Read the complete formal complaints, along with the evidence supporting allegations surrounding the City’s controversial parking garage project.
OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC Wire) — The City of Ocean Springs is being accused of swapping out Board-approved documents in its official records and repeatedly providing dishonest responses to official public records requests involving millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. Although Mississippi law requires the Mississippi Ethics Commission to immediately forward such complaints to the public body — triggering a 14-day deadline for the City’s response — more than two months after these complaints were filed, the Commission has failed to serve them or identify any legal authority permitting the delay.
State law requires the Mississippi Ethics Commission to forward Open Meetings Act and Public Records Act complaints to the public body upon receiving them. More than two months after GC Wire filed two detailed complaints alleging serious violations involving Ocean Springs’ controversial $8 million state-funded parking garage project, that has still not happened.
Despite repeated requests from GC Wire, the Ethics Commission has declined to identify any statute, rule, or other legal authority that permits it to delay serving the complaints. More than two months after they were filed, no explanation for the Commission’s departure from the statutory process has been provided.
GC Wire is publishing both complaints in full for the first time so readers can review the evidence themselves.
The complaints stem from our year-long investigation into the Gulf Coast Restoration Fund (GCRF) project, which uncovered evidence that official Board records no longer accurately reflected the grant agreements approved by the Board of Aldermen and documented what the Public Records Act complaint describes as a pattern of contradictory responses, substituted records, incomplete productions, and unanswered public records requests.
Although the investigation begins with actions taken by the City in 2022, the complaints focus on decisions, records, and public actions that continued through 2026 as City officials debated, defended, and relied upon those same records during the ongoing controversy surrounding the parking garage project.
The original application for the GCRF grant promised that, if awarded, the multi-million-dollar parking garage would be owned by the People of Ocean Springs. That ownership structure was approved by the Mississippi Legislature and ultimately became law when signed by the governor. GC Wire’s investigation later uncovered evidence that Board-approved grant documents were replaced in the City’s official records with different versions that supported a plan to transfer ownership of the garage to private developers with close ties to City officials.
Instead of owning the garage as originally presented to the state, Ocean Springs taxpayers now pay tens of thousands of dollars each year in lease payments and related costs for access to parking spaces in a facility they were originally told they would own.
The first complaint is the foundation of the entire controversy. It alleges that the official records of the May 17, 2022 Board meeting no longer accurately reflect the action actually taken by the Board of Aldermen. According to the complaint and supporting documents, grant agreements approved by the Board in 2022 were later swapped out in the official minutes with materially different agreements created in 2023, and one of the documents now contained in the minutes packet appears to combine pages from agreements created in different years. Neither the Board of Aldermen or the public was notified of these actions. The complaints do not identify who made the changes, when they were made, or under whose authority they occurred.
The second complaint picks up where the first leaves off. Rather than focusing on the contents of the official records, it documents the City’s responses to months of Public Records Act requests seeking those same records. It alleges a recurring pattern of substituted records, contradictory responses, incomplete productions, unanswered follow-up requests, and shifting explanations surrounding the parking garage project. The complaint asks the Ethics Commission to determine whether the City complied with the Mississippi Public Records Act and to require production of any remaining responsive records if appropriate.
Both complaints, along with links to the exhibits supporting them, are published below.
Open Meetings Act Complaint — Alleging Illegal Document Swap-Out
INTRODUCTION
In simplest terms, the minutes of the May 17, 2022 Recess Board Meeting once properly attached the Grant Agreements that were approved on that day. But now, the official minutes for May 17, 2022 attach a different set of agreements that were drafted over a year later in July 2023 and never approved by the Board.
This complaint concerns a simple but fundamental question that is relevant to current 2026 events in the City of Ocean Springs:
Which grant agreements were actually approved by the Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen at their May 17, 2022 Recess Meeting?
The issue only became material in 2025 and 2026 after the City relied upon and publicly referenced the May 17, 2022 approved agreements during ongoing discussions concerning the downtown parking garage project, including public debate and recent Board votes regarding obligations tied to the project.
As those discussions unfolded, public records requests seeking the agreements approved by the Board on May 17, 2022 revealed significant discrepancies between:
- the agreements previously identified by the City as the agreements approved by the Board the evening of May 17, 2022,
- and different agreements later attached to the official minutes records associated with that meeting.
The Open Meetings Act requires “an accurate recording of any final actions taken” during public meetings.
This complaint alleges the official records associated with the May 17, 2022 meeting no longer satisfy that requirement because the records no longer accurately reflect the agreements actually approved by the Board during its final action at that meeting.
On May 17, 2022, the Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen publicly voted to approve Mississippi Development Authority Gulf Coast Restoration Fund grant agreements related to the City’s downtown parking garage project.
Those agreements were executed and notarized by all parties a few weeks later in August 2022.
In public records responses, the City identified those executed agreements as the agreements associated with the Board’s May 17, 2022 approval.
The dates of those agreements align: drafted in January 2022, approved by the Board in May 2022, executed and notarized in August 2022.
However, later public records responses produced official minutes of the May 17, 2022 meeting containing different agreements – agreements that were drafted over a year later in 2023 that were never approved by the Board.
Further review revealed that at least one agreement attached to the official minutes packet is internally inconsistent on its face, combining a 2022 “Grant Agreement” cover page with substantive pages originating from a later 2023 “Amended and Restated Grant Agreement.”
As a result, the official records associated with the May 17, 2022 meeting no longer clearly identify which agreements were actually approved by the Board as part of its final action during that meeting.
When these discrepancies were later presented publicly to the Board of Aldermen, a motion to correct the official records failed.
This complaint requests that the Mississippi Ethics Commission determine whether the official records associated with the May 17, 2022 meeting satisfy Mississippi’s requirement for “an accurate recording of any final actions taken at such meeting.”
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. The Board Approved Grant Agreements on May 17, 2022
On May 17, 2022, the Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen held a public meeting during which then-Mayor Kenny Holloway requested authorization to execute Mississippi Development Authority Gulf Coast Restoration Fund grant agreements related to the downtown parking garage project.
According to the official meeting transcript and publicly available City meeting video hosted on YouTube, Holloway informed the Board that the grants had been approved and authorization was needed to execute the agreements.
See YouTube Video at: https://www.youtube.com/live/geths76mOzQ?si=UqdfPMjnOLziPtJT&t=3472 (Motion begins at 57:52)
Then-City Attorney Robert Wilkinson addressed the Board and stated words to the effect of:
“Mayor, I reviewed and it’s been a work in progress but from the city’s standpoint I certainly would approve.”
A motion was then made and unanimously approved authorizing execution of the agreements.
The agreements approved that evening were subsequently executed and notarized by all parties in August 2022.
In later public records responses, the City identified the agreements associated with the May 17, 2022 Board approval as:
- “GCRF-20-09 Grant Agreement”
- and “GCRF-21-09 Grant Agreement.”
Copies of the executed August 2022 agreements are attached collectively as Exhibit A.
II. Public Records Requests Later Produced Different Agreements
In 2025 and 2026, Complainant submitted multiple public records requests seeking records reflecting the agreements approved during the May 17, 2022 meeting.
The City eventually produced records identified as the official May 17, 2022 minutes packet documenting the Board’s approval of the grant agreements. See Exhibit B (Motion is on Page 6, associated Agreements begin on Page 191.)
Those records purported to document the agreements approved by the Board as part of its final action during the meeting.
However, the agreements attached to those records were not the executed 2022 Grant Agreements approved by the Board.
Instead, the records contained agreements drafted and created in 2023, titled:
- “GCRF-20-09 AMENDED AND RESTATED GRANT AGREEMENT”
- and “GCRF-21-09 AMENDED AND RESTATED GRANT AGREEMENT.”
The agreements now attached to the May 17, 2022 minutes produced by the City were drafted and executed in July 2023 and materially differed from the agreements approved by the Board on May 17, 2022.
The 2023 “Amended and Restated” agreements were never approved by the Board of Aldermen. Yet those agreements now appear within the official minutes records associated with the May 17, 2022 meeting.
As a result, the official records produced by the City reflected contractual provisions and agreement language that did not exist at the time the Board took final action on May 17, 2022.
In short, the official minutes of the May 17, 2022 Board of Aldermen meeting no longer have the agreements attached that were approved that evening. Instead, they have been replaced with agreements that did not exist at the time and would not be created for another year.
III. The Official Minutes Packet Contains Internally Inconsistent Agreement Pages
Further review of the records produced by the City revealed that at least one agreement attached to the minutes packet appears internally inconsistent on its face.
Specifically, “Exhibit 11-c” attached to the May 17, 2022 minutes packet appears to combine pages originating from materially different agreements created in different years.
The cover page of the document identifies the GCRF-20-09 agreement as:
“GRANT AGREEMENT”
matching the title of the original August 2022 agreement approved by the Board.
However, the immediately following substantive page begins with the language:
“This Amended and Restated Grant Agreement (‘Agreement’), dated as of July 1, 2023…”
matching the later 2023 agreement that was never approved by the Board during the May 17, 2022 meeting.
Copies of the actual covers and relevant pages are attached as Exhibits C.
As a result, the records associated with the May 17, 2022 meeting appear to combine pages originating from different agreements executed at different times.
The resulting records reflect language that did not exist at the time the Board took final action on May 17, 2022.
IV. The Board Refused to Correct the Official Record
On May 5, 2026, members of the Board of Aldermen were presented with evidence demonstrating that the agreements attached to the May 17, 2022 minutes packet did not match the agreements actually approved by the Board during that meeting.
Alderman Karen Stennis presented evidence showing:
- the Board approved specific agreements in May 2022,
- those agreements were executed in August 2022,
- and the official records later reflected different agreements drafted in 2023.
Stennis then made a motion to correct the official records so the minutes packet would accurately reflect the agreements approved by the Board on May 17, 2022.
The motion failed.
As a result, the official records associated with the May 17, 2022 meeting continue to reflect agreements that were not approved by the Board during that meeting.
Days after the failed vote, Alderman Steve Tillis publicly commented on the issue in a Facebook discussion.
In his comments, Tillis stated:
“My vote the other night was not about avoiding transparency, but about following the law. Based on guidance from the City Attorney and conversations with outside counsel, I had concerns that attempting to change records or minutes from a previous board could create additional legal issues and taxpayer expense for the City. This could have involved hiring outside counsel and investigators, with the investigation potentially extending from Ocean Springs to the state level.”
Tillis further stated:
“In addition, a full investigation could potentially cost taxpayers upward of $100,000…”
In a separate comment within the same discussion, Tillis also stated:
“I would agree that there has been much misappropriated documents.”
Copies of Alderman Tillis’s public statements are attached collectively as Exhibit D.
VIOLATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI OPEN MEETINGS ACT
Mississippi Code § 25-41-11 requires “an accurate recording of any final actions taken at such meeting.”
The final action taken by the Board on May 17, 2022 was approval of specific grant agreements presented during that public meeting.
However, the official records later produced by the City no longer accurately reflect those agreements.
Instead, the records contain:
- later-created 2023 agreements,
- agreements not approved by the Board,
- and at least one internally inconsistent document assembled from pages originating from different agreements executed in different years.
As a result, the official records associated with the May 17, 2022 meeting no longer constitute “an accurate recording” of the final action actually taken by the Board during that meeting.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Complainant respectfully requests that the Mississippi Ethics Commission:
- Investigate the accuracy of the official records associated with the May 17, 2022 Board meeting;
- Determine whether the official records satisfy the requirements of Mississippi Code § 25-41-11;
- Determine whether the records associated with the meeting accurately reflect the final action taken by the Board;
- Order corrective action sufficient to ensure the official records accurately reflect the agreements actually approved by the Board during the May 17, 2022 meeting;
- Grant any additional relief authorized by law and deemed appropriate by the Commission.
Public Records Act Complaint – Alleging Dishonest Responses and Other Violations of Law
INTRODUCTION
I am the publisher of GC Wire and have conducted ongoing reporting concerning the publicly funded parking garage project located at 1515 Government Street in Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
During the course of that reporting, I submitted multiple Mississippi Public Records Act requests seeking records relating to Gulf Coast Restoration Fund (“GCRF”) agreements, Board authorizations, meeting minutes, and related records associated with the project.
Many of the requests referenced in this complaint arose during a period of increasing public controversy concerning differing versions of GCRF grant agreements.
The records requests and responses documented in this complaint occurred before, during, and after these public disputes regarding the same records. The City’s responses to records requests changed as the City’s public narrative regarding the agreements changed.
This complaint does not ask the Commission to determine the underlying merits of the parking garage controversy itself. Rather, it concerns a documented pattern of incomplete responses, substituted records, delayed productions, contradictory responses, ignored clarification requests, inconsistent fee demands, and inconsistent treatment of public records requests involving the same documents.
The chronology below is presented so the Commission may evaluate whether the City complied with its obligations under the Mississippi Public Records Act.
PATTERN OBSERVED THROUGHOUT THE REQUESTS
The requests and responses documented below reflect a recurring pattern involving:
- production of records different from those specifically requested;
- delayed or ignored clarifications;
- incomplete productions;
- ignored follow-up concerns;
- inconsistent treatment of the same records;
- failure to identify whether requested records existed;
- failure to state whether records were withheld or unavailable;
- and shifting treatment of the executed 2022 GCRF agreements.
The chronology also reflects repeated instances in which:
- requester identified discrepancies in productions;
- requester provided precise clarification requests;
- and the City either failed to respond substantively or later changed the records being produced.
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST NO. 1
Date Submitted: November 4, 2025
See Exhibit: “November 4 2025 Request.pdf”
On November 4, 2025, I submitted a Public Records Act request seeking two categories of records:
“The final Gulf Coast Restoration Fund (GCRF) grant application submitted by or on behalf of the City of Ocean Springs, in partnership with OHOS Land, LLC, for funding related to the parking garage project at 1515 Government Street.” And “The grant award or funding letter provided to the City of Ocean Springs from the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA), the GCRF Advisory Board, or any related agency confirming the approval or amount of GCRF funding for this project.”
On November 13, 2025, the City responded and produced five records, including the GCRF application, executed 2022 grant agreements, and later amended versions of those agreements. The award / funding letter was not included, nor was there a mention in the City’s response of the document.
After reviewing the application materials, I discovered that the “final application” produced by the City repeatedly referenced attached supporting documents that had not been included in the production. The application specifically referenced attached hotel studies, resolutions, letters of support, and preliminary design and engineering materials.
On March 16, 2026, I submitted a follow-up clarification identifying the omitted records by page reference within the application itself and requesting production of the missing attachments.
The City later produced some of the omitted materials, including a hotel study and a 2019 resolution. However, the City stated it was “unable to locate” other referenced records, including preliminary design and engineering materials and letters of support referenced within the application.
On April 30, 2026, I replied again: “I have still not received this portion of my November 4, 2025 public records request: ‘The grant award or funding letter provided to the City of Ocean Springs from the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA), the GCRF Advisory Board, or any related agency confirming the approval or amount of GCRF funding for this project.’” The City did not respond.
On May 4, 2026, I replied again: “On April 30, 2026, I sent a reminder regarding an incomplete response to my November 4, 2025 public records request, but have not received a response.” The City did not respond.
This request is significant because it established that, as of November 2025, the City possessed and voluntarily produced the executed 2022 grant agreements that later became the subject of contradictory public statements and later production disputes.
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST NO. 2
Date Submitted: November 6, 2025
See Exhibit: “November 6 2025 Request.pdf”
On November 6, 2025, I submitted a request seeking the agreement referenced within the jointly filed GCRF application stating that “OHOS Land, LLC had entered into an agreement to transfer ownership of the parking garage to the City upon completion of construction.”
I also requested any Board minutes reflecting approval of that agreement.
On November 18, 2025, the City responded by producing an August 17, 2021 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”).
After reviewing the response, I noticed this was not the agreement requested. I also noticed a significant chronology issue. The GCRF application referencing the agreement was submitted in 2019, yet the MOU produced by the City as a response to my request was dated nearly two years later.
I therefore submitted a clarification explaining that the 2021 MOU could not logically be the agreement referenced in the 2019 application unless some earlier agreement also existed.
Rather than directly addressing the discrepancy, the City initially defended the production of the 2021 MOU. A second follow-up email produced no better results. Only months later did the City ultimately state that no additional responsive records could be located.
This sequence is significant because the chronology issue was straightforward and specifically identified by requester. Despite that clarification, the City did not promptly provide a direct answer regarding whether the referenced agreement existed.
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST NO. 3
Date Submitted: March 16, 2026
See Exhibit: “March 16 2026 Request.pdf”
On March 16, 2026, I submitted a request seeking:
“Any resolution, motion, or vote of the Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen authorizing the Mayor and/or City Clerk to execute the GCRF grant agreement for the 1515 Government Street project.”
The request was narrow and directed specifically toward the Board authorization for execution of the grant agreements.
In response, the City produced a 2019 resolution authorizing the City to be a co-applicant for a GCRF grant and a 2021 Memorandum of Understanding with a private company.
Neither of these substitution documents contained the authorization to execute grant agreements that was requested.
After reviewing publicly available materials independently, I located the actual responsive authorization myself within the May 17, 2022 Board minutes. Those minutes state:
“A motion was made … and unanimously carried to authorize the Mayor to execute the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) Gulf Coast Restoration Fund (GCRF) Program Grant Agreement.”
On April 10, 2026, I informed the City that the records produced were not responsive to the request and explained that I had independently located the authorization within the May 17, 2022 minutes. I also requested clarification regarding whether the City had searched Board minutes before responding.
After no response, I sent another follow-up email on April 14, 2026. The City replied on April 16 and transmitted a complete version of the May 17, 2022 minutes packet. That same day, I replied asking the City to “confirm whether the attached PDF you sent today represents a true and complete copy of the agenda packet and all exhibits presented to the Board of Aldermen at the May 17, 2022 meeting.” The City never responded.
This request is significant because the responsive authorization existed within official Board minutes, yet requester was required to independently locate the record after the City initially produced different materials not asked for.
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST NO. 4
Date Submitted: April 23, 2026
See Exhibit: “April 23 2026 Request.pdf”
At an April 2026 Board of Aldermen meeting, officials publicly stated the City had not executed grant agreements for the parking garage in 2022 and the first set of executed agreements did not occur until 2023. I knew this to be incorrect, because the City had previously responded to my November 4, 2025 public records request with the 2022 agreements they are now saying did not exist. I challenged this assertion through a public records request.
On April 23, 2026, I submitted a very specific request for:
“1. Mississippi Development Authority Gulf Coast Restoration Fund Grant Agreement GCRF-20-09. This agreement was signed and notarized by all parties in August 2022.
2. Mississippi Development Authority Gulf Coast Restoration Fund Grant Agreement GCRF-21-09. This agreement was also signed and notarized by all parties in August 2022.
For clarity, I am not seeking similar agreements that were signed at a later time, only the two agreements listed above that were signed and notarized by all parties in August 2022. Both agreements show a creation date of January 27, 2022 in the first line after their respective cover pages.”
Despite the very specific request seeking documents from 2022 and asking them not to send later versions as a substitute, on May 1, 2026 the City produced later amended versions of the agreements from 2023.
That same day, I responded explaining the produced documents were not the ones I had requested. In that email, I attached the 2022 agreements the City had previously sent me in a November records request and stated:
“For clarity, I have attached copies of the exact August 2022 executed agreements that were previously provided to me by the City Clerk’s Office in November 2025. Please confirm whether these August 2022 executed agreements remain in the City’s possession as official records.”
The City did not respond.
On May 8, 2026, I sent another follow-up email asking again for clarification. The City never responded to that email either.
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST NO. 5
Date Submitted: April 30, 2026
See Exhibits: “April 30 2026 Request 1 of 2.pdf” and “April 30 2026 Request 2 of 2.pdf”
On April 30, 2026, I submitted a request seeking records related to the May 17, 2022 Board of Aldermen meeting and its official minutes packet.
Specifically, I requested:
“All versions of the May 17, 2022 minutes packet, including:
– The version originally prepared following the meeting
– Any revised, updated, or recompiled versions
– The version currently maintained by the City and/or posted publicly
– All drafts of the May 17, 2022 minutes, including any preliminary or working versions prior to final approval (including any Word Docs or similar word processing or editing files prior to the minutes being transferred to pdf format).
All versions of the grant agreements attached to the May 17, 2022 minutes packet, including:
– The agreements executed following the Board’s authorization
– Any amended, restated, or substituted versions included in the packet
Any records reflecting when the minutes packet and its attachments were created, compiled, or modified, including:
– Document properties or metadata (creation date, last modified date, and author, if available)
– File history or version information maintained by the City”
At the time of this request, disputes had already arisen concerning which versions of the GCRF agreements were attached to the May 17, 2022 minutes packet and whether records associated with the packet had later changed.
On May 5, 2026, during a Board meeting, Alderman Karen Stennis publicly distributed copies of the executed 2022 agreements and moved to correct the minutes packet.
On May 11, 2026, the City responded in two separate emails.
The first email transmitted the assumed current version of the May 17, 2022 minutes package. The second email transmitted a separate “grant versions file.” This file contained two sets of grant agreements: one set of the two executed in 2022 and the other set of the two executed in 2023.
The two 2022 agreements are the same agreements I had specifically requested in my April 23, 2026 request that the City refused to produce in that request and only substituted with other documents not requested.
The minutes the City produced in this request reference “Exhibit 11-c” concerning the GCRF grant agreement authorization.
Because my request specifically sought all grant agreements attached to the May 17, 2022 minutes packet, the City’s separate transmission of the “grant versions file” containing the executed 2022 agreements strongly indicated those agreements were being treated as responsive records associated with the May 17, 2022 minutes packet request.
This sequence is significant because only days earlier:
- City officials had publicly disputed the existence or status of the executed 2022 agreements;
- the City had failed to produce those same agreements in response to a separate request specifically seeking them;
- and then, after the agreements were publicly presented during a Board meeting by Alderman Stennis, the City reverted back to producing them in a public records request.
Additionally – although my request specifically sought drafts, metadata, modification histories, file histories, and all versions of the minutes packet – the City did not state whether such records existed, were withheld, could not be located, or had not been searched.
Only selected records were produced.
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST NO. 6
Date Submitted: May 1, 2026
See Exhibits: “May 1 2026 Request.pdf”
On May 1, 2026, during the same period in which disputes concerning the 2022 agreements were escalating publicly – and prior to the City’s response that reverted back to acknowledging the 2022 agreements exist – I submitted another request.
The purpose of this request was to obtain copies of the City’s earlier production after disputes later arose regarding the existence and status of the same agreements. I specifically requested:
“1. The public records request submitted by Eric Brian Rosenberg on November 4, 2025, which included the following language: “The final Gulf Coast Restoration Fund (GCRF) grant application submitted by or on behalf of the City of Ocean Springs, in partnership with OHOS Land, LLC, for funding related to the parking garage project at 1515 Government Street. The grant award or funding letter provided to the City of Ocean Springs from the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA), the GCRF Advisory Board, or any related agency confirming the approval or amount of GCRF funding for this project.”;
2. The City’s response to that request, dated November 13, 2025; 3. All records produced by the City in response to that request, including all attachments, exhibits, and responsive documents provided at that time.”
The request quoted the exact language of the earlier PRR and specifically referenced the earlier production.
Rather than reproducing the records, the City responded on May 11, 2026 by stating:
“Your request requires search of email accounts which must be outsourced to our IT contractor, AGJ. Please remit $37.50 for an estimate to be provided by AGJ.”
No records were produced.
This response raised additional concerns because the original request from November 4 was not submitted via email. It was submitted through the City’s CivicPlus public records portal, the responsive records I was requesting in this request had already previously been produced by the City, and the City did not explain why previously produced records could not be reproduced independently of any outsourced email search.
The City also did not provide any partial production, distinguish between records already maintained by the City and records allegedly requiring email recovery, or explain why reproduction of previously produced records required outsourced IT review.
This request is significant because it occurred during the same period in which requester was attempting to document the City’s earlier production of the executed 2022 agreements and the City’s later refusal to produce those same records when specifically requested again.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Complainant respectfully requests that the Mississippi Ethics Commission:
- Determine whether the City of Ocean Springs complied with the Mississippi Public Records Act with respect to the requests described above;
- Determine whether responsive records were improperly withheld, omitted, substituted, or incompletely produced;
- Determine whether the City conducted adequate searches for responsive records;
- Determine whether the City properly handled requests involving multiple versions of records and minutes packet materials;
- Require production of any remaining responsive records;
- Require preservation of records related to the requests described herein;
- And grant any additional relief the Commission deems appropriate under Mississippi law.
