The right to petition the government is a right enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, but its roots go much further back than that – to English law of the 17th century. Although Mississippi’s Supreme Court has callously denied that right at the state level since 2021, that right remains at the local level.

After the Columbus city council on May 17 voted by a 4-2 margin on a resolution of intent to issue a $3 million bond to finance improvements at Propst Park, some citizens sought to exercise that right, sending emails to city officials to voice their objections.

While not every decision a local government makes is subject to petition, when a government borrows funds there is a process that must be followed according to state law. The local government must advertise its intent while also informing citizens that they can overturn the decision by calling a reverse referendum, which would put the matter before voters. The law says that 10 percent of the registered voters or 1,500 citizens (whichever is fewer) must sign a petition in order to have that election.

These things were duly noted in the city’s advertising, but the details on what constitutes a valid petition were not stated and – as it turns out – not commonly known. Mayor Keith Gaskin did not know nor did at least one council member contacted by The Dispatch. The one person in city government most likely to know – and by virtue of his position should be expected to know – was city attorney Jeff Turnage.

Yet surprisingly, when asked by The Dispatch about what constitutes a valid petition, Turnage declined to provide that information. His reason? Turnage says since the majority of the council had voted to issue the bonds, providing information on how to overturn that vote would be a conflict of interest. Just as bad, Turnage said he said the same thing to the mayor and two councilmen when they asked him about the petition process. Ward 6 councilwoman Jackie DiCicco told The Dispatch Monday that she had to go to the Stennis Institute of Government for clarification.

It’s in Turnage’s financial interest for this bond to move forward: He is set to collect a 1% fee, which on this bond comes out to about $30,000, making his obfuscation of the issue even worse.

Does Turnage think his responsibility is only owed to the council members who voted with the majority? Does he not have an obligation to advise councilmen who are in the minority? What about the mayor?

Perhaps technically Turnage’s responsibility is to the mayor and council, that should not prevent him from sharing information citizens need to lawfully participate in city government. That’s not a conflict. It’s a responsibility.

Turnage has that information and should have no reluctance in providing it, especially to city officials.

Honestly, we cannot imagine a case where a city official should deny information that citizens need to play their role in their local government.

In this case, Turnage is badly – and sadly – mistaken.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.