Chapter 3: The Retaliatory Lawsuit Against the County Auditor

The Allegation: Using Public Office to Pay Personal Legal Bills

On April 17, 2024, in a move that Auditor Tim Stabosz described as a blatant conflict of interest, Commissioners Connie Gramarossa and Rich Mrozinski voted 2-1 to sue their own County Auditor. The reason: Stabosz refused to authorize a payment of approximately $20,000 in taxpayer funds to the law firm Eichhorn & Eichhorn for the commissioners' legal defense in a federal civil rights lawsuit where they were both named as defendants personally [1].

This was not a simple dispute over a vendor payment. It was a direct confrontation over a core principle of public service: whether elected officials can use their position to approve spending taxpayer money on their own personal legal troubles.

The Unmistakable Conflict of Interest

The legal bills were for the defense of Gramarossa and Mrozinski in the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Allen Stevens, Dion Bergeron, and Debra Fly-Nelson (see Chapter 2). While the county government was a defendant, the lawsuit also named Gramarossa and Mrozinski in their personal capacities. The complaint explicitly alleges that “Mrozinski and Gramarossa exceeded the scope of their authority as public officials and are, therefore, individually liable for their unlawful actions” [1].

Auditor Stabosz argued that this created an undeniable conflict of interest. He stated that the commissioners could not legally vote to approve payments for their own legal defense from their own department's budget. To resolve the issue and remove the conflict, Stabosz offered a simple, ethical solution: he would gladly pay the bill if the two commissioners recused themselves from the vote and the claim was instead submitted to and approved by the La Porte County Council [1].

Gramarossa and Mrozinski refused.

Public Misrepresentation vs. Legal Reality

At the April 17, 2024, commissioners' meeting, Gramarossa publicly misrepresented the facts of the federal lawsuit in an attempt to justify her position. She claimed that only the county government was being sued and that the inclusion of her and Mrozinski’s names on the court documents was merely a “formality” [1].

This is factually incorrect. The federal court’s own Opinion and Order from June 2025 confirms that claims for monetary damages were proceeding against both commissioners in their individual capacities [2].

Commissioner Joe Haney, the lone dissenting vote, condemned the move, stating, “More money for the lawyers, less following of the rules” [1].

A Pattern of Retaliation

The lawsuit against the auditor was not an isolated incident. It was part of a consistent pattern of hostility and retaliation by Gramarossa and Mrozinski against any official who questioned their actions.

• No Confidence Vote: In November 2024, Gramarossa and Mrozinski passed a symbolic “no confidence” vote against Auditor Stabosz, citing a similar vote by the County Council the month prior [3].
• Denial of Legal Counsel: In the same month, the two commissioners voted to deny Stabosz a county-funded attorney to defend him in a separate, unrelated lawsuit filed against him by another attorney. They demanded he hire his own lawyer, even as they were suing him to force the county to pay for theirs [3].
• Public Belittling: During the November 20, 2024, meeting, Gramarossa repeatedly and publicly belittled the auditor, referring to him as “the secretary” and refusing to speak with him directly. “I’m not going to have a conversation with the secretary,” she stated on the public record [3].

This pattern demonstrates a clear willingness to use the power of the commissioners' office to attack and intimidate other elected officials who stand in their way.

References

[1] Commissioners Again Suing Auditor (Hometown News Now, April 18, 2024)

[2] Bergeron et al v. La Porte County et al, Opinion and Order (USDC IN/ND, June 18, 2025)

[3] Stabosz Tagged with Second No Confidence Vote (Hometown News Now, November 25, 2024)