Resident questions council on recusals, FOIA and closed sessions; officials deny known violations

Jeffrey Smith, who identified himself and his address during the June 26 public-comment period, asked council a sequence of detailed questions about past recusals, undisclosed gifts from contractors, the legal basis for recent executive sessions, possible delays or redactions in public-records responses and whether internal investigations or settlement payouts had occurred.

Smith asked directly, "Has any, city official council member ever failed to recuse themselves of a vote involving a vendor, employer, or financial interest tied to them or immediate family?" Connor Morton replied, "I can assure you that I have not," and said ethical training and signed acknowledgements are required of elected officials. Other council members described instances where they had abstained from votes when advised by the law director (for example, when a spouse is a party to an ordinance).

On questions about public-records responses and FOIA timelines, Morton said Ohio law and court decisions create a more flexible "reasonable time" standard for records response under state sunshine laws and that annual audits review the public-records request log for compliance. Council declined to discuss the specific subjects of past executive sessions, saying disclosure of those subjects could breach the law governing executive sessions. On allegations about use of department databases or internal misconduct, council members said they were not aware of incidents "to our knowledge."

The exchange was primarily a question-and-answer sequence during public comment; no formal investigation, findings or further council direction were announced at the meeting.