i ' | { | i Mississippi ETHICS COMMISSION Post Office Box 22746 Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2746 ‘Telephone: 601-359-1285 © wwwethics ms gov @ Telecopier: 601-959-1292 TICE OF OPEN.MEETINGS COMPLAI Open Meetinas Comeaint No. M-20-012; Mayor & BOARD OF ALDERMEN, CITY OF PELAHATCHIE, RESPONDENT August 21, 2020 VIA U.S, MAIL & EMAIL Ms. Margie Warren Mayor Pro Tem, City of Pelahatchie 705 Second Street Pelahatchie, MS 39145 é Please find enclosed a copy of the above referenced Open Meetings Complaint which is being sent to you as the head of the public body named above. Pursuant to Section 25-41-15, Miss. Code of 1972, you or your attorney has fourteen (14) calendar days from receipt of the complaint to file a response ‘with the Commission on behalf of the public body. You-should submit any evidence or other documentary materials that would assist the Ethics Commission in its review of this matter. Please send a copy of the response to the Complainant at the address listed below, After receiving your response or, if no response is received after fourteen (14) calendar days, the Commission may dismiss the complaint, or a hearing officer ean make a preliminary report. You will be notified of the Commission’s action in either event. The procedure in this matter is further specified in the Rules of the Mississippi Ethics Commission, which are posted on'the web site listed above, : ‘The Ethics Commission is empowered to order the public body totake whatever réasonable measures necessary, if any, to comply with the Open Meetings Act. If the Ethics Commission finds that a public body has willfully and knowingly violated the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, the Ethics Commission may impose a civil fine upon members the public body, plus all reasonable expenses incurred by the person or persons bringing the complaint. Please note that the commission may mediate this dispute. Your continued cooperation in this matter will be appreciated ce: - VIAEMAIL Ms. Ryshonda Beechem, Mayor of Pelahatchie , Board Members, Pelahatchie Board of Aldermen Mr. John T. Wakeland, Board Attorney Mr. John Christopher Adams, Complainant (Enclosures)‘Case No. M M-20-012 PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM: Pursuant o Section 25-41-18, Miss. Code of 1872, the Ethios Commission must forward @ copy of this complaintto the head of the public body involved. The public body shall have fourteen (14) days from receiptof the complaint fo flea response with the ‘commission. After receiving the response to the complaint or, if no response Is recalved after fourteen (14) days, the ‘commission, in lis discretion, may dismiss the complaint or procead by setiing a hearing in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Ethics Commission. After complating, signing and dating the form, please mail it postage prepaid to the address listed above, PERSON MAKING COMPLAINT (Complainant): Name: Adams, John Christopher Cast) Firs) (wide Mating Address: 039 Briarfield Road Jackson MS 39211 Sree) _ ei) (ato) ip Code) Tetaphone No; 601-503-6436 Email Address: Jeatenor@gmail.com (Area Code, Prefix, Number) PUBLIC BODY AGAINST WHICH COMPLAINT IS MADE (Respondent): City of Pelahatchie Board of Aldermen Name of Public Body: [Neine of Presiding Officer. Warren Margie Cast) Fist) ‘(way Tita or Postion: Mayor Pro Tem Malling Address,705 Second Street Pelahatchie MS 39145 (Street) iy) (State) (Zip Code) Tatephone No.; 6018545224 emai Address; !OWNhall@townofpelahatchie.com (Area Coda, Prefix, Number) ALLEGATIONS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS: In your own words, please provide a description of the violation(s) of the Open Meetings Act which you believe have occurred. “The deseription should include the alleged violaion and any detail relating ot, auch as names, ties, datos and places where possible and where applicabla. he Board of Aldermen for the Cily of Pelahalchie have consistently worked to make it difficuft for the eople of Pelahatchie to attend meetings and understand what is happening in those meetings. As a ncernad citizen, | have watched several meeting via Facebook Live. The alderman make it a point ‘not use thelr microphones so they cannot be understood. | decided to attend the meeting on ust 11, 2020 in person so | could understand what was happening. | arrived early. While siting here | witnessed a Volunteer replace the batteries and test each microphone that was placed in the hairs of the Aldermen, Each and everyone was working perfectly. The Aldermen flat out refuse to se the microphones and you cannot understand anything they are saying. Even sitting in the room | ad trouble understanding them. it Is my understanding that this same body has already been found 'be in violation of the Open Meetings Act (25-41-5) in case number M19008. Page 1 of 2 E Form MEC-M12 (02/10)1% of the space where the metting will happen. If this Board is going to continue to deny the .e0ple of Pelahaichie the right to transparency in goveming, | feel they should be found to have jolated the Open Mesting Act again. They are specifically hindering the audio and visual recording ‘meetings by refusing to use the provided microphones and refusing to let volunteers position yemsélves in a place to record the meetings for public consumption, while also maintaining social wer. have also witnessed and recorded 3 Aldermen (Margie Warren, Frank Boyd, and James Harrell), \ich is a Quorum) meeting privately outside of the meeting and discussing the business of the wn. Once the Aldermen realized ! was recording they scrambled. That video is available upon quest. if also witnessed Margie Warren threatening a townsperson by telling her that sho “better be very reful.” She then went on to taunt another townsperson by telling her that she "hopes she learned smething tonight.’ | know for a fact that she was referring to the Board having all of the power and jing able to do what they want to. | is Board of Aldermen is completely out of control and unless order is restored, and the public is llowed to attend these meetings, this abuse of power will continue. , have read and understood everything in this complaint, and | certty that the statements, matters and allegattons set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowiedge, information and beliet and are made of my own free wil. “ yO step sp etd ta Page 2 of 2 Form MEC-M1.2 (02/10)| 1 MISSISSIPPI ETHICS COMMISSION JOHN CHRISTOPHER ADAMS COMPLAINANT v. i CASE NO. M-20-012 PELAHATCHIE BOARD OF ALDERMAN RESPONDENT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENOSE ' | : COME NOW the Respondent, Pelahatchie Board of Alderman and files this their Answer j and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint filed herein against them and would show to this Fi (RST DEFENSE. ‘The Complaint herein fails to state a claim against the Respondents, upon which relief canbe granted. SECOND DEFENSE ‘The facts and circumstances alleged in the Complaint do not describe an open meetings Violation. Mr. Adams is currently a Jackson resident, but has indicated that he may move to 5 Pelahatchie and run for a towin office, | Mr. Adams suggests that this Town meeting was his first and only attendance at a town meeting, Mr. Adams has attended a number of town meetings. He has disrupted the proceedings on one or more occasions. On at least occasion i his disruptive behavior required the intervention of law enforcement.TAIRD DEFENSE ‘conducting the Town's monthly and or special meeting: 1 | | ‘The Respondents have attempted to make reasonable accommodation for the public in | ‘FOURTH DEFENSE Alderman, Margie Warren, is listed as the presiding officer at the meeting held on August 11, 2020. Mrs. Warren was not the presiding officer at this meeting. Mayor : Beecham was present and was the presiding officer for this Spécial Meeting of the Board of | ‘Aldermen. This error, suggests that the Complaint was prepared by someone other that Mr; Adams. H FIFTH DEFENSE ‘And now answering the unnumbered Complaint the Respondent would aver that the Board and Mayor as the Governing Body of the Town of Pelahatchie have and will continue to make all reasonable and necessary efforts to comply with the letter and the spirit of the law regarding the conduct within the meetings of the Town of Pelahatchie. As to the microphones, issue, the Town's equipment, while not cutting edge technology, is suitable and adequate for the intended ourpose. These microphones are designed to sit on a desk or tabletop. Due to the current pandemic, the Board Members are sitting in chairs in the audience. The members make every effort, while speaking to talk into the microphone. Its also important to note that the use of face masks does effect sound quality. | was in the meeting on the day in. ‘question and had no difficulty in hearing the board members. J have also attached an affidavit 2Ce ae eee eee ee executed by Barbara Harper, the Deputy|Clerk also indicating that those in attendance had no difficulty in hearing the proceedings. At this meeting there were three items on the agenda. [have attached a copy of the agenda as well as a copy of the minutes. {tems one and two involved a possible override of two prior vetos issued by the Mayor. For each item, the Mayor read the agenda item, a Board member. ‘nade a motion, a second Board member seconded the motion. The Mayor identified those making and seconding ‘the motions. An oral vote was taken and the items were each approved. There was no discussion or comment by any of the Board members regarding these agendz Items. There was no commentary or comment that needed to be broadcast over the public address system. The Mayor next read the third item. ‘A Board member made_a motion to hire Karl Van Horn as the new Zoning Officer for a flat monthly fee of $800 per month. The motion was seconded and a vote taken. Again each time a Board member made a motion, seconded a motion or case a vote, the Mayor identified the person taking the action. There was again discussion or comment made by any of the Board meinbers. After the vote on this third item, a motion and second was made and vote taken to adjourn the meeting. The entire meeting including the opening prayer, lasted no more than eleven minutes. ‘ Jn answering the. seating complaint, due to the current pandemic, the Board has implemented temporary limits on the number of attendees at the Board meeting to no more than ten (10) people. The Board roofs is quite small and the seating is limited. The guest seating consists of what appear to be {econditioned theater seats. The seats are very narrow and the rows are also very tight, With this equipment it would not be possible to have proper 3a | spacing of six feet between ten guests. | would estimate that no more thai eight guests can be seated with a six foot separation. This temporary measure is designed to protect the health and well being of all persons in ‘The decision was based upon the authority granted in the Governor's Executive Orper 1509 and 1511. Executive Order 1509 was ‘extended until August 17" by Executive Order 1515 and Executive Order 1511 was extended until August 31 by Executive Order 518, The most recent Executive Order of August 31, 2020, extends this authority for another two weeks. eeeiee ‘eating was also based upon information received from the The decision to State Attorney General's Office and hn the State Ethics Commission. The Governing Body has followed the guidelines provided by the Ethics Commission. All meetings are broadcast ! live by the Mayor from the Bench via spre type of facebook platform. Other media outlets i are required to set up in the rear of the meeting room in order to prevent obstructing the view of other seated guests. i In regard to the complaint regarding volunteers, one would aver that this is not 2 proper Open Meetings issue. However, in response, the Board has previously determined ; that pursuant toits authority to hire ahd fire employees of the Town, all persons performing services for the Town of Pelahatchie must be approved by the Governing Body. «As to the assertion of private meetings, these Board Members are all lifelong friends and neighbors. They talk, they exchange greetings and pleasantries. A conversation involving two or more public officials is not a public meeting. As to the video, who among us wants someone to interrupt our private space and attempt to video our private conversations?‘The Board has been advised by my offi cautious to avoid even the hint of impropriety. Warren. Her conversation, obviously WHEREFORE, Respondent Tow! and the Mayor on the subject, and they are very Finally, there is also a reference to Mrs. ken out of context, was not part of a public meeting. lof Pelahatchie would pray that the Complaint herein, Jiled be dismissed with prejudice and that it be discharged with costs, legal costs, and all costs of this proceeding. Respondent would pray Commission may deem appropriate. for such ather general and specific relief as the Respectfully submitted, this the 3d day of September 2020. : JOHN T. WAKELAND, ESQ. Attorney at Law (MSBH 6863} | 800 Avery Bivd., North, Ste. 102 Ridgeland, MS 39157 BY: Town of Pelahatchie Is{ John Wakeland JOHN T. WAKELANDCERTIFICATE _OF_SERVICE 1, John T, Wakeland, attorney for Respondent do hereby certify that I have this day by electronic mail had delivered a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document to: Lindsay D. xelun| EE Executive Assistants Special Projects Officer Mississippi Ethic Commission Jackson, HS wus John Adams Jackson, MS jcatenor@gmai. This the 3d of September 2020 /s/ John Wakeland ——ionn'?. WAKELANDD | | | | | | i | | 1 | i | i 1 ' iMISSISSIPPI ETHICS COMMISSION : JOHN CHRISTOPHER ADAMS v. PELAHATCHIE BOARD OF ALOERMAN COMPLAINANT CASE NO. M;20-012 RESPONDENT / AMENOMENT.TO ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COME NOW the Respondent, Pelahatchie Board-of Alderman and files this their Amendment to the previously filed An: herein against them and would show t wer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint filed this Commission the following, to-wit: The previously filed answer contains an unintentional case of mistaken identity. The Complaint was filed by John Adams. Kenneth Adams, who is believed to be ‘The individual referenced in the earlier response is 2 relative of John Adams. John Adams attended one and possible two Town Meetings and coes not have a history of disrupting the proceedings. | would like to thank the Commission in. ladvance for allowing me to make this clarification. Respectfully submitted,|this the 6th day of September 2020. JOHN T. WAKELAND, ESQ. Attorney at Law [MSB# 6863] 800 Avery Bivd., North, Ste. 104 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Town of Pelahatchie f /s/ John Wakeland JOHN T. WAKELANDCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John 7. Wakeland, attorney for Respondent do hereby certify that I have this day by electronic ma : crue and correct copy of the above and foregoing document Lindsay D. Kellum Executive Assistanté Special Projects Officer Mississippi Ethi¢s Commission Jackson, MS : Lkellum@ethic state.ms.us John Adans Jackson, MS jicatenorégmail.com This the 6th of September 2020 (s/f John Wakeland JOHN T. WAKELANDARELTDAVIT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF RANKIN Personally, appeared before me, the undersigned, authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, the within named_BARBARA HARPER, who aftér being by.me first duly sworn stated on oath as follows: 1. I-am the Deputy Clerk for The Town of Pelahatchie. 2. On Augiist 11, 2020; it was my duty to take the: Minutes for a Special Meeting of the Board Of Aldexman for the Town of Pélahatehie. : ‘ 3. In the ‘Spécial Board Meeting on August 11, 2020 t had no difficulty understanding what was being said by the Alderman and/or the Mayor: . 4. I cannot properly record the minutes if I am ufable to hear the Aldérman, and/or Mayor. S. If F do not understand what 4 speaker has stated, it is my usual and customary practice to request that the speaker repeat their last. statement. : &. - the Special Béatd Heeting-of August 11,2020 lasted approximately elewén (11) minutes. Further, Affiant saith not. . BARBARA HARPER , atSworn to and subscribed before me, this the & 2020. FLSA. No) Public EXHIBIT “A”MississiPp! ETHICS COMMISSION ost Office Box 22746 Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2746 ‘Telephone: 601-359-1285 «| VIA U.S. MAIL & EMAIL Mr. John Christopher Adams 835 Briarfield Road Jackson, MS 39211 ‘igatenon@amail.com, warwethicsamegov 'e) Facsimile: 601-359-1292 January 8, 2021 Rey Open Meetings Case No, M-20-012; Adams vs. Mayor & Board'of Aldermen, City of Pelahatchie Dear Mr. Adams, Enclosed please find a copy of! ‘the Order of Dismissal in the above referenced case. This Order was issued in accordance with Rule 4.6, Rules of the Mississippi Ethics Commission and ‘was presented to the Ethies Commission at its open meeting on Friday, January 8, 2021. ‘The hearing officer present considering all the materials submit members of the Ethics Commission of the commission meeting, discussed j order. {a recommendation to the commission after fully, fed by the parties, as well as the applicable law. The wed the hearing officer's recommendation in advance the matter at the meeting, and voted to issue the enclosed Appeals of such orders are governed by Section 25-61-13, Miss. Code of 1972. If you have any questions about this matter, p| ce: Mr. John T. Wakeland (VIA Uh Counsel, City of Pelahatchie 800 Avery Blvd. North, Ste. 10} Ridgeland, MS 39157 (Enclosure) THM lease feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Mississippi Ethics Commission Is. MAIL & EMAIL)BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI ETHICS COMMISSION JOHN CHRISTOPHER ADAMS COMPLAINANT vs. CASE NO, M-20-012 MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN, TOWN OF PELAHATCHIE RESPONDENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL This matter came before the Ethics Commission through an Open Meetings Complaint filed by John Christopher Adams against the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for the Town of Pelahatchie (the “board”). The board 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. The hearing officer presented a Recommendation of Dismissal to the Bthics Commission at its regular mecting held on January 8, 2021, in accordance with Rule 4.6, Rules of the Mississippi Ethics Commission. This Order of Dismissal is entered in accordance with Rule 4.6, 1, FINDINGS OF FACT I. Mr, John Christopher Adams alleges the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for the ‘Town of Pelahatchie violated the Open Meetings Act’ because board members improperly or purposefully fail to use microphones during open meetings. Mr. Adams attended the August 11, 2020 meeting in person, and noted, “[e]ven sitting in the room I had trouble understanding them.” Mr. Adams contends that the board members’ discussions are inaudible, both to in-person attendees and to those viewing the meetings online. In support, Mr. Adams provided links to videos of the May 4 and August 10, 2020 meetings on Mayor Ryshonda Harper Beschem’s Facebook page 1.2 Mr. Adams additionally alleges that the board's rule limiting the number of attendees violates the Open Meetings Act. On August 3, 2020, the board implemented temporary limits on the number of attendees at its meetings to ten (10) people, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Likewise, Mr. Adams alleges that the board’s failure to effectively and consistently use microphones has interfered with the quality of recordings made by individuals attending the meetings. 13 Finally, Mr. Adams alleges that a quorum. of three Aldermen, Margie Warren, Frank Boyd and James Harrell, met privately outside a meeting and discussed town business, in violation of the Act. Mr. Adams states that “[oJnce the Aldermen realized I was recording they serambled.” However, Mr. Adams did not provide this video to the Commission for review. T The complaint also included allegations that do not involve the Open Meetings Act. The Mississippi Ethies ‘Commission's authority inthis materi limited to alleged violations ofthe Open Meetings Act, and other allegations ‘are not addressed herein. 5 hutpsliwwrw facebook com/ryshondaharperbeechemmayorofpelahatchie!M-20.012 Order of Dismissal Page 2of 4 14 In response, the board denies violating the Open Meetings Act. In its defense, the board states that due to the COVID- 19 pandemic, the board members are not sitting at the dais at the front of the meeting room with the mayor, but sitting in the audience to socially distance. ‘The microptiones are located on the dais and cannot be effectively used by the board members while sitting in the audience. ‘The response also notes that the board members “use of face masks docs effect [sic] sound quality.” However, the board attorney siates in the response that he has no difficulty in hearing the board members during open meetings. The board also provided an affidavit from Barbara Harper, the Deputy Clerk, attesting that she drafts the board minutes and has no difficulty understanding board members or the mayor at meetings. 1.5 Finally, the board states that for meetings, the mayor reads agenda items, and identifies board members making and seconding the motions. In the videos provided by the complainant, the mayor is sitting at the dais alone with a microphone and can clearly be heard reading agenda items, identifying board members and their motions and votes. In these videos, persons other than the mayor are sometimes difficult to understand, speaking at varying levels from different parts of the room. However, itis clear from these videos that the mayor understands everyone speaking as she presides over the meetings and clarifies or summarizes the board's discussion when she feels it is necessary for audience members or viewers to understand what is going on, 1.6 ~ Additionally, the board states that it implemented temporary limits on the number of attendees at board meetings to no more than ten (10) people due to the current pandemic, The response states: ‘The Board room is quite small, and the seating is limited. The guest seating consisted of what appear to be reconditioned theater seats. The seats are very harrow, and the rows are also very tight. With this equipment it would not be possible to have proper spacing of six feet between ten guests. | would estimate that ‘no more than eight guests can be seated with a six foot separation. This temporary ‘measure is designed to protect the health and wellbeing of all persons in attendance. 1.7 The board also states it is following guidelines provided by the Ethics Commission, that “[a]ll meetings are broadcast live by the Mayor from the Bench via some type of Facebook platform.” Additionally, “[olther media outlets are required to set up in the rear of the meeting room in order to prevent obstructing the view of other seated guests.” Finally, “the Board has previously determined that pursuant to its authority to hire and fire employees of the Town, all persons performing services for the Town of Pelaltatchie [including the volunteers who record meetings] must be approved by the Governing Body.” 1.8 Finally, the board denies that the three Aldermen were meeting outside a properly noticed meeting and discussing town business. The board states: [Tyhese board members are all lifelong friends and neighbors. They talk, they exchange greetings and pleasantries. A conversation involving two or more public officials is not a public meting. As to the video, who among us wants someone to interrupt our private space and attempt to video our private conversations? ‘TheM20-012 Order of Dismissal Page 3 of Board has been advised by [the city attorney] and the Mayor on the subject, and they are very cautious to avoid even the hint of impropriety. 1,9 In support of its response, the board provided an affidavit of Deputy City Clerk Barbara Harper and a copy of the notice and minutes for the August 11, 2020 meeting. Il, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 “The Open Meetings Act was enacted for the benefit of the public and is to be construed liberally in favor of the public.” Board of Trustees of State Insts. of Higher Learning v. Miss. Publishers Corp., 478 So.2d 269, 276 (Miss. 1985). In Hinds County Board of Supervisors xv. Common Cause of Mississippi, 551 So.2d 107 (Miss. 1989), the Supreme Court summarized the Legislative intent of the Open Meetings Act as follows: Every member of every public board and commission in this state should always bear in mind that the spirit of the Act is that a citizen spectator, including any representative of the press, has just as much right to attend the meeting and see and hhear everything that is going on as has any member of the board or commission. Id, at 110. “However inconvenient openness may be to some, it is the legi: latively decreed public policy of this state.” May (dermen of Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Printi Pub,, 434 So.2d 1333, 1336 (Miss.1983). However, “[a] citizen spectator. .. is not a participant. He has no right to intrude or interfere in any manner with the discussion, deliberation or decision-making process.” Gannett River States Pub. Inc. v. City of. .2d 462, 469, (Miss. 2004), quoting Hinds County at 107. "2.1 The Open Meetings Act requires public bodies to take all reasonable means within their power and resources to ensure all members of the publie who attend are able to “see and hear everything that is going on” at an open public meeting. Sec, Hinds County at 110. However, the ‘Open Meetings Act docs not specifically require public bodies to provide electronic amplification during public meetings. In normal circumstances, if amplification is available, it follows that it is is reasonable for the board members to use such amplification during its board meetings. However, during this time of a worldwide pandemic, in lieu of holding meetings by video- or audio- conference, it appears that the board has decided to continue to hold meetings in person, following orders of the State Health Officer by distancing and limiting the total number of persons in the ‘meeting rooms. The manner in which the mayor presides over meetings, continuing to use the ‘microphones, identifying agenda items and board members" votes, and summarizing discussions, in addition to ensuring that mectings are broadcast on Facebook, effectively ameliorates any impact of the current manner in which the board holds open mectings during this pandemic, such that no violation of the Open Meetings Act has occurred, 22 Additionally, “Any public body may make and enforce reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of persons attending its meetings.” Section 25-41-9. Indeed, the ‘Atiomey Gencral’s Office has previously opined that “while a board may develop reasonable rules regarding taping and/or recording of its public meetings, a flat prohibition against taping is unreasonable and violates the intent of the open meetings Jaws.” MS AG Op., Carnathan (February 9, 2007). See also, MS AG Op., Mills (March 16, 2018); MS AG Op, Sutton (September 4, 2015);Maoor 2 Order of Dismissal Page 4 of 4 MS AG Op., Smith (August 8, 2006); MS AG Op., Scott (November 20, 1991); MS AG Op., Garrett (May 3, 1990), See also, Hales &¢ Jons’v. Town of Heidelbers, Open Meetings Case M- 19.004 (public body may establish and enforce reasonable policies regarding the conduct of its ‘meetings, including restrictions on recording meetings). Reasonable restrictions placed on persons recording meetings, such as maintaining a safe distance and not obstructing the view of others in attendance, do not violate the Open Meetings Act. Likewise, the decision by the board to limit the ‘number of persons allowed in the meeting room during the on-going COVID-19 pandemic — while ensuring that its open meetings are broadcast on the internet ~ is reasonable, and does not violate the Open Meetings Act, 2.3 Finally, a violation ofthe Open Meetings Act can occur when a quorum of the board (outside a properly noticed open meeting), deliberates a matter under their authority. However, the mere presence of a quorum does not necessarily violate the Open Meetings Act. The Open Meetings Act does “not apply to chance meetings ot social gatherings of members of a public body.” Section 25-41-17. AS such, not every “informal or impromptu meeting” is subject to the Open Meetings Act. Hinds County at 122. In this case, the complainant provided no evidence that the three board members were discussing town business. Therefore, there is no evidence a violation + ofthe Open Meetings Act occurred. WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby dismissed this the 8" day of January, 2021. MISSISSIPPI ETHICS COMMISSION BY: Ds? TOM HOOD, Executive Director |