On Dec. 5, 2014, the Mississippi Ethics Commission ruled the city of Columbus had violated the state’s Open Meetings Act by holding two separate non-quorum meetings the previous February where city business was discussed privately and without public notice.
The ruling came in response to a complaint filed by a former Dispatch reporter in March 2014.
The Ethics Commission issued no penalty: Essentially it informed the city the meetings were improper and should not happen again.
That is where the matter should have ended.
Instead, the city filed an appeal of the ruling in chancery court. Although no date for that decision has been set, there have been developments in the case.
First, Chancery Court Judge Kenneth Burns ruled the Mississippi Ethics Commission would not be allowed to argue its position if a hearing is held. We claim no expertise in law, but we find it odd that a judge would only want to consider one side of the argument — the city’s.
Monday, The Dispatch obtained a copy of a brief the city filed with the chancery court. The brief was 27 pages, but the city’s position appears to be based on two arguments: The “assemblages” of elected officials in two separate groups were not “meetings,” as defined in the Open Meetings Act and that the city did not violate the rules, but merely circumvented them.
It is the city’s position that when the mayor “assembled” two separate groups of three council members to discuss the same topic on the same day, it was not a “meeting” because no official action was taken at those “gatherings.”
In our view, that hardly relieves the council of its obligation to conduct its business in public.
Discussions are a part of any decision — at least they should be — and state law clearly limits what sorts of discussions can be held privately in what is known as executive session. Neither of the topics discussed in those meetings — renovations to the Trotter Center and who would perform retail recruitment for the city — met those standards.
It remains our position that it is just important for taxpayers to know not only what decisions are made (by a vote) but why they are made (through discussion).
As disturbing as it is find the city does not share that belief, the city’s second argument is even more worrisome.
In its brief, the city claimed it didn’t violate the Open Meeting Act because it circumvented the rules. This happens routinely in private business, the brief argues.
Companies often change their strategies to avoid being held to provisions of certain rules.
We hope the citizens of Columbus will take a moment to consider the gravity of that position. It’s an end-run around the citizens’ rights to participate in city government.
“Mom, I didn’t steal the cookie from the cookie jar: I simply circumvented the rules regarding cookie possession.”
Is that really the message the city wants to send to its citizens?
When the city first appealed the Ethics Commission ruling, we initially considered it as an effort to “save face.” If that’s all that was at stake here, we would be inclined to let the matter pass without comment.
But if the city is successful in its appeal, it would mean the city would be allowed to meet privately to discuss important city matters with impunity.
That’s not how city government was intended to operate.
As Judge Burns ponders what appears to be a one-sided argument, we hope he will consider the consequences of the decision he makes.
It is not about definitions or tactics, as the city suggests.
It’s about honest, open government.
We still believe in that, even if our elected officials do not.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.