OCEAN SPRINGS, MS – The Board of Aldermen took swift action on Tuesday to censure a fellow board member and retract a letter she sent the Mississippi Attorney General.
The motion was read aloud by Alderman Kevin Wade.
His tone was angry.
He characterized the letter as “untrue” and “false.”
He called his colleague names, including “dishonest,” “backhanded,” and “sneaky.”
A majority of Board members agreed, eventually ordering the city attorney to demand that the Attorney General not answer the questions posed in the letter.
There are a lot of problems with how it all went down.
What did the letter say?
Alderman Shannon Pfeiffer asked the Attorney General’s office for one simple thing: clarity.
She wanted to know whether City Attorney David Harris told the truth when he cornered the city into approving a long-term, lucrative contract for his own law firm.
Specifically, she wrote:
“Recently, questions have arisen as to whether § 21-15-41, which limits compensation and validity of service in an interim or hold-over capacity for more than 90 days, applies to City Attorneys. Additionally, there is uncertainty about whether municipalities are permitted to engage a City Attorney on a temporary, project-based, or month-to-month basis as opposed to an annual contract.”
Her questions went straight to the heart of the controversy.
Faulty Legal Claims
On September 2, Harris told aldermen the law limited his interim position to just 90 days, that it required his new contract to be for one-year, and that Mississippi code does not allow him to be hired on a month-to-month basis.
None of those claims coincide with what the statutes actually say.
Mississippi law caps interim appointments to 90 days only for positions required by law. City attorney is not one of those positions. The law says cities may sign annual contracts with attorneys, but it does not require it. Month-to-month contracts are permitted.
But Harris boxed in the aldermen at that September meeting, telling them the law also requires a city to have an attorney contracted at all times and if they let the 90 day limit pass, Ocean Springs would be operating outside of the law.
This inaccurate description of state laws put the board in a position where they felt they had no choice but to approve the long-term contract he presented that day. After the meeting, several aldermen went on record stating they felt misled when they had a chance to read the statutes for themselves.
Alderman Pfeiffer was one of them. She promptly wrote the letter seeking an opinion from the Attorney General.
In August, the Board had already decided Harris had made false statements in another matter. Official minutes of a previous meeting documented by Harris showed the aldermen had voted to allow former city attorney Robert Wilkinson to continue representing the city in six lawsuits – a vote aldermen said never happened. The Board unanimously decided to strike Harris’s depiction from the official record
But on Tuesday, a majority of the Board shifted gears, going to great lengths to defend Harris and make sure questions about his integrity go unanswered by the Attorney General.
A Motion of Deflection
Just before discussion of the letter, the Board shot down a motion from Karen Stennis to terminate the Harris’s year-long contract and move him back to interim status while the city sought out a permanent replacement.
Minutes later, Wade began a lengthy tirade, deflecting attention away from Harris and onto Pfeiffer.
During his speech, Wade accused Pfeiffer of several serious misdeeds. None of them hold up under basic scrutiny.
Claim: Pfeiffer acted without authorization from the Board.
The Attorney General routinely accepts opinion requests from individual aldermen, mayors, and city attorneys without a board vote. Nothing in Mississippi law prevents an elected official from asking the state for clarification on municipal statutes. Pfeiffer followed the same process other officials across the state use every day.
Claim: She “misrepresented” the letter as being from the entire Board.
The letter begins with, “On behalf of the Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen, I respectfully submit the attached request for an official Attorney General’s Opinion regarding…”
But the letter is signed only by Pfeiffer, using her name, ward, email, and phone number. It never claims to represent a board vote or consensus. The phrase “on behalf of the Board” is standard formality when an alderman writes in their official capacity. It does not mean she acted as a spokesperson nor did she act with authority to bind the city into any actions. The letter asked for an opinion of the law that she could present to fellow aldermen.
A simple cure or compromise could have been to instruct Pfeiffer to clarify that she acted alone in seeking the Attorney General’s opinion, rather than denying the questions to be answered altogether.
Claim: She violated the Mississippi Public Records Act by failing to file a copy with the city clerk.
The law places record-keeping obligations on the custodian — the city clerk — not on an individual alderman sending correspondence. Pfeiffer’s letter becomes a city record once received by or shared with the municipality, not before.
Claim: She was “dishonest” for using city letterhead.
Wade and others complained Pfeiffer used official city letterhead that contained the names of each aldermen at the top and did so without a Board vote.
The Attorney General’s office requires municipal officials to submit requests on official letterhead. Mayor Bobby Cox used the exact same letterhead for his own AG submission earlier in September — also without a board vote — and no one objected then.
The city sends out letters on a daily basis using the same letterhead, containing each aldermen’s names. Even press releases are printed on the same letterhead – none having to go through Board approval beforehand. Tuesday’s outrage was selective.
Claim: She secretly gave the letter to the press.
Pfeiffer’s letter became a public document the moment it was sent to another state agency. Nothing in Mississippi law bars journalists from obtaining or publishing it. At one point in the meeting, Pfeiffer was simultaneously accused of keeping the letter a secret, while also handing it to this journalist for publication. She fired back, “If I wanted to keep it a secret, I wouldn’t have given it to the media.” The quip was met with approving laughter by audience members. Transparency is not misconduct.
What Actions Were Taken
When Wade finished his tirade, he read a motion that went far beyond criticism — it ordered the city to formally intervene with the Attorney General.
Wade’s motion stated:
“I move that the city attorney and the city clerk send a letter to the Attorney General stating that the September 7th letter from Alderman Pfeiffer was not authorized by this board.
“Two, that Alderman Pfeiffer misrepresented that the letter was an opinion requested from this board.
“And three, that the Attorney General be asked to disregard this letter and any information attached.
I also move that Alderman Pfeiffer be required to turn over the letter and all its attachments to the city clerk as required by the Public Records Act.”
The discussion that ensued was just as tumultuous.
Alderman Julie Messenger, who seconded Wade’s motion, said, “I don’t appreciate my name being associated with something I wasn’t consulted on.” When Pfeiffer began to answer, Wade loudly interrupted: “You said on behalf of the Board. You had no authority…” Pfieffer calmly responded, “Excuse me, Kevin, don’t yell at me.” Others, including Aldermen Matthew Hinton and Steve Tillis, piled on.
A majority of Board members then voted to approve Wade’s motion. That decision created a glaring conflict of interest.
The board directed City Attorney David Harris — the very subject of Pfeiffer’s inquiry — to contact the state and urge the Attorney General not to respond to questions about his own conduct.
In any other setting, that would be unacceptable. It placed Harris in the unsound position of managing an inquiry that questions his own actions.
By approving Wade’s motion, the Board empowered Harris to act as both defendant and gatekeeper in a matter concerning his own truthfulness. The vote effectively ensured that the only person allowed to speak to the Attorney General about the controversy is the one who stands to lose the most if the state answers honestly.
With that vote, Ocean Springs didn’t just sideline an alderman — it shielded its attorney from oversight and told the State of Mississippi to look the other way.
Retaliation, Caught on Camera
During his remarks, Wade repeatedly invoked this reporter by name — not to cite facts, but to discredit them. He reminded the audience that I am “suing the City of Ocean Springs,” that I am “seeking money,” and that Alderman Pfeiffer had “given information to a blogger who’s suing the city.”
He said it three separate times. Each mention came as he accused Pfeiffer of wrongdoing for communicating with the press and for questioning city leadership — the exact behavior my federal lawsuit defends.
That case, Rosenberg v. City of Ocean Springs, centers on First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination — the city’s long pattern of punishing those who speak critically of officials.
On Tuesday night, the city proved the claim in real time.
Wade used his public office to shame a journalist for publishing lawful information, and then used that same microphone to condemn an elected official for talking to that journalist and asking a state agency for an opinion. That’s not debate. That’s government using its power to silence disfavored viewpoints — the very definition of viewpoint discrimination.
The irony runs deeper.
Last week, the city’s attorneys asked a federal judge for a protective order to stop this reporter from sending routine media inquiries — questions about the administration’s first 100 days and whether the public was invited to aldermen meetings with a state representative.
The city claims these normal press questions were case-related communications that should be restricted.
Then, in full public view, city officials did the very thing they claim to fear: they injected the lawsuit into a completely unrelated topic, invoked it by name, and used it as a political weapon.
The message was clear — criticize us, and we’ll drag your name into the next meeting too.
Wade’s performance didn’t just echo the behavior described in the lawsuit. It was the behavior described in the lawsuit — an unmistakable example of retaliation, visible to every resident watching live or on YouTube.
A Growing Pattern
What happened to Pfeiffer and this reporter isn’t an isolated outburst — it’s part of a trend.
At a recent meeting, City Attorney David Harris publicly called out residents Joe Jewell and Mike Illaine by name, using them as props in a speech clearly designed to chill public criticism. Both had previously spoken out about city decisions. Harris’s comments weren’t legal advice; they were intimidation wrapped in official language.
Similar actions were frequently taken under the previous Board and administration.
From residents to reporters to elected officials, the message has been the same: if you question city leadership, expect to be publicly attacked by it.
What began as legal misstatements has now turned into open retaliation — against anyone who refuses to stay quiet, even if it’s one of their own.
(Editor’s note: This article reports on remarks and actions taken during the October 7 Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen meeting. It does not discuss or seek to influence any pending litigation.)
Watch Alderman Wade’s Motion
Thank you Brian Rose, 👏🏻! Shannon is my sister and watching that vicious witch hunt online Tuesday night was disturbing & disappointing on so many levels. Keep bringing us the “real” news. Kudos to Karen and Shannon; shame on the rest of the BOA and the mayor for their blatant disregard of the law.
The lack of decorum and respectful conduct is damaging to the credibility of this elected group. Not what seems to be conducive to moving the city forward.
SMH……. I would stand behind both women. This has all gotten ridiculous and is making OS a laughing stock. Transparency is good and more of it is needed. I do not live in OS but do have family there, so I do have an interest in what goes on there. And in my opinion what I am reading and seeing is the beginning of corruption.