Ellington

Also see: JFP Melton Blog/Archive.

Ward 1 Councilman Jeff Weill was looking over his personal taxes recently and realized how revealing 1099 forms are. "t dawned on me that those would be a good way to see where the city money is going. So I had a thought, wondering if the city has a summary of the 1099s that they've recently sent out. I called (City Administrator) Rick Hill, and he said he could put one together and he did. It's on his desk, and all we have to do is convince the city to release it."

To date, though, Mayor Frank Melton's administration is refusing to release the 1099s with the mayor threatening a veto and some members of Council pledging to try to override his veto.

The city says it is not releasing the information for a couple of reasons, one of them being that city employees' Social Security numbers are on the forms.

"Social Security numbers are very personal to an individual, and we can't make that available. There's nothing more personal to a person than their business ID," Jackson Chief Administration Officer Robert Walker said Monday. "We also have been told that if this information is made available that there will be litigation, and surely none of us want to attract litigation that will take away valuable time from all of us."

Walker also argued at the Monday special Council meeting that compiling a 1099 summary—an 80-page document, according to Hill—would devour valuable staff time.

"Our staff is overwhelmed with sometimes very tedious requests to produce different kinds of information, so when these requests come in and our staff attempts to provide that information that means other vital things that are necessary to the function of this city have to go undone," Walker said.

Weill rejected Walker's second argument, saying "it would take Mr. Hill longer to make a ham sandwich than to comply with this request," but also argued that the administration could cut any information on the 1099s that could prove a legal liability to the city.

Walker warned that information on council members would also be made public in the requests, although Ward 6 Councilman Marshand Crisler dismissed those concerns.

Instead, Crisler referenced his past refusals to approve the city's claims docket, over disputes about the legality of some of the controversial contractors Melton brought in. Blocking the claims docket meant that payments were delayed.

"At the end of the day, I think we need to take a look at where our money is going," Crisler said. "That's why I'd had a problem voting for claims sometimes, because I couldn't get all the information I needed on them. The city would say, 'just vote for it,' that everything'll be alright, but at the end of the day, who are they going to hold accountable for spending the money: not you, not the mayor, just the council."

Crisler is referring to concerns about men Melton has hired to work for the city, including young men who lived in his home at 2 Carter's Grove, whom he set up to start a "lawn service." Two of those young men, Fredrica Brunson and Michael Taylor, have since been in trouble again, and law enforcement sources say that both may have been on the Mobile Command Center the night of the Ridgeway Street duplex demolition in August 2006. Taylor was named in indictments against the mayor, in which Melton was accused of ordering the young men to destroy the duplex.

Witnesses say the young men yelled loudly as they were destroying tenant Evans Welch's home: "We're Wood Street tearin' up Virden. We're tearin' sh*t up!"

In 2006, young friends of Melton routinely rode around late at night with Melton and his bodyguards. They also interacted with other controversial city hires of Melton, including long-time friends of his, such as Anthony Staffney and Marlon Warner, who have felony records. Those two men directed a youth camp Melton held in late 2007 in Jefferson Davis County.

Some council members have long questioned Melton's young workers, and the money being paid to them, but have long met resistance from Melton and City Attorney Sarah O'Reilly-Evans when trying to get detailed information.

"All we want is a compilation of data," Crisler said. "This is just standard stuff. I don't think any other political body in America has this kind of problem just getting standard information on where the money that we're voting on is going. This is insane. This is why the council and administration has such strained relationships."

Things became even more strained soon after those comments, as the council deliberated a vote to request a subpoena to force the administration to hand over the forms.

Walker and O'Reilly-Evans told the council that the seven-member body would need a super-majority of five members to override the mayor's veto of the subpoena vote. Three council members: Ward 3's Kenneth Stokes, Ward 4 Frank Bluntson and Ward 5 Charles Tillman routinely vote with the administration, erasing the likelihood of a super-majority override.

Weill, the council's newest member, expressed disbelief that city government could be run with so much unchecked power in the mayor's corner. "I can't believe the courts would allow a situation where an executive can veto, ignore or refuse to comply with an order to investigate a financial matter," Weill said.

"We have been advised that if the order, resolution or ordinance is subject to a veto, then it would take a super-majority to override the veto," O'Reilly-Evans repeated, emphasizing that investigative efforts by the council also fall into one of the three veto-sensitive categories.

Melton promised last week to veto any decision by the council to compel the 1099s in December. He was in the hospital Monday and could not attend the meeting.

Crisler was despondent after the meeting. "That it takes five people to do anything is ridiculous to me," he said. "I've never heard that before. I feel more powerless than I ever have. What's the point of the council?"

O'Reilly-Evans told the council that she would request an attorney general's opinion on the matter, although the council seemed unconvinced of their odds.

Former Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. said the city could possibly "sanitize" the documents to keep them legal, although the former associate state tax commissioner said he was still sensitive about sharing tax information, and believed there were multiple ways for the council to get the same information.

"There are other ways to skin that cat, if the administration and the council were willing to be cooperative," he said. "There should not be a problem divulging who was paid what, but the 1099 may not be the best way to go.

Previous Comments

ID

142739

Comment

“At the end of the day, I think we need to take a look at where our money is going,” Crisler said. “That’s why I’d had a problem voting for claims sometimes, because I couldn’t get all the information I needed on them. The city would say, ‘just vote for it,’ that everything’ll be alright, but at the end of the day, who are they going to hold accountable for spending the money: not you, not the mayor, just the council.” Ladd, We have heard several opponents of certain Melton's administration's claims dockets express uncertainty about the legality of specific proposed payments. It does not take a super majority of 5 to overturn a Mayor's veto to get that information. In addition, the administration's City Attorney does not have to be involved. Which is good, since the current city attorney has consistently not provided information the council requests. If A SINGLE council person truly believes that he or she is not being given the information they need to verify whether or not that vote would be lawful, they, as an individual council person, are the only individuals empowered by the state constitution to sue the mayor to get that information. The City of Hattiesburg had a similiar issue with their mayor and the Ms Supreme Court ruled that elected council prsons are the only individuals who can compel the mayor to follow the law through a writ of Mandamus. I have made three of the council persons aware of this, and yet they still sign claims dockets which, in their stated and publicized opionin, lack sufficient information to verify the legality of the payment. Who is fooling who? http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/ISYS/isysquery/9c228730-f031-4ddb-9c06-57075e258b64/1/doc/

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-01-07T13:58:04-06:00

ID

142740

Comment

Since the current city attorney is making money off of the bond issues (in addition to her salary), I can understand why she doesn't want to release that information.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2009-01-07T14:16:20-06:00

ID

142741

Comment

Jennifer2, How can that be? How can an employee be a consultant at the same time?

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-01-07T14:54:14-06:00

ID

142743

Comment

I don't know. But apparently it was in her contract. There was a big stink at the time it was discovered so it's not like I'm disclosing anything new. Somehow the council approved it but freaked out later when they found out what was in it. http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/exclusive_city_attorney_in_the_money/

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2009-01-07T15:41:26-06:00

ID

142746

Comment

why hasn't someone (state auditor? ethics commission? media?) challenged her double dipping into public money like this? If the council members are too gutless - or too stupid - to challenge this "theft" by the city attorney, then shame on them!

Author

FriendsofJackson

Date

2009-01-07T17:17:57-06:00

ID

142748

Comment

Walker and SORE's arguments here are absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason why the executive can't redact personal information like social security numbers. If Walker can't find a sharpie, City Council could go into executive session. As for SORE, she should be disbarred for failing to serve the interests of her client, which is the city of Jackson, not Melton. She is a complete disgrace.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-01-07T19:19:36-06:00

ID

142750

Comment

I don't know about SORE in particular but it is no secret that other lawyers in that office have been allowed to maintain private cases while working "full time" for the city. Here's some proof: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/HDList/..%5COpinions%5CCO44711.pdf (for some reason, this link doesn't work but the case is Maxwell v. Baptist Memorial Hospital and it came down from the Miss. Court of Appeals on May 27, 2008.) Seems to me that if we had real full time lawyers in the City Attorney's office, they could be legally confiscating drug houses rather than having Melton tearing them down.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2009-01-07T19:32:34-06:00

ID

142751

Comment

Jennifer, I don't think it's a matter of full-time vs. part-time. Rather, it's that state law allows city attorneys to take a piece of bond issues. The law was designed to allow part-time city attorneys in small town to be compensated for working above and beyond their usual responsibilities. In Jackson, past city attorneys have waived such compensation. But all of Melton's crew of bandits has plundered city government, vastly expanding executive compensation even as the quality of service goes down the toilet. Melton is not the only one in this administration who deserves jail time.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-01-07T19:40:16-06:00

ID

142752

Comment

I agree. What I'm trying to say is that the fact that lawyers in the city attorneys' office are keeping their private practices is just ANOTHER way the citizens of Jackson are getting shafted by this administration. The situation is way out-of-control and it seems inconceivable that the council is unaware of it. Here's the COA search engine. You can look the Maxwell case up by its date. http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/appellate_courts/coa/coadecisions.html

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2009-01-07T19:43:21-06:00

ID

142758

Comment

I had the same thought on the sharpie, Brian!!!

Author

Izzy

Date

2009-01-08T10:10:01-06:00

ID

142760

Comment

the legal advice from SORE is truly questionable and should have compelled the City Council to hire it's own, even if it's to pay out of their own pockets. I'm sure the good citizens of Jackson that understand this problem would even donate to a legal defense fund - and it surely would be to defend the CITY from these crooks!

Author

FriendsofJackson

Date

2009-01-08T10:32:00-06:00

ID

142763

Comment

Does anyone remember the Council being advised by Fred Banks of Phelps Dunbar because SORE and melton were making up shi! as they go? It has been a known fact that SORE does not represent the Council; however, she is paid to represent them. On another site, I was taken to task about my criticism of the Council. I continue to say that the City does not have the time, the tolerance or the finances to continue with this "I DON'T KNOW SHOW." Robert Walker and SORE are saying anything that frank wants said to keep their positions. By the way, the reason that SORE was able to get away with the big payback from the bond money was: Are you ready for this? NO COUNCIL PERSON READ HER CONTRACT. THAT PART WAS A SLIP IN. Again I say, we need some competent folks who will not sell their souls at the expense of our City .

Author

justjess

Date

2009-01-08T12:05:07-06:00