OCEAN SPRINGS, MS (GC Wire) – The Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen voted Tuesday night to create an expulsion punishment for elected officials who leak executive-session information — despite Mississippi Attorney General opinions stating both that aldermen are not prohibited from disclosing such discussions and that boards possess no authority to expel members from executive session for doing so.
The motion not only targeted aldermen themselves, but potentially the residents who elected them.
Under the rule passed Tuesday night, a majority of the Board could effectively block a voter’s chosen representative from participating in critical executive-session discussions and deliberations — as punishment for conduct Mississippi law does not prohibit.
In a motion that immediately raised legal questions, Alderman Rob Blackman proposed banning phones, tablets, and “any other type of recording device” from executive session. He then went further, stating that any alderman found violating the rule would be “subject to expulsion from any executive session by motion and vote of the Board.”
The motion passed 6-1, with Shannon Pfeiffer voting no and Karen Stennis abstaining.
The problem for the Board is that Mississippi law does not appear to authorize either the punishment or the underlying theory behind it.
Attorney General Opinions Directly Contradict Motion
In a February 17, 2006 Attorney General opinion, the State addressed whether aldermen are prohibited from disclosing matters discussed in executive session.
The answer was direct:
“There is nothing in the open meetings law that prohibits members of the board of aldermen from disclosing information discussed during executive sessions, nor does the law provide any penalties for those persons who disclose matters discussed in executive session.”
Another Attorney General opinion issued just months later addressed whether a board could remove an alderman from executive session due to concerns about leaks.
That opinion stated:
“The Open Meetings Act does not contain any provisions which address the exclusion of a member of the public body from any meeting or lawfully declared executive session.”
It became even more specific when discussing fears that an alderman might disclose executive-session discussions:
“Neither do we find any authority which would permit the removal of the remaining alderman… even if there is concern that he or she will disclose the discussions held during that executive session.”
Taken together, the opinions appear to establish two major legal problems for Tuesday night’s vote:
- Mississippi law does not prohibit aldermen from disclosing executive-session discussions; and
- Mississippi law does not authorize boards to punish aldermen by excluding them from executive session.
Because local municipal governments in Mississippi possess only the powers expressly granted to them by state law – a legal principle known as Dillon’s Rule – a City Council or Board of Aldermen cannot manufacture punishments or override state-level allowances.
Mayor Complains About Leaks to GC Wire
According to multiple sources, the proposal was initially discussed behind closed doors.
Sources said Mayor Bobby Cox specifically mentioned this reporter by name during the discussion, complaining that leaks of executive-session information to GC Wire were “hurting the city.”
But the disclosures that appear to have frustrated Cox and other City officials were not gossip or personal attacks. The executive-session matters reported by GC Wire involved issues that appeared contradictory to law, public ethics requirements, or the integrity of official records.
Among them:
- the executive-session proposal to unlawfully transform an hourly waged employee into a 1099 contractor for personal reasons;
- a proposed contract in which City Attorney David Harris inserted himself into a fee structure that would pay him 15% before recommending the Board approve the arrangement;
- a confidential memo distributed by Harris acknowledging aldermen had been presented with a forged document tied to the downtown parking garage controversy;
- and executive-session minutes entry by Harris claiming the Board voted on an action that never took place. The “vote” was later deleted from the official record after GC Wire reported that no such vote appeared to have occurred.
What the Board Likely Can — and Cannot — Do
While Mississippi law appears to provide no authority for expelling an alderman from executive session, boards are not entirely powerless when internal disputes arise.
A board may publicly criticize or censure a member politically. It may also remove members from internal committees or discretionary assignments.
But the power to suspend, remove, or exclude an elected alderman from participating in official meetings is governed by state law — not local motions passed during tense executive-session disputes.
That distinction may become important if the Board attempts to enforce Tuesday night’s vote.
A Government Increasing Secrecy After Controversy
The effort was forced into public view after Pfeiffer pointed out the Open Meetings Act does not permit such deliberations and votes to occur behind closed doors. She demanded the matter be taken up in public, where it was voted on after the Board returned to open session.
The City’s response to the exposure of controversial executive-session matters has now become its own controversy.
Rather than narrowing the use of executive sessions or increasing transparency after repeated disputes involving altered records, phantom votes, forged documents, and conflicts questions, the Board instead voted to threaten elected officials with removal from executive session itself — despite Attorney General opinions stating Mississippi law provides no authority to do so.
Unbelievable