BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI ETHICS COMMISSION

COMPLAINANT

VS. CASE NO. M-19-008

MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN,

TOWN OF PELAHATCHIE RESPONDENT

FINAL ORDER

This matter came before the Commission through an Open Meetings Complaint filed by
against the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for the Town of Pelahatchie (the
“board”). The board filed a response to the complaint by and through its attorney. The Ethics
Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 25-41-15, Miss. Code of 1972.
A Preliminary Report and Recommendation was issued in this matter on November 1, 2019. The
respondent did not object to the Preliminary Report and Recommendation and has thereby waived
a right to a hearing on the merits. Accordingly, the hearing officer enters this Final Order in
accordance with Rule 4.6, Rules of the Mississippi Ethics Commission.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1.1 In a complaint filed July 2, 2019, Mr. alleges the Mayor and Board
of Aldermen for the Town of Pelahatchie violated the Open Meetings Act by (1) improperly
conducting a work session on July 1, 2019, and (2) the city attorney’s failure to use a microphone
during the regular meeting on the same date.

1.2 Specifically, he states in his complaint:

The Pelahatchie Board of Aldermen held a work session on July 1, 2019 at 6:00
PM. The regular Board of Aldermen meeting took place at 7:00 PM. The Aldermen,
Alderwoman, and Department Heads huddle at one end of the room. Microphones
are not used. They talk in low voices. The result is no one in the audience can hear
what is taking place. Each Board member has a chair with a microphone in front of
it. However, these accommodations are ignored. Such actions have taken place at
several work sessions. The Board Attorney said it was a work session and they
didn’t have to sit in their seats nor make themselves heard though the microphones.
He said citizens could walk up and listen, but that is not feasible for all but a handful
of people. The Mayor did not preside over this meeting.

. . . The “huddling” violates the Open Meetings Act. The citizens who attend the
Board meetings are unable to see or hear what takes place at the “work sessions.”
The work sessions may be open to the public but the attending public knows no
more about what took place than the public that stays home.

An excuse given is that Alderwoman Margie Warren has hearing problems.

However, the public’s interest in what takes place on its dime outweighs this
M-19-008 Final Order Page 2 of 4

accommodation which just happens to prevent the public from hearing what takes
place at these “public meetings.”

The city attorney also does not speak into microphones during the regular meeting.
He avoids the microphone, walks over to whoever asked the question, stands in
front of that person, and softly answers the questions. The audience cannot hear
anything he says when he does so.

1.3 In support of his allegations, Mr. attached two pictures of the July 1 work
session: a picture of four aldermen huddling, and another picture with all five aldermen huddling
with other individuals. He also attached a video of the work session with all five aldermen huddling
with other individuals, with audio of someone telling Mr. that he can’t take his camera up
to the huddle because “you don’t want to box someone in.” Mayor Ryshonda Beechem is not
depicted in the pictures and video of the July 1 work session. Finally, Mr. attached a link
to a video of the work session held on March 5, 2019. In this video, Mayor Beechem was present,
and the aldermen did not huddle, but sat in their board meeting seats, used microphones, and
discussed town matters informally, as an information gathering session.

1.4 In its response, the board denies it violated the Open Meetings Act. The board states
that, in this case:

[The board] attempted to make reasonable accommodation for the public in

conducting its work session and monthly meeting. The Complainant was
encouraged to position himself wherever he may choose to observe, hear and ask
questions regarding all issues involved in the work session.

1.5 The board further states that:

[I]t was never the intent of Board to conduct any business of the town in a way
other than as required by our statute. The bulk of the work done in the work session
was a review of the agenda by the members of the upcoming monthly meeting. No
business was conducted, no votes were taken, nor any strategy discussed. No effort
was made to conceal any of the actions of the Board. In the future the Board will
take all reasonable steps necessary to comply with the requirements of the
applicable statutes in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2.1 “The Open Meetings Act was enacted for the benefit of the public and is to be
construed liberally in favor of the public.” Board of Trustees of State Insts. of Higher Learning v.
Miss. Publishers Corp., 478 So.2d 269, 276 (Miss. 1985). In Hinds County Board of Supervisors
v. Common Cause of Mississippi, 551 So.2d 107 (Miss.1989), the Supreme Court summarized the
Legislative intent of the Open Meetings Act as follows:

Every member of every public board and commission in this state should always
bear in mind that the spirit of the Act is that a citizen spectator, including any
representative of the press, has just as much right to attend the meeting and see and
hear everything that is going on as has any member of the board or commission.
M-19-008 Final Order Page 3 of 4

Id. at 110. “However inconvenient openness may be to some, it is the legislatively decreed public
policy of this state.” Mayor & Aldermen of Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Printing & Pub., 434 So.2d
1333, 1336 (Miss.1983).

2.2 Meetings of a public body must be open to the public. Section 25-41-5. Section 25-
41-3 defines a “meeting” as “an assemblage of members of a public body at which official acts
may be taken upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or
advisory power.” “‘[O]fficial acts’ include action relating to formation and determination of public
policy....” Gannett River States Pub. Corp., Inc. v. City of Jackson, 866 So.2d 462, 466 (Miss.
2004), quoting Bd. of Trustees at 278. “The Legislature does not indicate that official acts must be
taken in order for the gathering to be considered a meeting.” Gannett at 466. Official acts may be
taken when a quorum of the public body is assembled. Id. Accordingly, the work sessions
conducted by the board are “meetings” as that term is defined by the Act. See Bd. of Trustees at
278. See also Op. Miss. Atty. Gen. No. 2007-00562, Brooks, (Oct. 26, 2007) (workshops
conducted by municipal board are meetings).

2.3 The Open Meetings Act also requires public bodies to take all reasonable means
within their power and resources to ensure all members of the public who attend are able to “see
and hear everything that is going on” at an open public meeting. See, Hinds County at 110. While
the Open Meetings Act does not specifically require any public body to provide electronic
amplification during public meetings, if such amplification is available and utilized by the board
members during a regular meeting, it follows that it is reasonable and within the board’s power
and resources to use the same amplification during its work sessions, which take place an hour
before and at the same location as its regular meetings. In this case, it is not sufficient for a public
body to encourage the complainant “to position himself wherever he may choose to observe, hear
and ask questions” during the work session. As such, the board’s July 1, 2019 work session did
not fully adhere to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

2.4 However, the board attorney is not a member of the public body, and is thus not
specifically subject to the Open Meetings Act. Instead, members of the public and other attendees
of board meetings, such as municipal employees and the board attorney, are subject to the
reasonable rules and regulations a public body may make and enforce for the conduct of persons
attending its meetings. Section 25-41-9. That is, the board must ensure that the meeting is
conducted in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, and take reasonable steps to ensure that
persons addressing the board during its meetings, including the board attorney, can be adequately
seen and heard by the attending public. If microphones are available for persons to address the
board at its meetings, it would be reasonable for the board to require their use. However, a public
body is always free to discuss potential or current litigation privately with its attorneys in executive
session after following all the required steps for entering executive session. See Open Meetings
Case No. M-14-007, Harding vs. Hancock County RSWMA.

III. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

3.1 The Ethics Commission finds the Board of Aldermen for the Town of Pelahatchie
violated the Open Meetings Act at its July 1, 2019 work session, when it failed to take reasonable
M-19-008 Final Order Page 4 of 4

measures to ensure all members of the public who attended were able to see and hear everything
that was going on.

3.2 The Ethics Commission orders the Board of Aldermen for the Town of Pelahatchie
to refrain from further violations and comply strictly with the Open Meetings Act.

SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of November, 2019.

_______________________________________________
SONIA SHURDEN, Hearing Officer
Mississippi Ethics Commission