M-18-013 Ethics
Noonan v Mayor and City Council Open Meetings Opinion
Copyright: © All Rights Reserved
Download as or read online from Scribd
Mississippi ETHICS COMMISSION
Post Office Box 22746
Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2746
Telephone: 601-959-1285 © wwwaethicsstate.ms.us © Telecopier: 601-359-1292
February 1, 2019
Ms. Heather Smith
Board Attorney, City of Bay St. Louis
1300 25" Avenue, Ste. 204
Gulfport, MS 39501
Re: — Open Meetings Case No. M-18-013; Noonan vs. Mayor & Councilmen, City of Bay
St. Louis
Dear Ms. Smith,
Enclosed please find a copy of the Final Order in the above referenced case. This Final Order
was issued in accordance with Rule 4.6, Rules of the Mississippi Ethics Commission.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
ONIA SHURDEN
Hearing Officer,
Mississippi Ethics Commission
Ms. Lana T. Noonan
1009 Fayard Street
Waveland, MS 39576
(Enclosure)
SS/IkBEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI ETHICS COMMISSION
LANA T, NOONAN COMPLAINANT
vs. CASE NO. M-18-013
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF BAY ST. LOUIS RESPONDENT.
FINAL ORDER
This matter came before the Commission through an Open Meetings Complaint filed by
Lana T. Noonan against the Mayor and City Council for Bay Saint Louis (the “couneil”). The
council filed a response to the complaint by and through its attorney. The Ethics Commission has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 25-41-15, Miss. Code of 1972. A Preliminary
Report and Recommendation was issued in this matter on December 7, 2018. The respondents
filed a Request for Reconsideration in response to the Preliminary Report and Recommendation.
The hearing officer prepared and presented a Final Report and Recommendation in accordance
with Rule 4.6, Rules of the Mississippi Ethics Commission, and the Ethies Commission issued this
final order at its regular meeting on the date hereof,
OF FACT
1.1 Ina complaint filed June 4, 2018, Ms. Lana Noonan alleges the Mayor and City
Council for the City of Bay Saint Louis violated the Open Meetings Act at its May 8, 2018 regular
meeting, by: (1) taking action on an item not listed on the agenda; (2) failing to state with sufficient
specificity the reasons for entering executive session; (3) discussing matters in executive session
not announced to the public prior to entering executive session; (4) discussing the Bay Saint Louis
Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) in executive session, and (5) discussing city business
ia email prior to the May 8 meeting.
1.2. Specifically, she states in her complaint:
1. Council acted on an item of business that was not on their published Agenda,
which was the dismissal of a Commissioner from the Bay St. Louis Historie
Preservation Commission. (hereafter to be referred to in this complaint as HPC).
‘The only reference to HPC on the published Agenda was the appointment of a
Commissioner, which Council did not act upon.
2. Acitizen polled Council, one by one, at Public Forum, asking if they were going
to act on any business pertaining to HPC that evening either in open or
executive session, All said “no.” Ward 4 Councilman, Larry Smith stated that
he had “no opinion on HPC.” This resulted in some citizens leaving the meeting
thing their question had been answered by theit clected officials.!
“This paragraph does not appear to state an allegation ofa violation of the Open Meetings Act, and instead appears
to be a description ofa portion of the meetin.M-18-013 Final Order ___ Page 2 of 10
3. At the end of the meeting prior to adjournment, Council President, Hoffman,
asked Council if any of them had any items to discuss that required an executive
session. None commented. ‘Then City Attorney, Heather Smith, stated that she
had two land purchases and 4 or 5 “pending litigations” to discuss with the
Council. I complain that the City Attorney's request for executive session
lacked the specificity requirement as stated in Miss. Ethics Opinion no M-17-
017, p3--2.3
4, After re-entering regular session, Ward 4 Councilman, Larry Smith (who stated
earlier in the meeting that “he had no opinion on HPC”), motioned to dismiss a
sitting Commissioner from HPC. Motion was seconded by Ward 6 Councilman,
DeSalvo. No discussion. Motion passed. Those voting for the dismissal were,
Hoffman, DeSalvo, Zimmerman, and Smith. Voting no, were Seal and Reed. I
complain that Council violated the Miss. Open Meetings Act by not confining
their executive session discussion only to those topies which were announced
to the public prior to entering closed session, Reference Miss. Ethics case no,
M-17-017, page 4, Hinds County at 110-111, only the business announced for
entering executive session can be discussed.
5. Lalso complain that the discussion of HPC and its Commissioners does not meet
the criteria of executive session as stated in the Miss. Open Meetings Act,
section 25-41-71 through 4, HPC Commissioners are not city employe
‘They are citizen volunteers.
1.3 In support of her allegation that the council improperly discussed the HPC in
executive session, Ms. Noonan states in her complaint that:
It is now a documented fact through an interview Ward 3 Councilman, Jeffrey
Reed, gave to the Sun Herald Newspaper, (May 17, 2018) that the discussion of
HPC and its Commissioners was discussed in this May 8, executive session, and
ultimately acted upon by Council that same evening. In fact, according to
Councilman Reed, there was an effort to dissolve HPC altogether in executive
session. Reed and Ward 1 Councilman, Doug Seal, were the only Councilmen to
vote “no” to the dismissal of the Commissioner that evening.
14 Ms. Noonan also provided a copy of the agenda for the May 8, 2018 meeting, a
video clip of the May 8, 2018 meeting, showing Ms. Terie Velardi addressing the council, and two
articles from the Sun-Herald newspaper in support of her complaint. Ms. Noonan also provided
links to video of the May 8, 2018 meeting on facebook.com.? At the end of the second video, the
council discussed whether they needed to go into closed session to determine the need to enter
executive session. City Attorney Heather Smith can be heard saying that she had to discuss two
different prospective purchases of property and four or five different pending litigation matters to
2 aps/wow
S849 videos/vb.1 2éetheater
and
husps:l/www Jacebook,con/106832842705R49/videos/vb. 1068328427058 Piyne=28 theater