State Party Democrats Clear Taylor In Ethics Report

The Indiana Democratic Party’s Ethics Committee dismissed a harassment complaint from a county caucus, finding no threats or bullying. Investigators said conduct was misinterpreted, not a violation. Case closed, with all parties kept confidential.

1. CONFIDENTIAL

INDIANA DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Ethics Committee
Monday, July 28, 2025
To: Terri J. Austin, Ethics Committee Chair
From: Michael W. Griffin
Nicole Bolden
Josh King
Re: Ethics Incident 2025-01
1
Transmittal of Summary and Investigatory Findings Related to Incidents
involving an Allegation of Harassment, Bullying and threats, reviewed under Indiana
Democratic Party Code of Conduct
Background and Allegation
The Ethics Committee (EC) Chair communicated to the three EC members named
above, a formal complaint filed by Complainant One alleging that the named
2
respondent exhibited a course of conduct the complainant described as “... bullying and
threats as well as harassment.” The complainant further stated that the incidents took
place at a county party reorganizing caucus.
The Indiana Democratic Party Code of Conduct (IDPCOC) specifically proscribes
conduct as follows: Bias, Discrimination, and Harassment. For the purposes of this
incident review and determination, the IDPCOC provides the following definitions:
The members of the Ethics committee, convened as a
fact-finding task group, determined that
1
it would be helpful to create an indexing or identifying protocol, which is to number the
incident in order of filing and then add the year. If this is to stand, we ask that the full
committee approve this and that then the State Central Committee also act if necessary.
The members of the Ethics committee convened as a
fact-finding task group, determined that
2
in cases where the ultimate finding is that no provision of the code of ethics was violated,
that the identities of the complainant and the respondent would be anonymous. If this is to
stand, we ask that the full committee approve this and that then the State Central
Committee also act if necessary.

2. CONFIDENTIAL
2
“Harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct that is based on a person’s sext,
national origin, race, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion or other immutable
characteristic.”
“The Indiana Democratic prohibits bias, discrimination, and harassment against anyone
who affiliates with the party.”
“Additional prohibited conduct may take the form of bullying, threats, and assault, as
well as verbal, written, physical, or visual harassment, which may include, but is not
limited to, derogatory comments, epithets, slurs, jokes, intimidation, negative
stereotyping, or graphic material.”
The EC determined the initial complaint sufficiently asserted violations of conduct
proscribed in the (IDPCOC) and formed a task group for further investigation. The task
group conducted interviews, which informed the final findings and determinations of the
task group.
Nicole Bolden organized and led interviews of the complainant and respondent involved
in the reported incident. The complainant was interviewed on Saturday, July 12, 2025, at
8:00 a.m. Eastern time. The respondent was interviewed on Saturday, July 12, 2025, at
3:00 p.m. Eastern time. The respondent was also accompanied by a close friend, who
was an elected public official and had a long professional relationship with the
respondent. This person was allowed to offer comments related to the incident. All
interviews were conducted in the conference room of the Indiana State Democratic
Party Offices. You should find the following accompanying this transmittal:
1.A description of the facts and the incident informing the complaint, as
summarized and provided by the complainant, will be attached, redacting the
name of the complainant, the name of the respondent, and such other identifying
information that may identify the parties.
2.A summary of the respondent’s interview, as well as the responses of their guest,
also related to the incident that informed the complaint.
3.The respondent denied that the respondent’s actions were undertaken to commit
bullying, threats or harassment.
Indiana Democratic State Central Committee
101 West Washington Street, Suite 1110 East, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

3. CONFIDENTIAL
3
Findings
In reviewing the interviews, the frequent claims of gaining “eye contact” were not
supported by the respondent or the respondent’s witness. Conversely, when asked, the
complainant stated that the eye contact during the interview, although continuous, did
not feel aggressive.
The respondent agreed with the complainant’s account that they wanted to locate the
complainant to discuss comments regarding public allegations made about the
respondent in another context. The complainant voiced concerns about the public
allegations against the respondent and suggested that the respondent should resign
from their public office.
The respondent and the respondent’s witness denied ever saying or hearing anything
like “be careful making powerful enemies, as it could be bad for you.”
The complainant characterized the respondent’s inquiries asking if the complainant was
“okay or all right” as deliberately provocative or aggressive. The respondent confirmed
asking the question but stated it was based on genuine concern for the complainant.
The task group found that the statement was not perceived or interpreted by the
complainant as the respondent intended or delivered the remark. Furthermore, the task
force did not find the statement to constitute bullying. 
Determination(s)
After review of the interviews and complaint, the Ethics Committee Task Group has
determined that this incident does not clearly violate the standards outlined in the
IDPCOC.
The task group reports to the Chair and the Ethics Committee that, although both
parties acknowledged interacting on that day, the details of their interactions differed
significantly, which does not support determining a violation occurred. 
The task group believes that the complaint was filed in good faith. However, after
reviewing the facts, the differences in perspective, and the added perspective of the
respondent’s witness, the task group finds that owing to variation in perspectives, the
conduct that was described could not be found to be unwelcome conduct that is based
on a person’s sext, national origin, race, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion
or other immutable characteristic.” Therefore, the task group does not find harassment.
Indiana Democratic State Central Committee
101 West Washington Street, Suite 1110 East, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

4. CONFIDENTIAL
4
It is the position of the task group that the complainant may have misunderstood some
of the conduct that the respondent exhibited. The task group examined the
complainant’s allegations of the respondent’s behavior as “aggressive”. The task group
wondered whether “aggressive” could be confused by the complainant with “consistent”
or “persistent” behavior. Therefore, the task group also does not find bullying or threats.
Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending no further action related to this
matter.
Further, the undersigned files this with the Ethics Committee Chair for the Chair’s review
and favor for the consideration of the Ethics Committee, and if the findings and
recommendations are sustained, that the report be transmitted to the State Central
Committee for its information and file without further action.

___________________________ ______________________________
Nicole Bolden, member Michael W. Griffin, member
____________________________
Josh King, member
Attachments:
Redacted Summary of the Complainants Allegations
Redacted written response (if provided) of the respondent
CC:
SCC Chair


Indiana Democratic State Central Committee
101 West Washington Street, Suite 1110 East, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204