Embry, 011780 MSAGO, 19800117

Docket Nº:19800117
Case Date:January 17, 1980
Court:South Carolina
Honorable Phil Embry
No. 19800117
Mississippi Attorney General Opinions
January 17, 1980
         Honorable Phil Embry          Keeton, Cofer & Embry, Attorneys at Law          Post Office Box 668          Grenada, Mississippi 38901          Municipalities — Elections — Municipal Liability           Dear Mr. Embry:          The Office of the Attorney General has received your letter which has been assigned to me for research and reply.          Your letter states:
“Recently I was approached by our City Manager in regard to two questions. One of the questions he asked was with regard to our election procedure. Since I am not that certain as to the status of our election procedure in Mississippi, I thought I might ask your opinion. “The problem is as follows. Our Grenada City election is held on a date as set forth in our special charter, the date so specified is the first Monday of May, every four years, and the next election is scheduled for this year. In all other respects the election is to be performed in accordance with state law. It appears that § 21-11-7 allows cities with special charters to set the date for the municipal elections so I believe that in this respect we conform with state law. But our City has never held any type of election according to party affiliations. All that has been done in the past was the hopeful candidate registered as a candidate, with no mention being made of party affiliation. An election is held prior to the general election and then the two successful candidates run in the May election. This procedure has never been questioned, but I have become concerned about some of late. What do you recommend that we do? The other question I had was as follows. We have established a grievance appeal procedure for our employees in our city. In the past if an employee believes that he was wrongfully disciplined, that employee can appeal to the City Council. These appeals have always been public and I think should be public if possible. Unfortunately, we have an unusual case in the upcoming appeal. A police officer was responding to a call for assistance. When the officer approached the building which gave the call, he saw that two juveniles were being detained by a private individual, who thought that the two youths broke a store window of his. No charges were ever made against these two youths. I do not think it is necessary to detail what transpired between the officer and the individual, because my question relates more to

To continue reading