Every member of every public board and commission in this state should always bear in mind that the spirit of the (Open Meetings) Act is that a citizen spectator, including any representative of the press, has just as much right to attend the meeting and see and hear everything that is going on as has any member of the board or commission. — Mississippi Supreme Court
Government bodies throughout Mississippi routinely close meetings to the public simply because they don’t want scrutiny from newspapers.
Usually officials don’t come out and say that, but one in a nearby Delta Town let it slip — and is now facing a $250 fine as a result.
In August, the Indianola Board of Aldermen met to discuss contracting with an accounting firm to prepare a budget and financial reports and a motion was made to go into secret session. The weekly newspaper in Indianola, The Enterprise-Tocsin, objected because contractors are not covered by the personnel exemption to the state Open Meetings Act.
Alderman Ruben Woods replied they were doing it because, “We don’t want you to print no negative stuff in the newspaper.”
Give Woods high marks for honesty if not for openness or grammar.
The newspaper filed a complaint with the Mississippi Ethics Commission, and a preliminary report dated Dec. 2 recommends fining the four aldermen who voted to close the meeting $250 apiece. The report says the commission should also order them to refrain from further violations and strictly comply with the public meetings law.
That’s a fair decision that should get officials’ attention about meeting in secret without justification.
That wouldn’t be possible without several changes by the Legislature in recent years that promote openness.
Since 2008 the Ethics Commission has had authority to hear open meetings disputes. Previously a person who believed a meeting was improperly closed had to sue, and except for some larger news organizations, the cost of pushing the issue was prohibitive.
Also, since 2011 the Ethics Commission has been able to hold officials personally responsible for open meetings violations. It can levy civil penalties of up to $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for subsequent ones.
That sends a message to public officials: If you try to hide the public’s business, there could be a hit coming to your pocketbook. The prospect of that penalty is a simple and effective way to encourage better government.
