Monday, December 18, 2023, 6:48 pm News Flash Archive

Late this afternoon, Chancery Court Judge Willie J. Perkins, Sr. entered an order rejecting calls to put off, or continue, Wednesday's hearing on the Leflore County Board of Supervisors' lawsuit to remove Greenwood Fire Chief Marcus Banks from the Greenwood Leflore Hospital Board of Trustees.

As previously reported by The Taxpayers Channel, Leflore County sued both Chief Banks and the city of Greenwood, asking the court to remove Banks from serving as the fifth appointment to the hospital board, as his term has long expired. Please see our reporting here: Leflore County supervisors sue city of Greenwood, fire chief over hospital board appointment

A hearing on the motion for a temporary emergency injunction to remove Banks was scheduled for Wednesday December 20. Judge Willie J. Perkins, Sr. was assigned to the case after Judge W. M. Sanders recused herself.

On December 15, the city and Chief Banks filed a motion to put off, or "continue," Wednesday's hearing. That request may be seen here: Motion to Continue Hearing

Part of the reason why the continuance was requested is that, also on December 15, the city of Greenwood and Marcus Banks filed a motion asking Judge Perkins to recuse himself from hearing the matter.

The basis for the motion to recuse is that Judge Perkins, in his former role as a private attorney, litigated several bitter cases against Greenwood Mayor Carolyn McAdams and the city in the last two decades. Perkins filed an election contest against McAdams on behalf of his wife Sheriel Perkins. Several additional contentious matters resulted, with Perkins litigating against the Mayor or the city in those as well.

Perkins also represented James Littleton when he sued the city because he was not reappointed to serve as city attorney by Mayor McAdams.

When a court denied motions for sanctions against McAdams, Perkins represented five of the council members in their appeal to the high court asking that sanctions be levied against her.

The city of Greenwood and Chief Banks argue:

Because Chancellor Perkins' representation of various parties adverse to Mayor McAdams, including his representation of Mrs. Perkins in her election contest and subsequent appeals, creates a reasonable doubt as to Chancellor Perkins' ability to remain impartial and shows Chancellor Perkins' resulting, understandable personal bias against Mayor McAdams, Chancellor Perkins is disqualified from presiding over this matter and should recuse himself pursuant to Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E(1) and 3E(1)(a).

The Motion for Recusal may be seen here: Motion for Recusal of Judge Perkins

This morning, Greenwood and Banks filed their Memorandum against the Supervisors' lawsuit, outlining their defenses against Leflore County's claims.

They claim that the Supervisors' misunderstand the law regarding the "holding over" of a board member after his term has expired, but before his replacement has been appointed:

Petitioner erroneously claims that Mr. Banks cannot "hold over" as a Board member for more than 90 days. This Court should deny Petitioner's request for a temporary injunction . . . .

. . . Petitioner [the Supervisor board] cobbles together several different statutes to assert that under Miss. Code Ann. Section 21-15-41(1), no person can serve in a hold over capacity for more than 90 days "in a position that is required by law to be filled by appointment of the governing body of a municipality, or by mayoral appointment with the advice and consent of the council or alderman."

It is undisputed that Mr. Banks' Board position is a joint appointment position -- i.e., the County and City must jointly appoint a person to fill that position. Because the Board position in question is a joint appointment, it is not an appointment by a municipality; therefore, Section 21-15-41(1) does not apply.

The applicable law permits Mr. Banks to hold over until the City and County jointly agree on an appointment to fill the Board position currently held by Mr. Banks.

According to the city and Mr. Banks, the county has "hold over" appointments of its own on the hospital board, and they intend to file a counterclaim against the county:

It appears that members of the Board other than Marcus Banks are or have served as hold over members of the Board. If there are other Board members who have been or are "hold overs," then equity requires the Court to treat all hold over members of the Board the same. Discovery is required on these issues.

Further, if there are multiple hold over members of the Board, then Petitioner is asking this Court to treat similarly situated Board members differently, which weighs strongly against granting Petitioner injunctive relief.

Next, Petitioner is impermissibly attempting to take inequitable advantage of this hold over dispute by refusing to meaningfully attempt to jointly appoint a person to the Board position in dispute, which is the position held by Mr. Banks.

. . . Petitioner's analysis crumbles like a house of cards because it is undisputed that Mr. Banks' Board position is a joint appointment position -- i.e., the County and City must jointly appointment a person to fill that position.

As we reported previously, the county supervisors' complaint claims that Banks' continued service on the hospital board will harm the county and its citizens, but no specific example was provided in their complaint. Greenwood and Chief Banks agree:

The Petition does not identify any irreparable injury Petitioner will suffer if it is not granted injunctive relief.

Petitioner does not even allege that Mr. Banks is disruptive at Board meetings or that he is somehow impeding the Board or preventing it from discharging its duties.

Petitioner merely alleges an "injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm that would result from actions taken by Mr. Banks purporting to act as a hospital board member in the absence of the authority do so", but Petitioner does not identify any harm that it has -- or allegedly will -- suffer "from actions taken by Mr. Banks purporting to act as a hospital board member."

The city of Greenwood and Chief Marcus Banks response to the lawsuit may be seen here: Greenwood and Banks Memo Against Injunction

But this afternoon, Judge Perkins denied the request for a continuance, and stated that he would address the Motion to Recuse at Wednesday's hearing or shortly after that.

In his order, Judge Perkins states that he did not receive timely notice of the Motion for Continuance or the Motion for Recusal, but only learned of them this morning when he reviewed the Memorandum submitted by the city of Greenwood and Mr. Banks earlier today.

Perkins also rejected the claim that the city's attorney from Phelps Dunbar could not attend the Wednesday hearing due to a scheduling conflict.

Judge Perkins' order denying the motion to continue the hearing may be seen here: Court Order Denying Motion to Continue Hearing

This legal side show comes at a very critical time in the struggle for the survival of Greenwood Leflore Hospital, which may have to close soon due to financial collapse.

To review our reporting on GLH and its financial woes, please see here: Index of Greenwood Leflore Hospital news articles

 

John Pittman Hey
The Taxpayers Channel

News Flash Archive