OCEAN SPRINGS, MS – The Ocean Springs interim city attorney used a misreading of state law and warnings of a looming deadline to convince the Board of Aldermen to approve a lucrative contract that benefits his own law firm.
On Tuesday night, David Harris warned aldermen that his 90-day interim appointment was about to expire and that Mississippi law required them to approve a one-year contract or risk being left without legal counsel.
Both of those statements, if accepted, cleared the path for his contract — but neither is supported by the law.
Preconditioned by the Memo
Before the meeting even began, aldermen were primed with the same faulty framing.
The official memorandum in their agenda packet, circulated by City Hall, warned that under “Mississippi Code § 21-15-41, interim appointments are generally limited to 90 days.” It stated that because Harris’s interim period was nearing its conclusion, “Mr. Harris has submitted a new one-year professional services contract for consideration by the Board.”
The memo added that the proposed contract was “not a continuation of the interim designation, but rather establishes an annual agreement for legal services under separate and independent terms.”
The “requested action” at the bottom of the memorandum gave aldermen only one directive: approve the contract.
There was no mention of alternatives in the packet, only a directive to approve Harris’s contract.
Harris’s Pitch at the Meeting
At the meeting itself, Mayor Bobby Cox reinforced the memo’s framing. “Interim appointments are generally limited to 90 days,” the mayor said, inviting Harris to explain further.
“As all of you know, I became the interim city attorney on June the 17th,” Harris told aldermen. “Interim appointments by Mississippi statute can last no longer than 90 days.”
Harris went on to cite state code to back up his argument. But the statute he cited only applies to positions that are mandatory by state law. Mississippi cities are not required to have a city attorney.
“That 90-day position terminates as a matter of law,” he added. “So in order to have a city attorney past the 17th of September, you need to contract with one annually, which 21-15-25 is the statute that says that.”
The Law Says Otherwise
The 90-day rule is real — § 21-15-41 does say no one may serve longer than 90 days in an “interim or hold-over capacity” for positions filled by municipal appointment. After that, compensation must stop and actions taken are invalid. However, that statute does not apply to the position of city attorney.
Mississippi code § 21-15-41 applies only to positions that are mandatory by state law. A separate statute, § 21-15-25, covers the appointment of city attorneys, and that code is clear: city attorneys are optional, not mandatory.
Mr. Harris also erroneously told the Board that the statute requires them to sign a long term one year contract with his firm.
It doesn’t.
That law says aldermen “may annually appoint an attorney-at-law for the municipality.” The word is may, not must or shall. The statute permits annual contracts but does not require them. It also lets aldermen “employ counsel… should the occasion require,” language that clearly allows shorter or temporary arrangements.
By combining the two statutes, Harris and the city’s memorandum presented aldermen with a false binary: either approve his one-year contract or be left with no legal counsel at all.
In short: Harris was not bound by a 90-day clock, and aldermen were not required to lock him in for a year.
When Alternatives Were Raised
Alderman Rob Blackman pressed Harris on whether the city could pursue a shorter arrangement while finishing its search for a permanent attorney.
“Why do we have to do a one-year contract?” Blackman asked. “Why can’t we do a monthly contract with an automatic renewal until a decision is made?”
Harris doubled down. “The statute for the appointment of a city attorney says that it has to be for a year,” he replied. “It’s annually. So in compliance with the dictates of the legislature, that’s how I interpret those things to happen. I don’t think you can keep extending it.”
That interpretation, which is actually contrary to the law, left no room for debate. Within minutes, Alderman-at-Large Matthew Hinton moved to approve Harris’s contract with a 30-day termination clause and caveat to continue soliciting new applicants. The Board voted unanimously in favor to sign the Harris deal.
Results of the Pitch
The statutes gave Ocean Springs options: the Board could have sought other counsel, appointed someone else on an interim basis, or even kept Harris month-to-month while reviewing applicants. By framing the law as though the city had no alternatives, Harris steered aldermen into approving a lucrative contract for his own firm.
The agenda packet memorandum set the stage. Harris’s words sealed it. And the Board, believing their hands were tied, signed the deal. What aldermen were told was a matter of legal necessity was, in reality, a matter of Harris’s interpretation — one that left him with steady pay and billing power for the next year.
It is beyond my comprehension that this body of elected representatives lets the blind lead the blind. This attorney, in my opinion, performed malpractice and the final vote decision could be overturned on that basis.
Why would they or how could they believe any future legal actions or decisions made on behalf of the city by this self serving attorney when proven to either be incompetent or intentionally mistaking the law.
It would appear that if it is not supported by law then the contract can be declared null and void….but then, I am not a lawyer…how stupid are the people you elected? I had high hopes for OS….not now…it appears the box of rocks is alive and well and that’s a shame for the city….