OCEAN SPRINGS – City leaders in Ocean Springs shut the public out of the decision to keep Robert Wilkinson’s private law firm on the payroll, breaking from the long-standing practice of handling such contracts in the open — where residents could speak their minds before a vote. The move may also have crossed the line under Mississippi’s Open Meetings Act.
The debate over whether to allow Wilkinson to continue representing the city in pending litigation was held in executive session, a closed-door portion of a board meeting where the public is not allowed to watch or participate.
Under the Open Meetings Act, boards can meet in private to discuss litigation, but that exemption is narrowly tied to legal strategy, settlement talks, and matters that could materially affect the city’s legal position.
Sources inside the session say the discussion went beyond legal strategy. Aldermen weighed how residents might react to keeping Wilkinson on the payroll against the potential cost and disruption of replacing him mid-stride in several active lawsuits.
The cost portion could arguably fit if framed as a litigation risk, but speculating about public reaction is purely political. Worse, it was speculative by nature — a guessing game that could have been settled instantly by letting the public speak during an open session.
By keeping both topics behind closed doors, the Board shielded not just litigation strategy, but also the very part of the debate that state law says residents are entitled to hear — and respond to — before the vote.
A Break from the Norm
In Ocean Springs, votes to hire or extend contracts with outside law firms have typically been handled in public view, with residents able to weigh in before the Board makes its decision.
In June 2024, the agenda openly listed a vote to authorize the Mayor to execute the continuing engagement with the law firm Butler Snow. Residents had the opportunity to speak before the Board voted.
In December of that same year, another public agenda item sought approval to hire the Wise Carter law firm for zoning work in newly annexed areas, again allowing for public comment before the vote.
The August 5 decision to keep Wilkinson’s firm, however, never appeared on a public agenda. Instead, it was buried inside a closed-door executive session stated to discuss litigation, with the public informed only after the decision was made.
Why Wilkinson’s Controversial Record Matters
Robert Wilkinson is no ordinary outside counsel. His tenure as city attorney was marked by controversy, most notably his central role in the Securix automated traffic enforcement program — a now-defunct system shut down after repeated public scrutiny.
Wilkinson has been accused by multiple city officials of hiding his financial ties to the Securix company. Internal Securix emails acquired and published by GC Wire show years of Wilkinson playing a key role in advising both the city and Securix simultaneously – a direct concealed conflict of interest that led to a February 2024 unanimous vote to search for Wilkinson’s replacement.
It was later revealed in evidence presented by GC Wire, the Securix program bypassed the Ocean Springs municipal court system, in contradiction to the Board approved contract and state law.
That kind of history doesn’t just make Wilkinson a controversial figure — it makes any decision to keep him on the city’s payroll the kind of high-stakes choice that should have been debated in the open, with residents given the chance to speak before a single vote was cast.
Transparency Takes a Back Seat
By handling the decision in private, the Board didn’t just sidestep public comment — it sidestepped the very accountability that comes from facing the people they serve. In a city where legal contracts have historically been vetted in the open, closing the door on this one sends a message: when the stakes are highest, transparency takes a back seat.
Last Tuesday’s tally was 5-2, with the Board voting to keep Robert Wilkinson and his private firm representing the City of Ocean Springs – a decision elected officials will likely hear a lot about during the public comments portion of the next Board of Aldermen meeting.
The Board is scheduled to meet again August 19 at 6pm.
I am shocked the board voted to keep an attorney who has not only lied, but has a big conflict of interest. And then the meeting was closed to the public? Unbelievable…..
For some reason, now being doubted, I had thought OS was beyond the “good ole boy” wink and a nod way of politics. Seems it still exists after all of the “Vote for me” signs are gone.
The decision was made before the vote. The People will remember