Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ocean Springs meeting erupts over alleged inaccurate 2022 minutes and GCRF grant documents
Summary
Alderman Stennis and multiple public commenters accused city records of containing 2023 material attached to May 17, 2022 minutes and urged corrections; the city attorney reviewed case law on amending minutes, warning that amendments cannot be used to collaterally attack prior board actions and that notice to affected parties may be required before changes.
A lengthy and at times heated discussion occupied much of the meeting after Alderman Stennis moved to correct the board minutes for May 17, 2022, alleging that the minutes do not accurately reflect actions that were taken and that some attachments appear to contain documents dated 2023. Stennis said he has originals of '22 agreements that were notarized in August 2022 and asked the board to remove or correct minutes that contain later documents.
"Do the minutes accurately reflect the action taken by the board on May 17, 2022? They do not," Alderman Stennis said, arguing that original executed agreements and notarized signature pages exist and are missing or mixed with later documents. The city attorney advised caution and summarized Mississippi case law indicating that a successor board may amend minutes to "speak the original truth" only with proper notice to parties whose rights could be affected and that amendments cannot be used as a collateral attack to undo prior actions. He told the board he could not find a Mississippi case providing plenary authority to remove prior minutes without following notice procedures.
Public commenters pressed for transparency and for staff to locate and preserve records; one public speaker alleged that documents provided in earlier public-records responses were no longer being provided and called the possibility of disappearing documents "a miscarriage of justice." The board voted to proceed with a review (voice vote to move ahead with discussion recorded), and several members asked the city attorney and clerk to document chain-of-custody and provide the records requested by aldermen and public records requests.
