Citizens for Transparency in Lauderdale County MS

10/24/2026

$228,913.79 PAID TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S LAW FIRM IN JUST 9 MONTHS — BUT WHO IS HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE?

At what point should Lauderdale County taxpayers begin questioning the performance and accountability of the attorney representing their county government?

Let’s look at what’s happening.

1. County meeting minutes remain unavailable.

The Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors’ online meeting minutes have not been updated since July 30, 2026.

I’ve repeatedly contacted the Board office and was informed that the minutes are awaiting County Attorney Lee Thaggard’s review. As recently as yesterday, I was told there had still been no update.

Mississippi law establishes deadlines for recording and making meeting minutes available for public inspection.

2. Even the sheriff says he’s waiting on Lee Thaggard.

I recently spoke directly with Sheriff Ward Calhoun regarding outstanding public records requests.

The sheriff acknowledged that my requests were on Lee Thaggard’s desk and that he was waiting on the attorney.

So now we have two separate county offices identifying the same attorney as someone they’re waiting on.

Meanwhile, citizens are still waiting for information.

3. Public records disputes are reaching the Mississippi Ethics Commission.

Several public records disputes involving Lauderdale County have resulted in complaints to the Mississippi Ethics Commission.

The Board’s own minutes also document decisions to retain Lee Thaggard to represent the county in Ethics Commission matters.

This raises an important question:

When the county attorney advises officials on handling public records requests, and disputes over those requests subsequently require legal defense, should there be an independent review of the advice and decisions that led to those disputes?

That question is about accountability, not an allegation of wrongdoing.

4. And what is all this costing taxpayers?

County claims dockets show payments to Barry Thaggard LLP totaling:

* 2025: $190,954.21
* January–September 2026: $228,913.79

That’s nearly $38,000 more in nine months than was paid during all of 2025.

These are payments to the law firm, including its regular allocation and additional charges.

Here’s what taxpayers should be asking:

Why are multiple county offices waiting on the same attorney to complete or review public business?

Who monitors whether the county’s legal services are being delivered in a timely manner?

And when public records disputes escalate into additional legal work, who independently evaluates whether those disputes could have been avoided?

I’m not accusing anyone of intentionally withholding records or creating unnecessary legal expenses.

But when the Board office is waiting, the sheriff is waiting, and citizens are waiting, who is holding the person they’re all waiting on accountable?

Taxpayers are paying for legal services. They deserve timely service, transparency, and accountability.
Lauderdale County MS WTOK-TV The Meridian Star Queen City Newsfeed Jamie Parttridge

10/23/2026

**HOW MUCH IS LAUDERDALE COUNTY SPENDING ON DATA STORAGE?**

I've continued reviewing Lauderdale County's 2026 claims dockets, and the spending on physical storage devices and cloud services is worth a closer look.

From January through September 2026, the claims I've identified show:

**PHYSICAL DATA STORAGE: $59,053.80**

This includes purchases of Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSDs, Samsung T7 Shield external drives and other storage devices.

**CLOUD BACKUP — 11:11 SYSTEMS: $20,322.77**

The county's cloud-backup services include:

- Veeam Cloud Connect backup with 50,000 GB (50 TB) of protected capacity
- Insider protection and deleted-file retention
- Recovery services
- Microsoft 365 backup services appearing in the claims

**AWS CLOUD SERVICES: $1,706.26**

These are separate cloud-service charges through CDW-G. The claims don't establish how much of the AWS spending is specifically for storage.

**COMBINED IDENTIFIED SPENDING: AT LEAST $81,082.83 IN 2026**

These are documented minimums from the claims identified so far, not a final accounting of every possible storage-related expense.

I want to be clear: purchasing physical drives while also paying for cloud backup is not automatically wasteful. These systems can serve different purposes.

But the amount being spent raises some reasonable questions.

**Where are these physical drives going?**

Are they being assigned to specific computers, used for backups, storing video evidence, or transferring large files?

**How much data does the county actually maintain?**

How much of the 50 TB cloud-backup allocation is being used?

**Does the county maintain an inventory of these storage devices?**

And what determines when additional storage needs to be purchased?

I'm continuing to examine the claims and supporting records to better understand the purpose of these purchases.

This isn't about assuming something improper is happening. It's about understanding how public money is being spent and whether appropriate inventory and accountability measures are in place.

**Follow the records. Ask the questions. Keep government open.**
Lauderdale County MS

10/15/2026

When the public’s business is delayed by the county attorney

There is a transparency problem in Lauderdale County that deserves attention.

The most recent Board of Supervisors meeting minutes available online are from July 30.

I recently contacted the Board of Supervisors office and asked whether the missing minutes were at least available for public inspection in the office, even though they had not been posted online.

I was told they were not available at all.

The explanation I received was that the office is still waiting on County Attorney Lee Thaggard to review the minutes, and the office has been repeatedly seeking updates.

That creates a much bigger issue than simply being behind on updating the county website.

Mississippi Code §25-41-11 states:

“The minutes shall be recorded within a reasonable time not to exceed thirty (30) days after recess or adjournment and shall be open to public inspection during regular business hours.”

In other words, the law does not merely require the county to eventually post minutes online.

It requires the minutes to be recorded within 30 days and available for public inspection.

Yet multiple meetings are now beyond that statutory timeframe, and according to the Board office, those minutes are still unavailable while they wait on the county attorney.

This is not the first time I have encountered resistance or delays involving public information and Lee Thaggard.

I recently discussed the county’s purchase of the old Fred’s building on 22nd Avenue. When I began requesting records concerning that property, including appraisal information, obtaining those records became a prolonged process before they were eventually released.

There is also the ongoing issue involving Flock license-plate-reader records.

I have submitted multiple public-records requests concerning the county’s Flock system. Some requests have gone beyond statutory response periods, and certain information continues to be withheld based on the county attorney’s position.

There can absolutely be legitimate reasons to withhold certain government records. Mississippi law contains exemptions for specific types of information.

But that is exactly why the law requires government to identify the legal basis when records are withheld.

The problem is when transparency begins to feel like something citizens have to fight for instead of something government is required to provide.

Now we are not simply talking about one of my records requests.

We are talking about the official minutes of the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors — the record of decisions made with public authority and public money.

If county employees are unable to make those minutes available because they are waiting weeks or months on the county attorney, then the public has every right to ask:

Why is the county attorney becoming a bottleneck between the public and information state law says should already be available?

Public records are not the personal property of an attorney, elected official, department head, or board.

They are public records.

And transparency should not depend on whether a citizen knows enough about Mississippi law to keep pushing until someone finally provides them.

Thirty days means something. Public inspection means something. And the public should not have to repeatedly fight its own county government to see the public’s business.
Lauderdale County MS

10/15/2026

County Paid $850,000 for Property Appraised at $800,000

After weeks of requesting the appraisal for the former Fred’s building at 626 22nd Avenue South, Lauderdale County finally released the reports.

The records answer some questions, but they also raise several new ones.

The county had the property appraised in 2020 at $700,000. That appraisal was updated in 2023 to $800,000. Lauderdale County then purchased the property in 2026 for $850,000.

So the county paid $50,000 above the most recent appraisal that has been provided, and that appraisal was nearly three years old by the time of the purchase.

The 2023 appraisal breaks the $800,000 value down as:

Land — $530,000
Building/improvements — $270,000
Total — $800,000

The building itself dates to roughly the 1940s–1950s, and the earlier appraisal applied approximately 75% depreciation to the improvements.

In other words, most of the property’s appraised value was in the land — not the old Fred’s building.

The increase from 2020 to 2023 was also overwhelmingly attributable to the land:

2020
Land: $440,000
Improvements: $260,000
Total: $700,000

2023
Land: $530,000
Improvements: $270,000
Total: $800,000

So about $90,000 of the $100,000 increase came from the land.

The 2023 appraisal also referenced a nearby 22nd Avenue transaction involving approximately 2.2 acres under agreement for $1,055,000, which was used as part of the updated land analysis.

There is also a significant discrepancy in the property’s 2018 purchase history.

The county’s 2020 appraisal states that Meridian Group acquired the property in January 2018, but says that according to the owner’s representative, no sales price was known.

The county’s 2023 appraisal later states that the current owner purchased it for $950,000.

But a separate commercial appraisal we located identifies this same Fred’s property as a January 19, 2018 sale for $850,000. That report identifies the buyer as Beverly Gutterman, describes the transaction as an arm’s-length portfolio sale, says the property was 100% occupied at the time, and states that the transaction was confirmed through the seller’s broker and courthouse records.

So at this point we have:

2020 county appraisal: 2018 price unknown
2023 county appraisal: 2018 purchase price $950,000
Independent commercial appraisal: 2018 sale price $850,000

That is a $100,000 discrepancy that deserves an explanation.

Then there is Mississippi law.

Mississippi Code § 43-37-3 governs certain real-property acquisitions involving public funds.

The law generally requires real property to be appraised before negotiations begin and, subject to applicable exceptions, provides that the purchase price should be the lesser of the best negotiated price, the approved appraisal of fair market value, or the price at which the property was offered for sale.

The law can allow a higher amount in certain circumstances through an administrative settlement when negotiations at the appraised amount fail and the public entity determines that paying more is reasonable, prudent and in the public interest.

That does not automatically mean Lauderdale County violated the law.

There could be another appraisal, a properly approved administrative settlement, another statutory exception, or documentation that has not yet been produced.

But it does make several questions important:

Was the 2023 $800,000 appraisal the appraisal used for the 2026 purchase?

Was a newer appraisal obtained before negotiations began?

If $800,000 was the approved valuation, did the Board approve an administrative settlement or have another lawful basis for paying $850,000?

What documentation supported the final purchase price?

And:

Why does one appraisal report the 2018 purchase at $950,000 while another commercial appraisal reports $850,000?

These are reasonable questions when $850,000 in public money is involved.

The appraisal is finally public.

Now the next step is determining exactly how the final purchase price was reached — and what records support it.
Lauderdale County MS

09/18/2026

A closer look at Lauderdale County’s budget votes

I’ve been reviewing the Board of Supervisors’ county budget votes over the last 10 completed fiscal years, from FY2017 through FY2026.

One thing that stands out is how often Supervisor Josh Todd has not participated in the final budget vote compared with the rest of the Board.

Over those 10 completed budget cycles:

* Josh Todd participated in 6
* He was absent for 3
* He recused from 1
* He abstained from 0

The three absences were FY2022, FY2024 and FY2026.

The one confirmed full-budget recusal was FY2025. The minutes state that Todd recused himself, left the board room, the remaining supervisors adopted the budget, and Todd then returned.

Kyle Rutledge also has one confirmed full-budget recusal during the same period. For FY2024, Rutledge recused and left the meeting before the budget vote. Josh Todd was absent, Joe Norwood abstained, and Jonathan Wells and Wayman Newell cast the two affirmative votes.

This is not about picking on Josh Todd or any other supervisor. I’m pointing out what the public record shows and asking why the treatment of budget recusals has differed from year to year.

What makes this year worth looking at more closely is the sequence I was told occurred during the FY2027 budget vote.

I was not at that meeting, and the official minutes are not yet available, so I am treating this portion as preliminary until I can verify it.

According to a person who attended, Josh Todd initially recused from the FY2027 budget vote. The first vote reportedly failed 2–2. Todd later returned, and after advice from the Board attorney that he did not need to recuse because the Pat Harrison Waterway District millage remained at its mandatory rate, Todd participated in the later vote.

If Todd had remained recused, FY2027 would have been the fourth consecutive county budget in which he did not cast a vote:

FY2024 — absent
FY2025 — recused
FY2026 — absent
FY2027 — initially recused, according to the attendee account

That does not mean those four situations were the same. Absence and recusal are different, and the reasons behind each matter.

I have asked for clarification on the actual FY2027 voting sequence, including the first vote, the later action, the reported change in Joe Norwood’s vote, and the legal advice regarding Todd’s recusal.

Once I receive a response or the official minutes are released, I’ll update the record.

The question I’m trying to answer is straightforward:

What determines when a supervisor should recuse from the full county budget, and why has that treatment differed from year to year?
Lauderdale County MS

09/17/2026

A Second Data Center Project Has Been in the Works in Lauderdale County Since 2024

Most people know about the Compass Data Center project at the I-20/59 Industrial Park. What I did not realize is that Lauderdale County has also been working on a separate project, Project Shamrock, since at least May 2024.

In the May 2, 2024 Board of Supervisors minutes, the county handled Project Thor and Project Shamrock separately in the same executive session:

• First Amendment to the Letter of Intent for Project Thor
• Letter of Intent for Project Shamrock

Project Thor later became the Compass project.

Shamrock continued through amended Letters of Intent in 2024 and 2025. By September 2025, the Board had extended the project’s exclusivity period through December 15, 2025.

Then the county claims records showed where Shamrock was located. The October 2025 Claims Docket lists Engineering Plus work as:

PROJ:25-603 LOBLOLLY SITE
G.V. SONNY MONTGOMERY INDUSTRIAL PARK – PROJECT SHAMROCK

That directly connects Project Shamrock to the Loblolly Site at the Sonny Montgomery Industrial Park.

In November 2025, the county also hired separate legal counsel for Shamrock involving economic development, utility services, and fire protection services.

Then in February 2026, public reporting based on government records identified Echelon Data Centres as being involved in a proposed second data-center project of roughly 300 acres, including the old Loblolly site. The reported site runs generally from Highway 45 toward the railroad tracks and includes county-owned property and Meridian Coca-Cola property.

One important distinction: I have not yet found a county minute that literally says “Project Shamrock = Echelon.”

What the county records do prove is:

Shamrock = Loblolly Site / Sonny Montgomery Industrial Park

Later public reporting identifies Echelon’s proposed second data-center site as including that same Loblolly property.

So the connection is strong, but I’m still looking for the actual Letter of Intent or another document that names Echelon directly.

The biggest takeaway: Lauderdale County was working on a second major economic-development project at the same time it was negotiating the Compass project, and that second project dates back to at least May 2024.

09/17/2026

09/15/2026

So who is really paying the $9 million for Project Thor/Compass site preparation?

I’ve been reviewing the county’s MDA financing documents and asking questions about how the $9 million site-preparation package for Project Thor/Compass actually works.

The county’s MDA application requests $9 million for work tied directly to Project Thor. The engineering scope says the purpose of the work is to “meet the requirements of Project THOR” and includes major grading, drainage, utility adjustments, roadway work, engineering, testing and related site improvements.

The county’s October 21, 2024 resolution authorizing the financing was even broader. It allowed the money to be used for water, sewer, roads, site preparation, fire protection, and electric transmission systems to the project site. The detailed engineering scope I’ve reviewed so far appears focused mainly on grading, drainage, clearing and other civil/site work, so I have not seen evidence that the $9 million has actually been spent on electric transmission.

The application also asks whether the company has any commitment to make loan repayments to the governmental entity.

The county’s answer was:

“N/A.”

In other words, the application itself does not identify Compass as being obligated to repay the $9 million loan to the county.

County Administrator Chris Lafferty has explained the financing structure this way:

Compass will initially pay for the approved site work and submit the invoices.

Lauderdale County will reimburse Compass.

MDA will provide the financing to the county.

The county and city will then repay that financing using future Fee-in-Lieu-of-Taxes, or FILO, revenue from Compass.

I specifically asked whether repayment of the $9 million would be an additional payment by Compass on top of its negotiated FILO.

Chris confirmed:

“It’s not an addition amount added on top of the negotiated FILO.”

That distinction matters.

Compass may be fronting the money, but it does not appear to be ultimately absorbing that $9 million as a separate cost.

Instead, public entities are reimbursing Compass for the site work and then using future FILO revenue to repay the financing.

FILO is already the negotiated payment Compass makes instead of full ad valorem taxes. So using that same FILO revenue to repay the MDA financing means public revenue that would otherwise be available to the county and city is being committed to pay for Project Thor site preparation.

That does not mean homeowners are receiving a direct $9 million tax bill.

But it does mean the public sector is ultimately financing this portion of the project.

That is a very different picture from simply saying:

“Compass is paying for its own infrastructure.”

The more accurate statement appears to be:

Compass fronts certain site-preparation costs. The county reimburses Compass with public financing, and that financing is repaid using future FILO revenue.

I’m not saying this is illegal or improper. Economic-development incentives are common.

But the public deserves to understand exactly how the deal works and who ultimately bears the cost.

I’ll continue posting the documents so people can read them for themselves.
Lauderdale County MS WTOK-TV The Real Meridian Star

09/10/2026

Lauderdale County Says the Fred’s Appraisal Is Exempt — But the Law Appears to Say Otherwise

Lauderdale County has confirmed that the former Fred’s building on 22nd Avenue in Meridian was appraised before the county purchased it for $850,000.

I requested a copy of that appraisal.

County Attorney Lee Thaggard denied the request, stating that appraisal reports are exempt from disclosure under the Mississippi Public Records Act.

The problem is that Mississippi Code § 31-1-27 appears to limit that exemption to appraisal information prior to public announcement of the purchase or sale, where disclosure could negatively affect the transaction.

This transaction has already been publicly announced and approved.

So the issue is not whether appraisal records can ever be exempt. They can.

The issue is whether that exemption still applies after the purchase has already been made public.

The county spent $850,000 in public money on the former Fred’s property on 22nd Avenue. The public should be able to see the appraisal the county relied on and evaluate whether that purchase price was reasonable.

I’m not claiming the appraisal is wrong.

I’m asking to see the document used to support an $850,000 taxpayer-funded purchase.

I have already followed up with the county and asked them to identify the specific legal authority they believe allows the appraisal to remain withheld after the transaction was publicly disclosed.

I’m waiting on that response now.
Lauderdale County MS

09/10/2026

Lauderdale County Livestock Burials — What Does State Law Actually Allow?

Over the last several weeks, I have been looking into Lauderdale County’s practice of using county Road & Bridge employees and equipment to bury privately owned livestock.

This issue was brought to my attention, which led me to start looking into the practice. Rather than relying on what I was told, I requested the records, reviewed the applicable state law, and contacted the Mississippi Board of Animal Health for clarification.

That led to a simple question:

When can taxpayer-funded county equipment and employees legally be used to bury a privately owned cow or horse?

Mississippi Code §19-5-15 appears pretty specific. It authorizes a Board of Supervisors to use county road equipment and employees to bury livestock that “died as a result of an epidemic” when a licensed veterinarian certifies that there is “an epidemic, contagious disease” and that immediate burial is necessary to prevent the spread of that disease.

So I requested Lauderdale County’s records supporting these burials.

What I received raised more questions.

Some of the veterinary documentation does not identify an epidemic or even a specific contagious disease.

Among the records I reviewed:

• One veterinarian stated that a horse “died of natural causes related to old age.”

• Some of the animals were euthanized, with county burial subsequently requested.

• Some letters state that burial would help “prevent the potential spread of diseases” without identifying an existing epidemic or contagious disease.

• Other letters simply request that the county assist with burial.

The county’s newer burial form actually quotes §19-5-15 and then has the veterinarian certify generally that the burial “adheres to Mississippi Code §19-5-15.” The form does not require the veterinarian to identify what epidemic or contagious disease is involved.

I then contacted the Mississippi Board of Animal Health to better understand the disease-reporting side of this.

The Deputy State Veterinarian explained in writing that veterinarians are required to report information related to reportable diseases to the State Veterinarian’s Office. She also clarified that an unexplained death of a single animal is not required to be reported unless the veterinarian suspects a disease on the state’s reportable-disease list.

That answered an important question, but MBAH also made an important distinction.

They advised me that interpreting Miss. Code §19-5-15 and determining the county’s authority under that statute is not within MBAH’s authority.

So I have now taken that question to the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office.

The question I’ve asked is straightforward:

Does §19-5-15 allow a county to use county road equipment and employees to bury ordinary privately owned livestock simply because prompt disposal of any carcass can help prevent future disease concerns?

Or must the conditions actually written into the law exist — livestock dying as a result of an epidemic and a veterinarian certifying an epidemic, contagious disease and the need for immediate burial to prevent its spread?

I also asked whether there is another Mississippi statute that gives counties authority to perform routine private livestock burials if §19-5-15 does not.

There may be a perfectly valid legal explanation. That’s why I’m asking the question before drawing conclusions.

Nobody is disputing that dead livestock should be properly and promptly disposed of. MBAH has regulations addressing carcass disposal, and there are legitimate public-health reasons for doing so.

But there is an important distinction:

Requiring a livestock owner to properly dispose of a carcass is one thing. Authorizing county government to use taxpayer-funded employees and road equipment to perform that work on private property is another.

The records should match the authority provided by state law.

I’ll share what I receive from the Attorney General’s Office when I get a response.

This is what transparency should look like: get the records, read the law, ask the appropriate agencies, and let the documentation answer the question.
Lauderdale County MS