Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on February 8, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This editorial could easily apply to the Board of Aldermen as well.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it is premature and in bad judgement on behalf of the Democrat to unjustly accuse the Board of Supervisors as they have done. There have been no official charges from the State. There have been several contradictory statements from State Attorney Leonary Van Slykes that qualify a meeting as legal or not. It all depends on what they talked about and did. Simple information gathering is legal. That is all that occurred by the Democrat's own reporting Feb. 7, '08.

Yes, three supervisors makes an meeting, which should be posted publicly. But, as described in previous articles, just yesterday Feb. 8, in the Democrat, State Attorney Leonard Van Slykes states very clearly that if they did not directly address specific policy or work orders then a meeting of such nature is LEGAL. I think these laws are purely technical and confusing and RIDICULOUS.

The Democrat owes the Board of Supervisors an apology. The Supervisors caused no harm, no damage done, just trying to cut through the red tape and make progress.

This is bad for the Democrat to participate in libel and without good reason divide the community and make the supervisors look bad. The Democrat should not jump to conclusions based on any conversation of any attorney. The Democrat should wait until official charges are made. Then tell us the whole truth.

So from now on do we want, when the supervisors need information, for them to meet only with less than three supervisors so that there is no question of legality. That is stupid. Our State government needs to clean up these laws so they aren't so confusioning, contradictory, and limiting in regard to getting the job done.

Let's get on with the work that needs to be done and see some progress for our county. Get off the back of our supervisors. Let the State Attorneys do their job, and please just report the facts without the premature judgements.

Posted by eagles (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are wrong krogers. We can all tell by your posts that you are a Watts fan and apparently not a fan of the paper. Since you seem to have issues with so many of the stories written, maybe you shouldn't read. Sorry to be so harsh, but I would like to see a positive comment from you. Good work, Natchez Democrat! Keep it up!

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In general, I agree with the ND in its writings! That is 99.9% of the time. In Louisiana, basically the law is the same! It is very hard sometimes to say sometimes what is legal and not! i must agree with Krogers! I am also a supported of Mr. Watts also. Mississippi, as a whole, needs to clean its act as far as this subject piece of legislation is concerned or its interpretation! Louisiana has done this!

Posted by MissMagnolia (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, ND. Who needs an Atty when you can get the info from the internet.

§ 25-41-5. Official meetings of public bodies to be public and open; provisions for teleconference and video meetings.
(1) All official meetings of any public body, unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the Constitutions of the United States of America or the State of Mississippi, are declared to be public meetings and shall be open to the public at all times unless declared an executive session as provided in Section 25-41-7.
(2) A public body may conduct any meeting through teleconference or video means. A quorum of a public body as prescribed by law may be at different locations for the purpose of conducting a meeting through teleconference or video means provided participation is available to the general public.
(3) (a) Notice of any meetings held pursuant to subsection (2) of this section shall be provided at least five (5) days in advance of the date scheduled for the meeting. The notice shall include the date, time, place and purpose for the meeting and shall identify the locations for the meeting. All locations for the meeting shall be made accessible to the public. All persons attending the meeting at any of the meeting locations shall be afforded the same opportunity to address the public body as persons attending the primary or central location. Any interruption in the teleconference or video broadcast of the meeting shall result in the suspension of action at the meeting until repairs are made and public access restored.

Posted by MissMagnolia (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(b) Five-day notice shall not be required for teleconference or video meetings continued to address an emergency as provided in subsection (5) of this section or to conclude the agenda of a teleconference or video meeting of the public body for which the proper notice has been given, when the date, time, place and purpose of the continued meeting are set during the meeting prior to adjournment.
(4) An agenda and materials that will be distributed to members of the public body and that have been made available to the staff of the public body in sufficient time for duplication and forwarding to all locations where public access will be provided shall be made available to the public at the time of the meeting. Minutes of all meetings held by teleconference or video means shall be recorded as required by Section 25-41-11. Votes taken during any meeting conducted through teleconference or video means shall be recorded by name in roll-call fashion and included in the minutes. In addition, the public body shall make an audio recording of the meeting, if a teleconference medium is used, or an audio/visual recording, if the meeting is held by video means. The recording shall be preserved by the public body for a period of three (3) years following the date of the meeting and shall be available to the public.
(5) A public body may meet by teleconference or video means as often as needed if an emergency exists and the public body is unable to meet in regular session. Public bodies conducting emergency meetings through teleconference or video means shall comply with the provisions of subsection (4) of this section requiring minutes, recordation and preservation of the audio or audio/visual recording of the meeting. The nature of the emergency shall be stated in the minutes.
Sources: Laws, 1975, ch. 481, § 3; Laws, 2003, ch. 496, § 2; Laws, 2006, ch. 596, § 2; Laws, 2007, ch. 591, § 1, eff from and after July 1, 2007.

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I fail to see what the problem is with the Democrat reporting this.

Closed meetings are against the law. Thus, by the standards of law, it was inappropriate of these supervisors to do this and they should expect to be questioned about their actions. If an individual chooses to ignore this offense, that's their choice.. but you can't come down on people for pointing out the illegal or questionable actions of public officials who are responsible to the people they are supposed to serve.

Posted by eagles (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think any new supervisor should have to attend an orientation of some sort, where someone (prefferably an attorney) explain all of the rules to them. They should know the laws and rules before attending their first meeting. I don't think it's a wise move to take another's word for what is legal and what isn't.

Posted by bellesouth (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe if they hadn't fired their attorney, this wouldn't have happened, and I guess Bobby Cox doesn't know about it yet, either, but he wasn't even present at the meeting where Grennell walked out, saying it was illegal as well. That makes two illegal meetings, right?

Posted by eagles (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It certainly seems that way, but they are saying neither one was "illegal". I think opinions will vary on this issue for a long while. But, I think you are right about their attorney. I'd be willing to bet he (Mr Latham) wouldn't have approved of this one. Of course, that's one of the reasons they wanted to get rid of him. If he's not in the way, they can do things their way.

Posted by Fonzarosa (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This sounds a lot like Bill Clinton (ie) that depends on what is,is
A Pig is a Pig regardless of what color lipstick it's wearing

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 8, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From reading all the subject articles, I understand that the meeting held in the latter part of January, 2008 was illegal and the one held this past Tuesday was legal! From reading the editorial of the DEB, it appears that all of there meetings are illegal! Please clarify DEB. Your readership needs your"Expert" opinion!

Posted by texasranger (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the biggest bunch of who shot John i ever heard. This whole town is drying up, stores shutting down. Zero jobs and Zero money circulating compared to 2 years ago. Why in the world even squabble over such. Any self respecting idiot on the brink of insanity would not care or give trivial things like this a thought when the whole town economically is going down the tubes as fast as it can, They were probably trying to work out something or get something going in this economic desert . Anything that would bring a nickel into town. If your not in the old money click in Natchez nobody gives a rip anyway. but even that is finally hitting home. They have driven away so much business and tourists with their petty arguing that nothing is going to happen here anyway except mass unemployment..Give us a break

Posted by sandyman7 (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The ND seems to be more upset abut NOT being invited to the meeting with a special invitation than the meeting its self. 90% of the people attending these meetings are department heads anyway, a couple of reporters, and a very few citizens....And who is squealing like a stuck pig...the reporters...it gives them something else to get there name in print, patting themselves on the back cause they are DEFENDING the people being able to attend the meetings.Why do we never see any reporters commending the boards for there work, cause thats doesn't stir up controversy...just look at all the comments in here ...And will be for several more days. Whatever sells papers....and nothing more than controversy does that.....

Posted by oilman7058 (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kevin, the meeting with Mr. Marlow and Mr. Wimberly was not a secret meeting. Mr. Grennell and Mr. Campbell were invited but did not or would not attend. You have to ask them why they did not show up. Please, one again, get your facts straight. Using your own words "Come on guys, get your head in the game." You really should follow your own advice. You are the only one making it a big deal. Our new Board of Supervisors are finally doing some good and what does your paper do, criticize. I know you are doing your best to slant every story to make Henry and Mike look bad so that you look good for endorsing their opponents. It's not going to work.
In the future I hope everyone knows that if the Natchez Democrat ever endorses you in an election that it is the kiss of death for you!

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Point well taken and made!

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Teach, you sure are good at copy and paste, obviously you're a genius at point and click.

But Wait!! if closed meetings are illegal,

what about Executive Sessions that are closed to the public?

I never claimed to know what is written as State Law, only to know what is in my heart as to what is moral and immoral, right and wrong. Frankly, that is my guide, not the law, there are too many laws to keep up with.

I agree with oilman and rushinghjr, WAY TO GO HENRY!!

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ooops, I thought Teach did that, MissMagnolia must be Teach's sister, sorry I got you two confused!!

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and if you read what MissMagnolia pasted, there are so many if's and's and but's in there any meeting could be legal or illegal. Maybe these meetings were declared executive sessions? Hell I don't know, and don't care, I'm just glad our good supervisors are trying to figure out how they can get the roads fixed with what they have to work with.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sandman and Texas, I hope you guys talk up more often, you have good points gentlemen

Posted by shedevil (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Mr Grenell I mad because he was booted from being board president.I think Henry,Spanky & Mike are doing a great job.I also believe Boo will come around & leave Mr Grenell in the cold.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hhhmmm, interesting note there shedevil

Posted by showbiz (anonymous) on February 9, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmm...SHEDEVIL thats a statement of its own :)

Posted by jack (anonymous) on February 12, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

go grenell we know you are the leader

Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on February 13, 2008 at 5:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL@Krogers!!!!! Dude, you are hilarious!!!! Thumbs down for sure!!