Re-published below, a report that was issued in September of 2024 about the pigeon people and other sources of Novak’s cash.

The facts are these: he voted, at least 40 times, to fund contracts at a time when he was actively doing business with, and accepting payments from, the contractor, and he kept those payments secret.

This is a different question from whether the no-bid contracts themselves were illegal. That question is settled: the State Board of Accounts ruled that they were.

The more serious question is of Novak’s personal conduct.

So what laws might Novak have broken? Let’s count them, from least serious to most serious:

LaPorte County Ethics Ordinance

In lieu of its own ethics ordinance, LaPorte County joined the Shared Ethics Advisory Commission (SEAC), and adopted its rules. The rules require elected officials To refrain from using official positions to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for myself or others; To remove myself from every decision-making process in which I, my business, my associates or my family may benefit and upon removing myself from decisions, I will show self-restraint and not voice my opinion on the question; To make full public disclosure of the nature of any conflict of interest prior to any considered action.

Novak’s conduct is a clear violation of the rules. The penalties for violations are unclear, but the odds are low that SEAC would do anything because LaPorte County’s delegate to the SEAC is, you guessed it, Randy Novak.

Conflict of Interest, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-1-4

The law reads as follows:

A public servant who knowingly or intentionally: (1) has a pecuniary interest in; or (2) derives a profit from; a contract or purchase connected with an action by the governmental entity served by the public servant commits conflict of interest, a Level 6 felony. (emphasis added).

The law also defines “pecuniary interest”:

(3) "Pecuniary interest" means an interest in a contract or purchase if the contract or purchase will result or is intended to result in an ascertainable increase in the income or net worth of: (A) the public servant; … (emphasis added)

Were the votes connected with the commissions? Yes, obviously.

They were connected in time, volume, and frequency. 40 votes, 7 real estate transactions, interleaved in time and frequently in close proximity. The level of coordination between Novak and the contractor had to be extensive.

To be clear, the “contract or purchase” is each of the real estate transactions, and the “action by the governmental entity” are the votes to appropriate money. It is not necessary for Novak to have profited directly from the county money paid to the contractor.

So yes, this one is a pretty clear violation of law, or at least it would be to any reasonable observer, and it’s a felony. A prosecutor would have to prove the connection, but courts have done it with less.

As an aside: disclosing the relationship, by itself, is not a get-out-of-jail card. But it doesn’t matter because Novak failed to do even that.

Indiana Bribery, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-1-2

The law reads:

Sec. 2. (a) A person who: … (2) being a public servant, solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept, either before or after the person becomes appointed, elected, or qualified, any property, except property the person is authorized by law to accept, with intent to control the performance of an act related to the person's employment or function as a public servant; … commits bribery, a Level 5 felony.

This one is pretty broad. The real estate commissions clearly qualify as “any property”. The votes clearly qualify as “an act related to the person’s employment or function as a public servant”.

The key phrase, though, is “intent to control”. This is narrower than the “connected with” language above. A conviction would require a prosecutor to show some kind of intent, either that Novak intended to get more real estate business by being a friend to the contractor on the Council, or the contractor intended to get more business with the County by throwing Novak some business personally.

Courts have carved out two exceptions. The first is the gratuity theory: if the public servant accepts cash after the official act, then it’s a gratuity, a little thank-you for a job well done. The relevant case here is Snyder v. United States. That exception doesn’t apply, because there were many transactions interleaved in time, not just one.

The second exception is “general influence”. It’s not bribery if the cash is to influence a public servant generally, and is not connected to a specific act. The relevant case here is Wurster v State. That exception doesn’t apply, because the votes to fund the contracts were specific and identifiable.

But what about intent? If there happened to be an FBI wiretap that showed an explicit, or even implicit, agreement to exchange votes for deals, a quid pro quo, then yes, it’s bribery. But we don’t have a wiretap.

We don’t actually need one. Bribery cases can be established through circumstantial evidence, and we have mounds of it.

In McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), the Court held that the agreement need not be explicit and that a jury may consider a broad range of evidence, including the nature of the transaction, in determining whether a quid pro quo existed:

“The agreement need not be explicit.”

McDonnell therefore supports using repeated transactions, their timing, their value, and the surrounding official conduct as evidence from which an agreement may be inferred.

No-bid contracts materially intensify the analysis

The no-bid contracts are especially important. They may provide evidence of:

• preferential treatment;

• departure from ordinary procurement procedures;

• Novak’s ability to confer valuable benefits;

• a specific “quo” for private compensation;

• coordination between Novak and the contractor; and

• potential damages to the county if competition was bypassed or prices were inflated.

Moreover, there are an estimated 300-400 real estate agents in LaPorte County, and the contractor selected Novak over of all of them. This provides additional evidence that Novak was provided preferential treatment.

So is it bribery under Indiana law? A prosecutor would have to prove intent, and they’d (probably) have to do it with circumstantial evidence. Likely, but not a slam-dunk.

Federal Bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 666

Federal law applies, because a number of the no-bid contracts involved federal funds well over the $10,000 threshold.

The law says:

Whoever … (B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; … shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

The analysis here is the same as above. Intent must be proven. And, as above, it probably can be.

Other Laws

Official Misconduct, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-1-1. In this case, it wouldn’t be a primary offense, but it could be an add-on if the main charges are proven.

The no-bid contracting and federal funding create additional concerns. Federal grant rules generally require documented procurement procedures and competition, except in limited circumstances. 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.318–200.3270. If federal funds were obtained, converted, misapplied, or distributed through a corrupt agreement, federal program-bribery and fraud statutes may apply. 18 U.S.C. § 666; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 13432/3

A separate possible theory is honest-services wire or mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346 or 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346, if the evidence shows use of interstate wires or the mails to further a bribery or kickback scheme. The Supreme Court has limited honest-services fraud to bribery and kickback schemes; bribery would have to be proven under § 666.

Conclusion

Novak’s conduct is in clear violation of Indiana’s Conflict of Interest law, and would be in clear violation of state and federal bribery law if prosecutors could prove intent. Intent could likely be proven through the available circumstantial evidence.

So yes, what he did was illegal.

On June 1st, 2021, real estate broker Randy Novak listed a property for a friend, a friend who also happened to be a county vendor.

On July 21, LaPorte County Council president Randy Novak showed up uninvited to a County Commission meeting. The Commissioners were considering awarding a no-bid contract to his friend, but were concerned because the state had said that such contracts were illegal. Novak spoke up on behalf of his friend. He suggested that they use a special statute that would allow the no-bid contract if they claimed that his friend was the only one who could do the job: “as being the fire chief of Michigan City, we used this statute several times”.

On August 20, Novak closed the sale on his friend’s $600,000 property, and put approximately $15,000 in commissions in his pocket.1

On August 23, just three days later, Novak, as president of the Council, pushed through the no-bid contract, despite again being told the contract was illegal. Novak took great offense that anyone would suggest that he was doing something illegal.

When the auditor refused to back down, Novak belittled the duly-elected auditor by saying that he had “only been in office eight months”, and asked the sheriff to remove him from the room. The sheriff refused.

During the discussion on the contract, no one in the room knew that Novak had taken a payment from his friend the contractor only three days earlier.

Over the following years, Novak did it six more times, pocketing approximately $100,000. His friend made millions.

Nobody knew.

Here are the facts:

The Contractor

Novak’s friend is Andy Skwiat, owner of Marquiss Electric.

Marquiss is known as an expensive vendor. Marquiss’ bids, when they submit them, are typically 20% to 25% higher than other vendors.

Over a period of 10 years, Marquiss and affiliated companies did an estimated $28 million in business with the county.2

Most of the contracts were no-bid, totaling many millions of dollars.3

In 2022, the owner of Marquiss Electric formed an additional company, LaPorte County Project Management (LPCM). Previously, Marquiss had technically been an electrical contractor, not a general contractor. The creation of this entity made it easier for the owner to be the general contractor and subcontract work to himself4.

One contract, to perform work following a flood at the county complex, was characterized as an emergency, justifying an initial no-bid expenditure of $1.4 million. While the initial work was for a genuine emergency, Marquiss was the only company that received a call, and assigned most of the work to itself. Later, the county gave the work of soliciting bids to LPCM, which, unsurprisingly, again gave much, but not all, work to itself. The total cost is unclear, but the NWI Times estimated it to be $15 million.

This work has been lucrative. Skwiat owns almost 800 acres of land in LaPorte County across 20 parcels, and lives on a $1.9 million estate (for which Novak was the buyer’s broker).

The Votes

From 2017 to 2025, Novak voted at least5 40 times to send money to Marquiss and affiliated companies, including appropriations, permissions to spend, and motions of support for projects.

Novak voted yes on all requests to send money to Marquiss, and never once voted against a request.

Time and again, he defended Marquiss, despite objections from other members. He often expressed contempt for members who disagreed. He asserted that the no-bid contracts awarded to Skwiat were unreviewable by the council.6

Of those 40 votes, almost all were for no-bid contracts.

In at least nine cases, the votes were for “emergencies”. Every one of them removed the requirement to competitively bid work that went to Andy Skwiat’s companies. On one of the votes, when the county attorneys determined that the work did not qualify for an emergency determination, they used a legal dodge — the special purchase statute — to do a no-bid contract anyway.7

Separately, on August 23, 2021, there was one vote to fund an independent investigation of whether awarding a no-bid contract on the bridge was legal. Novak voted no.

On April 24, 2023, there was a vote to refer a Marquiss no-bid contract on sirens to committee to study it, on the grounds that it was too expensive. Novak and one other member voted no, lost the vote, and 10 seconds later Novak volunteered to serve on the committee — presumably to protect Marquiss.

The State Board of Accounts

Prior to the August 2021 meeting, the State Board of Accounts, which is Indiana’s government audit agency, ruled that the pending no-bid contract for the Franklin Street bridge could not legally be granted without a bidding process.

In a subsequent audit report, the SBOA confirmed that the contract was, in fact, illegal:

Internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with procurement methods allowed by state statute. On July 20, 2021, the Board of County Commissioners awarded a $1,500,000 contract for repairs to the Michigan City Franklin St. Bridge. The contract was awarded without bidding the project to document and ensure the contract was awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The Board of County Commissioner’s attorney advised they would be approving the contract under Indiana Special Purchase provisions of Indiana Code 5-22-10-1 without competitive bidding, due to the fact the bridge is a specialized historic bridge, and it plays a critical role in economic activity in the City of Michigan City, and the vendor selected has previous expertise with this particular bridge.

As the aforementioned project is the alteration of a bridge paid for out of public funds, the appropriate procurement method governing this transaction is Indiana Code 36-1-12-1, public works projects. The County did not comply with any of the required provisions of this statute as required.

Of course, this wasn’t the most serious violation of the law. The more serious matter was that Novak was doing business on the side with the prime contractor for the bridge.

The Real Estate

While Novak was voting to appropriate money for Marquiss, he was also buying and selling real estate for Marquiss’ owner and his family on the side.

In all, there were at least seven transactions between 2021 and 2025, totaling $3.9 million. (“At least”, because the broker for a real estate transaction isn’t always public information.) Novak is listed as the broker for each of these transactions.

Five of the transactions were for home sales and two were for home purchases. Five of the transactions were for Skwiat personally, and two were for his mother.8

Assuming standard broker’s commissions of between 2.5% and 3%, Novak would have received payments of between $97,500 and $117,000. This assumes that these seven transactions were the only ones that Novak did with Skwiat and his family.

The Timeline

The real estate transactions were interleaved in time with the votes and the no-bid contracts. In most cases, the votes to send money to Marquiss were in close proximity to a commission payment.

Corruption

Given the volume of transactions, the money involved, and the timing, it is not remotely possible that the transactions were unconnected. The president of the Council sent money to the contractor, and the contractor sent money to the president of the Council. That’s the definition of corruption.

But the truth is, Randy Novak serves himself. Randy Novak’s highest priority is Randy Novak.

This site details the truth about Randy Novak. The insider deals and the use of public resources to benefit himself. Some of this is public and some of it isn’t.

We will be publishing well-documented, verified facts about Randy, facts that you, as a voter, should know about your “public servant”.