The Mississippi Ethics Commission made a curious decision last week, voting 5-3 to give the state Legislature in general, and the House of Representatives in particular, significant leeway from the Open Meetings Act.
One thing’s for sure: All the county supervisors and municipal boards that have been called on the carpet over the years by the Ethics Commission for open meetings violations must wonder why the Legislature gets such a break.
The case dates back to February, when a reporter for the Mississippi Free Press was not allowed to attend a meeting of the House Republican Caucus.
The Free Press contended that, as Republicans have a 75-member majority in the House, and as legislation before the House would be discussed, the meeting qualified as a quorum of the Legislature and therefore should be open.
House Republicans, led by Speaker Philip Gunn, had two responses. One, bizarrely, was that the House is not a public body as defined in the Open Meetings Act, and the separation of powers doctrine prevents an executive branch agency from telling the Legislature how to operate. The second response was that the House Republican Caucus is not a public body.
A recommendation to the Ethics Commission from the agency’s executive director agreed that the Republican caucus is not a public body. But it said the House does qualify as a public body under the Open Meetings Act.
The executive director, Tom Hood, noted that the Open Meetings Act specifically exempts legislative committees from the law’s requirements. If the House is not a public body, he reasoned, why would its committees be exempt?
Hood’s recommendation also noted that the Mississippi Supreme Court has said, “Whenever the Open Meetings Act is unclear, the question should be decided in favor of openness.”
A majority of the Ethics Commission rejected the key part of Hood’s analysis. One of the five members who opposed Hood’s recommendation said the Open Meetings Act is ambiguous and does not include a specific reference to the Legislature. Another said the Legislature should be part of the Open Meetings Act, but that wasn’t the issue in this case. The majority is expected to explain its reasoning further in the coming days.
Setting aside all the semantics, it’s just hard for any advocate of open government to understand how a gathering of three county supervisors is considered an open meeting — but a gathering of 75 House members is not.
