Jackson Free Press

Updated Nov. 8, 2006

City Attorney Sarah O'Reilly-Evans could collect up to $650,000 on the $65 million convention Center bond proposal, according to a clause in her city contract, first revealed publicly on Nov. 1 on jacksonfreepress.com. O'Reilly-Evans, who heads the city's legal department, makes $113,000 a year in annual salary—almost $25,000 more than the last city attorney, Terry Wallace—but a clause in her contract allows her to take home extra pay from every city bond proposal she helps devise.

Clause B of O'Reilly-Evans' employment contract states: "The issuing and refunding of bonds and the drafting and presenting of all orders and resolutions in connection therewith, shall be provided by the City Attorney, and this shall be as an additional service to the city of Jackson. … The city attorney shall be compensated a reasonable compensation as authorized for any co-counsel not to exceed the amount authorized by (state) law."

State law allows the city to pay the attorney a "reasonable compensation" not to exceed 1 percent of the bonds issued. In the case of the $65 million bond for the Capital City Convention Center, even just 1 percent is $650,000. However, state law mandates that O'Reilly-Evans can't be paid any more than co-counsel, who will get $70,000.

Still, Ward 2 Councilman Leslie McLemore said he questions why composing bond proposals does not count among her designated services and duties when the city is already footing her considerable salary.

"I think we're paying her $113,000, and that's more than we paid any other city attorney. It seems to me that she's being paid well enough without that clause, and it should be excluded," McLemore said.

In response to public-records requests by the JFP, Rick Hill, deputy director of the Department of Administration, wrote on Oct. 30 that O'Reilly-Evans received no additional compensation for a recent general obligation fund (worth almost $300 million) and a $27 million water/sewer refunding bond.

Hill refused to disclose whether O'Reilly-Evans received extra compensation for her work on the Capital City Convention Center bond issuance or TIF for a new Lowe's in south Jackson. (A TIF or "tax increment fund" is a bond designed to pay for public projects that will encourage private development; the bond is secured against anticipated future property tax revenues.) Hill wrote that those deals had not yet closed and legal fees had not yet been distributed.

After the JFP broke this story last week, O'Reilly-Evans admitted to The Clarion-Ledger that she's taking home an extra $45,000 for her services. Ward 7 Councilwoman Margaret Barrett-Simon said O'Reilly-Evans said last week that she had reduced her fee from the $70,000 co-counsel will receive to $45,000.

Mississippi Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Hood said the state law was designed for smaller municipalities employing underpaid part-time city attorneys. However, O'Reilly-Evans' contract appears to break no law, he said. "As far as the law is concerned, the ethics law does not prohibit variable compensation as long as all the terms are contained in one contract," Hood said.

Ward 6 Councilman Marshand Crisler was outraged at the possibility that O'Reilly-Evans might collect any extra from the city's strained coffers.

"It would be different if we didn't already have a full-time attorney," Crisler said. "I understand why outside counsel would get one-half of 1 percent (sic) but why on God's earth would you pay this ungodly salary, plus her fees on bond counsel, especially taking into consideration the financial strife that the city is in already? To me, that's part of her job. We'd be paying her twice."

Ward 4 Councilman Frank Bluntson said he was fine with O'Reilly-Evans taking home $158,000 this year with the bond fee inserted in her salary. "As long as it's legal, and the state says it's OK, I'm OK with it," Bluntson said.

The city is already paying law firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, as well as Phelps Dunbar LLP and other attorneys for their assistance in writing the bond. Neither firm returned calls to the JFP for comment.

McLemore, Crisler and Barrett-Simon say they don't recall seeing Clause B in O'Reilly-Evans' contract prior to the council's confirmation of her last year. "I can't be 100 percent sure that that clause was in her contract when we had her confirmation hearing," McLemore said.

"We may have seen (Clause B)," Council President Ben Allen told the JFP, "but we were all so euphoric at having a change in the legal department that we may not have noticed it."

Barrett-Simon said O'Reilly-Evans should have made a point to discuss the clause prior to her confirmation. "This clause is something of such significance that we're having a hard time believing that (this agreement) is exactly what we did approve," Barrett-Simon said. "I just can't believe we missed it. This kind of thing just jumps out at you. Why would (O'Reilly-Evans) not have said as an attorney representing us, too, that 'I will be getting a percentage of the bond proceeds?'"

No council member has produced a copy of the employee agreement from that date. Via public records request, the JFP obtained a copy of O'Reilly-Evans' contract, stamped July 6, 2005, which includes Clause B.

O'Reilly-Evans told the JFP that her contract, including all provisions, was before the eyes of council members prior to her confirmation and that they approved its terms. "They most certainly saw it," O'Reilly-Evans said, adding that she intends to keep her fee.

Nevertheless, Crisler brought the issue up at this week's Tuesday council meeting, asking whether the $45,000 fee would be inserted in this week's payroll. When O'Reilly-Evans' fee comes up for collection, Crisler wants to know about it, he said. Allen, who is determined to keep debate regarding the issue behind closed doors, cut off Crisler.

"We'll have some more conversations about this whole issue, but not in this forum," Allen said. Allen later told the JFP: "It's far from over, but we're going to work it out in a dignified manner."

Crisler predicted that a majority of the council, including Allen, might eventually be pressured by tax-weary residents tired of useless expenditures and wasteful payouts into renegotiating the contract.

Former City Attorney Terry Wallace said he was surprised at how hastily the council had confirmed both O'Reilly-Evans and her considerable salary increase in the first place. At last year's July confirmation, no council member brought up Clause B. O'Reilly-Evans, who has worked with former mayor Dale Danks, retired from city service during the last administration. During Melton's 2005 campaign, she helped Melton argue his way out of lying to the Jackson Municipal Democratic Executive Committee, when he told them that he had filed for homestead exemption in Jackson but had not.

At least three council members believe that the legislative branch needs its own legal counsel to inspect and advise on certain documents submitted by the mayor's office, claiming that the council, without its own attorney, is at the mercy of the executive.

"The difficulty has been that the city's legal persons represent the executive branch and not the legislative branch, and that's a fatal flaw in the legislation when this form of government was approved and passed by the state Legislature. They really forgot legal representation for the City Council," McLemore said.

Former Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. said he had resisted the idea of the council having its own legal representation during his administration. "If you start hearing legal opinions within the city between the branches of government, you start pulling against each other," Johnson said. He added that he wasn't sure how easily the council could pull out of O'Reilly's agreement, saying, "it's obvious that a lawyer drafted it."

"It could be grounds for a lawsuit, although it would be weird for the city's own attorney to sue the city," Johnson said.

Mississippi College School of Law professor Greg Kettles said he didn't see an obvious way out of the agreement short of something drastic.

"Whether she's not done a good job as a city attorney could be terms for terminating the employment agreement," Kettles said. "Her agreement implies that she's expected to do a competent job, and if they wanted out of it they might have to go down that avenue."

Previous Comments

ID

66990

Comment

I can't believe no one caught that.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-02T20:05:11-06:00

ID

66991

Comment

Well, no one asked Chief Anderson any tough questions either back in those halycon days of all-crime-to-be-gone in 90 days. Harumph. (And that's the nicest thing I can think to say right now.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-02T20:14:29-06:00

ID

66992

Comment

Sure looks like the Council dropped the ball on this one. Sure O'Reilly-Evens could have discussed this during confirmation; but, why didn't the Council dig a bit deeper in the Contract? Of course, they confirmed Chief Anderson too. Now why they can't bitch louder and try to have these people removed is beyond me. What happened with Chandler's confirmation that Ben Allen said was coming up for vote? I hope they are happy, especially the core 4 of Blunston, Tillman, Stokes and Allen, that we are paying Melton's appointees and contractors more money than any other predesessors while the peoples tags and property taxes go up. If I hear Ben Allen complain about level tax revenues, I'm going to puke!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-02T20:37:05-06:00

ID

66993

Comment

Yeah, I've been wondering about that Chandler confirmation myself. He definitely seems more aligned with the Melton side of the aisle these days. Bizarre, considering.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-02T20:46:41-06:00

ID

66994

Comment

I shutter to think what Hiedel gets off of "economic development" if he has any clause like this in his contract. I doubt he does; but, now that one bad deal has been passed onto the tax payers we have to wonder if there are not more. So, did O'Reilly pull for the Convention Center tax vote or against it? Where does Melton get off on thinking that his people are worth so much more than other employees? His bodyguards, his glorified PR rep. in Redd, his contractors are all getting paid way more than necessary to run a town of this size. It is not very prudent of him, and our City Council, to just waste our money like this. It's just crap that out elected leaders are letting this go on while every fee and tax has gone up under the label of the City being broke! How much money could O'Reilly net at the end of 4 years? $1 million, $2 million? What could the City do with that? The County? Wait how much did the County give the City to repave roads? $500,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And how much fan fare and morning shows were wasted telling us how wonderful the money from the County was for repaving. Stick a sock in it!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-02T22:41:12-06:00

ID

66995

Comment

So, who did the legal review on the contract on behalf of the city?

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-11-03T08:39:58-06:00

ID

66996

Comment

i bet the answer is that the city attorney herself provided the review

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-03T09:17:08-06:00

ID

66997

Comment

Yeah, exactly why council ought to use separate council from the city attorney. Wonder who did look it over???

Author

Izzy

Date

2006-11-03T10:47:58-06:00

ID

66998

Comment

One thing, folks: This is a story in progress. It's taken weeks to get this far because the city is so tight-fisted with public information. Stay tuned.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T10:55:15-06:00

ID

66999

Comment

Oh, and the image I can't get out of my head is Council and the mayor and the police chief all sitting in Council that day in July 2005, wearing the cowboy hats that Carolyn Redd passed out—rather than doing the city's work and asking the hard questions. Remember those halcyon days? The only surprise is that The Clarion-Ledger and TV reporters weren't wearing their white hats. Again: harumph.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T10:57:01-06:00

ID

67000

Comment

Yeah, everything was going to be so grand and wonderful when Melton became Mayor. Now that he has shown the public the "real Melton" we get to hear how he is "just learning" and "is trying to do the right thing." Come on the water is warm and I know it is not raining! Heck, you even have the Republican on the Council voting to raise fees and taxes like there is no tomorrow. The same republican that supported Melton's appointments and much of his policies! "But, Melton is cracking thugs skulls and putting them in jail! So we are safer and better off." Is heard from the back of an NJam gathering! "Still going to send my kid to JA though!"

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-03T11:12:03-06:00

ID

67001

Comment

Who is Melton putting in jail? I there any evidence out there that the evidence on anyone he has brought in has actually landed someone in prison, or even jail for any significant period of time? Maybe there is; I just can't think of anyone at the moment. Help?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T11:17:19-06:00

ID

67002

Comment

That does cause a bit of a kink in the pro-Melton argument doesn't it!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-03T11:28:59-06:00

ID

67003

Comment

I know. Pesky details. At some point, we're going to get around to a big story explaining the ins and outs of the cases that Melton was "involved" with: the witnesses who backed out, the evidence that couldn't be used, and so on—of course, starting with the evidentiary (sp?) travesty that was the Wood Street Players trial. It was just remarkable to read the affidavits and such presented by the defense (which included Robert Smith, now Marcus Wright's attorney) that showed all the special stuff Melton had done for Christopher Walker. What was remarkable then was that Melton really didn't seem to comprehend why his star witness was so tainted. He just seemed to think that he could run a makeshift witness-protection program from his home, giving immunity and credit cards to witnesses of his choosing. It was sad and bizarre at the same time. I don't know if there could possibly be a way for anyone to ever know if Walker was telling the truth — THANKS to Melton.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T11:33:28-06:00

ID

67004

Comment

For the curious, here's the story about Melton's star witness and a link to the affidavits.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T11:35:48-06:00

ID

67005

Comment

He hasn't put anyone in jail. Also, ladd, your the best of the best, but you've used Halcyon twice in the same forum. LOL. I look for these things.

Author

E

Date

2006-11-03T11:39:51-06:00

ID

67006

Comment

I'll never forget that aspect of my night out on a raid with Melton. We ran around for HOURS with at least four police cruisers, probably 12 officers, all on the trail of Vidal Sullivan. What did this massive deployment of police under the personal direction of Melton and Chief Shirlene Anderson produce? One arrest of one scraggly fellow in a hotel parking lot who had a single rock of cocaine. Sullivan was arrested a couple days later by federal marshals.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-03T12:11:55-06:00

ID

67007

Comment

Brian: I think this describes your night with Melton Perfectly http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/tarzan/mikehenry/mikehenry47.jpg

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-03T12:22:58-06:00

ID

67008

Comment

oops. wrong link. http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/tarzan/mikehenry/mikehenry47.jpg

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-03T12:29:15-06:00

ID

67009

Comment

Oops, I had halcyon on the brain, it seems. Hey, you give up something for the immediacy of blogging, I guess. ;-) Love the sharp eye, though. Yes, Brian, on my second ride-along, we were supposedly trying to arrest Christopher Walker. By the next week, I was interviewing the mayor in his home with Walker hanging in the other room with his girlfriend. Then, later, the feds arrested Walker for violating drug tests 11 (13?) times including during the time he was living at Melton's house leading up to the trial. None of it makes a lick of sense.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T12:40:43-06:00

ID

67010

Comment

And, then what's truly remarkable are the needle-brains who then try to blame the district attorney for not being able to put these star witnesses on the stand—and then losing cases that were built around Melton witnesses. One the most unbelievable events through that whole time was Melton bringing Walker to a press conference to accuse Peterson of all sorts of things—that a couple weeks, I think, before the feds picked him back up. I guess this is how some people define "crime-fighting."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T12:43:34-06:00

ID

67011

Comment

Great investigative article, Adam. The City government wants to close its doors to public scrutiny and you keep prying them open. Excellent reporting.

Author

Brent Cox

Date

2006-11-03T15:29:01-06:00

ID

67012

Comment

I smell a RAT! Why? Because O’Reilly-Evans' husband, State Rep. Jim Evans, is great friends with councilman Frank Bluntson. The both of them "laugh it up", "yap it up", and verbally attack (anyone who does not agree with them) every Sunday on the a. m. radio show STRAIGHT TALK. But lately, Frank "Detention Center" Bluntson has been pretty quiet since the gag order.

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2006-11-03T16:16:57-06:00

ID

67013

Comment

Just from the figures mentioned above, she legally could be paid $3,920,000 in addition to her $113,000 salary for a total of $4,033,000 (yes, that's four million dollars). $3,920,000 is alot of money for fire/police pay, infra-structure maintenance, etc. More and more I'm thankful I moved out of Jackson!

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-11-03T16:43:53-06:00

ID

67014

Comment

She wouldn't accept any money beyond her salary. She loves the city. This contractual problem will get fixed.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-03T17:12:51-06:00

ID

67015

Comment

If that's the case, why did she even have it in her contract in the first place??

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-11-03T17:17:33-06:00

ID

67016

Comment

look: all the City Council need do is immediately adopt a resolution rescinding sarah's contract,or its odious provision for bond money fees, under the common law doctrine of "unilateral mistake", which is widely established in the decisions of the Mississippi Supreme Court. I can guarentee you that if such a resolution is passed any purported fee sought by sarah at the bond closing will be escrowed and will not be distributed without a court order obtained by sarah first. anybody want to weigh in on this? other bases for rescission that come to mind include "unconscionability" and "misrepresentation"

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-03T17:19:03-06:00

ID

67017

Comment

If Ray's right, that's unnecessary--she and the city can both sign a simple contract amendment and that will be that. Not very difficult to do. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-03T17:22:27-06:00

ID

67018

Comment

The question, I suppose is: Will she sign the contract amendment? And will Council force her to? It's hard to imagine a city employee making millions of dollars of our bonds. Just unthinkable. The only fiscally responsible thing to do is rescind this puppy. And fast.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T17:26:05-06:00

ID

67019

Comment

"If that's the case, why did she even have it in her contract in the first place??" I second that emotion. Trust no one. Get the language taken out of the contract.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-03T17:27:48-06:00

ID

67020

Comment

And Jo-D does ask a good question. How did this clause get there in the first place? That's what we're trying to find out, but it's hard to pin down. And did Melton know about this? If not, why not? It's hard to imagine what his, and Ben Allen's, Repub supporters must think of this.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T17:27:56-06:00

ID

67021

Comment

Tom you assume that sarah will walk away from cash. right now her contract is fully enforceable and ole ray was pulling our leg again

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-03T17:32:32-06:00

ID

67022

Comment

I doubt Ben Allen has the stones to call for her contract to be rescinded. He would be the swing vote on this one, so it is on him to push for this if he wants what is best for Jackson.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-03T17:40:38-06:00

ID

67023

Comment

Pike, wouldn't his supporters skin him alive if he allowed such fiscal irresponsibility to go forward?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-03T17:50:58-06:00

ID

67024

Comment

Most of Ben's supporters don't worry about how much tax they pay. If they can afford their fancy cars and the tags that go with them, while sending their children to private schools (with clothes to match), I figure this could fly right under their radar. Now certain sections of Ward 1 that he (and a whole lot of politicians) ignores is greatly hurt by the irresponsible fiscal policies they are enacting or allowing to happen. I've been thinking of putting together a photo essay of Ward 1 to just show how much this area is decaying and becoming much worst than just a couple of years ago. The closed Western Sizzler is a prime example of blight in Ward 1. Up and down the north part of Old Canton Road is slowly going to fade away. That Winn-Dixie will lead to the Rite-Aid shopping center to fold up. An up-tick in crimes at the Colonial Mart is going to doom that strip too. But, I guess if those go away it will make it easier to get to that new fancy church that requires traffic cops who stop mothers who are trying to pick up their children by 6pm at daycare so they don't get charged $15 per every 5 minutes they are late. Needless to say, that damn church has cost my spouse $30. I'm so glad those SUV's and Caddy's can turn into the church though, so they can worship without being inconvenienced! I guess their God doesn't have much patience? Just to remind readers that church has it's own light (paid for by them) and their own private entrance down Northtown Dr. which also has a light on Old Canton. So, the Sheriff's men out their stopping traffic is OVER-KILL and SELFISH on Wednesday nights at 5pm!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-03T19:02:12-06:00

ID

67025

Comment

Wel! Wel!l Well! will wonders never cease??? Of coures I am not surprised at this revelation. Greedy,greedy people seem to permeate this admin. Sounds like a bunch of republicans have taken over our city goverment. If they loved this city so much why the big increase in salaries. They all knew the city was suffering from a financial down turn. harvey didn't lay off anyone and was able to increase both fire and police. No one lost their job because of no money. New hires knew exactly what they were going to earn when they took the jobs. Everyone likes more money but some of us also liked working for a fair and honest person. What a mess this admin and council have made of this city. I can't wait to hear Ben's response to this article if he has the gonads to do so. Go JFP.

Author

jada

Date

2006-11-03T20:10:53-06:00

ID

67026

Comment

But, I guess if those go away it will make it easier to get to that new fancy church that requires traffic cops who stop mothers who are trying to pick up their children by 6pm at daycare so they don't get charged $15 per every 5 minutes they are late. Needless to say, that damn church has cost my spouse $30. I'm so glad those SUV's and Caddy's can turn into the church though, so they can worship without being inconvenienced! I guess their God doesn't have much patience? Just to remind readers that church has it's own light (paid for by them) and their own private entrance down Northtown Dr. which also has a light on Old Canton. So, the Sheriff's men out their stopping traffic is OVER-KILL and SELFISH on Wednesday nights at 5pm! This happens on Clinton Blvd on Wednesday nights as well.. I can't recall the name of the church but it's huge and has a school. It's close to I-220. You can't miss it, especially right now because of a certain judge candidate's (Wise?) yard signs lining the 200 yards of said church's iron fencing fronting Clinton Blvd. JPD officers out there stopping "us" so "they" can go to church or leave church, depending on what time it is. At least we know who said church endorses in that race.

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-11-03T20:43:18-06:00

ID

67027

Comment

Jo-D that would be Word of Faith. I was going to make this point as well.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-03T21:17:16-06:00

ID

67028

Comment

This must depend on the church or location. From what I've seen, churches in West Jackson have to fend for themselves unless they have deacons out there to direct traffic.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-11-03T21:34:12-06:00

ID

67029

Comment

Well, not every church requires that kind of traffic control. Depends on the church size, and the traffic volumes both entering and leaving the facility, as well as the street traffic volume. A megachurch fronting a high volume arterial like Old Canton, Northside Drive or Clinton Blvd might have the need and means to have officers or church members directing traffic, but a smaller church on a low volume neighborhood street wouldn't need to.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-03T21:47:32-06:00

ID

67030

Comment

I gotcha, ejeff. Unfortunately, if you used to belong to a large church on Robinson Street where the church across the street is also large and you're trying to share a four-lane road with no turning lane and a bunch of tow-away zones, you will think that certain churches have an edge.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-11-03T22:12:25-06:00

ID

67031

Comment

The point is they really don't need the cops. If you are coming North on Old Canton, then they can easily turn right into the first entrance or into the one at the light at Pear Orchard without disrupting traffic. If you are coming South on Old Canton then they can use the left turn lane at the light they built or turn earlier, at a light, onto Northtown and then into their other entrance. By using the actual lights and following basic traffic rules they would ease congestion and allow for other people to use the lanes to the outside of each ingress route by the churchgoers. Instead they have police stopping traffic so they can bypass the other entrances and make (illegal) left-hand turns across two lanes of traffic during rush hour! If the churchgoers are too dumb to alter their route into the church so they do not have to cross two lanes of traffic then they should have to wait in the middle turn lane like any other person! However, it is more upsetting that our City is willing to allow the City Atty. to pocket millions!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-03T23:28:11-06:00

ID

67032

Comment

However, it is more upsetting that our City is willing to allow the City Atty. to pocket millions! Yeah, especially when we could be using that money for other things, like street paving, upgrading the sewer system or more money for city employee raises.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2006-11-03T23:42:25-06:00

ID

67033

Comment

Or how about that creek that runs behind my mom's house? Her yard has begun to erode because of it, and I'm still waiting for someone to come to the house to look at it. If they were there, they didn't tell me.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-11-03T23:52:43-06:00

ID

67034

Comment

Whenever I attend a City Council meeting, the mayor or someone on the Council invariably makes a stupid joke about the mayor's criminal and civil charges--and then they all laugh. Which tells me the City Council is profoundly removed from the real consequences of inept, corrupt government. Maybe they did see this in the City Attorney's contract and have just been laughing at ineptitude and corruption for so long they forgot how to take it seriously. Adam's article will, I'm sure, get many of them to start complaining, just so long as the media cameras are turned on in Council Chambers. But do they really give a damn about corruption? Hear them laugh the next time the mayor makes a joke and you won't have to ask that question again.

Author

Brent Cox

Date

2006-11-03T23:57:22-06:00

ID

67035

Comment

Such vitriol is unnecessary and irrelevant. This "may" be a good story, and if its accurate, why politicize it unnecessarily? Oh wait, never mind....... Has anyone ascertained whether Ms. O'Reilly-Evans actually intends to collect the money under the contract provision? The statute at issue is Miss. Code Ann. 21-15-25. (as an aside, I certainly appreciate it when news articles refer or link back to original sources or the law, if cited. Perhaps a link to the statute or the contract would lend itself to reasoned discussion). The statute provides in part: "...however, where the regular contract of employment and compensation paid to the municipal attorney covers and includes services in connection with the issuing or refunding of bonds, then such regular municipal attorney shall not be paid additional compensation for such services." Miss. Code Ann. 21-15-25 It appears that her contract specifically wrote in that she was not being hired for bond work, and if she did it, then she would get paid. My understanding is that she has not done substantial bond work, but that this was handled by Phelps and Baker Donaldson and before that Butler Snow - I may be wrong on this. Either way, it was not my understanding the City Attorney did bond work, so whats the problem? Sounds like the city got a crappy contract provision, but thats a different issue entirely if she is not seeking compensation under it. This is consistent with Rick Hill's statement to JFP that SRE did not get money for the GO bonds or the Water Sewer issue, she probably did not work them up. Again, has anyone actually figured out whether she is claiming compensation under this contract provision? Has she done any work on any bond issues which would warrant payment under the contract or statute? Could we have a look at the contract? It seems these questions should be answered before calling her a greedy opportunist in league with them evul Ben Allen supportin, Jackson Academy lovin, north Jacksonite church goers with their fancy cars. chortle.... snort – puh-lease.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-11-04T09:32:02-06:00

ID

67036

Comment

I want to qualify my last sentence. I think some of them personally care about corruption, but as a body they don't take it seriously. If the Council truly did miss the problematic clause, it's because they're accustomed to looking the other way when problems in government confront them. Their jokes and laughter about the mayor's charges are examples of their ability to look the other way or, worse, simply not care.

Author

Brent Cox

Date

2006-11-04T09:52:13-06:00

ID

67037

Comment

Obviuosly Niles hasn't read the Clarion Ledger this morning or you would know that SRE is all for getting her money, Blunston sees no problem with it (imagine that), and Ben doesn't even want to give her $45,000 if that is the case. But what is worst is that again this was getting "worked out" behind closed doors: Council President Ben Allen said he addressed the council members' concerns with O'Reilly-Evans, Mayor Frank Melton and Administration Department Director Peyton Prospere in a private meeting last week. He said he hoped to work out the issue without it being made public because he believed it would lead to wild speculation. "We're trying to get some clarity on this. What was strange is that many of us do not remember seeing it in the contract when we voted on it last year," Allen said. And then he throws in the possibility of fraud! Is this fraud they may look into or are they just going to speculate like they do with the past administration supposedly cooking crime stats? From SRE: O'Reilly-Evans said she asked for the provision because she knew other contracted attorneys for city agencies, such as the Jackson Redevelopment Authority, received payment for bond services. O'Reilly-Evans also said she deserves payment for her work on the Convention Center bond because "at the table, I did work as hard or harder (as private attorneys) on the deal. This was an unusual transaction because, in addition to the bonds, there was a long and tense negotiation to get the contract with the Convention Center Commission." So I guess she isn't content with just serving the people as a gov't employee. I thought Frank's people were supposed to be of Grace and Benevolence. I thought they were working for Jackson because they cared more about the City then the money they could make in private practice? Didn't Frank take a $1 salary from the State as MBN Director? I can think of several other Meltonites who fall into SRE's "greedy opportunist" group! I am glad this has caught the eye of Councilman Allen. He is right because whether it is $1 million or $45,000 we, the people (a majority that make way less then the folks who go to JA Niles), are having to pay higher tags, property taxes and fees at a time when everyone could use a little break to offset higher fuel and energy cost! Not to mention daycare for those families where both parents have to work! And maybe those parents are trying to get their children so they can go to their church on Wednesday night! However, this behind the curtain stuff is very disturbing and too much the norm with Melton inner circle and those who protect him.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-04T10:28:15-06:00

ID

67038

Comment

Pike, you make alot of good points. Its the council's fault. You read what you sign or approve. The council has no one to blame but themselves.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-04T10:49:24-06:00

ID

67039

Comment

You right about that, just read it. The Clarion Ledger is reporting on this in a way that suggests that SOE actually does, in fact, intend to collect on this contract provision as a result of her negotiations on the convention center deal. I wonder if she kept up with her time on that deal. At this point, I would think that the Council should be asking itself whether her contract provision conflicts with the statute. I wonder what happens if they simply do not pay. The City attorney sues the city? Perhaps the Mayor could convince them to pay for SOE to have an attorney to represent her suing them. Lovely.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-11-04T10:51:36-06:00

ID

67040

Comment

Hey Kingfish, If that's true, we don't have lawsuits about breach of contract, right, I mean since they are so clear cut and all. We just wrote it down, so how could reasonable minds possible differ on what it says, right? Actually, the proper abbreviation would be SORE I guess, so SORE, the City Council apparently views the meaning of that contract provision differently than you with regards to compensation. Nothing in the world wrong with sticking up for your view of what the contract you signed means. I think there may be more to the Council's position than, gee, we shore did get taken on this one. One thing I am fascinated by is the bengin resignation this Council has about its authority to control the purse strings. Gee, we can't stop MHC from allowing low income housing, we might get sued. Gosh, we can't demand equitable treatment before paying our own attorney, she might sue us for breach of contract. Oh My! Who cares? I am unfamiliar with the exact mechanics of this, King, do you know how payment gets approved under this contract? Why not simply refuse to pay? They have to vote on this additional compensation, correct? This closed door crap is annoying but probably justified since this is an employment matter. I believe that is specifically excluded from open meetings requirements, but might be wrong.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-11-04T11:06:34-06:00

ID

67041

Comment

At this juncture the Council does not authorize payment of SOE's fee for the convention center bonds. rather it is paid by the underwriter at closing,who will pay it if bond and underwriters counsel agree that it is an authorized cost of issuance. based on the story in the ledger it appears that SOE's fee is calculated to be one half of what bond counsel will receive.unless the council does something affirmatively to rescind SOE's professional contract(or the clause allowing her to be compensated from bond issues) then SOE pockets $45k.consider callingl your councilman and tell him/her to offer a resoulution at its next meeting to cause the recission.

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-04T11:28:32-06:00

ID

67042

Comment

niles has hit the nail on the head.the council is afraid of crossing SOE lest she in turn sue them individually for tortious breach of contract.at some point ,perhaps Monday morning, a public watchdog group needs to be established whose sole purpose is to scrutinize Jackson City Hall and be prepared when improper action is found to seek redress in court. as you can see from this incident alone niether the council( nor the media)scrutinized the minutes to see what was finally authorized.there may be a legal basis for having a judge ordering this contract rescinded, but with no plaintiff there will be no order. The only time the media sues is over public access,public records, or the low bid on legals.The council has been told by the attorney general to seek a mandamus from the circuit court ordering the mayor to tender them the fire chief's appointment for confirmation.yet they refuse to exercise their power.The ACLU gets involved when civil liberties are violated.with our property taxes about to be raised by every taxing authority in the city it may be time for a little revolt

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-04T11:47:50-06:00

ID

67043

Comment

Niles, you make a good point about the closed session problems. If the Council were less secretive, it's likely this would have been caught before now. As it is, the Council goes into closed session regularly and public input is kept to three minutes per person at the end of every three hour Council meeting. Public scrutiny should be encouraged exactly so this sort of thing doesn't happen. It's our government, after all, not just the Council members.

Author

Brent Cox

Date

2006-11-04T12:29:47-06:00

ID

67044

Comment

This is just a random comment, but the Ledger is running a story right now about BuyJackson.net. Its a for-profit group supposedly promoting Jackson businesses. Ha! Great down home businesses like Kroger and Bancorpsouth. LOL. Check out their website http://www.buyjackson.net/ . Its like a really bad version of Yellowpages. I have to applaud this group, though, they basically went and cut and pasted Yellowpages then charged companies to advertise on their site.

Author

E

Date

2006-11-04T13:41:14-06:00

ID

67045

Comment

Did I miss something with BancorpSouth?? They are based in Tupelo, which is in Mississippi. What makes them not a "down home" business?

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-11-04T13:43:08-06:00

ID

67046

Comment

Also, notice CL didn't give any credit to JFP.

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-11-04T13:43:59-06:00

ID

67047

Comment

Maybe its just me, but when I think of "down home" business I don't really think of multi-billion dollar banks. Oh yea, Tupelo is not Jackson, thus the ridiculous name "Buy Jackson".

Author

E

Date

2006-11-04T13:59:48-06:00

ID

67048

Comment

Also, just to reinforce how stupid BuyJackson is, they list Pizzahut. Not a "down home" business at all.

Author

E

Date

2006-11-04T14:02:48-06:00

ID

67049

Comment

I don't think the reason behind buyjackson.com is about shopping at jackson headquartered businesses. it appears to me to be mostly about just shopping in jackson period and stop going to ridgeland (north park) and flowood (doogwood) and everywhere else outside jackson city limits - mostly about keeping the taxes in the city.

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-11-04T14:41:57-06:00

ID

67050

Comment

sorry.. buyjackson.net, not .com

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-11-04T14:42:41-06:00

ID

67051

Comment

Ah, so the purpose of this business based group is to keep taxes in Jackson. I've never really known of a business organization trying to push a city's tax agenda. BuyJackson is not owned or promoted by the city, it is funded by a collection of business interests, and in my opinion, business interests looking to make a buck by promoting, not small business like it would have everyone believe, but big business like Pizzahut.

Author

E

Date

2006-11-04T15:19:26-06:00

ID

67052

Comment

Think of it this way: one of the goals of the buy jackson campaign is to increase sales tax revenues in the city.the city of jackson treasury gets about 2 cents of the seven cents collected. so. in this way it takes approximately 3 million dollars in retail sales to generate enough taxes to pay the legal fee of SOE.

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-04T15:24:07-06:00

ID

67053

Comment

Look, I know a lot of people get bent out of shape when a big box retailer/restaurant comes to town, and I understand the concern as it relates to competition. But whenever a shop or restaurant opens up within the limits of the City of Jackson, the sales tax revenue goes to the City of Jackson, regardless of where the store is headquartered. And raising the sales tax base is critical to Jackson's future. The BuyJackson campaign appears to have a two-fold purpose: 1. to encourage Jacksonians to keep their money in their own back yard as much as possible instead of spending almost exclusively in Rankin and Madison County, and 2. to raise community awareness of businesses (both nationally and locally owned) operating in the City of Jackson, as people may not be aware of the number of businesses that have not moved out of the city and are capable of offering the same goods and services.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-04T15:35:10-06:00

ID

67054

Comment

After reading the article in the CL I can see why Melton doesn't pay any attention to the CC. He knows they are not the who we thought we elected. They are just as responsible IMO for all the things gone wrong as frank is. Didn't read before signing a contract and they want us to believe they care and are concerned about our city. LOL SORE can join the list of citizens who will own the city after all suits are settled. All this going on and we are asked to BUY Jackson. As a person who believes is buying where I live I find it really hard now to want to continue knowing I am paying for council stupidity. other than groceries I think i will keep my money in my pocket.

Author

jada

Date

2006-11-04T18:14:37-06:00

ID

67055

Comment

We heard yesterday that The Clarion-Ledger was scrambling to catch up after Adam broke this story. They're reporting a follow-up; looks like Adam's story has kicked up a whole lotta dirt on this issue. Here's the Ledge's story today. And she is now admitting to taking some commissions: Like Crisler, Allen said he's concerned the clause in O'Reilly-Evans' contract could end up costing taxpayers thousands as the city continues to look at bond issues for economic development. "So she's getting $45,000 not $650,000. Is that supposed to make me feel better?" Allen asked. Allen said the council has not decided to take any action regarding the city attorney's contract. O'Reilly-Evans said she asked for the provision because she knew other contracted attorneys for city agencies, such as the Jackson Redevelopment Authority, received payment for bond services. O'Reilly-Evans also said she deserves payment for her work on the Convention Center bond because "at the table, I did work as hard or harder (as private attorneys) on the deal. This was an unusual transaction because, in addition to the bonds, there was a long and tense negotiation to get the contract with the Convention Center Commission." So far, she has not been paid for any bond issues - the Convention Center bond will be her first commission - because she waived fees on a $29 million general obligation bond refund and a $27 million water/sewer bond refund, she said. Cheers to Adam, if I do say so myself.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-04T21:05:51-06:00

ID

67056

Comment

Also, Allen isn't the first Coucilmember who has said this: "We're trying to get some clarity on this. What was strange is that many of us do not remember seeing it in the contract when we voted on it last year," Allen said. Wouldn't some of them have a copy of the original one they looked at in their files somewhere? So far, none has produced one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-04T21:07:25-06:00

ID

67057

Comment

Just saw your comment about the CL crediting the JFP. I knew they wouldn't, but in this case they should have. This was enterprise work on Adam's part, and he's been on this story for a while now until he got enough to go for it. It's not like we just beat them to a court filing, as happens with media. A classy outlet would have said "as first reported by the Jackson Free Press" Thursday, but hey, it's the CL. That's OK. We're used to it. This is the third story we scooped them on since Tuesday, off the top of my head. And what's important is that Adam's story seemed to get a the gas turned up on this—and then the Ledge has something to report that they don't have to go find with enterprise reporting. Go, Adam. I'm very proud of my staff.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-04T21:14:09-06:00

ID

67058

Comment

Finally got my hands on the print edition tonight at Cups Fondren. Was disgusted about the Letter To Editor from the redneck in Philadelphia regrading the Out Of The Closet issue. Look for a reply coming soon in your inbox.

Author

Jo-D

Date

2006-11-04T23:38:13-06:00

ID

67059

Comment

Niles.... SORE! That is the funniest thing I've seen all week! You have a local blogsphere hit with that acronym!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-05T12:34:58-06:00

ID

67060

Comment

Send it on, Jo-D. I figured that letter would get some responses. ;-) Send to: [email][email protected][/email]

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-05T14:04:01-06:00

ID

67061

Comment

I hate to keep asking for history with some of these folks but does anyone know or remember what happened to the O'Riley relationship during the Johnson Administration? Why was she hired again? Frank seem to have been on a mission to hire or re-hire every person that had negative history with the City of Jackson and I know that he looked hard for anyone that he thought were Johnson supporters. This is just the beginning of more crap to come. How could such a cost be ignored? It would have only made sense to have a legal eye evaluate O'Riley's contract. Trust me. Bluntson, Tillman (Twilight Zone) and Stokes will not be fazed by this. " Whatever Lola Wants - Lola Gets!"

Author

justjess

Date

2006-11-06T14:54:34-06:00

ID

67062

Comment

Ray Carter, you seem to have so much faith in O'Rilley Evans doing the right thing by not accepting any amt. above her salary. If this is true, why was it in the contract to begin with?????????? Still another thing, If O'Rilley loves Jackson "The City" so much, why does she live in MADISON?

Author

justjess

Date

2006-11-06T16:26:49-06:00

ID

67063

Comment

She lives in Madison! I didn't know that. I bet she likes those red bricks up there. Does this mean she's not living with Mr. Jim Evans? I can't see how this is good for the marriage. Maybe Madison is where she grew up like is my case with Ridgeland and earlier Louisville. Seriously, I was joking when I wrote that. My first impression was that her contract violated public policy with that provision included. However, it other jurisdictions are doing this maybe that provision has been court tested and found to be legal. The city counsel should ask her to allow it to be cancelled or rescinded if it was an oversight or not a meeting of the minds. Otherwise, fire her if she refuses so the city won't ever have to pay any or much additional money beyond her known salary. Sorry for bullcrapping without pointing it out.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-06T16:41:52-06:00

ID

67064

Comment

Well, Madison is closer than Texas. Just sayin'. I recognized your dryness, Ray—and now it looks like she has admitted that she is getting at least $45,000 out of the deal. Not bad for someone on the city payroll.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T16:45:09-06:00

ID

67065

Comment

Justjess, I would imagine that no one looked closely at her contract in part because she is a former city employee who left around the turn of the century (I love saying that) during HJ's first term, and I'm guessing no one figured she would pull something like that. Considering how badly they wanted to get rid of the last city atty (and for good reason) they probably got too anxious to get someone capable in the position and didn't check the details of the agreement.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-06T16:48:26-06:00

ID

67066

Comment

SORE does not live in Madison. She lives in NE Jackson, near The Country Club of Jackson with Mr. Evans.

Author

Fitz

Date

2006-11-06T17:27:10-06:00

ID

67067

Comment

Do they have more than one home, Fitz?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T17:29:12-06:00

ID

67068

Comment

Probably. Mr. Evans doesn't represent NE Jackson, does he?

Author

Fitz

Date

2006-11-06T17:35:24-06:00

ID

67069

Comment

OK, let's try again. Where is their homestead exemption?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T17:39:21-06:00

ID

67070

Comment

Not sure, I just see them everyday leaving for work.

Author

Fitz

Date

2006-11-06T17:41:35-06:00

ID

67071

Comment

Well you know the interesting thing about all of this regarding SORE and homestead exemption, nothing should surprise us about anyone in the FM camp. Remember we have a mayor that didn't vote in the city and who never filed homestead exemption here. So why are we surprised by anything any of them do. They believe in following their leader!

Author

maad

Date

2006-11-06T17:49:04-06:00

ID

67072

Comment

Speaking of being "in the money," the JPD has selected a site to build a work camp. But, they won't tell you where downtown or who owns the land. Wonder why the secrecy? Police Chief Shirlene Anderson said the site is downtown but would not disclose the address or the cost of the property because the city is still in negotiations to buy it. Melton contributor and Melton appointed Judge Priester thinks it's a great idea. Municipal Judge Mel Priester said the work camp idea has his full support. “I think it will send a message that crime is just not tolerated in the city of Jackson,” he said.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-06T18:18:33-06:00

ID

67073

Comment

Pike, it's insane that the City feels it can select a site and just not tell the public where it's located or who owns the land. This is the most secretive, closed government.

Author

Brent Cox

Date

2006-11-06T23:15:12-06:00

ID

67074

Comment

Work Camp? Is that the Misdemeanor Jail? If so, he doesn't actually have a place paid for yet. It's down on Rankin Street.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-06T23:33:43-06:00

ID

67075

Comment

Uh, Pike and Brent, that's why it was "breaking" story, because not all of the facts had not been laid out yet. The site address was reported last night on the local news programs and in this morning's paper, and is listed as 120 Rankin Street. I suppose that could have been reported yesterday in the C-L, but it wasn't. I don't think that's because the City was trying to hide anything. Hell, if you want to know who owns the property, the Hinds County Tax Assessor's office has the ownership deeds on file.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-07T09:10:20-06:00

ID

67076

Comment

Ejeff, I don't have a problem saying I got my post wrong. I was just commenting on the Ledges version of the story. It is being bought from Mike Peters as mentioned this morning. I wonder if the City got any input from the surrounding businesses before they picked that site? Also, why the City has to buy more land when they own plenty of property that could be converted into a work camp is puzzling. What about the location where the temp. City Hall was?

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-07T10:34:21-06:00

ID

67077

Comment

Let's cut to the chase, Sarah O'Riley Evans is not a Bond Attorney. The most she could have been on this Bond Issue is an apprentice. Why would tax payers be charged twice for the same level of inexperience? Just asking?

Author

justjess

Date

2006-11-08T16:28:55-06:00

ID

67078

Comment

The real question regarding the work camp, or misdemeanor jail, or what have you, is cost. Actually, maybe the REAL question is whether the damned thing is legal in the first place. But if we set that aside for a moment, the city is talking about buying ($) a property and building ($$) a misdemeanor jail that will have to be staffed ($$$) and which may require extra legal costs in the form of public defenders ($$$$) and insurance ($$$$$). So we have a million-something in outstanding misdemeanor fines, and the city's solution is to spend a few million on a misdemeanor jail. How does it make sense?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-08T19:46:30-06:00

ID

67079

Comment

The problem is with the lack of holding space in the county, which is forcing the City to look for an alternative location for its offenders. But Jacksonians will end up with a tax increase to pay for it.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-09T10:20:27-06:00

ID

67080

Comment

Sarah O'Reilly Evans was asked to resign by the previous City Attorney, Terry Wallace. She was on Melton's campaign committee and he probably got a lot of votes due to her husband's influence. It almost seems like she is out for revenge at the expense of the City taxpayers. Loving a City means you are willing to accomplish positive things if you are fortunate enough to work there and you expect to earn a reasonable amount of money--not windfall profits. This is especially true when you work for a City with money problems. I have always been convinced that some of the people Melton has put in are just along for the ride and are out for number 1. I have a lot more respect for the unsung heros such as the lower paid city employees who have stuck with their jobs in spite of not getting raises for almost five years now.

Author

realtime

Date

2006-11-11T19:20:30-06:00

ID

67081

Comment

The Clarion-Ledger editorializes today about this story that Adam broke on Nov. 2. They're right that it seems that Council was asleep at the wheel—but so were they. They don't have a whole lot of room to scold here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-13T13:59:51-06:00

ID

67082

Comment

So should the City Council retain its own attorney to review contracts for mayoral appointments? That's about the best way this could have been avoided, since while they are pretty sharp none of them are practicing attorneys.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-13T15:03:30-06:00

ID

67083

Comment

What hapened to the person the cc had to research things for them?? i thought that person had a legal back ground. Again I say can't they read? If they had read the contract they would have seen this part and had the opportunity to question her before confirming. I watched them confirm the newest member of the Airport board they all voted for her then requested that she come in for a hearing. if the order was already voted for why the confirmation hearing??? The council is not paying attention. Adam please check on this if you have time. Or someone clarify for me how you vote an order positive or negative and then have a hearing. Maybe I just don't understand.

Author

jada

Date

2006-11-13T17:26:44-06:00

ID

67084

Comment

Haley Barbour is proposing a salary increase for teachers that would bring the average salary to $43,000. SORE got $45,000 just for one bond. Something it terribly wrong with this picture.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-15T11:49:19-06:00

ID

142747

Comment

i can't believe i missed this thread. wow. after reading all of this, the council still let's the city attorney get away with double dipping; and apparently bad legal advice. i never heard of a "super-majority" vote requirement by the city council before. it's for sure she ain't protecting the interests of the Council or the people, just herself and the Mayor. So, duh!

Author

FriendsofJackson

Date

2009-01-07T17:26:56-06:00