Area lawmakers seem split on a recent Mississippi Ethics Commission decision to uphold the right of political caucuses to meet in private.
Their positions don’t necessarily fall along party lines.
The ethics commission, by a 5-3 vote, issued a final order last week ruling members of the Mississippi House Republican Caucus were not violating the state’s open meetings law by holding closed meetings since the act itself does not specifically apply to the legislature. The decision came after a challenge by the Mississippi Free Press that the Republican Caucus should not meet behind closed doors because its members make up 75 of the 122-member House of Representatives, thereby constituting a quorum.
After the ruling, MFP editor and CEO Donna Ladd said the group will appeal the decision to the courts.
“While we will appeal this decision, we also call on the legislature to amend the act so it is clear that it is subject to all of the transparency required of all other public bodies in Mississippi,” Ladd said in a statement published in various media outlets across the state. “The public and the press have a right to know, and there is no reason the legislature should be held to a lesser standard than every city council and board of supervisors throughout the state. Any notion that a legislature full of elected officials is not a public body is a strike against public transparency.”
Caucus meetings allow members to get together in a somewhat informal setting and have open discussions about legislative strategy. No official action is taken.
Rep. Dana McLean (R-Columbus), who represents District 39 and is a caucus member, supports the commission’s decision.
“I trust the ethics commission ruling,” she said. “They said that the open meetings act doesn’t pertain to our caucus meetings. I can kind of understand their reasoning. It’s not the full House, it’s just a small section of the House.”
District 43 Rep. Rob Roberson (R-Starkville) agrees, citing the precedent it could have on all caucuses.
“I don’t disagree with the ethics commission, but here’s the thing: it wouldn’t just apply to us,” Roberson said. “It would apply to the Democratic Caucus, the Black Caucus, whatever caucus you wanted to come up with. None of them would be able to have any meetings. I’m OK with it. I don’t know that I necessarily completely understand how they come up with their ruling, but that being said, I guess I’m good with it.”
Others, including District 17 Sen. Chuck Younger (R-Lowndes County) and District 15 Sen. Bart Williams (R-Starkville), disagree.
Younger said he supports open government, especially on public property. In this case, he doesn’t understand why the ethics commission got involved at all.
“How are you going to stop anybody from going out to eat lunch or supper together? I think it’s stupid,” he said. “But at the same time, I don’t agree with any caucus meetings at the capitol. I think if you’re going to have a caucus meeting, it needs to be out of the capitol and not in the citizens’ house. I don’t want to go to any kind of caucus meeting in the capitol, period. I’m glad the Senate doesn’t have it.”
Williams said he also supports government transparency, generally.
“I really haven’t read it in detail, so I don’t know that I’d have a formal opinion,” he said. “I know we in the Senate, we believe in open rules and I think we are publishing all of our meetings. We are streaming them. And as far as I know, we intend to keep doing that. … I do believe we need to go out of the way to have transparency in government. There’s a lot of distrust in the world, in government, and if we’re talking about things that pertain to the people, it needs to be out there, in my opinion.”
Dist. 16 Sen. Angela Turner Ford (D-West Point), a member of the Legislative Black Caucus, said she supports the appeal because the Republican caucus makes up a quorum — a majority of the House that alone could pass most bills.
However, she understands the value of caucus meetings.
“In the caucus meetings that I’ve been a part of, we do not take official votes on legislation,” she said. “We are discussing more, I would say, personal opinion or perspective, and after we leave the caucus meeting, individual members still have the autonomy to act or to vote as he or she chooses. So, there’s no commitment that’s required in a caucus meeting. But those are the meetings that I have attended. So, I think that they can be beneficial.”
Majority or not, McLean said the Republican Caucus functions the same way.
“We just talk about various issues, some bills that are being presented by certain members,” McLean said. “It’s kind of just a general discussion during those meetings.”
District 37 Rep. Kabir Karriem (D-Columbus) and District 41 Rep. Andy Boyd (R-Lowndes County) both said they did not know enough about the ruling to comment on the record.
District 38 Rep. Cheikh Taylor (D-Starkville) did not return calls seeking comment.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 34 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 34 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
Join the Discussion