A recently-filed brief by the city of Columbus claims that the Mississippi Ethics Commission overstepped its bounds when it ruled that the mayor and city council violated the state’s Open Meetings Act.
The city is appealing a 2014 Ethics Commission order stating that the council and mayor violated three sections of the Open Meetings Act. The order says the violations occurred when Columbus elected officials “established a quorum of the council by holding two separate gatherings on each date and discussing the same matter over which the council has authority without providing public access, providing notice or recording minutes.”
The pre-arranged meetings — each attended by two or three councilmen — took place in January and February 2014. They concerned the city’s retail partnership with the Golden Triangle Development LINK and project management on the Trotter Convention Center renovation. Former Dispatch reporter Nathan Gregory filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission after becoming aware of the meetings.
The city’s 27-page appellant brief, authored by attorneys Jeff Turnage and Michael Chase, challenges the Ethics Commission’s authority to use the Open Meetings Act to rule on non-quorum meetings.
The brief argues that Gregory’s complaint against the city was not against the rules as they exist but that he “did not like those rules because they allowed the City to structure meetings not involving official action in a way that Gregory (and the Commission) did not like.”
The brief further states that in ruling against the city, the Ethics Commission effectively enacted new law, which is a power reserved for the Legislature. It says that the commission should not rule against the city under the Open Meetings Act because it found the meetings circumvent the law.
To circumvent the law, the attorneys argue, inherently includes avoiding it, and as such, the law could not be violated.
“If the members of the Commission, or any citizen or group of citizens believe that such structuring of gatherings should not be permitted, then they are free to petition the Legislature to change the law,” the brief states. “What the Commission is not free to do is change the law on its own.”
In December, Chancery Court Judge Kenneth Burns denied an Ethics Commission attempt to intervene in the appeal process.
The Ethics Commission attempted to intervene in order to represent the other side of the case.
“In this case, in particular, if we’re not involved, there’s not going to be anyone on the other side of the case,” Commission Executive Director Tom Hood said in October. “We have a duty to protect the public interest and I don’t think we can do our job if we’re not allowed into court.”
After Burns dismissed the Ethics Commission’s motion to intervene, Hood said the commission would file an amicus brief, or “friend of the court” brief.
Hood told The Dispatch on Monday that the Ethics Commission is working on a brief for submission.
Alex Holloway was formerly a reporter with The Dispatch.
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 47 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 47 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
