Dear editor,
As Mayor of the City of Indianola, I feel compelled to speak on matters that have taken place within the Indianola Board of Aldermen. On January 4, 2022, myself and the Board of Aldermen took an oath to represent the City and its constituents with honesty, wisdom and prudence. Effective governance often requires collaboration and working together to achieve shared goals for the City. Working together also means partnering with professional contractors who help the Board make informed decisions.
The spirit of collaboration has been marred during this Administration. Over the past four years, members of the Board of Aldermen often belittle our professional contractors at City Meetings – from questioning the skills and management of our local engineers to demanding the municipal attorney to “be quiet and shut up.” The decorum of the Board leaves a lot to be desired. On many occasions, Board members questioned legal opinions of the City Attorney. Not one of the members of the Indianola Board of Aldermen possess a juris doctorate degree – neither are they qualified to circumvent the legal expertise of the City Attorney. However, that’s exactly what has happened. As we know, in 2023, our former City Attorney, Kimberly Merchant, strongly advised the Board of Aldermen not to pay Spencer Construction for the work they had completed in the Mississippi Home Corporation case. The City Attorney advised the Aldermen that the City did not have a contract with Spencer Construction, so if they decided to pay Spencer Construction, it may later be deemed improper. I, Mayor Ken Featherstone, am heard in the audio recorded minutes as saying, “Board, you need to listen to the advice of legal counsel.” The Board did not heed the warnings and three of the five Aldermen voted to make the payment to Spencer Construction. In December of 2023, a check for $38,900 was issued to Spencer Construction. And, as fate would have it, the State Auditor deemed the payment improper and issued demands to the three Aldermen who voted to pay the contractor. It’s not as if there was no one available to properly caution the Board before casting their vote. The Board heard the advice of qualified legal counsel and decided not to heed the warning. Call it “prideful ambition,” “gross indifference to legal counsel,” or “callous judgement,” but the three Aldermen totally disregarded the warning that they were about to take a misstep.
Since that time, there was disdain that grew toward South Delta Planning and Development District (SDP&DD) from the three Aldermen because of their involvement in the home improvement grant. The three Aldermen became adversarial toward the annual dues that needed to be paid to SDP&DD of approximately $4,000. The three Aldermen decided to vote not to pay the annual dues. Consequently, Sunflower-Humphreys Counties Progress Inc. heard about the decision not to pay the dues to SDP&DD. Officials at SHCPI urged the Board to reconsider because they benefit greatly from SDP&DD for funding to operate programs for the elderly. SHCPI came before the Board in an open City Meeting and made a passionate plea to the Board to reconsider their position and pay the annual dues to SDP&DD, which helps the aging citizens of Sunflower and Humphreys Counties. The Board heard the plea and saw that there was a room full of associates from SHCPI who came in support of attempting to get the Board of Aldermen to reconsider their position and pay the annual dues. Disappointingly, the three Aldermen voted not to pay the SDP&DD annual dues. Again, this was a horrible lapse in judgement. Local elected officials are duty bound to act as a voice for their constituents, advocating for the concerns and needs of the citizens. That duty was not met in this case.
Later, a bizarre set of circumstances evolved to resolve the issue of the improper payment to Spencer Construction by the three Aldermen. Apparently, there has been a covert plan to absolve the three Aldermen and have the demand of repayment of the $38,900 lifted by merely repaying the $38,900 back to the City of Indianola. This plan is loosely described as “covert” because the $38,900 was to be
deposited back into the City of Indianola’s control account without the knowledge of the Mayor or the City Clerk.
Without the Mayor’s or City Clerk’s involvement, this deposit was highly unusual. To merely have someone walk in off the street and make a $38,900 deposit into a municipal government account is extremely improper. Details of this scheme are still not clear. What we do know is that the $38,900 was solely intended to get the three Aldermen from under impending financial hardship.
All financial transactions of any kind have to come before the Clerk of Record or the City Clerk and added to the City’s control account through its financial software system for accountability.
The scheme included by-passing the City Clerk and the City’s financial software system. The scheme was to circumvent City Hall, deposit the money into the City’s account, place the matter on the Agenda for the next City Meeting to have the Board of Aldermen accept the money and ultimately remove the State Auditor’s monetary demand of $38,900 repayment. As Mayor, I fail to understand why the scheme did not include bringing the money to City Hall, requesting acceptance from the Board during the City Meeting and have the City Clerk properly place the money into the City’s bank account.
If it was such a good idea to get the three Aldermen out of trouble by merely paying the money back, then why was the money deposited without authorization?
Why was the money covertly deposited into the City Account? Why all the secrecy?
As Mayor, I immediately removed the deposit of $38,900 from the City’s account. The money was then given back to Spencer Construction – from whence it came. Additionally, as Mayor, I placed the matter on the Agenda for the next City Meeting. Once the time of the City Meeting arrived, we waited patiently; however, the three Aldermen did not show up for the meeting nor have they offered a viable reason why they could not attend, i.e. sickness, bereavement, a falling asteroid destroyed their house, etc. There was no explanation for the meeting absence of the same three Aldermen. Once the matter was brought before the Board in the next regular City Meeting, the three Aldermen failed to disclose how the deposit was made into the City’s account. As Mayor, I made it known that I do not have a problem with the $38,900 being deposited into the City account as long as it is Board approved and the City Clerk vets and processes the money. I did express to the Board of Aldermen that there are two conditions that have to be met prior to voting to accept the money:
1. Spencer Construction must reissue the $38,900 check back to the City of Indianola directly to the City Clerk. Additionally, the check must be accompanied with a brief letter explaining the intent to reimburse the City.
2. The details of the scheme to deposit the $38,900 check into the City’s account without authorization has to be provided.
The unauthorized deposit into the City’s account is a matter of “municipal security” – just like there are matters of national security and threats to our national well-being. The unauthorized scheme to breach the City’s bank account is a threat to City government and our well-being. By State statue, anyone who handles municipal funds must be bonded. It is not certain whether the depositor was bonded and that needs to be determined. It is not certain whether the unauthorized deposit was criminal in nature. Even if no crime was committed by depositing the money into the City account without authorization, it is still “highly improper.” I Corinthians 10:23 says, “All things are lawful for me, but not expedient.” In this Scripture, the Apostle Paul suggests that while all things are not criminal or permissible, they may not be beneficial or constructive. This Scripture addresses gray areas of morality, indicating that not all things that are permitted (not a crime) are advantageous or build up the community. This unauthorized deposit, albeit, may not be a crime; however, it was ill-advised and could set a dangerous precedence.
As Mayor, I feel that the citizens of Indianola are owed an explanation as to what happened and why. This Administration believes in transparency in government. Elected officials have a fundamental duty to act with transparency to ensure accountability and public trust. This includes disclosing information and being open to public feedback. By upholding these principles, our City officials can demonstrate their commitment to serving the public interest and not their own. I will continue to fight for the truth Indianola. This Administration demands accountability and that we operate in decency and order.
As we enter into election season, please remember to choose Board members who will represent and adhere to the concerns of their constituents.
Choose Board members who will listen to professional contractors and treat them with the respect that they are due.
Additionally, choose Board members who will get along with their Mayor. It is imperative that municipal government operate in a manner that is respectful, proper, considerate, and of high moral character.
October will be here before you know it – choose wisely. May God bless you.
Mayor Ken Featherstone
