Just when it appeared the end was nigh at Tuesday’s McComb city board meeting, the fireworks erupted.
The selectmen and Mayor Zach Patterson covered 38 agenda items — which did not include any plans for work reductions or layoffs of city employees — over the course of 90 minutes.
The only items remaining were announcements and receiving comments from department heads, with the latter a quick and mundane subject more often than not.
However, both items took an additional 90 minutes to cover, incorporating the role of state representatives David Myers and Sam Mims V in the death of the city’s motel tax, a post-termination grievance from former chief financial officer Mary Adams, Patterson’s concerns over a perceived lack of respect from the police department and another verbal sparring match between the mayor and board attorney Wayne Dowdy.
It started with a monthly report from Tasha Dillon, director of Community Relations and Tourism. Patterson responded by voicing concerns over Dillon’s and city administrator Quordiniah Lockley’s intentions to meet with area representatives in an effort to resurrect the hotel tax.
“The hotel/motel tax is dead. It was killed by the initiative of David Myers and Sam Mims in concert,” Patterson said. “This issue is a political issue. It’s an issue of policy. Rep. David Myers created this mess, in my opinion. He made that political mess, and if he falls back in it, so be it.
“Gentlemen, I want to tell you, Tasha Dillon and Mr. Lockley are employees of the city of McComb. They’re not to be sent off as liaisons or anything like that to lobby for any political activities,” Patterson said. “Any efforts by those here in the city of McComb, employees of the city of McComb, to try and save that political bacon will not be tolerated. That is in political territory. Now Mr. Lockley, Tasha Dillon, I’m here to tell you and I’m warning you. It’s inappropriate for employees to participate in partisan political activity. If I have to take any action to stop such, I will.”
The mayor also held firm on his stance that the city should not have to split the tax funds with anyone. The bill Mims and Myers introduced to renew the tax last year called for a 60-40 split with the Pike County Economic Development District.
“What I have to say to that is nuts. Nuts. Not on my watch,” Patterson said. “We made an investment into (the hotels and motels), and any taxes that come off those, in my opinion, should come to the city. So far as the talk of the city of McComb, Miss., redistributing their wealth, redistributing their taxes, for the purpose of all of a three-county area or all of Pike County, I have to say nuts to that as well.”
Patterson voiced another set of concerns following a report from Police Chief Greg Martin. Patterson informed the board he received the titles on two Dodge Chargers authorized by the board for the police department in November 2009 with grant paperwork he signed.
However, the lines requiring the owner’s signature were already signed by Deputy Chief Scott McKenzie, with the mayor’s signature requested as a co-owner.
“There’s no point in asking me to sign if the police department can sign for their own vehicles. What’s the point in having me to sign for it?” Patterson said. “Those things that I don’t supervise, I can’t take responsibility for.”
Patterson then turned his attention to Martin, with whom he is in the midst of a legal battle. Patterson’s lawsuit against Martin is scheduled to go to court Feb. 23.
“The chief of police does not report to me, nor does he talk to me, nor does he tell me any actions that are ongoing in his department, so he’s clearly indicated after Judge (David) Strong’s ruling that he has nothing to say or do with me,” he continued. “Since he does not work for me, and since that department does not report to me, they don’t even have the courtesy to call me up and say, ‘Mayor, we got a couple of new cars in. Would you like to come look at the cars?’
“I’m not invited anywhere there,” Patterson said. “I find out what goes on in your police department only through two ways — reading the newspaper and when citizens complain to me about how they’re treated by your police department.”
After the remaining department heads gave their presentations, Patterson asked Lockley if he received a letter from Adams regarding a request for a post-termination hearing before the board.
Lockley said he received a copy of the letter, but it was addressed to Patterson and the board, and each received a copy from administration secretary Sherry Spears. Adams, who has attended board functions regularly since Lockley fired her on Dec. 30, announced to the audience that Lockley wrote a letter denying her request.
Lockley said his letter to Adams did not deny her a hearing; it only denied her a place on the meeting’s agenda, as the docket for Tuesday’s meeting had already been created and distributed to selectmen. Patterson asked that all requests to be put on agenda be honored if possible.
“I understand that there are rules set up and deadlines. You must have those to get an agenda item,” Patterson said. “However, if there is an item and we have room and time, we sometimes will break rules and say, ‘Bring this item forth,’ in the interest of making sure there’s not an appearance whatsoever of delaying justice.”
Shortly after this exchange, the question of the legality of a court stenographer in an executive session was raised again. The debate began at the Jan. 12 board meeting when board members questioned the presence of a stenographer in a December executive session involving Adams. At the meeting, Dowdy said he would obtain a written opinion from the state attorney general’s office.
The topic arose Tuesday when Selectman Melvin Joe Johnson asked for a copy of the transcript from the Jan. 12 executive session.
Dowdy informed the board he had prepared a rough draft of the opinion request to the attorney general, and requested additional facts from Patterson and board members.
“Mr. Dowdy, you said last month you’d already talked to the attorney general and you said the attorney general said it was prohibited,” Patterson said.
Dowdy said there’s a difference between an opinion given over the phone and one that has gone through the attorney general’s committee.
“I want to make sure that all the facts are included in that letter. It should be factually accurate. It should be factually complete.”
“I agree, but you make calls to the attorney general.”
And with that, another near-shouting match between Dowdy and Patterson was under way.
Among the topics was how to acquire attorney general’s opinions. Dowdy said they must be obtained through writing. Patterson said they’re available online and the attorney general’s opinion on stenographers is available there.
