff.

It's been completed.

and even though there's calls for transparency, which, okay, 100% transparency, public funds, we're all for it.

So let's say that.

But as far as what happened or didn't happen leading up to this point, I really think we need to wait until next week when we see the report.

and let's hope it's not redacted to the point it looks like a Jeffrey Epstein, report.

You know, where it's just black marker after black marker.

I don't think to see how it could be, but, we'll know more then.

Also fueling the notion that this ain't over till it's over is the fact that the governor, if memory serves, had asked for an inspector general, review of this, which, to the best of my recollection, has not been, either dispensed with or concluded.

So I guess that's percolating in some manner.

Yeah.

I mean, I believe the audit will obviously be forwarded probably already has been forwarded to the inspector general.

but I think the inspector general is even doing a separate, review based on me.

It's all part of the same.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I think.

But I mean, we don't know yet.

I mean, we have like a few nebulous lines of what was allegedly found, self-dealing.

you know, conflicts of interest in votes and things like that.

And, and they've announced a few small things, like getting rid of the ITC Foundation.

They've announced that, you know, boats will no longer be allowed in these subcommittees, like the full board would have to vote on these kind of grants and things like that.

Investments have to remain in Indiana, which is fields.

And I'm really hoping the audit explores more clearly, like how much of our investments left the state, because that's that's pretty amazing, right?

it feels like Mike Braun is trying to do the right things, though.

Here.

Oh, I think Mike Braun is trying to say all of this scandal doesn't touch me.

And look what I've done and now we can move on.

Oh, but if that's true, I mean, he wasn't the governor.

That's true.

And it doesn't necessarily touch him, but that doesn't he cannot determine whether or not this criminal activity, the forensic audit may say we don't see it, which I would be surprised if they did see it, because frankly, they're putting it out and they're paying for it, but I don't I have a hard time believing that there was that so much self-dealing identified by the three principal players in that, that there is no violation of any statute.

I mean, that's for a prosecutor to look at, not the governor.

Yeah.

I mean, will the release of this audit stop this conversation, at least in the short term?

Yeah, that's what it says.

But look, I mean, the governor just delivering on what what legislators were asking questions about what?

it was a lot of money going into that.

And he came to his credit.

He came right in and said, look, this is this has got to be more transparent.

We got also look back and see what's been what's been going on here.

And that's what that's what he did.

And of course, the prosecutors, the what is the, you know, the one in charge of that.

But Mike Braun sitting there being told by an independent audit, there's there's nothing we don't think there's anything here then.

And that's all right.

Now.

That's what he's saying.

Right.

All right.

Well, Hamilton County's election board recently rejected the adoption of vote centers, even as Indiana lawmakers this year tasked the secretary of state's office with studying whether to require all counties to use vote centers.

Some Hoosiers have been pushing back on the idea at a series of public meetings on the issue.

Vote centers allow voters in a county to cast their ballot at any polling place, instead of one tied to their precinct.

Two thirds of Indiana counties use vote centers, a number that's grown steadily since they were introduced more than a decade ago.

But some Hoosiers object to them, Ann Ihms is from Howard County.

She worries about technology problems, particularly with the electronic poll books.

My poll book at my center did not match the poll book at the county courthouse during an election.

It's like, good grief, you know, that's a major, major issue because we had voters that weren't showing up in our poll book that they said, yeah, they're in.

Our poll looked out at the county.

All Indiana counties use electronic poll books, even non vote center ones.

The Secretary of State's office will submit a report to lawmakers this fall that includes public feedback.

Niki.

Well, the pushback we've been seeing, these public meetings, stop lawmakers from requiring these in every county.

I mean, lawmakers are pretty reticent to require something like this.

Anyway.

But, I mean, I'm pretty fascinated that Hamilton County said no.

The Republican member who voted against it said, we're going to watch Allen County to, you know, see how it works.

And he called it an experiment.

There are 68 counties to have this guys, including Marion County and big counties.

This is not an experiment.

This is a proven thing.

And I live in a vote Center County.

It's an amazing thing that helps voters be able to go in and also for them to fill their staffing needs.

And I do not understand what is stopping it in some areas.

That's the biggest one to me is the idea of while some some people claim it's unconstitutional according to Indiana's constitution, because the Constitution talks, I think about precincts.

But.

that they still exist.

They still exist.

Right.

I'm more fascinated by every single clerk in the state of Indiana talks about how hard it is to find Election Day for volunteers for the election season, doesn't vote centers solves that problem in a big way, or at least it.

Seems anecdotally popular in those areas.

I mean, we have first person testimony right here at this table.

So I think the problem is anything to do now with elections.

Everybody, instead of looking at it, is just how to run an efficient election.

Everybody's trying to guess, read between the lines that maybe don't even exist, and try to find out what nefarious thing is it really at work here and ho a vote election is just an election.

There's no nothing to read between.

So we'll see.

It's all local decisions right now.

It's not just vote centers.

It's everything I know you could go to.

It's an alien structure.

It's that that's there.

Were concerns raised in these meetings about, oh, with the electronic poll books, even the non vote center counties have electronic poll books now, which was a big hurdle to, to getting like spending the money because to do a vote center you need electronic poll that.

Allows you to access all precincts in one location.

That's it.

That's all us.

That's all it does.

Yeah.

All right.

Finally, this is my last time as host of Indiana Week in Review.

Getting to host this show over the last nearly nine years has been an immense privilege.

And there are some people I want to thank.

Before we close this episode, I want to thank the amazing crew who makes this show look and sound so good every single week, both on TV and for those who don't know, also on radio, I want to thank the lead producers.

I've worked with Mike Perry and Kristen Wembley Ramlee, without whom this show simply would not be possible.

I want to thank Lauren Chapman, who always stepped up and filled in for me so admirably, allowing me to take a few vacations over the last few years.

I want to thank all of the panelists, certainly, but especially the folks around this table and Jon Katzenberg, Ellie Schrock, associate Boyd, and Chris Mitchum.

You all are the heart of this show, and one of the biggest reasons that people have always tuned in to the viewers and listeners, thank you for allowing me to be part of your week for so many weeks.

Finally, thank you to my wife, Zoe for supporting me through the highs and lows of this job.

And just as a note, if you've ever enjoyed anything about me hosting this show, all of the credit goes to my mom, Rita, and that is Indiana we can review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers.

and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Reviews podcast and episodes at wfyi.org/iwir or on the PBS app.

I'm Brandon Smith, one last time of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time because or join them next time, I guess because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.