BY MR. BRABHAM:  I have a motion to submit.  I would like to make some comments prior to that.  This is not an easy subject to address.  And all of us on the board have worked diligently and thought diligently and studied diligently this issue.  I want to thank all the citizens for their loyal support and passionate support of a neighbor.  I think that's admirable.  I would do the same thing for people.  And I want to thank the Welches.  I think you are admirable parents to support your children and the children in your neighborhood. And that's not -- that's not the issue to me. And that's what makes this a very complicated issue. I want -- I would appreciate everyone tonight, as you listen to my comments -- and they may be kind of lengthy.  But I want you to understand that I'm not addressing these in a combative or argumentative way.  I'm not here to debate Mr. Smith and those issues.  What I am here to try to do is share with you some insight into how I personally and possibly some of the other board members have reached their decision on this matter. Since it's a complicated issue, I can tell you, I didn't reach my decision in a knee-jerk manner.  I just didn't arbitrarily decide, well, I don't like treehouses, I don't like that neighborhood, and I didn't make it in the way that says, well, I do like treehouses and I think it ought to be there.  I like children and it ought to be granted there.  All those are good emotional foundations to think about, and I did think about all those.  But one thing that every one here needs to remember is, that all of us up here have taken a very serious oath of office to discharge our responsibilities in an ethical and a legal manner and to do -- to preserve and protect and enforce the laws of the state of Mississippi and the city of Clinton and to do that to the best of our knowledge.  I can't ever in any decision lay aside that sacred oath.  That's very, very dear to me, to follow my oath. To just share with you briefly, even in casual conversation with fellow board members, when we would be talking about things not directly related to the city, talking about our children or baseball or vacations and other things, our conversation even walking down the street would come back to this treehouse.  It's that much of a gut-wrenching decision.  We're not oblivious to the support in the community and to the loyalty that you show.  I can tell you for a fact a couple of weeks ago, I went on vacation the week of the planning and zoning commission hearing.  then I was packing to leave, the last thing I put in my car was my zoning ordinance and the material that Mr. Smith had submitted to me.  And my children and family said to me, can't you just leave that?  Can't you just drop that for a few days?  And I said, no, I really can't.  It's that serious to me.  I want to read, I want to make absolutely certain that within my conscious what I do is the legal thing.  It's not going to be arbitrary.  It's going to try to be absolutely ethical and legal. So with that in mind, I want to make just a few, I guess, preliminary comments before I address specifically the accessory building. The first thing I want to address is that as an alderman for the city of Clinton -- and as much as you have loyalty for the Welches and the treehouse and the people in your neighborhood, I have loyalty and respect for our zoning administrator and our planning commission.  I think they did what was required of them.  I think they did their job.  Gary Ward is not the villain in this case.  If he didn't do his job, it would be an administrative mistake on his part, and that would be not fulfilling his duty as zoning administrator.  The planning commission listened to the evidence.  They got some of the material just briefly before the meeting, and using their best judgment, they thought they couldn't render that decision and so passed it on to the board.  This is where, basically, in this situation for us the buck stops, and I fully understand that.  I understand my responsibility, and I understand that decisions I make not always -- always are not well received.  Even some decisions I make may not be my personal preference, but I'm going to get back and tell you again, they're going to be what I feel is ethical and legal. The second thing I want to share with you is, you mentioned -- about a civics lesson. This issue has sparked a lot of interest in my mind in the area of civics and how you conduct public business.  I would say that the general perception among most people is that aldermen can pretty well do whatever they vote to do. You have that flexibility and latitude.  

It would be much like when I first came into office about 10 or 11 years ago, right after I was elected, my youngest son was about four or five years old.  We went to McDonald's and he went in and ordered his Happy Meal and got it and started walking out, and the lady said you've got to pay.  He said, no, I don't have to pay, my daddy's an alderman now.  That's the perception that a lot of people have, that we can just lay aside anything legal, ethical or whatever and do whatever we want to.  That is absolutely not true.  There are guidelines and legal responsibilities and ethical responsibilities that we absolutely have to follow.

I shared with you about this idea of this oath that I take.  I looked at that.  I took it out of a drawer, a certificate that we were given when we were elected aldermen and I looked at that oath and read it several times, and it brought to mind several things to me.  The first thing it brought to me -- mind was the difficulty our community had several weeks ago with Worldcom.  And I've listened subsequent to the explanation of some of the leaders of Worldcom, and almost in every instance, they said, you know, we just turned our head to the accounting practices.  They knew something was wrong, but they didn't want to speak up to it. They were going to do their way.  That's not legal.  That's not ethical.  That's not right. People suffer because of it.  

I can remember, too, on a personal basis, I talked with my mother many years ago and one of her most admired people was President Richard Nixon.  She loved Richard Nixon for everything he did, but I remember one day sitting down talking with her, she said, you know, one of the biggest disappointments in life to me was when Richard Nixon didn't fulfill his responsibility.  He failed his oath of office.  He turned his head. He did something illegal.  And it was a crushing blow. So all those things come to mind when I think about this oath that I've taken and the misconception that aldermen can just do what they want to do.  As an elected leader, I have a direct responsibility.  In this issue, dealing with the Welches' treehouse on Kitchings Drive, the aldermen here tonight shoulder not only the responsibility for the treehouse, but it shoulders the responsibility for all accessory buildings.  And I'm going to talk about that in just a minute, what accessory buildings are. But accessory buildings are very, very clearly delineated and explained by our ordinance.  I know Mr. Smith pointed out that a treehouse is not covered.  I want you to think just a minute. Do you think in our ordinances storage buildings are not defined?  In our ordinance --

(Mayor Aultman pounds gavel.)

BY MAYOR AULTMAN:  Pardon me, Mr. Brabham.

BY MR. BRABHAM:  In our ordinances --

BY MAYOR AULTMAN:  Wait just a minute, J.B. This is a business meeting.  You will listen to him quietly and respectfully until he completes.  We will offer that same courtesy to Mr. Smith and to the Welches and so I expect you to sit quietly and listen until we complete this discussion. Go ahead.

BY MR. BRABHAM:  Thank you.  In our ordinances, other kind of buildings are not specifically defined.  It puts an enormous amount of pressure on a board here to try to decide.  That's why it says accessory buildings or structures or uses.  It's a comprehensive wording.  It makes it very difficult for us to consider a treehouse tonight and somebody next week come in and want a storeroom or what if they wanted to put a camper in their front yard and make it a play yard or what if somebody -- not a treehouse in a house, what if they wanted to build a two-story children's playhouse on the ground in their front yard?  What if -- somebody that has already shared with me, I'd like to put a shed in my front yard to park my four-wheeler. I mean, there are multiple, multiple reasons that people could give for an accessory building that we would have to deal with. So it makes it very, very difficult to interpret and write a specific definition for every accessory building.  We believe -- I believe -- and I think our ordinance is clear -- that accessory buildings, when the ordinance was drafted, was meant to preserve the total integrity of the front yard.  In the time line that you shared, the ordinance before the one that was adopted in 1997 was in effect in 1976.

BY MR. HISAW:  Correct.

BY MR. BRABHAM:  That was clearly ten years before the platform was built, was put in that tree, and it's the same wording, basically, as in the 19 -- the present ordinance.  So the minute that platform was put in that tree, it was illegal, not just under the present ordinance, but under the former one also.  And it could have gone an extended period of time. Because Mr. Lowther went and talked, it's very difficult for us to make a determination on that because we have no documentation.  We're not going to say what he said or what he didn't say. But I do know that it's a fact of law in the state of Mississippi that a building inspector, a mayor, a board of aldermen, a department head, cannot speak for the city of Clinton.  The only people that can speak is this board in official business and action that's duly recorded and then the minutes are signed by the mayor. Mr. Lowther didn't have any authority.  If he said anything, he didn't have that authority. So for multiple reasons, for multiple reasons -- and the final one is, that this board faces a huge liability exposure if we set aside an ordinance, selectively set aside.  You may not be aware of it, but all of us are.  If we willfully and knowingly set aside an ordinance, then we're going to be held accountable, ultimately, for any kind of accident or anything else associated with that treehouse.  Not just the Welches and not just the city, but us individually, individually.  I can't assume that kind of liability or willfully and knowingly set aside an ordinance which I know or believe to be correct. For all of these reasons -- and I'm sorry I seem long, but I wanted to be -- to make you understand that we've tried as much as I could to find a basis for making this treehouse work. I have not been able to find that, legally.  And so for that reason, I have a resolution, a motion that I've presented to the clerk and I'll read part of it. It is to uphold the interpretation of the zoning administrator that the treehouse clearly meets the definition of accessory structure or use as set out in the zoning ordinance of April 4th, 1997.  And it goes on to express some other things, but that's the main motion that I'd like to put on the floor.