(GC Wire runs on donations by residents like you. Please click to help us keep reporting.)
OCEAN SPRINGS, MS — The Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen voted unanimously Tuesday for City Attorney David Harris to recuse himself so they could discuss his and other firms’ applications for the job.
But Harris refused to leave.
After he had proven he would not take direction from the governing body, they rewarded him with a permanent position.
Earlier this year, Harris told aldermen in a closed session they should refrain from speaking to the press about him.
“Say it to my face,” he demanded.
On Tuesday, Harris made sure the Board still understood the assignment.
Say It to My Face: Part Two
The tension began when the topic of legal services came up. The agenda packet — released the Friday before each meeting — included a memorandum clearly labeling the item as: “Discuss Legal Service Request for Proposals.”
Some aldermen believed they would be reviewing applications from the multiple law firms competing for the role. Instead, before any discussion could occur, Alderman Kevin Wade immediately moved to award Harris the contract.
Alderman Shannon Pfeiffer had some issues. Her first, was the fact that Harris remained in the room.
“One thing before we begin the item,” she said. “I just wanted to bring up there’s a conflict of interest because the current city attorney is a bidder on this RFP and has direct personal and financial stake in the outcome, so I move that he be required to recuse himself from any participation including advising the board on this item.”
After the motion passed unanimously, Mayor Bobby Cox asked Mr. Harris to exit the room.
But Harris would not leave.
“I’ll just sit here quietly,” he said.
Cox waived it off, saying, “Either way, it’s fine.”
But it’s not fine. At least not according to the law.
The Mississippi Attorney General has stated repeatedly that a recused public official must step out of the room. In Advisory Opinion 96-028-E, the AG wrote:
“In order to properly recuse oneself from a matter, the public servant must leave the room or area where such discussions, considerations and/or actions take place. The minutes of the governing entity’s board should state the public servant left the meeting by showing him or her absent for that matter.”
And this Board already knows how to do a proper recusal. As recently as August, two aldermen stepped out when the topic of short-term rentals came up. The August 19 minutes record it plainly:
“Aldermen Hinton and Stennis recused themselves from the discussion due to a potential conflict of interest and stepped out of the boardroom.”
Harris’s refusal to leave could reasonably be perceived as an intimidation move — a silent “say it to my face” presence — capable of chilling any meaningful discussion of applicants among aldermen.
It did not have the desired effect on at least two of them.
‘This Feels Predetermined’
Pfeiffer began by questioning why Wade’s motion was made to award the contract when the agenda explicitly stated this time was blocked to discuss all candidates applying for the job.
Project Manager Sarah Harris confirmed the agenda insertion was not designed for action. In a November 3 email to the entire Board, she wrote:
“I am going to place this on the November 18, 2025 board agenda just for discussion, instead of discussion and award. This way the entire board can decide which way to move forward once you have heard everyone’s options.”
But no other options were discussed Tuesday. Wade’s immediate motion was to award the contract to David Harris.
Alderman Steve Tillis quickly seconded the motion and praised Harris, urging the board to continue with him for the year.
“Up to this point now, any kind of questions I’ve asked David, any kind of help that I’ve asked him for, I think he’s done a great job with it,” the Ward 1 representative added. “Has everything been perfect? No. But if we hire somebody else, is everything going to be perfect? We don’t know.”
Karen Stennis, who represents Ward 2, wasn’t so kind.
“He’s made some major faux pas in these couple of months,” she said. “He’s given us poor advice when his contract was sitting on the table and it was to his advantage.”
She went further:
“I’m appalled that this board doesn’t have that same problem.”
Pfeiffer added that the board had been threatened with “jail, fines, [and] removal from office” over questioning legal advice — threats she said were entirely unrealistic and contributed to her loss of confidence in Harris.
She then voiced what the process made obvious:
“This feels predetermined.”
Mayor Cox defended Harris, citing his work with staff and saying he had “total faith” in the attorney.
With Harris defiantly still sitting in the room watching and listening to the deliberation, Cox called for a vote.
The Board voted 5–2 to award Harris the contract, with Pfeiffer and Stennis voting nay.
A History of Conflicted Advice
Tuesday night wasn’t the first time David Harris inserted himself into deliberations over his own contract.
Back in September, when aldermen were first evaluating whether to keep Harris beyond his interim appointment, he gave the Board a series of legal claims that turned out to be false — and all of them benefited him financially. According to documents and transcripts reviewed by GC Wire, Harris told aldermen that:
- his interim appointment was about to “expire,”
- Mississippi law required them to approve a one-year contract, and
- they were legally obligated to take action immediately or risk being left without counsel.
None of that was true.
In fact, as GC Wire reported at the time, Harris was citing a statute about interim appointments that did not apply to city attorneys — a statute that governs only mandated municipal positions. The position of city attorney is optional under Mississippi law, and the statute governing it clearly says aldermen may appoint an attorney annually — not that they must.
(False Legal Claims Boxed Aldermen Into Approving Long Term City Attorney Deal)
Harris also told the Board they could not extend him month-to-month while evaluating other firms. That, too, was false. The law explicitly allows municipalities to employ counsel “should the occasion require,” language broad enough to include shorter arrangements.
But the false framing served its purpose.
By convincing aldermen that they were up against a hard legal deadline — and that they had no alternative but to sign a one-year deal — Harris boxed the Board into approving the contract his firm drafted. Aldermen later said they believed their hands were tied.
It was a conflict of interest then.
On Tuesday night, it happened again — once again in full public view.
Possible Consequences
The irregularities over David Harris’s contract are not trivial. They carry potential consequences for:
1. The City Attorney
- Mississippi Bar complaint:
Giving legal advice on your own contract — especially when that advice is incorrect and financially self-serving — raises serious professional-responsibility questions. - Ethics Commission complaint:
Failing to recuse as required by law, and remaining in the room during deliberations, violates the standards articulated in AG Opinion 96-028-E and multiple Ethics Commission rulings.
2. The Board’s Vote Itself
- Possible challenge from other law firms:
Competing applicants could argue the process was arbitrary, capricious, and tainted by a failed recusal and lack of deliberation. - Open Meetings Act concerns:
Awarding a contract on an agenda item listed for “discussion” only — without evaluating the proposals — undermines public notice and transparency.
3. The City of Ocean Springs
- Exposure to litigation:
If a losing proposer challenges the award, the city could be forced into a costly dispute over a contract selection that was never properly deliberated. - Loss of public trust:
Two aldermen openly accused the process of being predetermined. The optics speak for themselves.
In the end, the process didn’t reflect the Board’s authority over its attorney. It reflected the attorney’s authority over the Board.
Well, OS you have gotten rid of one corrupt/crooked mayor in favor of what seems to be another. You have replaced most of your BOA again with people who obviously do not know how to legally perform their jobs….And your city attorney, well lets just say he is a liar and reads the laws the way he perceives them. SMH your city is in trouble unless all this is straightened out. Yes this outcome was predetermined. And you have many on your BOA who thought they had no choice, but they had a choice, IN THEIR VOTE!