A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Resident asks law director to disclose possible financial link after records-request suggestion

May 14, 2026 | Delhi Hills Town Council, Delhi Hills, Hamilton County, Ohio


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Resident asks law director to disclose possible financial link after records-request suggestion
Rich Gages, a Delhi resident, used public comment at the May 13 Board of Trustees meeting to ask the township’s law director to disclose any financial ties between his private firm and suggestions the director had made about using public-records requests.

"I am asking today, will the law director make this financial disclosure for the record, or must we seek a formal opinion from the state to ensure our local government is operating within the integrity we expect?" Gages said during his remarks. He told trustees he had researched the issue and worried that the law director’s recommended course of action—filing public-records requests and related services—could indirectly benefit the director’s firm.

Law Director Bryant responded during the meeting that the township pays him by invoice and that financial-disclosure laws, as he understands them, do not apply to his role. "The financial disclosure laws do not apply to me," he told the board, adding that he is paid by resolution and bills the township for legal work.

The exchange grew heated at times but ended without the board taking formal action. Trustee Davis and other trustees encouraged the parties to use available channels—meetings with staff and public-records requests—to pursue clarity. No vote or formal referral to an ethics body was recorded on the transcript.

Why it matters: The comment raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and how the township documents advice that could lead to paid work for outside counsel. Trustees and the law director described the existing practice—monthly invoices and redaction when necessary—but did not announce an audit, disclosure, or referral to the state ethics commission at the meeting.

What comes next: The transcript shows the law director and resident exchanged follow-up correspondence and that both sides described options for public records requests. The board did not schedule a formal review or require a disclosure during the session.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee