Editor, Commonwealth:
I write as city attorney for Columbus in answer to your article (“Chassaniol targets Open Meetings Act,” Jan. 21) and opinion column (“Chassaniol leads charge for secrecy,” Jan. 21) and to offer three cheers for Sen. Lydia Chassaniol for introduction of a Senate bill related to the Open Meetings Act.
Please note that the Mississippi Legislature adopted the provisions of the Open Meetings Act. As many other code provisions, there are definitions in the Open Meetings Act.
Notably, there is a definition for a “meeting.” The Legislature defined “meeting” under the Open Meetings Act as follows: “an assemblage of members of a public body at which official acts may be taken upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.”
Perhaps you might find this technical, but if members of a public body assemble with less than a quorum, they cannot take official action. If they cannot take official action, the assemblage does not meet the definition of “meeting.” If there is no “meeting,” then the assemblage cannot be in violation of the Open Meetings Act.
The Ethics Commission is in the judicial branch of government. It does not have the authority to pass laws. That authority lies with the Legislature.
So, while the media might feel that individual members of a board of supervisors were wrong to assemble with less than a quorum, they were at all times acting legally under the act. The Ethics Commission recently engaged in judicial legislation when it found Columbus and Lauderdale County to have violated the act.
We applaud Sen. Chassaniol for SB2352.
Jeff Turnage
Columbus
