NATCHEZ — The Mississippi Ethics Commission has dismissed a complaint The Natchez Democrat filed against the Natchez Mayor and Board of Aldermen after being denied access to copies of proposals submitted by companies vying to become the city’s waste collection provider.

The Ethics Commission’s order dated Aug. 3 states the city followed the proper procedures as outlined in The Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983.

The city ultimately released abbreviated versions of the documents, with redacted portions deemed to be “proprietary,” to the newspaper May 10, after the bid had been awarded May 8, which is within the 10 working day time period outlined by law.

The Public Records Act reads in part, “public records shall be available for inspection or copying by any person unless a statute or court decision specifically declares a public record to be confidential, privileged, or exempt.”

The Ethics Commission notes, however, that the statute further states, if “these proposals may contain trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information, the city is obligated to notify each of the companies that their proposals have been requested and will be produced to the requestor in 21 days, unless the companies file a petition in chancery court seeking a protective order.”

“I think they did the right thing,” said Robert Latham, Natchez city attorney. “I’m not quite sure why the complaint was filed, because the statute requires companies be put on notice when someone files a request for public information.”

The Democrat submitted a public information request to obtain the bids on April 12 and the city in turn notified the bidders on April 18, as required by law. The bidders then have 21 days to file petitions in chancery court seeking to keep the city from releasing the information.

Waste Pro of Mississippi Inc. was the only bidder to file a petition in chancery court by the May 9 deadline. Metro Services Group also filed a petition in chancery court on May 10, missing the deadline by one day.

Despite Metro missing the deadline, the commission cautioned the city against releasing Metro’s proposal until the chancery court had ruled on whether to accept the petition.

“The city is allowed to produce the entire proposals submitted by the remaining companies pursuant to the complainant’s public records request,” the order states.

The public records law also states all bid proposals, excluding trade secrets and financial information, can be made public seven working days after the contract is awarded.

“Since the garbage collection and recycling services contract was awarded on May 8 . . . the city was required to produce copies of the proposals pursuant to the public records request no later than May 17.”

The city made the documents available to The Democrat on May 10 which was within the time period allotted in the law.

Latham said he would like to see the state’s public records and open meetings laws coordinated to make them more compatible.

“I’m going to try to get my legislator to try to get some sort of legislation passed to coordinate this sort of legislation to try to get more uniformity in public access,” Latham said, noting that public boards are prohibited from discussing terms of a proposal behind closed doors, but on the other hand cannot release those terms to the public.