OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC Wire) – Whether at the national level, state, or even in the City of Ocean Springs, the job of a legislator is to deal in hypotheticals.
Elected officials create rules, ordinances, and laws based entirely on hypothetical situations.
For example, lawmakers do not wait until a building burns down before adopting a fire code, nor do they wait until a public official abuses power before establishing rules meant to prevent it.
The entire purpose of legislation is to anticipate what could happen and create safeguards before it does. But one Ocean Springs alderman refused to entertain that concept in a recent interview about a shocking measure recently passed by the Board.
Questionable Legality
As previously reported by GC Wire, the Board recently approved a motion prohibiting recording devices during executive sessions. While there is no state law prohibiting aldermen from recording, local boards do have the authority to establish internal rules on the topic.
But the motion went much further than merely banning recording devices.
The measure also included a punishment provision allowing a majority of the Board to expel a fellow elected alderman from executive session deliberations and votes if they are accused of violating the rule, and without any due process – just a simple motion and vote.
The problem, according to multiple Mississippi Attorney General opinions and Ethics Commission rulings, is that state law does not appear to authorize a municipal board to exclude a duly elected alderman from participating in executive session discussions or votes.
That raises an obvious question:
If an alderman is removed from executive session by the others, who then represents the residents of that ward during those discussions and decisions?
A Simple Question
Following the vote, GC Wire reached out to members of the Board with a simple question designed to test the practical consequences of the newly adopted rule.
Specifically, we asked what would happen to a ward’s representation if a majority of aldermen accused another alderman of violating the policy and voted to remove that elected official from executive session deliberations. Aldermen Kevin Wade, Matthew Hinton, Rob Blackman, and Julie Messenger all voted for the measure, but declined to answer the basic question.
One exchange with Ward 1 Alderman Steve Tillis, who also voted yes on the motion, was particularly revealing. Rather than address who would represent residents in that situation, Tillis, repeatedly avoided the substance of the question altogether during a text message interview. Instead, he reframed:
GC Wire: If the majority of the board decides you have been recording executive sessions and votes to expel you from future executive sessions, as a Ward 1 resident, who will represent my interests in those meetings and votes?
Alderman Tillis: I don’t record
GC Wire: I didn’t say you did. Who will be my representative if the majority of the board falsely accused you of doing so? Hypothetically.
Alderman Tillis: I would never record!
GC Wire: I am asking who would represent Ward 1 if you were hypothetically removed by the others from executive sessions. Do you understand?
Alderman Tillis: I still would never record. I totally understand!
GC Wire: I don’t think you do understand. Let’s try this… If ANY alderman is accused and removed from executive session by a vote of the others, who will then represent that alderman’s Ward in those executive session matters?
Alderman Tillis: I don’t do hypothetically
GC Wire: My last question was not hypothetical. It’s a straightforward question. If ANY alderman is accused and removed from executive session by a vote of the others, who will then represent that alderman’s Ward in those executive session matters?
Alderman Tillis: Have a good night
A Rule Open to Abuse
Tillis’s response is noteworthy because the rule itself is based entirely on hypothetical future conduct – or the mere accusation of it. But there is a greater concern beyond that of just personal accusations.
Under the newly adopted rule, a majority of aldermen could theoretically remove another elected official from executive session participation based solely on accusations of misconduct related to recording discussions behind closed doors.
That creates a scenario where a governing majority could potentially sideline opposing voices during critical deliberations involving lawsuits, contracts, land deals, personnel matters, or other contentious votes conducted in executive session.
Even if no abuse occurs within the current Board, the concern is that the mechanism now exists.
And because executive sessions often involve important discussions and final votes, excluding a dissenting alderman could significantly alter debate, negotiation, and strategy surrounding controversial decisions.
In practical terms, the rule grants a simple majority of the Board extraordinary authority over the participation rights of another duly elected official — despite no clear state law authorizing such a punishment.
Representation Matters
The issue also extends beyond the alderman being accused.
If a majority of the Board can remove another elected official from executive session discussions and votes, the residents represented by that official effectively lose their direct voice during some of the city’s most important deliberations. Unlike ordinary procedural rules, this enforcement mechanism directly alters who may participate in governmental deliberations on behalf of voters.
Executive sessions routinely involve litigation strategy, land acquisitions, personnel matters, contracts, and other significant governmental actions.
Some have argued that residents would still technically have representation because Ocean Springs also elects aldermen-at-large. But that argument raises its own problem. Under that logic, every ward in the city would effectively continue to benefit from both its ward alderman and at-large representation — except for the ward whose elected representative had been excluded by the others.
In other words, one group of residents would suddenly have less direct representation than every other ward in the city, despite electing an alderman specifically chosen to represent their interests.
In practical terms, the punishment would not merely affect the accused alderman. It would affect every voter in that ward.
And that remains the unanswered question:
If the Board expels an elected alderman from executive session, who exactly represents the people who elected them?
Hypothetically, of course.
