Indianola’s Board of Aldermen spent much of a special called meeting sparring over who controls the city’s meeting agenda, whether to hire outside legal counsel over a disputed $38,900 check and how to bring the city’s long‑delinquent financial audits back into compliance with state law.
The meeting, held March 12, opened with Mayor Ken Featherstone questioning whether the agenda itself was legal after multiple items were added at the request of Ward 4 Alderman Johnny Phillips. Citing Mississippi Code Section 21‑3‑15, Featherstone read into the record that “no member of the board of aldermen shall give orders to any employee or subordinate of a municipality other than the alderman’s personal staff,” arguing that an alderman cannot direct the city clerk to alter the agenda without going through the mayor.
Phillips acknowledged that he had called the city clerk, Stephanie Washington, to add items, saying he believed he had that authority as vice mayor. Featherstone countered that the statute gives the mayor “superintending control” over municipal officers, including the clerk, and requires board action within a legally called meeting, not individual directives to staff.
City Attorney Mack Arthur Turner, attending by phone, agreed that the mayor has day‑to‑day supervision of city operations and employees, but said he does not interpret the statute as barring aldermen from contacting the clerk to place items on an agenda. Turner said the mayor’s concern sounded more like an internal procedure the city is trying to adopt to manage meeting length than a clear violation of state law.
After additional debate, the board voted unanimously to adopt the agenda with changes. The motion was made by Ward 5 Alderman Rodreigus Young and seconded by Phillips. The changes included the mayor’s recommendation to remove a roughly two‑hour PowerPoint presentation on the city’s water asset inventory and reschedule it for a separate meeting.
The board next turned to a proposal to hire “special counsel,” an item tied to lingering questions about a $38,900 city check that has been at the center of previous controversy and demand letters from the state auditor’s office in related matters. Phillips asked that the mayor and city attorney recuse themselves from the discussion, asserting that outside counsel was needed to represent the city.
Turner advised that the board has no authority to remove the mayor from his day‑to‑day duties or to force the city attorney’s recusal on a general matter affecting municipal operations. He warned that such a motion would be “ungrounded” and could expose the city, the mayor and counsel to legal risk.
Phillips then referenced an attorney, identified on speakerphone as potential special counsel, who quoted a rate of $150 per hour. Under questioning, Phillips conceded there had been no board vote to appoint that lawyer, and the attorney himself confirmed he had not been formally hired by Indianola. Featherstone and Washington pressed for details, asking about the scope of work, how the city would fund the engagement given its strained budget, and whether any specific contract terms had been drafted.
Washington reminded the board that the city has a legal services budget line but said any hiring must be tied to clear duties and available funding, especially in light of Indianola’s broader financial pressures. Turner added that any action concerning the disputed $38,900 check, and any potential litigation related to it, should be handled carefully, and if discussed in detail, in executive session.
The $38,900 check that had been deposited into the city’s bank account last summer without the city’s knowledge or prior authorization has been an ongoing controversy. It was apparently an attempt to return money to the city that was paid to a contractor, Spencer Construction, back in December 2023 by the city — an action that sparked a state auditor’s demand, a lawsuit by the attorney general’s office and over two years of controversy surrounding the three former aldermen who voted for the payout.
Featherstone had said back in the summer that he had the city’s banking institution, Planters Bank, withdraw those funds in the form of a cashier’s check, and Spencer Construction owner Frederick Spencer later picked the check up from city hall.
Executive session and AG opinion request
At Turner’s recommendation, the board voted 5‑0 to enter executive session to discuss the agenda items involving authorization of special counsel, the $38,900 check, and several personnel‑related matters, including the discussions of the police chief, assistant chief and city attorney positions. Turner said those items implicated “pending and prospective litigation” and personnel performance and were therefore more appropriate for a closed session under Mississippi’s Open Meetings Act exceptions.
After executive session, the board reconvened in open session and returned to Item 6, seeking clarity on how to address the earlier withdrawal of $38,900 from a city account. Turner summarized a motion authorizing the city attorney to draft a request for an opinion from the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office on whether the removal of the funds was legal or improper and how similar situations have been handled in other jurisdictions, including Hinds County. The motion also specified that the draft opinion request would be presented to all aldermen before submission.
The board approved that motion 4‑1, with Young casting the lone “no” vote. Following that action, Featherstone announced that items 6-10 — the group that included discussions of the police chief, assistant chief and board attorney — would be tabled. The board voted unanimously to table those items.
Overdue audits and pressure from the
state auditor
The latter part of the meeting focused on the city’s delinquent audits and how to respond to pressure from the Office of the State Auditor, which has diverted a total of $675,000 in Indianola’s sales and use tax revenues to cover the cost of catching up the city’s financial reporting. The diversion is part of a broader push that has seen hundreds of thousands of dollars seized from multiple municipalities to pay for overdue financial reports.
Washington briefed the board on the status of Indianola’s audits. She said the city has completed its 2018 and 2019 audits, with 2019 finished in part through her own direct work pulling documentation, but remains behind on 2020 and 2021 because key bank accounts have not been reconciled for several years. The city has engaged the firm of Tann Brown & Russ Co. PLLC of Jackson to complete the 2020 and 2021 audits, but progress has been slowed by gaps created when the city lacked a full‑time clerk and other financial staff.
Washington said she contacted three major accounting firms — KPMG, HORNE and Grantham Poole — at the board’s direction. KPMG and Grantham Poole declined due to capacity issues, while HORNE, which has merged with BDO (Binder Dijker Otte), replied with an estimated price of roughly $361,000 to complete the 2020 and 2021 audits by the end of this year. She called that figure “astronomical” and said the city could not afford it given its current budget and ongoing recovery from the $675,000 diversion.
She outlined possible alternatives: hiring an individual accountant from a firm on the state’s approved list at a quoted rate of $10,000 per month until the city catches up on audits, then $8,000 per month thereafter; bringing in a retired municipal clerk with consulting experience who has offered to help reconcile bank statements at a lower cost; or asking the Office of the State Auditor to coordinate a three‑party agreement between the city, the auditor and an accounting firm, using the diverted $675,000 to pay for audit work under a competitive bidding process.
Washington read an email from an auditor’s office official, Jeff Goodwin, who laid out two primary options for municipalities whose records are not yet sufficient for a CPA to complete required audits — either the city can directly contract for professional services using its own lawful funds, or it can request that the auditor’s office select a firm through a competitive process using the diverted revenues. Goodwin’s email stressed that if the city chooses to proceed on its own, it cannot use the diverted funds to pay for that work.
Featherstone and several aldermen noted that the diverted $675,000 might not cover all of the work needed to bring Indianola’s audits current, but said using that mechanism could still be the most realistic approach given the city’s limited cash flow. Washington, who is pursuing advanced training through a municipal clerks program, told the board she would continue working overtime, including nights and weekends, to reconcile older accounts while trying to keep daily operations current, but stressed that “it is a lot on one person” and that additional help is necessary.
Vote to seek
state-managed
audit help
Ward 1 Alderman Alex Deason moved that the city request the Office of the State Auditor to begin the competitive bid process described in Goodwin’s email, allowing the state to help select and fund an accounting firm to prepare the city’s records for audit using the diverted tax revenues. Young seconded the motion. Young argued that Indianola does not have the budget capacity to fund six years of catch‑up work on its own and that using the state‑managed process would put the city on track to be current by about 2028 if it can clear two years of audits annually.
The motion passed unanimously. With that action taken, the board adjourned the meeting on a unanimous vote.
