During the most recent Area Plan Commission meeting, Chairperson, Seth White recused himself from the discussion, disclosing that he was an active board member for REMC and that an attorney had advised him to do so.
“It has been brought to my attention by several people, including an attorney here, that I am on a director for REMC, and that is believed to be a conflict of interest. So I tell you right now I do not get any other money handed to me or no NDA or nothing on that.”
By recusing himself now, the Chairperson has raised an interesting question. If the underlying facts of his REMC board seat haven’t changed since August, then was there a conflict of interest during the August and September meetings as well?
In a recent Facebook post Seth stated, For clarity, the Chairman’s role on the commission is non-voting. My position is to help guide meetings and ensure procedures are followed, not make decisions on applications.
Here is some of Seth’s guidance from the August 25th 2025 meeting, during which REMC’s CEO, Andrew Hortsman, gave an educational seminar on data centers.
According to the August 25th minutes-
-Mr. White- How many data centers do we have in Fulton County right now?
-Mr. Hortsman- We have one small one and one really small one.
-Mr. White- They have been very beneficial to the county and the REMC members, correct?
-Mr. Hortsman- They have been very beneficial to the REMC customers.
The law governing conflicts of interest did not change between August and February 10.
Under Indiana Code § 36-7-4-223, a plan commission member is disqualified from participating in a hearing or decision if:
They have a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome.
They are “biased or prejudiced or otherwise unable to be impartial.”
Fulton County Area Plan Commission Rules of Procedure also states…
504- No member of the Commission shall participate in a hearing, discussion or decision of the Commission upon any zoning matter in which the member has a direct or indirect financial interest. A “zoning matter” does not include the preparation or adoption of a comprehensive plan. A member shall declare his or her direct or indirect financial interest. The Commission shall enter into its records the fact that the member has such a disqualification.
According to the August minutes, no such declaration was recorded.
By asking leading questions that elicited only the positive impacts of the project, “They have been very beneficial… correct?”, did the Chairperson move beyond procedural guidance into what appears to be active advocacy? In Indiana, the standard for a fair hearing is high. If a member is disqualified due to a conflict, their mere participation in the discussion, even with out a vote, can taint the entire proceeding.
If the Chairperson’s role at REMC creates a conflict of interest today, and that role has been constant since August, it raises a critical question: Was the process compromised from the moment he first presided over the data center discussions?
Courts have historically found that participation by a conflicted member can violate the Due Process requirement of an impartial hearing.
As for the direct or indirect financial interest you can find REMC’s 990 on ProPublica’s non profit explorer. According to a 990 filed on October 21st 2025 for a fiscal year ending in December 2024, shows this Chairperson was compensated $4,532.
This is simply about the integrity of the process we all have to live with. The Chairperson’s participation in shaping the narrative in August creates the appearance of a conflict, which Indiana law seeks to prevent to ensure due process. Because these early steps were built on a foundation that included a now-disclosed conflict, a formal review and re-hearing may be the only way to restore public trust.