Hoosier Enquirer Exclusive: Breakdown on the Indianapolis City-County Council Investigation into Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Thomas Cook

7:10 pm EST; May 29, 2025 | Indianapolis, IN

By the Hoosier Enquirer Staff

In a detailed and comprehensive investigation commissioned by the Indianapolis and Marion County City-County Council, Fisher Phillips LLP has released a final report addressing allegations of sexual misconduct against Thomas Cook, a former high-ranking official in Mayor Joe Hogsett’s administration. The report, prepared for the City-County General Resolution No. 41 (GR 41) Investigative Committee, not only examines the specific allegations made by two complainants but also scrutinizes the City-County’s human resources (HR) policies, workplace culture, and response mechanisms to such complaints. The findings, spanning over 50 pages, reveal a complex web of personal and professional misconduct, administrative responses, and proposed reforms aimed at bolstering protections for City-County employees. Below, the Hoosier Enquirer provides an exhaustive breakdown of the report’s key sections, findings, and recommendations, shedding light on a saga that has gripped Indianapolis politics.

I. Introduction: The Genesis of General Resolution No. 41

On September 9, 2024, the Indianapolis City-County Council passed General Resolution No. 41, prompted by public outcry following media coverage of sexual misconduct allegations against Thomas Cook, a former campaign manager and Chief of Staff in Mayor Hogsett’s administration. The resolution established an Investigative Committee, chaired by Councilor Crista Carlino (District 11), to probe the allegations, review the City-County’s policies on sexual harassment, and propose reforms to strengthen employee protections. The committee retained Fisher Phillips LLP, a law firm specializing in employment law, to conduct an independent investigation.

The report, authored by attorneys Danielle M. Kays, Sarah J. Moore, and Maximilian J. Bungert, was presented to the committee on May 29, 2025. It addresses allegations from two complainants—referred to as Complainant 1 and Complainant 2—against Cook, alongside a broader assessment of the City-County’s HR framework and workplace culture within the Hogsett administration. The investigation’s scope was limited to evaluating the City-County’s response to the allegations and its policies, not to adjudicate the veracity of the claims themselves or the actions of external entities like the Indiana Democratic Party (IDP).

II. Overview of the Investigation Process

A. Document Review and Collection

The investigation was thorough, involving the review of over 2,250 pages of documents, including more than 950 pages provided by the City-County through its external counsel, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, and over 1,300 pages from the complainants. These documents encompassed emails, text messages, investigation reports, personnel files, and public statements. The investigators also monitored media coverage and public records related to the allegations, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the context. The City-County’s cooperation was noted as timely and effective, with no significant obstacles in accessing requested materials.

B. Interviews Conducted

The investigation included interviews with 12 key individuals, including:

• Complainant 1 and Complainant 2, who detailed their allegations against Cook.

• Mayor Joe Hogsett, who provided insights into his interactions with the complainants and his administration’s handling of the allegations.

• Taylor Schaffer, former Chief of Staff, who was privy to some of Complainant 2’s disclosures.

• Timothy Moriarty, former Special Counsel, who was involved in communications regarding the allegations.

• Renee Madison and Twana Ellis, former and current HR Division Directors, who discussed HR processes and investigations.

• Other city officials and former employees, including Kenneth Clark, Ellen Gabovitch, Sarah Dillinger, Maxine Russell, and an unnamed administration member identified by Complainant 2.

Notably, Thomas Cook did not respond to multiple interview requests, and no additional witnesses came forward through the City-County’s anonymous reporting channels.

III. Factual Background: The Allegations Against Thomas Cook

The report meticulously details the allegations made by Complainant 1 and Complainant 2, the subsequent investigations, and the broader context of the Hogsett administration’s workplace culture.

A. Complainant 1’s Allegations

Background and Relationship with Cook

Complainant 1 began volunteering for the Joe Hogsett for Mayor campaign in the summer of 2014, where Cook served as Campaign Manager. She later joined the campaign as a full-time employee of the Indiana Democratic Party (IDP), working under Cook’s supervision without a formal job title, primarily handling campaign communications. Mayor Hogsett described their relationship as “cordial and professional” and was unaware of any personal relationship between Complainant 1 and Cook.

Election Night 2014 Incident

The allegations center on an incident on election night 2014 at the Westin Hotel, where Complainant 1 and Cook, both reportedly intoxicated, engaged in a mutual kiss after others had left a suite. Complainant 1 later alleged that Cook’s behavior during the campaign was “completely inappropriate and over the line,” creating a hostile work environment that led to significant stress, weight loss, and medical issues. She claimed that when she established boundaries, Cook retaliated by making her work environment untenable.

Resignation and Initial Silence

In June 2015, Complainant 1 met with Mayor Hogsett to announce her resignation, citing burnout from the campaign’s pace but not mentioning Cook’s conduct. Hogsett assisted her in securing a position at Planned Parenthood of Indiana & Kentucky (PPINK). Complainant 1 did not raise her allegations until May 2017, when she contacted Hogsett, his then-wife, Cook’s wife, and others, hinting at misconduct without explicitly alleging sexual harassment.

2017 Investigation

Following Complainant 1’s May 2017 communications, the Hogsett Committee for Indianapolis (HCI) retained Attorney Michael C. Terrell to investigate. The investigation confirmed the mutual kiss on election night 2014 and found that Cook admitted to developing feelings for Complainant 1 over a six-week period, during which they kissed multiple times. No evidence suggested a broader personal relationship. Hogsett issued a directive to Cook, requiring exemplary behavior and prohibiting personal relationships with City-County employees, with the threat of discipline or termination for violations. This directive was not documented in Cook’s personnel file, and no formal monitoring mechanism was established.

Factual Findings

• Complainant 1 was not a City-County employee, and her allegations pertained to her time with the IDP, limiting the City-County’s legal obligation to investigate.

• Hogsett’s referral to HCI was reasonable, as it went beyond legal requirements.

• Complainant 1’s initial communications did not explicitly allege sexual misconduct, and her delay in reporting was attributed to trauma.

B. 2020 Investigation: Employee A and Cook’s Resignation

In October 2020, HR Director Renee Madison learned of an alleged consensual extramarital relationship between Cook and Employee A, an employee of a City-County affiliate agency. Madison’s initial investigation confirmed the relationship, which violated the City-County’s Non-Fraternization Policy and Hogsett’s 2017 directive. Attorney Terrell was again retained to conduct an independent investigation, which concluded that both Cook and Employee A violated the Non-Fraternization Policy. Terrell recommended that Cook resign after completing existing projects and disclose the reason for his departure to future employers. Employee A was allowed to continue in her role.

On December 17, 2020, Cook submitted his resignation, effective December 31, 2020. Mayor Hogsett announced the resignation, praising Cook’s contributions without disclosing the misconduct. Cook subsequently joined Bose, McKinney & Evans LLP, with no record of the firm requesting information about his departure.

Factual Findings

• The investigation confirmed a consensual relationship that violated policy.

• Allowing Cook to complete projects was intended to avoid disruption, though the report notes uncertainty about the reasonableness due to faded memories.

• No HR mechanism monitored Cook’s compliance with the 2017 directive.

C. Complainant 2’s Allegations

Employment History

Complainant 2 joined the Hogsett campaign as a volunteer intern in 2015, later becoming a Constituent Services Assistant in 2016 and Constituent Services Manager in 2018. She worked closely with Cook, Schaffer, and Moriarty and had a friendly relationship with Hogsett. In 2019, she left to become Executive Director of the Marion County Democratic Party, returning in 2021 as Chief Communications Officer for the Office of Public Health & Safety.

Allegations Against Cook

In Spring 2022, Complainant 2 disclosed to Taylor Schaffer a past 3-4-year relationship with Cook, starting in 2018, which included social drinks and intimate encounters. She described an incident where Cook drove her home while she was intoxicated, entered her apartment against her wishes, and engaged in non-consensual sex, though she did not use the terms “sexual assault” or “rape.” Complainant 2 felt manipulated by Cook’s promises of career advancement and believed he used his influence to his personal advantage. She requested Schaffer not to report the disclosure, which Schaffer honored, citing the personal nature of the conversation and Cook’s departure from City employment.

In September 2023, Complainant 2 contacted Moriarty and Hogsett, detailing the abusive conduct. A phone call with Hogsett and Corporation Counsel Matt Giffin followed, during which Hogsett learned of the non-consensual incident. Attorney Terrell was retained again, and the investigation led to the termination of two contracts with Cook at Bose, McKinney & Evans on November 29, 2023, and Hogsett’s decision to sever all ties with Cook.

Factual Findings

• Complainant 2’s delay in reporting was reasonable due to Cook’s perceived influence in IDP and her career concerns.

• Schaffer’s decision not to report was reasonable, given the personal context and lack of workplace issues at the time.

• No police report was filed for the alleged non-consensual incident, and Cook did not respond to interview requests.

D. Workplace Culture in the Hogsett Administration

The investigation revealed a workplace culture described as overly casual and, at times, unprofessional. Witnesses noted Cook’s confrontational behavior, use of profane language, and overly friendly interactions with employees, creating a “fraternity-like” atmosphere. Social gatherings at bars like Tomlinson’s Tap were common among a group of 8-10 employees, including Complainant 2 and Employee A. Hogsett occasionally visited these gatherings but observed no intimate interactions between Cook and Complainant 2.

Factual Findings

• Cook’s behavior negatively impacted the work environment, failing to reflect professional standards.

• No witnesses were aware of a romantic relationship between Cook and Complainant 2 during their City employment.

• Schaffer addressed Cook’s casual conduct, but it did not constitute a reportable violation under City policies.

E. Publicity and Response

The allegations gained public attention through a July 19, 2024, Indianapolis Star article, followed by an August 7, 2024, Mirror Indy piece and an open letter from Complainants 1 and 2 demanding transparency and reform. On August 12, 2024, Hogsett publicly apologized to the complainants at a City-County Council meeting, commending their bravery. The passage of GR 41 followed, aiming to strengthen HR policies.

IV. City-County Human Resources Office: Structure and Policies

A. Structure and Function

The City-County’s HR Division operates under the Office of Finance and Management, a structure rooted in the 1969 Unigov consolidation. It serves both city departments and county agencies, though some agencies, like the Sheriff’s Office, maintain separate HR functions. The division is led by a Director, with the current Director, Twana Ellis, in place since 2008 in various roles.

B. Relevant Policies

The City-County maintains several policies relevant to the investigation:

• Workplace Harassment Policy: Prohibits harassment based on protected characteristics, with a complaint process involving HR or the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO).

• Standards of Conduct: Bans unprofessional behaviors like profanity, discourtesy, or conduct discrediting the City-County.

• Non-Fraternization Policy: Prohibits romantic or sexual relationships between supervisors and subordinates to prevent workplace issues. It requires disclosure of such relationships and allows for disciplinary action if they disrupt the workplace.

C. Onboarding and Training

New employees receive the HR Employee Manual and a 13-minute video on sexual harassment. Since 2024, all employees, not just supervisors, undergo a 2-hour anti-harassment training per Mayor Hogsett’s Executive Order. HR communicates through monthly newsletters and posts required workplace posters, but additional reminders about reporting processes are limited.

D. HR Acuity/Speakfully System

In November 2024, the HR Division implemented HR Acuity’s Speakfully platform, allowing anonymous reporting via a web-based tool or hotline. The system generates tickets for HR review, maintaining complainant anonymity. The platform is seen as state-of-the-art, with training provided to HR staff.

E. Complaint-Handling Process

HR investigations involve fact-finding, witness interviews, and report drafting, with OCC providing advisory support. Reports are stored securely, and outcomes are communicated to complainants. The process has remained consistent since 2008, with minor updates in 2019.

Conclusions

• The HR systems were legally sufficient from 2016-2024 but faced challenges in encouraging timely reporting.

• The Speakfully system is a significant advancement, recommended for continued use.

V. Findings and Recommendations

A. Findings on Mayor Hogsett’s Handling of Complaints

The investigation concluded that Mayor Hogsett and his administration’s responses were legally compliant and reasonable, though not without criticism:

• Complainant 1: As a non-City employee, her allegations fell outside City-County jurisdiction. Hogsett’s referral to HCI was appropriate, and his 2017 directive to Cook exceeded legal requirements. However, the lack of documentation and monitoring of the directive was noted.

• 2020 Investigation: The consensual relationship with Employee A violated policy, and allowing Cook to resign after completing projects was reasonable but lacked clarity due to faded memories.

• Complainant 2: The 2023 investigation was prompt, and severing ties with Cook was appropriate. Schaffer’s non-reporting was reasonable given the context.

• General Observations: The passage of time affected witness recollections, and the cultural context (e.g., #MeToo, the pandemic) influenced perceptions. No evidence of bias was found in Attorney Terrell’s investigations.

B. Recommendations for Reform

The report proposes significant changes to enhance the City-County’s response to harassment and discrimination:

1. Temporary Ad Hoc Inspector General (OIG):

   • Purpose: An OIG would investigate allegations against elected or appointed officials, focusing on fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct, including sexual harassment.

   • Structure: An appointed Inspector General with two Deputy Inspectors (Executive and Legislative Divisions) to oversee respective branches, excluding judicial functions.

   • Considerations: A bipartisan appointment process, temporary terms, and clear jurisdiction are needed. Examples from Chicago and Cook County provide models.

2. Independent Human Resources Board:

   • Purpose: Remove HR from the Office of Finance and Management to enhance independence and public trust.

   • Structure: A board with representatives from city and county offices, appointed by the mayor and council, mirroring the Information Technology Board.

   • Powers: Manage HR operations, appoint a Human Resources Officer, and retain external investigators as needed.

3. Independent Office of Equal Opportunity:

   • Proposal: Move OEO out of OCC to independently handle discrimination and harassment complaints.

   • Caveat: Not recommended due to OEO’s historical inactivity in handling employee complaints.

4. Promote Awareness of Reporting Tools:

   • Actions: Distribute posters and flyers about the Speakfully platform, include reminders in HR newsletters, and emphasize the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for emotional support.

   • Training: Enhance training to cover subtle harassment (e.g., grooming), off-duty conduct, and mandatory reporting obligations.

VI. Conclusion: A Call for Systemic Change

The Fisher Phillips report underscores the City-County’s legal compliance but highlights gaps in policy enforcement and cultural issues within the Hogsett administration. The recommendations aim to create a more transparent, independent, and supportive system for addressing workplace misconduct. As Indianapolis grapples with these findings, the City-County Council faces a pivotal moment to enact reforms that prioritize employee safety and public trust.

The Hoosier Enquirer will continue to follow developments as the Investigative Committee reviews the report and considers implementing its recommendations, potentially reshaping Indianapolis’s municipal governance for years to come.