Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks law director to disclose possible financial link after records-request suggestion
Summary
At the May 13 Delhi Township meeting, resident Rich Gages asked the law director to make an on-the-record financial disclosure after saying the director recommended public-records requests that could benefit his private law firm; the law director replied that disclosure laws do not apply to him and no formal action was taken.
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.
