OCEAN SPRINGS, MS – After City Attorney David Harris made legal assertions that aldermen now say misled them into approving a one-year contract with his firm, Mayor Bobby Cox has declined to say whether he will veto the deal.
GC Wire sent inquiries to Mayor Bobby Cox last week, asking if he planned to veto the Board’s vote approving Harris’s contract. The email laid out the issue in clear terms: Harris told aldermen his interim appointment could not extend beyond 90 days “as a matter of law,” the city is required to have an attorney under contract, and that his new contract “had to be for a year.”
As reported last week, none of those statements made to the Board match the laws he cited.
Harris’s insistence that the Board had “no choice” pushed aldermen into approving the lucrative contract. Several now say they regret the vote and feel misled.
The Veto Question
In an email dated September 6, GC Wire asked Mayor Cox directly:
“Now that this discrepancy has been brought to light, will you exercise your veto authority on the vote? If not, could you explain why?”
The mayor’s office offered only a recycled single-sentence reply:
“City of Ocean Springs takes legal matters seriously and remains committed to upholding the integrity of our legal system, while making decisions in the best interests of our community.”
The statement did not address the veto question. It did not explain why Harris’s misrepresentation occurred. And it did not say whether the mayor believes the Board had lawful options besides approving Harris’s contract. They did.
The Mystery Memo
Questions also remain about how Harris’s contract ended up on the agenda in the first place.
The September 2 Board of Aldermen packet included a memorandum titled “Legal Services Contract.” The memo, addressed to the mayor and aldermen, declared Harris’s interim period was nearing its expiration under a “90-day limit” and presented aldermen with only one “Requested Action”: approve Harris’s one-year deal.
The memo’s “From” line was left blank. When GC Wire asked Mayor Cox who authored the document and who directed it into the agenda packet, his office repeatedly avoided specifics.
At first, City Hall responded only that the memo was “created in the City Clerk’s Office.” Pressed further on who actually wrote it and who authorized it to be added as New Business on the agenda, the mayor’s office simply repeated the same line: it came from the clerk’s office.
As a general matter under Mississippi law and common municipal practice, only the mayor or the Board of Aldermen may direct the clerk to add “New Business” to an agenda.
Here, the unsigned memo was addressed to the mayor and aldermen — not from them, suggesting it originated from someone else. Yet no one has taken responsibility.
The unanswered question is critical because the memo did more than announce an agenda item: it interpreted the law and urged aldermen to approve Harris’s contract, echoing the same faulty legal reasoning Harris himself used at the meeting.
Undoing the Deed
The mayor’s veto power is one of the only tools left to unwind the contract without forcing aldermen to take another vote. If he refuses to act, Harris’s contract — which runs through September 2026 — remains in place, with the city paying a $12,000 monthly retainer plus $200 per hour for additional work.
While there is a 30-day termination clause, it requires majority action by the Board and is subject to mayoral veto, which critics say makes the contract far less “short-term” in practice. The vote to approve Harris’s contract is not official until signed by Cox. The mayor has ten days to decide whether to veto or sign.
Prior to the vote, Harris was operating under a month-to-month contract. Despite telling aldermen that contract was not lawful past 90 days, it very well could go back into effect should Cox choose a veto.
A Pattern of Non-Answers
The mayor’s vague reply echoes past controversies. When former City Attorney Robert Wilkinson’s financial ties to the failed Securix ticketing program came to light, then-Mayor Kenny Holloway told residents the city was taking the matter “very seriously” and would “direct city resources” toward an investigation. No investigation ever followed.
Harris himself has already faced credibility questions at City Hall. Weeks before Tuesday’s vote, he inserted into the minutes of an executive session a detailed account of a vote that aldermen unanimously said never occurred. Harris wrote that a motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously — but every alderman present denied it, and the Board later voted unanimously to strike the phantom vote from the record.
Now, residents say they are hearing the same boilerplate assurances of the past, instead of substantive answers.
On social media, reaction was blunt. “Unbelievable!!! Of course the attorney is going to steer the BOA toward his contract,” wrote Alan Griffin. Some residents described Harris in harsh terms while others faulted the Board for failing to verify the statutes themselves.
What Can Residents Expect?
Three aldermen — Karen Stennis, Shannon Pfeiffer, and Matthew Hinton — have already said they were misled by Harris’s claims. Pfeiffer has pledged to prepare a new Request for Proposals for outside counsel, while Hinton promised to raise the issue publicly at the Board’s recess meeting.
But the unanswered veto question hangs over City Hall. And unless the mayor acts, the Harris deal – for now.
Meanwhile, several residents have told GC Wire they plan to file ethics complaints and even bar complaints against Harris, saying his misstatements of the law to secure the city’s top legal advisor role is an irony that goes beyond politics and cuts to the heart of professional accountability.
Relevant Mississippi Statutes
§ 21-15-25 – Municipal attorney; appointment and compensation
“The governing authorities may annually appoint an attorney-at-law for the municipality, prescribe his duties and fix his compensation, and/or they may employ counsel to represent the interest of the municipality, should the occasion require. …”
§ 21-15-41 – Limitations period for serving in interim or hold-over capacity
“No person shall serve in an interim or hold-over capacity for longer than ninety (90) days in a position that is required by law to be filled by appointment of the governing body of a municipality, or by mayoral appointment with the advice and consent of the council or aldermen. …”
§ 21-3-3 – Required officers of municipalities
“The elective officers of all municipalities operating under a code charter shall be the mayor, the aldermen, municipal judge, the marshal or chief of police, the tax collector and the tax assessor. …”
(Note: City attorney is not listed among the required officers.)
Please stop calling this a Securix System. It was never that but an illegal operation in clear violation of the Securix contract with the city and the law. It was outrageous and those responsible should be held accountable. Please do all you can and encourage others to demand involvement by the Attorney General’s Office. If the city makes a formal request, we are assured that her office will then have no choice and again… we want the truth known and will accommodate any investigation. We are very weary of being blamed for what Wilkinson, his firm the city and Josh Gregory did. Demand that the AG gets involved please! In regards to this situation with Harris… and his relationship with Wilkinson and all the rest…. why should anyone be surprised? Demand an investigation.