Unanimous Mississippi Supreme Court Decides Columbus Mayor and Council Violated Open Meetings Act

Mississippi Justice Institute calls first-of-its-kind decision a monumental victory
for open and transparent government for all Mississippians

(JACKSON, MISS) – Today, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the Mayor and City Council of Columbus violated the Open Meetings Act when they previously met in prearranged, non-quorum size gatherings to discuss public business, intending to circumvent the Act. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever addressed the issue of whether meetings of public officials in less than quorum numbers violate the Open Meetings Act. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.

"This is a huge win for the citizens of Mississippi and for open and accountable government," said Mike Hurst, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute. "People are tired of backroom deals and secret agreements by government officials that affect their lives. The Supreme Court's opinion puts public officials and bureaucrats on notice – you cannot circumvent the law and do the people's business behind closed doors anymore. Today's decision is a monumental victory for transparency in government."

In 2014, the Columbus mayor scheduled multiple meetings with council members to discuss policy issues and determine matters involving economic development projects and renovation of city property. The meetings were not announced or open to the public. At the time, the mayor excluded a Commercial Dispatch reporter from some of these meetings. In December 2014, the Mississippi Ethics Commission held that the mayor and council violated the Open Meetings Act. The mayor and city council appealed the decision to the Lowndes County Chancery Court, which upheld the Ethics Commission's decision. The mayor and city council then appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

The original complaint against the Mayor and City Council was filed by Nathan Gregory, who at the time was a reporter for The Commercial Dispatch, a Columbus newspaper. The Commercial Dispatch eventually replaced Gregory as a party in the case. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.

The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled, "The four pairs of subquorum gatherings, along with the fact that they were prearranged, nonsocial, and on the topic of public business, illustrated the City's intent to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. The philosophy and spirit of the Act prohibit the City from intending and attempting to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. Additionally, the plain language of Section 25-41-1 requires the subject gatherings to be open to the public. Thus, the City's failure to hold open gatherings violated the Act."

[The Ruling]

In concluding, the Supreme Court noted that, "Prearranged, nonsocial gatherings on public business that are held in subquorum groups with the intent to circumvent the Act are required to be open to the public under Section 25-41-1 of the Open Meetings Act. Thus, the trial court correctly found that the City violated the Open Meetings Act."

Peter Imes, General Manager of The Commercial Dispatch said, "The public should have access to its government's decision-making process, and this ruling upholds that idea. It's a win for open government."

Hurst concluded, "Whether raising taxes, spending taxpayer money or issuing regulations that affect people's lives and property, people want to know what their government is doing. This decision clearly tells government officials to follow the law and do public business in the open."

The Mississippi Justice Institute is also representing a local Meridian man against the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors who have committed the same violations of the Open Meetings Act as found illegal in the present case by the Supreme Court. See http://www.msjustice.org/case/lauderdale-open-meetings-act/

The Mississippi Justice Institute was assisted in this appeal by Clay B. Baldwin, Esq. of the Baldwin Law Firm PLLC in Madison, Miss.

The Mississippi Justice Institute is the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. It represents Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Mississippi Justice Institute is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations. To learn more about MJI, visit www.msjustice.org.

--30--

Over the past month The Clarion-Ledger has highlighted aspects of Medicaid that make the program feel indispensable, with Sam Hall proclaiming that anyone who questions Medicaid’s “valuable services to deserving people” is just plain ignorant. As someone who cares about improving health care for the poor and disabled, however, I find Medicaid’s poor health outcomes shocking. With flexibility from Washington and a focus on quality, states like Mississippi could provide better care for families in need.

It’s difficult to argue with heart-wrenching stories about how Medicaid is helping Mississippi families. For the price — $8 trillion over the next 10 years — one would hope advocates could find a few good stories. Not every Medicaid story has a happy ending, though. A University of Virginia study found that Medicaid patients are more likely to die than the uninsured, and far more likely to die than those with private insurance.

Another story we are not hearing is what the “gold-standard” Oregon Health Insurance Experiment found: that Medicaid recipients, compared to the uninsured, use a lot more health care services without experiencing improved physical health outcomes. The Oregon study also demonstrated that the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid are not patients but hospitals.

The worst thing about Medicaid is that it is crowding out innovative solutions that could deliver better care — not just more services. Breaking up this big-government Medicaid monopoly is going to require hard work from all of us. Here are three questions to start the conversation.

First: Does Medicaid provide good insurance for low-income families? 

As many as 50 percent of primary care physicians in Mississippi are not accepting new Medicaid patients, as compared to 7 percent not accepting new patients with private insurance. As mentioned, Medicaid patients also have, at best, the same health outcomes as the uninsured. Clearly, Medicaid is inferior insurance. State and federal policymakers should facilitate the development of better insurance products tailored to low-income customers.

Second: Is Medicaid a cost-effective way of reimbursing hospitals for uncompensated care? 

In spite of studies (and common sense) showing otherwise, hospitals claim they are losing money on Medicaid. Under federal law, hospital emergency rooms are prohibited from turning patients away. Medicaid is a pricey backdoor mechanism for funding this mandate. Tax credits might be part of the solution for private hospitals. In addition, nonprofit and public hospitals should offer more charity care — certainly far more than the tiny amount provided now under vague “community benefit” provisions.

Third: Is Medicaid the best way to help families facing extraordinary medical costs?

Prior to Obamacare, Mississippi had developed a high-risk insurance pool to help people with significant health care challenges. We need more creative thinking about risk pools (for instance, an income tax credit for donations to nonprofit-managed risk pools); and we need to focus on supply-side deregulation (encouraging telemed, expanding scope, and eliminating certificates of need) that will lower costs and unleash new medical technologies. These reforms are better than depending on a Medicaid program that will be sorely tempted to ration care to high-need populations even as it expands coverage to able-bodied childless adults, for which the Obamacare Medicaid expansion curiously offers a higher federal match.

Finally, I appreciate The Clarion-Ledger trying to inform readers about Medicaid, but I urge a good dose of old-journalism-school skepticism. When the director of Medicaid boasts that there is virtually no eligibility fraud, perhaps it would be helpful to note that other states are uncovering significant irregularities. Or when a Medicaid activist asserts that Congress’ repeal-and-replace bill is going to remove thousands of children from Medicaid, it would be appropriate to fact-check this number, or at least note that these children are going to go back on CHIP, a different insurance program run by the Division of Medicaid.   

I am confident we can all agree on the necessity for fresh thinking about health care. Instead of just thinking about it, though, I hope Congress gives states freedom to demonstrate how they can either radically improve upon Medicaid, or even better, develop targeted solutions aimed at helping the diverse populations Medicaid is currently failing. 

Jameson Taylor is vice president for policy at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy in Jackson. He can be reached at [email protected].

Nothing in life is free. “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” When we get a product or service at no cost to us, it simply means that someone else paid for it. Everything costs somebody something.

Often we think of government programs and benefits as “free”, but the only way government can give something is to take it from someone else. Even when the government pays for administrative items its employees use, it can only do so with money it took from someone else. If it earns income from land or other property it owns, it can only do so because it first took the land or property from someone.

Few people enjoy paying taxes. As one comedian says, “Taxation with representation ain’t so hot either.” The fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall, wrote, “...the power to tax involves the power to destroy; the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create.” Taxes in themselves are not destructive; excessive taxation, however, breaks the entrepreneurial spirit, resulting in less economic activity and fewer jobs for the citizens.

Obviously, government needs money to pay its legitimate expenses, so this is not a diatribe against all taxes. However, as Milton Friedman reminded us, nobody spends someone else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. When we spend our own money we seek the best price and the most appropriate product or service. When it is “someone else’s” money, it’s easy to splurge and be extravagant.

A common blind spot for state legislators and other state officials is the fact that money appropriated by the federal government is still money taken from taxpayers—including taxpayers who live in Mississippi.

In the first episode of The Beverly Hillbillies, Jed Clampett’s sister asks how much the oil company is going to pay him for the oil on his property. Jed said, “Twelve dollars.” His worldly-wise sister was shocked: “Only twelve dollars?!” To which Jed replied, “Yeah, but it’s some new kind of dollar. I’ve heard of paper dollars, and I’ve heard of silver dollars, but these are called mill-ee-yun’ dollars.” Most politicians at the state level seem to think Washington invented a new kind of dollar that doesn’t really cost anybody anything. They call them “fed-er-al” dollars.

These dollars are highly addictive, even leading to the development of creative schemes to "maximize" them. This simply means, "I don't care what I have to do to get more of those 'fed-er-al' dollars; I want all I can get."

Many who were once considered conservative now treat government as the savior, as long as "federal dollars" are the currency of that salvation. But taxpayers beware: when state lawmakers "maximize federal dollars," it just means they are taking more of your money without taking direct responsibility for doing so.

By financing current spending with borrowed funds, our government is obligating future generations to pay for our whims long after the money has been given to someone else.

Those who serve in office must remember that the ability of government to give to one means taking from another. Those who recognize this stewardship principle will govern with humility and restraint.

This is an excerpt from Governing By Principle, MCPP’s ten principles to guide public policy. 

Growing up in the Jackson “bubble,” I knew I wanted to try something new when it came time to attend college. I received a wonderful education at Jackson Academy, but my views were rarely challenged or debated. Attending the University of Alabama was a dream come true, and I looked forward to encountering diverse beliefs and thoughts at a top-tier school boasting more national merit finalists than any other public university. I vowed, though, that I would never lose my faith or convictions.

I vividly recall an honors college seminar taught by an outspokenly liberal professor who asked us to write about something controversial. We could cite any source but one — the Bible. We could cite the Quran, Mao’s Little Red Book or Dr. Seuss. Just not the Bible. In this professor’s opinion, the Bible was not even history; it was just fairy tales. I questioned such intolerance, arguing against my professor’s double standard. I was berated in front of the entire class. I learned then that my views were not tolerated or valued in this class. Unfortunately, mine is not an isolated case.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the University of Alabama has a speech code rating of “yellow.” This means the university has ambiguous protections for free speech. Here in Mississippi, Alcorn State and the University of Southern Mississippi have a yellow rating, whereas Ole Miss and Mississippi State University have a green rating, which indicates no serious threats to free speech. Jackson State and Delta State have red ratings, which means they have “at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.”

Consider this “Student Life” regulation at Delta State: “Words, behavior, and/or actions which inflict mental or emotional distress on others and/or disrupt the educational environment at Delta State University are strictly prohibited.” Many things can cause “mental or emotional distress.” President Donald Trump’s election continues to be a source of great distress for some college students. Should Delta State ban students from displaying Trump bumper stickers or wearing Trump T-shirts? Will the school’s computer servers block internet sites that post pictures of Trump? A regulation prohibiting “mental or emotional distress” is too vague and could lead to administrative actions that violate students’ First Amendment rights.

While both public and private institutions should protect and encourage free speech, publicly funded universities are legally obligated to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed this First Amendment right repeatedly: including for religious speech and activities (Widmar v. Vincent (1981)). Concluded the Court: “With respect to persons entitled to be there, our cases leave no doubt that the First Amendment rights of speech and association extend to the campuses of state universities.”

Many institutions have “vice presidents of diversity” who focus solely on that issue. We see diversity based on race, gender and sexual orientation, yet not so much on diversity of thought. Most university professors identify as liberal, and many go further left than that.

A 2016 Econ Journal Watch study that analyzed faculty voter registration records found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 12 to 1 at 40 leading U.S. universities. Such bias wouldn’t be a problem if we were on a level playing field. But all too often professors and college administrators use their positions of authority and power to intimidate and silence students like me. Many conservatives feel afraid of voicing their opinions because of the political correctness that plagues our nation’s educational system.

In addition, conservative guest speakers often face unfriendly welcomes and threats. Even former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice backed out of a commencement address at Rutgers University after fierce opposition from students and faculty. In response, then-president Barack Obama condemned Rutgers’ intolerance. “If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions,” chided the president. “Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities.”

Some on the left may have become hateful and violent, as we have seen from the Steve Scalise shooting and the Black Lives Matter protests, but we have to come together to protect free speech and free association. If we want a free nation that respects all beliefs, we must demand that students have the right to express themselves as protected by the First Amendment.

Daniel Ashford is a research associate at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

If we really want former prisoners to become productive citizens, take care of their families, and stay out of jail, we should cut the red tape keeping some of them from getting honest work.

Take the case of “Beth,” a Mississippi woman who made mistakes, served her time, but then wanted a better life. Upon release, Beth entered school with the dream of becoming a dental hygienist. After completing her coursework with honors, Beth discovered she was barred from obtaining a license. In Mississippi, dental hygienists cannot get an occupational license if they have a felony conviction; without a license, they can’t work in their chosen profession.

How many other “Beths” are out there? Too many. About 30 percent of all jobs in the United States require an occupational license. A nationwide study by the Institute for Justice shows that Mississippi requires a license for 55 out of 102 low-to-mid-level jobs. Only 4 states license more. Such licenses may make sense for physicians or other professions, but they aren’t necessary for many other jobs.

In addition, licensing requirements often bar ex-cons from getting meaningful, productive work. Here in Mississippi, licensing restrictions prevent ex-cons from becoming tattoo/body artists, embalmers, dieticians, or athletic trainers. What is the logic in preventing an ex-con from cleaning teeth or helping people stay healthy, or embalming dead people?

To its credit, the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) encourages convicts to get the skills they need to become productive members of society. One model MDOC is evaluating is a successful program at Louisiana’s Angola Penitentiary that is training inmates in HVAC repair, automotive repair, plumbing, the culinary arts, even seminary studies. Whereas half of Louisiana’s inmates return to prison within five years, only 1 in 10 inmates that have participated in Angola’s two-year vocational training program return. These results are confirmed by a study published by the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty at Arizona State University. According to their research, states with high occupational licensing burdens have a recidivism rate (the percentage of inmates who return to prison) four times higher than states with low occupational licensing burdens.

At many of our prisons, we offer training in how to cut hair, do construction work and install carpet. All of the job training programs in Mississippi prisons do train prisoners for careers they are allowed to enter into upon release. Eliminating licensing prohibitions for ex-cons in other fields would create more options, reducing recidivism and reducing welfare dependency.

We need to stop licensing so many low-to-mid-level professions. We also need to be aware of the disproportionate impact licensing has on minorities. According to a recent White House report, “Laws restricting licensing opportunities for workers with criminal records have a disproportionate impact on Black and Hispanic workers.” The White House recommended adopting standards, as 25 states have done, that require licensing boards to clarify how policies that bar ex-cons from getting a particular license are relevant to that profession. A drug possession conviction, for instance, might be a reasonable basis for denying a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), but be irrelevant to working as a tattoo artist.

Consider the case of Richard Chunn, a bail agent with a felony conviction stemming from a 1981 guilty plea for marijuana possession. Chunn had a long and successful career as a licensed bail agent until a 2011 state law forbid felons from obtaining bail agent licenses. Chunn sued and won at the Mississippi Supreme Court. Citing a similar case out of Connecticut, the Mississippi court observed that such laws fail “to consider probable and realistic circumstances in a felon’s life, including the likelihood of rehabilitation, age at the time of conviction, and other mitigating circumstances” with the result that “many qualified ex-felons are being deprived of employment.”

Bureaucratic, ham-fisted rules shouldn’t prevent people from turning their lives around. Mississippi should follow the 25 other states that are opening the door to hope and opportunity by adopting reasonable licensing standards for those with a criminal conviction.

Daniel Ashford is a research associate with the Miss. Center for Public Policy (MCPP) and will be entering the MBA program at the University of Alabama in the fall

Visit SeeTheSpending.org and see how your county is spending your money!