The Mississippi Ethics Commission shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter upon a complaint filed by any person. Upon receiving a complaint, the commission shall forward a copy of the complaint to the head of the public body involved. The public body shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the complaint to file a response with the commission. After receiving the response to the complaint or, if no response is received after fourteen (14) days, the commission, in its discretion, may dismiss the complaint or proceed by setting a hearing in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Ethics Commission.
After a hearing, the Ethics Commission may order the public body to take whatever reasonable measures necessary, if any, to comply with this chapter. If the Ethics Commission finds that a member or members of a public body has willfully and knowingly violated the provisions of this chapter, the Ethics Commission may impose a civil penalty upon the individual members of the public body found to be in violation of the provision of this chapter in a sum not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for a first offense and One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for a second or subsequent offense, plus all reasonable expenses incurred by the person or persons in bringing the complaint to enforce this chapter.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the Ethics Commission from mediating or otherwise resolving disputes arising under this chapter or from entering orders agreed to by the parties. In carrying out its responsibilities under this section, the Ethics Commission shall have all the powers and authority granted to it in Title 25, Chapter 4, Mississippi Code of 1972.
Any party may petition the chancery court of the county in which the public body is located to enforce or appeal any order of the Ethics Commission issued pursuant to this chapter. In any such appeal the chancery court shall conduct a de novo review.
Laws, 1975, ch. 481, § 8; Laws, 2003, ch. 495, § 1; Laws, 2008, ch. 562, § 17, eff. 8/5/2008 (the date the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965); Laws, 2011, ch. 310, § 1, eff. 7/1/2011.
Notes of Decisions
Hinds Cty. Bd. of Sup'rs v. Common Cause, 551 So. 2d 107 (Miss. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Miss. Code Ann. § 25-41-15 states: The chancery courts of this state shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter upon application of any citizen of the state, and shall have the authority to issue injunctions or writs of mandamus to accomplish that purpose.”
Hayes v. Leflore Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 935 So. 2d 1026 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “According to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 25-41-15 (Rev.2003), of the Open Meetings Act, "[t]he chancery courts of this state shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter upon application of any citizen of the state.”
Lacroix v. Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Sup'rs, 28 So. 3d 650 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, the chancellor found that there was insufficient evidence to show a violation of the Open Meetings Act, the enforcement of which is pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 25-41-15 (Rev.2006); relief requested under section 97-11-37, a criminal statute, was…”
Shipman v. North Panola Consol. Sch. Dist., 641 So. 2d 1106 (Miss. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Miss.Code Ann. § 25-41-15. While noncompliance may subject a board to an injunction or writ of mandamus, nowhere is it written that the lack of recorded notice of a special meeting nullifies all the actions taken.”
LaCroix v. Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 28 So. 3d 650 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, the chancellor found that there was insufficient evidence to show a violation of the Open Meetings Act, the enforcement of which is pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 25-41-15 (Rev.2006); relief requested under section 97-11-37, a criminal statute, was…”
Shipman v. North Panola Consol. Sch. Dist., 641 So. 2d 1106 (Miss. 1994).
· cites it 6× “Miss. Code Ann. § 25-41-15 . While noncompliance may subject a board to an injunction or writ of mandamus, nowhere is it written that the lack of recorded notice of a special meeting nullifies all the actions taken.”
Mayor & City Council v. Com. Dispatch (Miss. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 25-41-15 (Supp. 2016) (“Any party may petition the chancery court of the county in which the public body is located to enforce or appeal any order of the Ethics Commission issued pursuant to this chapter.”
Hinds Cnty. Repub. Party v. Hinds Cnty., Mississippi (S.D. Miss. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 25-41-15 . But for the length of time this case has been here, this Court would likely have declined supplemental jurisdiction over this claim in deference to those bodies.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.