Sell 4 Free Real Estate
Ferdinand Resident Calls for Municipal Transparency
On Wednesday evening, a local resident raised serious questions about Ferdinand’s municipal
governing bodies. Referencing concerns over ethical and legal inconsistencies, Ferdinand
resident Timothy Etter read a prepared statement addressed to the Board of Zoning Appeals at
their last meeting. He began by saying, “I do not have trust or confidence in this process, in the
Town Council that oversees this board, or the town attorney who advises this board and Town
Council.”
Etter cited a variance that was granted for an apartment conversion at 835 Main Street with
conditions that he says were not enforced by town officials, although they were made aware of
the issue. As a result, he said, “I have no reason to believe it will honor or consistently apply any
decision this board may take, or may make, on my application or the applications of others.” He
further said that his wife, Jenny Etter, vice-chair of the BZA, had “questioned these practices
and attempted to uphold the board’s authority and the town ordinance,” placing her position
on the board in jeopardy while looking out for the best interests of neighboring landowners.
Etter then described scenarios in which he believed board members should recuse themselves
under Indiana statute, when the town attorney had provided specific direction that they not do
so. He explained that “it calls into the question the integrity of this board, the town attorney,
and this process.” Additionally, he said that he did not have confidence that the board could
operate impartially regarding his request and those of other residents.
In his next point, Etter referred to a Town Council meeting that he found to be problematic. He
said that while the agenda listed a discussion of a pool permit and application, this was not the
content of the meeting. Instead, he said, the minutes reflect that the Council voted to relocate
a water line for a private swimming pool installation, with the cost of materials to be
reimbursed but with labor supplied by the town Water Department. He said that contract was
executed by the town attorney and that work was completed. When he requested information
on the cost of that labor, Etter said “the town claimed the cost was zero dollars and asserted
attorney client privilege over information that is not privileged.”
Further, he referred to a conversation with Town Council President Ken Sicard on August 24,
2026. He said that Sicard told him, “We have done things like this before.” Etter claimed “that
admission confirms this is not an isolated act. These are not isolated incidents. They
demonstrate a pattern in which the Town Council, that oversees this board, selectively enforces
or refuses to enforce rules depending on who is involved.” As of August 26, Etter stated that he
had made notification regarding these issues to the town attorney, Town Council, Indiana State
Board of Account, the property owners of 835 Main Street in Ferdinand, the Dubois County
Prosecuting Attorney, the Department of Homeland Security, the Indiana Public Access
Counselor, and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
Etter continued, “I stand on principle. I will not be intimidated and I will not be silenced… I
know that speaking out invites retribution of those in power and their supporters.” A copy of
his statement was provided to the board at their request so that it could be entered into the
minutes of the meeting without alteration or paraphrase.
BZA member Jenna Jones provided additional insight on the construction in progress at the
Main Street location. She expressed serious concerns about whether the five mandatory
provisions had been met to proceed with construction, and requested a status update on the
property. Jones emphasized, “It is a legally binding contract that we put into place with those
five stipulations. And if they’ve been submitted, that’s wonderful. But have they been
submitted to accommodate the legal mandate that we’ve placed on that for that construction
to go forward?”
The board reviewed some of the stipulations with unverified status, which Jones noted “are
legally binding and can only be overturned by a judicial review.” She provided the following
criteria and updates:
1. Approval by INDOT to widen the driveway entrance – Not addressed, still using auction
house entrance.
2. Approval of the State Fire Marshal’s Office for compliance with all applicable building
codes – Fire Marshal permit was not displayed, could not verify approval.
3. No more than 7 parking places on site with none north of the building. Properties must
enter into an agreement to rent or secure up to 5 spaces from a near or neighboring
property for a total of 10 spaces on and off property. – Construction crews indicated
there was a waiver for 8 spaces on site.
Clarification was provided that required stipulations must be met before the end of
construction, which is still in progress. Chairman Mark Dilger suggested that the issue be tabled
until provided documents could be reviewed for further discussion.
For more information on these and other updates, visit www.ferdinandindiana.org
- Drew Hasselbring