Civic Corner: Board of Aldermen Recap – April 15, 2022

By Ricki Garrett, PhD, Alderwoman at Large

The Board of Aldermen’s three-hour meeting on Tuesday, April 5, followed a three-and-a-half-hour work session Monday, so it was a busy week. Some controversial and very important issues were discussed and voted on, and I will try to cover them all.

Some of you are aware that there has been some displeasure among a few people in the community regarding the Board’s decision earlier not to conduct livestreaming of the work sessions. All of the Board’s meetings, including budget meetings and work sessions, are open to the public. The official Board meetings are also livestreamed for those who want to watch, and the newspaper provides my column in both print and digital form. Other Board members provide updates to their constituents. For that reason, and, due to the cost of filming and storing the recordings, the Board voted once again not to livestream the work sessions. The vote was four to three, with Aldermen Lott, Oliver, Martin and Garrett voting no, and Aldermen Godfrey, Barnett and Wilbanks voting yes.

Although the Mayor had removed the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City and Hinds County regarding walking trails in and around Brighton Park, Alderman Lott brought it back for discussion. He had expressed concern that although Supervisor Vern Gavin had provided $62,500 to the City for the purpose of connecting Bruenburg Subdivision to Brighton Park, the Mayor had made the decision to use the funds for constructing a walking trail down Clinton-Raymond Road, and the interlocal agreement had been worded vaguely enough to allow that. Both Alderwoman Oliver and Alderman Lott had discussed this issue with Supervisor Gavin and been provided with minutes of the December 20, 2021, Board of Supervisor’s meeting, showing that the intent had been for the allocation to be used for the connection between Bruenburg and Brighton Park. A motion was made to correct the interlocal agreement to reflect that intent and send it back to the Hinds County Board of Supervisors for approval, and the motion was approved unanimously by the Board.

Perhaps the most important discussion of the meeting was regarding whether or not to opt out of the medical marijuana bill that had been passed by the Legislature during this year’s session. As you recall, a constitutional amendment to allow medical marijuana had passed during the November 2020 election on a vote of 74% in favor state-wide and 70.5% in favor among Clinton voters. When the amendment was thrown out by the Supreme Court on a technical flaw, the Legislature committed to passing a law to allow medical marijuana, which they did, and it was signed into law by Governor Reeves. The 400+ page bill provided detailed information on where both cultivation/processing and dispensing could take place in a city and who could write prescriptions for it. The Department of Health was tasked with writing the regulations. The cities and counties were automatically opted in. However, they could choose to opt out within 90 days. They could also opt back in, or a citizen initiative of at least 1,500 signatures could force the Board to hold an election within 60 days of the certification of 1,500 legal signatures. A vote of 50% plus 1 would opt the City back in. Once a City chooses to be in or its citizens vote to be in, opting out is no longer an option.

The Clinton Board of Aldermen took this decision very seriously, and it was apparent from the beginning that the Board had differing viewpoints. Some members of the Board wanted to opt out until the Board of Health had completed its regulations and then decide whether or not to opt back in. Others on the Board were concerned about disenfranchising the 70.5% of Clinton citizens who had voted for medical marijuana and possibly having to spend between $20,000 and $30,000 for a special election.

This was not a vote that any member of the Board took lightly, and many of us spent an inordinate amount of time gathering research, talking to our constituents, and losing sleep over the issue. The Board voted five to two to opt out, with Aldermen Martin, Wilbanks, Lott, Barnett and Godfrey voting to opt out, and Alderwomen Garrett and Oliver voting no. Mayor Fisher has said he will veto any attempt to bring it back, and it would require five votes to override the veto. For that reason, it will likely be up to the citizens to carry out an initiative process to allow for another election on the issue. My understanding is that a citizen initiative has already begun.

The Board of Aldermen know that there will be times when our citizens disagree on whether we have made the right decision or not, and we will always listen to your concerns. This week’s meeting is no exception.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Space will be provided in each issue of The Clinton Courier to the Board of Aldermen for a recap of each meeting. Aldermen are asked to volunteer to provide this recap for the Courier.