On September 2, 2026, ISP Detective Clay Boley met with the Georgetown Police Chief after the chief was alerted to and identified irregular search activity within the Flock system. An internal review completed by the Georgetown Police Department showed that Officer Justin Craig conducted numerous searches in 2026 that did not appear connected to any authorized investigation.

Detective Boley reviewed Flock logs and determined that Craig conducted repeated searches using reasons such as traffic violations, drug offenses, assault, or vehicle theft, though no related investigations existed to justify the activity. The searches appeared to occur consistently during Craig’s scheduled duty hours.

After reviewing documentation, time records, and system access logs, Detective Boley determined that Craig accessed Flock information in a manner inconsistent with department policy and without lawful purpose. Detective Boley then sought an arrest warrant through the Floyd County Courts.

On October 22, 2026, the warrant was served at Craig’s Greenville residence with the assistance of the Indiana State Police SWAT Team. Craig was taken into custody without incident.

Craig faces the following charges:
• Official Misconduct, Level 6 Felony
• Fraud, Class A Misdemeanor (two counts)

At the Washington County Commissioners’ October evening meeting, the board opened and accepted three bids for the 4-H Community Building project, with proposals ranging from approximately $1.8 million to over $2 million.

Angie Buchanan reported that the Readi 2.0 project was advertised in two newspapers. Consequently, six independent contractors and two clearinghouses requested bid packets.

The submitted bids were:

 Cottongim Enterprises: $1,795,000 (included the stipulation, “We will not start this project until after the 2027 Fair.”)

 B&L Construction: $1,989,000

 Koetter Construction: $2,086,060

The commissioners accepted the bids, pending a review by engineer John McCoy. McCoy will evaluate the proposals alongside a steering committee comprising Washington County Council President Brad Gilbert, Mark Abbott, and Todd Armstrong. A few additional community members will also be selected to join the committee.

“We would like the steering committee to be involved throughout the entire process,” Buchanan said.

The original Readi 2.0 grant was for $1.2 million, with the Commissioners supporting the project through a $300,000 local match. Plans for the new facility include a multi-use Community/4-H building and dedicated office space, allowing the extension office to relocate directly to the fairgrounds.

OTHER BUSINESS

John Haub represented a group that previously spoke about Deer Run Road. “As far as the county adopting the road, it’s not necessary… not quite up to standard ditch-wise or width-wise,” Haub stated.

Haub also expressed concern over how Ken Temple was addressed in a previous meeting and how he was subsequently portrayed on Facebook. “That woman was acting like—I can’t describe it—so I got up and left,” Haub said.

“I agree,” said Commissioner Ewen. “There are times we need to show a little more respect for people and act a little more civilized.”

Washington County Prosecutor Tara Coats Hunt introduced Project Green Light, a nationwide campaign organized by the National Association of Counties and the National Association of County Veteran Service Officers. The initiative encourages residents to support local veterans by displaying green lights in their windows and changing outdoor bulbs to green from November 4–11. Commissioners Ewen and Cardwell supported the initiative by signing a proclamation and an annual resolution.

Rick Graves provided a road work update, noting that the Community Crossings paving is finished for the year and that crews are now preparing for next year’s projects.

Lucy Brenton of Hardinsburg used two three-minute public comment blocks to object to First District Commissioner Phillip Marshall’s remote video appearance at the early October meeting.

“I take exception to that appearance,” said Brenton. “For electronic reasons… for technical reasons. We in the gallery were not able to see Phil. He was on display on the monitor.” [Marshall’s video was displayed on a monitor facing the Commissioners, rather than one facing the gallery, due to technical difficulties].

“The other issue I have is at the time Phil voted… there was no resolution that made it legal and approved for that vote to count,” Brenton continued. “I’m assuming that’s what we’ll have here tonight. Therefore, what Phil voted for is of no force and effect legally because no resolution existed at the time he made the vote. It’s ok for Phillip to appear electronically, but it’s not ok for the vote to count. If you watch the last meeting, it was specifically about a BOT project investigation. The rug was pulled out from underneath it, and then a second opinion was sought, and that’s what was voted on with Phil.”

Under Indiana Code § 5-14-1.5-3.5, local government officials can legally participate and vote in public meetings via electronic communication (such as video conferencing) provided specific conditions are met:

 Roll Call Requirement: Any vote taken with a remote member must be conducted by roll call.

 Physical Quorum: At least 50% of the governing body must be physically present.

 Public Visibility: The remote member must be able to be seen and heard by the public. [While Marshall was only visible on one monitor, the public could move to see him, and his voice was easily heard throughout the room].

Subject Matter Restrictions: Electronic voting is prohibited for final actions on major items, such as adopting budgets, raising taxes, instituting fees, reducing personnel, or utilizing eminent domain.

While Indiana’s Open Door Law generally prohibits a member from attending more than 50% of their meetings electronically in a single calendar year, an exception under section (h) waives this limit if participation is due to “illness or other medical condition.” Marshall is currently recovering from a stroke, qualifying him for this legal exemption.

However, a governing body must adopt a written policy or resolution establishing electronic participation rules before a member can legally vote remotely.

The board did amend their agenda to include adopting a formal resolution establishing an electronic meeting policy. Cardwell and Ewen both voted to approve it.

County Attorney April Geltmaker explained that the previous meeting followed the rules outlined in the Indiana statute.

“The statute also requires the county to allow electronic meetings,” she said. “It mirrors the statute, just as you did in the last meeting. Case law has found that one or two meetings without a formal policy is not enough to invalidate any actions.”

Commissioner Ewen pointed out that the county recently changed its IT contract, and technical difficulties temporarily prevented Marshall from appearing on both screens. He assured attendees the issue would be fixed by November.

Brenton concluded her time by claiming there is a “flagrant disregard for the law from county officials” and stating that nothing happening in the county should violate the Constitution. “I believe there are some things that are fraudulent, and when I have more specifics, I’ll bring that forward,” she said.