202 So. 3d 187
Miss.2016Background
- Southern Mississippi Planning and Development District (the District) is a nonprofit corporation formed in 1966; it serves 15 counties and its board consists of elected officials and others from member counties.
- In 2013 the District’s board selected Leonard Bentz II as executive director in a closed-door process; Henry Kinney requested records under the Mississippi Public Records Act and received partial responses.
- Kinney sued seeking declarations that the District is a public agency subject to public-records, open-meetings, procurement, auditing, and ethics laws, and that Bentz’s selection was invalid; MAPDD intervened to represent statewide interests of planning and development districts.
- The chancery court granted summary judgment for the District and MAPDD, finding the District is a private nonprofit (not a public body for the Public Records Act/Open Meetings Act) and that Kinney lacked standing to challenge the selection based on public-agency statutes.
- Kinney appealed, raising: (1) whether the District is a public body; (2) reliance on AG opinions; (3) weight of deposition evidence; (4) nonprofit status precluding public-body treatment; (5) recusal denial; and (6) MAPDD intervention.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court: the District remains a nonprofit not created by constitution/statute/executive order for purposes of the Public Records/Open Meetings Acts; recusal and intervention rulings were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District is a public body subject to Public Records/Open Meetings laws | Kinney: Executive Order 81 and the District’s public funding/activities make it a public body created/recognized by executive order or functioning as a public agency | District/MAPDD: District was created by incorporation as a private nonprofit in 1966; executive order did not convert status into a public body | Court: District is a nonprofit created by incorporation, not a public body under the Public Records/Open Meetings statutes; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether chancery court improperly relied on AG/ethics opinions and ignored statutes/documents | Kinney: Court relied too heavily on nonbinding AG opinions and ignored statutory language and documentary evidence | District/MAPDD: Documentary record (charter, corporate status, employment benefits, Tort Claims Act immunity absence) supports nonprofit status; AG opinions persuasive but not controlling | Court: Court’s ultimate decision rested on documentary evidence; AG opinions noted but not determinative; no error |
| Whether judge should have recused | Kinney: Chancellor showed bias and wife’s nonprofit roles create appearance of partiality | District: No disqualifying financial or substantial interest; statements were clarifying, not evidence of bias | Court: Denial of recusal not manifestly erroneous; presumption of judicial impartiality stands |
| Whether MAPDD should have been allowed to intervene | Kinney: MAPDD lacks a protectable interest distinct from District and District adequately represents interests | MAPDD: Permissive/mandatory intervention justified because disposition could affect all districts and MAPDD protects collective interests | Court: Intervention proper as of right under Rule 24(a); chancery court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Hosemann v. Harris, 163 So.3d 263 (Miss. 2015) (summary-judgment standard described)
- Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 657 (Miss. 1990) (presumption of judicial impartiality)
- Hathcock v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 912 So.2d 844 (Miss. 2005) (standard to overcome presumption of judge impartiality)
- Upton v. McKenzie, 761 So.2d 167 (Miss. 2000) (recusal burden discussed)
- Bredemeier v. Jackson, 689 So.2d 770 (Miss. 1997) (review standard for recusal denial)
- Davis v. Neshoba Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 611 So.2d 904 (Miss. 1992) (recusal/manifest-error review)
- Madison HMA, Inc. v. St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital, 35 So.3d 1209 (Miss. 2010) (standards for permissive intervention vs. intervention of right)
- Guaranty Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Pittman, 501 So.2d 377 (Miss. 1987) (four-prong test and practical-interest approach for intervention of right)
- Perry County v. Ferguson, 618 So.2d 1270 (Miss. 1993) (more than a mere economic interest required to intervene)
- Washington Mutual Finance Group, LLC v. Blackmon, 925 So.2d 780 (Miss. 2004) (recusal requires more than speculation of substantial effect on judge or spouse)