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

The opinion holds that a written veto is a public record under the Public Records Act once it meets the definition in Section 25-61-3(b). The veto procedure under Section 21-3-15(2)-(3) requires the mayor to deliver the veto to the clerk with a written statement of objections, but the opinion says the document is a public record before it is filed with the clerk or presented to the board.

City clerks

The opinion holds that a veto does not have to be filed with the clerk or presented at a board meeting to be a public record; it qualifies once it satisfies the statutory definition. The AG rejected the argument that the record's public status waits for the next board meeting.

Municipal attorneys

The opinion treats executive-session content as a redaction question, not a basis for withholding the whole veto. Where a veto references material exempt from production (for example, confidential information discussed in executive session under Section 25-41-7), the opinion says the city must redact the exempt portion and produce the rest under Section 25-61-5(2).

Journalists and public records requesters

For requesters, the opinion holds a mayor's veto is available for inspection by "any person" under Section 25-61-2, that its public status does not wait for the board meeting, and that a veto touching executive-session content is produced in redacted form rather than withheld entirely.

Citizens

The opinion concludes a mayor's written veto is a public record subject to disclosure, and that there is no statutory provision exempting vetoes from production under the Public Records Act.

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 opinion's authorities reach transcribed board minutes: it relies on the Tindall opinion and the Griffith Ethics Commission decisions, both holding that typed minutes are public records even before board approval. The opinion itself addresses vetoes and accompanying board minutes.

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

1. Is a mayor's written veto considered a public document?
2. 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?
3. If it is considered a public document, may it be given to anyone asking for a copy such as
   the local newspaper?
4. 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
5. Yes. A written veto is a public record under the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983.

6. 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).

7. 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).

8. 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