Is a Mississippi mayor's written veto of a city council action a public record, and can the public see it?
Subject
Public Records Act and Mayoral Vetoes
Recipient
The Honorable Steve Watkins, Mayor, City of Quitman
Plain-English summary
Quitman's mayor asked the AG four practical questions about how the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 treats his written vetoes of city council actions: Are they public records? When does the record become public? Can he hand a copy to the local newspaper? And what if the underlying vote was taken in executive session?
The AG answered all four. (1) Yes, a written veto is a public record under Section 25-61-3(b)'s broad definition (any documentary material used or possessed for the conduct of public business). (2) The record does not need to wait for clerk filing or board meeting presentation. It is a public record from the moment it satisfies the statutory definition. (3) The Public Records Act requires public records to be available for inspection by "any person" under Section 25-61-2, so the mayor or the city can produce it to a newspaper or any other requester. (4) The record's status as public does not change just because the underlying vote happened in executive session. The city must redact any portion of the veto that contains exempt material (under Section 25-61-5(2)) and produce the non-exempt portion.
The AG relied on past opinions and Ethics Commission decisions: Tindall (Jan. 2, 1986), holding that transcribed minutes are subject to production even before board approval (with appropriate "unofficial" markings), and Griffith v. City of Lumberton (consolidated Public Records cases R-21-032, R-22-022, R-22-023), holding that typed board minutes are public records before board approval.
What this means for you
Mayors of code charter municipalities
Your written vetoes are public from the moment you write them. The veto procedure under Section 21-3-15(2)-(3) requires you to deliver the veto to the clerk with a written statement of objections, but the document is a public record before it ever reaches the clerk. Treat it that way: if a journalist or citizen asks for the veto on the day you wrote it, the document is producible.
City clerks
When you receive a veto from the mayor, log it in your records system and treat it as available for inspection. Do not delay production pending the next board meeting; the AG explicitly rejected that timing rationale.
Municipal attorneys
Be ready to advise the city on redaction when a veto references material from executive session. The Open Meetings Act executive-session exemptions (Section 25-41-7 lists permissible executive sessions) translate into redaction obligations, not non-production. Section 25-61-5(2) is the legal basis for selective redaction with disclosure of the rest.
Journalists and public records requesters
You can request a mayor's veto as soon as it is written. If the city tries to delay until the board meeting, that conflicts with the AG opinion. If the city refuses to produce because the underlying vote was in executive session, ask for a redacted version under Section 25-61-5(2).
Citizens
Mississippi's Public Records Act has real teeth on this issue. The mayor's veto is your record, not an internal document. If you want to know why your mayor vetoed a council ordinance, file the request and expect production.
Common questions
What is the legal threshold for a "public record"?
Section 25-61-3(b) defines a public record very broadly: any "books, records, papers, accounts, letters, maps, photographs, films, cards, tapes, recordings or reproductions thereof, and any other documentary materials . . . having been used, being in use, or prepared, possessed or retained for use in the conduct, transaction or performance of any business, transaction, work, duty or function of any public body."
Does a veto need to be officially "accepted" to be public?
No. The AG explicitly said acceptance, filing, or board presentation is not required for the record to be public. The trigger is when the document satisfies the definition.
Can a city redact instead of producing?
Yes, but only as to specifically exempt material. Section 25-61-5(2) requires production of non-exempt portions even when some content is redacted.
What if the veto references information discussed in executive session?
That portion may be exempt under Section 25-41-7's executive-session provisions, but the city must redact only the exempt portion and produce the rest.
Does this rule apply to other types of municipal documents besides vetoes?
The reasoning applies generally. Drafted memos, transcribed minutes, and other documentary materials become public records when they satisfy the statutory definition. Some categories have specific exemptions, but the default is openness.
What about attorney-client privileged material in the veto?
The AG opinion does not specifically address attorney-client privilege, but Mississippi law generally exempts privileged communications from production. If the veto reproduces privileged content, redaction would be appropriate.
Background and statutory framework
The Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983, codified at Sections 25-61-1 et seq., establishes the right of "any person" to inspect public records. Section 25-61-2 articulates the public-availability principle. Section 25-61-3(b) provides the broad definition of a public record. Section 25-61-5(2) allows for redaction of exempted material with production of the non-exempted portions.
Section 21-3-15(2) and (3) governs the mayor's veto power in code charter municipalities. The mayor returns the ordinance, resolution, or order "to the board of aldermen by delivering it to the municipal clerk together with a written statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part thereof." The board may override by a two-thirds vote.
Section 25-41-7 (the Open Meetings Act provision on executive sessions) sets out when a public body may meet privately, but the underlying records of executive-session decisions remain governed by the Public Records Act, with redaction available for content that is genuinely exempt.
The AG's Tindall opinion (Jan. 2, 1986) and the Mississippi Ethics Commission's Griffith v. City of Lumberton consolidated decisions confirmed that transcribed minutes are public records even before board approval. The Watkins opinion extends the same logic to mayoral vetoes.
Citations
- Miss. Code Ann. § 21-3-15(2) (mayor's veto procedure)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 21-3-15(3) (board override of veto by two-thirds vote)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 25-41-7 (Open Meetings Act executive sessions)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-1 et seq. (Public Records Act of 1983)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-2 (records available for inspection by any person)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-3(b) (definition of public record)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-5(2) (redaction of exempt material with production of non-exempt portions)
- MS AG Op., Tindall (Jan. 2, 1986) (transcribed minutes are public records before approval)
- Jonathan F. Griffith v. City of Lumberton, Public Records Case Nos. R-21-032, R-22-022, R-22-023 (Consolidated) (Mississippi Ethics Commission)
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/S.Watkins-July-20-2023-Public-Records-Act.pdf
Original opinion text
July 20, 2023
The Honorable Steve Watkins
Mayor, City of Quitman
Post Office Box 16
Quitman, Mississippi 39355-0016
Re:
Public Records Act
Dear Mayor Watkins:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Questions Presented
- Is a mayor's written veto considered a public document?
- If so, does it become a public document the moment it is filed and accepted by the city
clerk, or at some other time, such as the board meeting where the written veto is reviewed,
discussed, and considered for override by the Board of Aldermen? - If it is considered a public document, may it be given to anyone asking for a copy such as
the local newspaper? - Is a written veto considered a public document even if the vote being vetoed by the Board
of Aldermen was a vote taken in executive session?
Brief Response - Yes. A written veto is a public record under the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983.
-
A written veto is not required to be filed and accepted by the city clerk or presented for
discussion at a board meeting to be considered a public record. A veto is subject to
disclosure under the Public Records Act once it meets the definition of a "public record"
under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 25-61-3(b). -
Yes. The Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 requires that public records must be
available for inspection by any person." Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-2 (emphasis added). - Yes, but if the veto contains material that is exempt from disclosure under the Public
Records Act, the governing authorities of the city must "redact the exempted material and
make the nonexempted material available for inspection." Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-5(2).
Applicable Law and Discussion
According to the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 ("Public Records Act"), public records
of a public body must be available for inspection and copying by any person in accordance with
reasonable written procedures adopted by the public body unless the subject records are exempt
from production. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 25-61-1, et seq. The Public Records Act defines public
records as follows:
[A]ll books, records, papers, accounts, letters, maps, photographs, films, cards,
tapes, recordings or reproductions thereof, and any other documentary materials,
regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been used, being in use, or
prepared, possessed or retained for use in the conduct, transaction or performance
of any business, transaction, work, duty or function of any public body, or required
to be maintained by any public body. . . .
Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-3(b). In order to veto an ordinance, resolution, or order, the mayor of a
code charter municipality must "return it to the board of aldermen by delivering it to the municipal
clerk together with a written statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part
thereof" in accordance with the provisions of Section 21-3-15(2), (3) ("Mayor's duties and powers;
authority of board of aldermen"). This section goes on to provide that the board may "by a vote of
two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the board, resolve to override the mayor's veto." Generally
speaking, this veto and any accompanying board minutes are public records as defined by the
Public Records Act. There is no statutory provision that exempts vetoes from production under the
Public Records Act. As your request suggests, there may be situations in which a veto includes
information that is exempt from production, if, for example, it references confidential information
that was discussed in executive session pursuant to Section 25-41-7 ("Public body holding
executive sessions"). In that circumstance, the municipality should redact the portion of the veto
that is exempt from production as required by Section 25-61-5(2).
Consistent with prior opinions of this office and decisions of the Mississippi Ethics Commission,
it is the opinion of this office that a veto does not have to be filed with the clerk or presented to a
board to meet the definition of a "public record." See MS AG Op., Tindall (Jan. 2, 1986) (opining
that transcribed minutes are subject to production under the Public Records Act and should be
marked "unofficial" or "unapproved" if produced prior to approval by the board); Jonathan F.
Griffith v. City of Lumberton, Public Records Case Nos. R-21-032, R-22-022 and R-22-023
(Consolidated) (stating that once board minutes are typed, they are a public record, even before
board approval).
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By:
/s/ Beebe Garrard
Beebe Garrard
Special Assistant Attorney General