Category: Editorials

At the Apr. 23 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen one thing became very apparent. A lot of people including but not limited to, the media, some downtown merchants, and their association, newly elected alderman, Stephen Marshall, and the Ole Seagull evidently missed what was discussed at certain public meetings. Those were the “public” meetings where, according to Branson City Administrator, Terry Dody, items such as HCW controlling and getting the revenue from over 295 of the 499 parking spaces in the new city owned parking garage and the city getting into the commercial laundry business were discussed “ad nausea.”

At the meeting, after listening to the parking concerns of the downtown merchants and Dody’s explanation of that and what the Ole Seagull calls Branson’s “Laundrygate,” alderman Marshall said, “This is the first time that the public knows about these arrangements, I could be wrong but, you may be shaking your head, but it has not been in the open.” Dody arrogantly responded by saying, “Sir, you are absolutely incorrect.”

Why did Dody say Marshall was incorrect? Well according to Dody, “This is an item that has been discussed ad nausea in public meeting after public meeting after public meeting after public meeting and it is unfortunate if you were not here to hear that but it has been discussed. The plans have been thrown out repeatedly this has been, I can’t even begin to say how often this has been discussed in public meetings. That’s just an incredible statement to make.”

The Ole Seagull certainly hasn’t been to every board of alderman meeting or public meetings that have been held relating to Branson Landing but he has attended a lot of them. He can’t say that the word “laundry” or “parking” wasn’t mentioned. What he can say however is that, to the best of his knowledge, he never attended a public meeting where either a commercial laundry in the convention center or that 295 out of 499 of the spaces in the new garage would inure to the practical and financial benefit of HCW or the Hilton Hotels was discussed specifically, let alone “discussed ad nausea.”

Perhaps Dody could produce the minutes of the public meetings substantiating his “ad nausea” claim? If the written minutes of the public meetings are not sufficient to do so, how about producing transcripts of the portion or portions of the “public meeting after public meeting after public meeting after public meeting” where these issues were discussed “ad nausea?”

Were an Ole Seagull a betting bird he would wager that the only thing “ad nausea” about the details of all the agreements that the city of Branson entered into was the repeated use of Missouri’s Sunshine Law exceptions to keep details like these from the general public and the discussion that might have followed. Or, could a better argument be made that the term “nausea,” should be used to describe some the “sweet deals” that were made in the name of progress at the expense of the taxpayers and Branson’s existing businesses. What was the percentage that some downtown businesses and property owners said their business was down since Branson Landing opened?

In any event, it certainly describes the way an Ole Seagull felt when Dody verbally attacked an elected official that is one of his bosses in such an arrogant and public manner. “Ah Seagull, do you think that if Dody can’t produce the minutes or transcripts backing up his ad nausea claim that he should issue a public apology for his actions?” Whether or not a public apology is due is not a matter of whether he is right or wrong, it’s a matter of “how” he did what he did. What he should do is obvious but what he will do remains to be seen.

This week’s column is a response to an anonymous post, by someone calling themselves “Grizzly,” addressed to the Ole Seagull, in an on line forum he posts to on www.1Branson.com. The post is entitled “City aldermen Code of Ethics ???” Its topic is so very timely and pertinent to the events starting to develop within our community that the Ole Seagull wanted to share it with the whole community through the printed medium before posting it on line to a relatively small segment of that community.

A hint of what is to come is contained in the first paragraph of Grizzly’s post. It reads “I hear there are some people going to be at the next City meetings with an important question. So, I thought I might ask a similar question posed a little differently here.”

If the following is any indication, one could almost get the impression that there are those with a vested interest, who will do just about anything to thwart the expressed will of the voters of Branson for change within the city of Branson’s government. The following format is pretty self explanatory:

1. Grizzly starts first question: How is it that the Old Seagull can spend the past year berating the Mayor, City aldermen and the City administrator about every imagined conspiracy theory and secret illicit deal…

The Ole Seagull: The vast majority of those columns are on line under “Editorials” at www.BransonCourier.Com, exactly which one is an “imagined conspiracy theory and secret illicit deal or factually inaccurate?

2. Grizzly continues: …BUT we have not heard a word from him about the obvious abuse of power and conflict of interest as well as special ethics bending going on in the new City Council meetings?

The Ole Seagull: What’s to write about in those specific areas? The new mayor and board members have pretty well mitigated the abuse of power that certain senior unelected city officials have heretofore been permitted to exercise in an unfettered manner at past meetings and the Ole Seagull has observed nothing indicting that any of the other alleged acts have occurred at “the new city council meetings.”

3. Grizzly states: In rough estimates there have been 14 hours of meetings and about 4 hours of that time was spent in outright unethical discussions initiated by Steven [Stephen] Marshall regarding his only real competitor in the City…

The Ole Seagull: In the meetings he has attended, especially the board of aldermen meeting of Apr. 23, the audio of which is available at the City of Branson’s official website, http://www.cityofbranson.org/, he has personally not heard Marshall say anything that is unethical, period. What he has observed in Alderman Marshall’s actions is an elected leader, using their expertise and experience, to do what the voters elected him to do.

4. Grizzly continues:… yet the manager for that one real competitor [Alderman Marshall] is clearly attempting to renegotiate or undermine the completed and signed contracts with the Hilton company.

The Ole Seagull: Again, all an Ole Seagull has observed is an alderman trying to do his job. How is the questioning of a city of Branson expenditure of over $680 thousand for the equipment to build a commercial laundry in the convention center, when such facilities are not normally built in a convention center, “clearly attempting to renegotiate or undermine the completed and signed contracts with the Hilton Company?” Encouraging a public discussion on the fact that 295 of the 499 new parking spaces in the new parking garage, paid for at tax payer expense, are allocated to HCW’s benefit and that it [HCW] is entitled to receive the income from them is “clearly attempting to renegotiate or undermine the completed and signed contracts with the Hilton Company how?

Come to think of it, why would an Ole Seagull or anyone else for that matter, pay any attention to the unsupported allegations of someone hiding behind a cloak of anonymity as they personally attack someone else? Such attacks generally speak volumes about how much credibility people should give them and the honor and integrity of the person delivering the attack.

How did the city of Branson decide to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on a commemorative plaque honoring, among others, the aldermen involved with the Branson Landing project and intentionally leave one alderman off? The city of Branson is spending $680 thousand dollars for equipment and how much in prorated construction costs building a commercial laundry as part of its convention center, apparently for the benefit of the private hotels involved with the Branson Landing project, why?

The city spent how many millions of dollars building a public fountain in a private development and is spending how many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to maintain that fountain why? Could the answers to these questions, and others, lie in the fact that they were handled the same way that the city sold city property, Point Royale Drive, by controlling access to the information necessary to permit the public to effectively participate in the decision making process and limiting its input and participation as much as possible to those having a vested interest in the outcome?

“But Seagull, isn’t Missouri’s Sunshine Law designed to insure that the processes of government are open and accessible to the governed?” Yes, it is a tool designed to do just that but, like any tool, its effectiveness is determined by how it is used.

A flashlight is only as effective as the person who controls it. If the person controlling the flashlight doesn’t turn it on what good is it? Even when it’s turned on, the person controlling the light determines what areas will be illuminated and which will remain dark. In a similar manner, in the city of Branson, the effectiveness of Missouri’s Sunshine Law and the open and accessible access to government that its light is meant to shine on is determined by those who control that light, its elected officials and city administrator.

It’s simply a matter of philosophy. Does the city look for the way to include the public in the process or to exclude them from the process? Actually it’s more than that. Missouri’s Sunshine law makes it clear that inclusion is the policy and that any exception to that policy shall be liberally and strictly construed to promote that policy. Section 610.022 of the Sunshine Law states that just because there is an exception authorized does not mean that it shall be construed “as to require a public governmental body to hold a closed meeting, record or vote to discuss or act upon” that exception.

In the ole Seagull’s opinion, the leadership in this area of the man that the Ole Seagull considers to be the Darth Vader of Missouri’s Sunshine Law in the city of Branson, its current administrator, Terry Dody, has been one of exclusion rather than inclusion. Forget the actual occurrence of a specific event that is an authorized Sunshine Law exception, where even then, in most cases, it encourages that the public still be included. Just the potential of such an occurrence appears to be enough for Dody to try to have the public excluded from effectively participating in the process.

At a public Board of Alderman Work Session, held on Apr. 18, when the topic of the use of the term “Branson” came up it was pointed out by either Dody or Paul Link, the city’s attorney, that the matter was scheduled to be discussed in executive, closed session, because of potential litigation. To Monsieur’s Dody and Link an Ole Seagull would simply say, “Give us a break! The Darth Vader days of Missouri’s Sunshine Laws in Branson, Missouri are, hopefully, over.”

To our newly elected Mayor and board members, he would respectfully and humbly suggest that this is a pivotal moment in defining the Sunshine Law philosophy of your administration. In your hearts and hands is the determination on whether or not the flashlight of Missouri’s Sunshine Law will be turned on and where, how, and when, within the city of Branson’s government, its light will be permitted to shine. Please let it shine brightly proclaiming the true spirit of that law within the city of Branson’s government.

The voters of the city of Branson have spoken loud and very clear. Their message echoes that of many within the community who did not get the opportunity to vote, a desire for a change in the way things are done within the leadership ranks of the city government of Branson. Newly elected Ward II alderman, Bob McDowell, as candidate Bob McDowell, probably said it best when he said that the leadership of city government has to earn back “the benefit of the doubt position” from the community.

Over at least the last year or so, and as recently as the morning of Apr. 3, when leadership issues at city hall have been discussed with the Ole Seagull, it wasn’t the name of either Lou Schaefer or Alderman Ron Huff that came up 99 percent of the time. Rather, it was the name of the city of Branson’s administrator Terry Dody and, to a lesser extent, city attorney Paul Link that was mentioned. Almost simultaneously people would ask a question along the lines of “Why don’t the mayor and the board of aldermen do something about them?”

There are probably many answers to that question. The fact is however that, for whatever reason, the mayor and board of aldermen did nothing to eliminate or control what candidate for mayor Raeanne Presley, now mayor elect Raeanne Presley, described as an “attitude at city hall that boarders on arrogance.” In spite of public warnings, by the Ole Seagull and others, they seemingly refused to even acknowledge there was a leadership problem. Even worse, they publicly allowed and enabled those who the public perceived as the sources of the arrogance and loss of trust to violate the same decorum and public comment rules that they so fastidiously sought to enforce against the public.

Although the voters could not vote the apparent source of that arrogance out of office what they did do was vote those running for reelection that permitted and enabled the source of arrogance to grow and flourish, out of office. They replaced them with those who pledged that, if elected, such arrogance “would not stand” and to try to earn back “the benefit of the doubt position” from the community.

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, that will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to do, if the very individuals whom a lot of people in the community perceive as the cause of that arrogance and public distrust remain in their positions. Ah, the irony of it all. In a council meeting worthy enough to be called “Survivor Branson,” even as Mayor Lou and Ron Huff are “voted off” and relinquish their leadership positions, Monsieur’s Dody and Link survive. Who ever said that life was fair?

One can only wonder if those whom the community perceives as the cause of the arrogance and loss of trust within Branson city government will do the honorable thing. “Ah, Seagull, if they don’t do the honorable thing what should be done?” Please tell me that’s a rhetorical question.

Every week, whether you agree with him or not, a lot of you read the opinions of one balding, overweight, grandfather with, he hopes, average intelligence, who calls himself “The Ole Seagull.” This week should be no different and, for what it matters, here’s the short and quick of his take on the Apr. 3 election.

As to the tax issues, he unequivocally supports a “Yes” vote for the $.45 increase in the operating tax levy for the Branson School District and a “Yes” vote to extend the half of one percent Taney County Road and Bridge Tax. As to the city of Branson’s mayoral and aldermanic races he supports Raeanne Presley for mayor over incumbent mayor Lou Schaefer, Sandra Williams for Alderman over incumbent Ron Huff in Ward II, and sincerely believes that the voters in Branson’s Ward I are very blessed because, whoever they vote for, Eric Farris or Bob McDowell, they will have someone who will make independent decisions and will work towards making city government more open and responsive.

He supports a “Yes” vote for the increased operating tax levy for the Branson School District because the vast majority of the increased operating revenue is to be used for the costs of putting the teachers and programs inside the new buildings that the district has built, and is building, to meet its greatly increased and expanding enrollment. The bulk of the increase is going to pay salaries for teachers, the singular most important aspect of our children’s educations. Even with the increase, less than $86.00 per year on a house assessed at $100,000, the taxpayers of the Branson School District will be paying less than the majority of the surrounding school districts. Isn’t a quality education for our children and grandchildren worth the slight increase?

He supports a “Yes” vote for the extension of the current half of one percent Taney County Road and Bridge Tax because it is but an extension of an existing tax that is paid, in the majority, by tourists to our area. It is not a new tax and has served all who drive on Taney County’s roads well. This tax has helped with projects such as the Hollister Highway 65 project, where a small investment of funds by Hollister and Taney County resulted in over 100 million dollars of benefit to our area.

He supports Raeanne Presley over the incumbent mayor Lou Schaefer because of her policy on growth, her proven credentials to lead Branson into the future, her willingness to address an “attitude at city hall that boarders on arrogance” and her pledge that if elected that attitude “will not stand.” Her policy on growth is two phased, logical, and simple.

She supports the type of entrepreneurial growth where people invest their own money and assume the risk of developing what ever they want to develop instead of the taxpayer, i.e. Branson’s Titanic Museum, the new Site and Sound Attraction, Celebration City, The Chateau on the Lake, the Roy Rogers Attraction, the new Butterfly Palace, the redevelopment of the Music Centre City complex, the Grand Palace, etc. She does suggest “a pause” in the type of growth that is artificially created by government through the use of TIFs and other extensive taxpayer financing while its impact on available housing, schools, other taxing entities, etc. is assessed. As an example, the increased operating tax levy for the Branson School District that is being voted on is caused, at least in part, because of this type of growth and the city of Branson’s arbitrary use of TIF financing.

It is a continuation of that theme that leads him to support Sandra Williams over incumbent Ron Huff for alderman of Ward 2. It was really interesting to hear Huff and incumbent mayor Lou Schaefer indicate that the leadership in city hall has no confidence or trust problems relating to the businesses and citizens of Branson. This in spite of the fact that it was a problem that every other candidate running for office indicated had to be addressed. Bob McDowell summed it up best when he said that the leadership of city government had to earn back “the benefit of the doubt position” from the community.

Whatever ones position is on these issues and the candidates an Ole Seagull would urge them to get out and vote on April 3. Aren’t the future education of the areas children and the future of Branson worth the effort it takes to vote? An Ole Seagull thinks so.

As one listened to the city of Branson’s administrator, Terry Dody, during the Public Comment portion of the March 12 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen, it was hard to constrain one’s self from jumping up and saying “Alleluia, Branson’s incubator TIFs will save us all. How did Branson ever get along without them?”

What did Dody say? As relates to what he said regarding the increase in property tax assessments and tax revenues for the city of Branson and Taney County, the following will indicate Dody’s comments in italicized type, followed by the The Ole Seagulls comments in non italicized type. Dody made his comments during the time allotted to the ex city of Branson Finance Director, Deanna Schlegel.

So what happened is that all the activity that kicked in 2003 and 2004 started coming onto the books in 2006 … the school district still realized a five and half percent increase in its property tax revenues…

It makes sense that it takes a couple of years for construction to be completed, assessed, and be put on the tax rolls.

So all of that is attributable back to the growth that was created when the city council decided to move forward with a TIF in the downtown area and began to kick in the new construction in 2003 and 2004 … and so in 2006 we saw a lot of that coming into fruition a lot of the boom in 2005 and 2006 that we set all new records in hasn’t even hit the books yet…

Is it not more reasonable to attribute what happened in 2003 through 2006 to the same thing that made it possible to build the downtown TIF project in the first place, the millions of visitors coming to Branson? Aren’t those visitors directly attributable, not to government incentives and TIFs but to the investment, work, and entrepreneurship of all those who have invested their own money, sweat, and effort into creating the Branson that draws the millions of visitors that the downtown TIF is counting on to be financially successful?

So when we say that there is a benefit by the creation of those TIF Incubators, the proof is in the pudding we don’t have to guess or make estimates it’s already happened and we know it’s going to get even better in the next couple of years as those bigger projects kick in.

Yes, things are going to continue to improve, that’s not the question; the question is why are they going to improve?

There is only one change that has occurred in our local economy and that is the creation of the two incubator TIFs that are out there right now is that correct? Schlegel responds, “That have any real effect today I would agree” Thank you.

“The two incubator TIFs” are the only changes that have “any real effect today.” Give me a break! Can we all step back and spell the word “m-a-r-k-e-t-i-n-g” very slowly. There was a huge change made in the way that Branson was marketed about three years ago. Is there just the possibility that the results of that change have played at least some small roll in Branson’s improving economy?

Wasn’t there a substantial increase in the percentage of visitors etc. for the first few months of 2006 before the TIF financed Branson Landing even opened up? Of the new things being built in Branson to bring more visitors to the area how many of them have been built and are being built because of the TIF incubators and how many of them are being built because of the millions of visitors coming to Branson each year?

In the majority, it is the sweat and financial equity of Branson’s stake holders and the marketing of that effort that is the incubator for the growth that Branson has had in the past, experienced in recent years, and will continue to have. To say that Branson’s TIFs are the only changes having any real effect today on Branson’s economy shows a total lack of appreciation and understanding for what made Branson what it is and what is necessary for its future success. Not for the financial success of a few but for the whole community that is “Branson.”

“The Ole Seagull,” more formally know as Gary J. Groman, is a 66 year old grandfather living in “Branson,” just outside of the thriving community of Hollister, Missouri. He is the editor and publisher of the Branson Courier, an online newspaper about the live family entertainment capital of the world, “Branson, Missouri,” loves to trout fish his beloved Lake Taneycomo, has been married to his bride, Lois, for over 43 years, and publishes a weekly column in the Sunday edition Branson Daily Independent entitled, “Seagull Musings” which is also published on line, each Sunday, as the editorial in the Branson Courier .

He and his family moved to Branson in 1986 after vacationing in the area for one week a year for about a decade. He is blessed with three children, two daughter in laws, an ex son in law, his wife, and son, and seven of the greatest grandchildren in the world, all of whom currently reside within 50 miles of Branson.

About six years ago, as he decided to make a commitment to writing about the things that concerned him he also decided that a “brand” would be helpful. “The Ole Seagull” evolved from a speech given by Jim King, past National Transportation Safety Board Chairman, during the Carter administration. At a presentation given at the FAA Center in Oklahoma City, Jim characterized his position within the political hierarchy of the day as that of, “a lowly seagull walking along after the horse in the parade picking at the droppings.” Even as it gave Jim perspective at that time so too does it keep the Ole Seagull’s roll in perspective today.

On occasion, the Ole Seagull has been asked what his qualifications are to his write his opinions and why anyone should pay any attention to them. In order, the answers are “only his life’s experience” and “they shouldn’t unless, one way or the other, they have evaluated those opinions and find them useful in their own decision making process.”

It’s easy to want to spew forth a list of qualifications but, in the final analysis it is a useless act and a waste of time. Abraham Lincoln said it best when he said, “If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

Gary a.k.a. The Ole Seagull can be contacted via phone at 1-417-339-4000 or via email by selecting “The Ole Seagull” from the drop down dialogue box accessible through the “Submissions/Contact” box in the lower left hand corner of the front page of the Branson Courier.

At just about every Branson Board of Aldermen’s meeting since October, 2006, in good weather and bad, short meetings or long meetings, Pam Dapprich has appeared in front of the board asking for an apology for the manner in which her business was treated by the city of Branson because it had the word “Branson” in its title and was not located within the city limits of Branson. There are some who say that she has made her point and should get over it and others who say that she is due an apology.

For what it matters, based on the evidence shown below, and although he certainly does not agree with everything she says at those meetings, an Ole Seagull just has to believe that Dapprich is due an apology for what the city of Branson, under the color of law, did and attempted to do, in its Sep. 15, 2006 letter to her. All that has transpired since, all the smoke and mirrors, Dapprich’s bi weekly presentations, etc. cannot change the stark reality of the contents of that letter and what it represents.

That letter, signed by city attorney Paul Link, starts off by saying, “The City of Branson, Missouri owns the federally registered service mark BRANSON, MISSOURI (and design) Reg. No. 2,594,679 for use with municipal services.” In fact the city of Branson did not then, and does not now, have a federally registered Service Mark “Branson, Missouri” under that, or any other, registration number.

The city of Branson has a Service Mark for a design, registered under that registration number that includes, among other things, the words “Branson, Missouri.” Most will recognize it as the “city logo” appearing on stationary, the city flag etc. The granting of that Service Mark, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, did not give the city of Branson any federal right to restrict the use of the words “Branson” or “Missouri” except as used in the complete “logo” covered by that Service Mark.

In fact, the online records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, pertaining to the granting of that Service Mark, indicates that the application filed by the city of Branson, in 1999 contains a disclaimer specifically stating that “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "BRANSON MISSOURI" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.” (Caps are used here because that’s the way it is in the official records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.)

Even more interesting is the fact that in 2004 and again in 2005, the City of Branson filed two different applications for a Service Mark for Branson Landing. Although each was a different design both had the words “Branson Landing” in them and contained a specific disclaimer stating, “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "Branson" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.” (Caps are used because that’s the way it is in the official records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.)

The letter goes on to state, “Recently, we note that you have adopted and are using “Branson” in connection with your business although you are not located within the city limits of the City of Branson, Missouri.” Among other things, the letter goes on to say, “This type of deceptive trade practice constitutes trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C 1114(1); false designation of geographic origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).”

“But Seagull, how can anyone be in violation of the federal laws cited for the use of something that was not registered under those laws?” The simple obvious truth is that they can not. But even more ludicrous is the question, “How can the city of Branson’s current elected mayor and board of aldermen, with a straight face, not apologize to Dapprich for the pathetic lack of professionalism and deceitfulness that the letter appears to represent?” Now wouldn’t that be a great question to ask those running for the office of mayor and aldermen in the upcoming April election?

A police officer is sitting at a four way stop waiting their turn to go through the intersection. All of a sudden a car comes up and runs through the intersection without stopping. In the initial discussion that took place after the officer pulled the car over, the driver contends that the officer shouldn’t write him a ticket because the mayor said that the city’s ordinance pertaining to stopping for stop signs didn’t apply to him.

The officer, in a professional and courteous manner, writes the ticket, and gives it to the driver who continues on their way. “But Seagull, that’s exactly what the officer should have done?” Absolutely, even if the mayor did say what the driver alleged, the mayor can’t arbitrarily exempt someone from complying with the requirements of a city ordinance.

Yet, it appears, at the Feb. 12 Public Comment Meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen, the mayor continued a pattern of letting certain highly paid nonelected city officials violate the Branson Municipal Code. Section 2-55 of that code sets forth the requirements for speaking during the Public Comment portion of the board of alderman’s meeting. It is easy to read and understand and is designed so that the public knows exactly what they have to do to speak at the meeting and what they can expect.

Subsection 2-55(2) specifically states “Any person wishing to appear and speak at the public comment meeting shall sign the speaker sign-up sheet located at the front door of the council chambers. Each person wishing to speak at the public comment meeting must personally sign the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the public comment meeting. No person shall be allowed to speak who did not personally sign the sheet requesting the opportunity to speak.”

The ordinance is very clear on who may speak, someone who has signed the speaker sign-up sheet, and who may not speak, any person who did not personally sign the sign-up sheet. The sign in sheet for the Feb. 12 meeting indicates that Branson City Attorney, Paul Link had not signed up to speak at the meeting. Yet, the mayor permitted him to speak, in violation of the very ordinance that Link likes to use as his “poster child” for illustrating that he has a duty to make sure the board is in compliance with all ordinances.

Ironically, this came after the Ole Seagull, who had signed the speaker sign-up sheet and followed the rules, had to stop his presentation on Link and city administrator Terry Dody’s apparent violations of this same section at an earlier meeting. Like everything else in the ordinance, its ten minute time allocation is very specific and the Ole Seagull’s time ran out.

“Come on Seagull, it’s only a meeting ordinance.” No, it’s what it represents that’s important, the application of the law fairly, to all, without regard to social, economic, or political status, or position within the city of Branson’s pecking order. It’s almost scary that Link and Dody, the very people who professes to have the responsibility to make sure that the board of aldermen complies with all applicable ordinances, appear to lack the common sense or desire to set an example of compliance that the public can emulate.

Is it reasonable to believe that their actions, and the actions of the mayor and current board of aldermen regarding those actions, will be any different behind of the closed doors of executive session? Isn’t that where the “devil” is added to the details of the decisions that affect the very character and future of the city of Branson? Fishing is permitted where on the board walk at Branson Landing?

The answer to the question is, “How could an Ole Seagull possibly know, but for what it matters he believes that it is extremely unlikely that casino gambling will come to Branson in the near future, if ever, and that Branson is poised for a great 2007.”

The question then becomes, “What was the question?” But first a little reminder, this columnist writes solely his opinion based on the reality of the situation that opinion applies to, as he believes and perceives it to be based on his value system, intuition and life experiences. The constant challenge is to keep the central issue of the column from becoming an opinion on an opinion. When looking into the future that becomes difficult.

That said, the one answer actually answers two of the questions that the Ole Seagull hears the most about. The first, “Will casino gambling come to Branson?” and, particularly at this time of the year, “How do you think Branson is going to do this year?”

The division within the community aside, Branson’s public stance against the expansion of casino gambling in south west Missouri would make it hypocritical for it to even start the constitutional approval process necessary to bring casino gambling to Branson. “But Seagull, what if it was necessary to save Branson economically?” Will that make it any less hypocritical or divide our community any less? Why would any such need generate the necessary support for Branson from those communities that have established casino gambling interests? If Branson should subsequently decide that it needs casino gambling all an Ole Seagull can suggest, is that we all bow our heads and say, “Our Father who art in Heaven …”

Depending on how one bets, an opening 7 roll of the dice in a craps game is a winner. In terms of more people coming to Branson, Branson’s bet on marketing should result in the equivalent of an opening 7 roll for its 2007 season. The Branson message, all the great things that makes the Branson experience what it is natural beauty, lakes, shopping, entertainment of every type, character, history, tradition, values, etc. is getting out to more and more people. And, it’s not just that the message is going out to a broader geographical area but that it is penetrating deeper into the traditional markets that have been a mainstay for Branson tourism for years.

The question might be asked, “But if we have been marketing to them for years why do we want to invest more money in them?” It’s like picking apples off a tree; if all that is picked is the easy to reach fruit that is on the bottom branches is not the larger percentage of fruit left unpicked? In 2007, for the first time ever, the Branson area will have planned for and implemented a full years marketing plan backed by enough financing to work the plan effectively. For the first time Branson has the funding to both plant new trees and more fully harvest those that have been already been planted.

One might think that it’s all the new things, that have and are taking place, in Branson, the Titanic, Branson Landing, the new convention center, White Water expansion, Silver Dollar City’s Grand Exposition and GIANT Swing, etc. that will provide success for Branson in 2007. But in an Ole Seagull’s heart he believes that it is the combination of all those things and their integration into the effective marketing of the total Branson experience that results in just about a sure bet that, in terms of people coming to Branson, Branson will roll a 7 in 2007.

“Ah, Seagull, does that mean that my particular business will do better in 2007?” No, it means that every business in Branson will have access to more people coming to Branson in 2007. Those that have the right product, marketing, flexibility and service are in an excellent position to roll a 7 for 2007. Those who don’t have about as much chance of benefiting from Branson’s initial 7 roll as they would if they bet on the numbers 2, 3, or 12 at the craps table and the shooter rolled a 7.

Branson’s poised for a great 2007 are you? Whether from a business or personal sense, an Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that the answer is, “Yes.”

On Valentines Day the Ole Seagull attended the grand opening of the beautiful new Hilton Promenade at Branson Landing. Evidently, if city of Branson Alderman Jack Purvis is right, the Ole Seagull should not have gone.

Imagine the Ole Seagull’s surprise when, as he extended his hand to Purvis ,at the event, he pulled back and directed verbiage toward the Ole Seagull indicating that he was a “hypocrite” for attending the opening and expressing his concern that someone who had written what the Ole Seagull had about Branson Landing would have the nerve to show up at the opening. He also indicated that the Ole Seagull was one of the, if not the, most divisive forces in Branson.

The class, appropriateness, and professionalism of Purvis’s statements aside; although it appears that the Branson community is divided over issues, particularly as relates to the current leadership of the city of Branson, he attributes too much power to one lowly Ole Seagull. Can any reasonable thinking person really believe that the opinion of one columnist, who merely writes about what others have said, done, or failed to do, can divide any city, let alone one like Branson with its many extremely talented entrepreneurs, managers, leaders, and independent thinkers?

Is it not more likely that such division, if it exists, is caused by the community’s perception of the actions or failure to act of those in leadership rolls? What exactly could an Ole Seagull have written or write that could possibly have the potential to divide our community more than the letter signed by city attorney Paul D. Link a few months ago. That letter was mailed to a lot of the city’s tourism businesses demanding that they submit a list of their customers to the city.

Was it the Ole Seagull writing about, what he considers the city of Branson’s abuse of TIF laws in the Branson Hills area that has caused division and concern within the community? Or, is there just the possibility that it was the realization of the community that the city of Branson’s TIF practices had the potential to impact adversely on their school district and could cost the tax payers of Taney County, including those living within the city of Branson, tens of millions of dollars to, among other things, keep the “big boxes” from going somewhere else in the county beside Branson?

The people of this community are astute and intelligent enough to realize that anything written by the Ole Seagull is but his opinion applied to the facts as he believes them to be. Whether written by, angels, men, or Ole Seagulls, they will evaluate what they are reading in terms of what they know and believe to be true, make their own decisions, and react accordingly.

“Hypocrisy” is defined as “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.” How is a citizen, even one with opinions that some might disagree with, hypocritical for attending a public event that they had been invited to? Are community members who disagree with some of the actions of the board of aldermen, city administrator Terry Dody, and city attorney Paul Link hypocrites because they attend Branson Board of Aldermen meetings?

Exactly what was it that the Ole Seagull wrote about Branson Landing that made it hypocritical for him to attend the opening? Taken in total, could not a reasonable person, who has actually read what he has written about Branson Landing, not only in his columns but in his online publication www.BransonCourier.Com, comments on the www.1Branson.Com forum, and in associated Blog entries give him the benefit of the doubt and say, “Even Ole Seagulls are welcome at Branson Landing?”

Does the alternative mean that he can’t buy another boat at Bass Pro Shops in Branson Landing or eat another Charley’s Grilled Sub? Will he be forever denied the joy of eating another “Top Shelf Guacamole,” at Branson Landing’s “Cantina Laredo” or spending hundreds of dollars at Belks, GNC, Pass Pro Shops, etc. But most intriguing of all, would it mean that it would be hypocritical of him to even entertain the possibility of him and his wife ever getting the “most refreshing, restful slumber imaginable,” on a Hilton Serenity bed, within the loving bosom of the beautiful Hilton Promenade at Branson Landing? Please tell him it isn’t so!

Quite simply, the state of Missouri has a “Sunshine Law” intended to insure that the public’s business is conducted in a manner that is open to the public. Is it just possible however that, within the government of the city of Branson, there is an unofficial unwritten “Cloud Law” that does just the opposite?

Section 610.011 of Missouri’s Sunshine Law states it is the public policy of the state of Missouri that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public and that any exception to that policy shall be liberally and strictly construed to promote this public policy. Section 610.022 of the Sunshine Law states that just because there is an exception authorized does not mean that it shall be construed “as to require a public governmental body to hold a closed meeting, record or vote to discuss or act upon” that exception.

It gets even simpler and clearer. The website for Missouri’s Attorney General has a page entitled “Missouri’s Sunshine Law top ten things to know.” One of the first items that list mentions is that, “The Sunshine Law allows a public body to close meetings and records to the public in some limited circumstances, but it almost never requires a public body to do so. It also says, “When in doubt, a meeting or record of a public body should be opened to the public.” [Items in bold are bold in the list.]

On Aug. 14, 2006, a motion was made by one of the aldermen, in this case, Alderman Gass, to go into a “Closed Executive Session pursuant to 610.021.1 RSMo for litigation; 610.021.2 for real estate, and 610.021.3 for personnel.” These meetings are closed to the public, are the very type of meeting that the Sunshine Law encourages to be open to the public, and happen after the majority of Branson board of aldermen meetings.

According to the minutes of the meeting, the meeting was attended by only selected senior paid staff employees of the city of Branson and the Board of Aldermen. There were no other attendees. The minutes further indicate that only one item was discussed at the meeting, “Potential Litigation/Contract Negotiations.” Although “Contract Negotiations” might be an authorized legal exception under the Sunshine Law, the discussion of such, under the notice that was given in this case, appears to be in violation of not only the spirit and policy of the Sunshine Law but its legal notice requirements as well.

As relates to the topic, the entire minutes for the meeting are as follows: “The City Administrator discussed with the board the settlement agreement with the Pt. Royale POA. Pt. Royale will remit funds to compensate the city for maintenance of Pt. Royale drive and the city will transfer title of the street back to the POA. Discussion followed. The board agreed by consensus to move forward with the settlement agreement.”

Does an Ole Seagull care whether or not Pointe Royale Drive was sold back to the Point Royale Property Owners Association? Of course not, but the manner in which it was done and the way in which both the spirit and stated policy of Missouri’s Sunshine Law, if not the actual law itself, was manipulated and circumvented does cause him concern.

If the current administration of the city of Branson can “cloud” the Sunshine Law in this manner for something as simple and mundane as this how much more is the potential for abuse when millions of dollars are involved? Don’t the citizens, property owners, and businesses of Branson deserve elected and unelected officials who will adhere not only to the letter of Missouri’s Sunshine Law but its spirit and stated policy as well? Officials who will look for ways to give the public more access to meetings rather than ways to deny them access? For what it matters, an Ole Seagull believes that they do.

In keeping with the interactive nature of this column, an Ole Seagull knows he’s going to be humming “Blue Moon” when he gets both the “full moon” and “a” moon trying “to correct his errors” all in one day. To make sure that he doesn’t “miss the mark” a third time the Ole Seagull should point out that “the moon” was in its full phase on Feb. 2 and that the “a” moon he is referring to is a letter to the editor appearing in that dates edition of this paper written by “Al” Moon.

Moon starts his letter off by saying, “The Old Seagull missed the mark twice recently, which prompted me to try to correct his errors.” What exactly does the word “error mean? In perhaps one of its kindest lights, an error can be defined as “An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true.” As the Ole Seagull read on through Moon’s letter the song title “Moon at My Window” came to mind.

The first “error” to be corrected was apparently in regard to the column the Ole Seagull wrote in this paper a couple of week ago entitled, “The foundation for Branson’s future success is the same as for its past success, values.” It is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials.”

Moon says, “First, in his article regarding values being the thing that bring customers back to the Branson area, I don’t know what his definition of ‘family values’ is.” Even recognizing that his letter is but a “Paper Moon,” how is it an “error” on the part of a person using a term because someone else doesn’t know the definition of that term or chooses to define it in a different way?

The only mention of “family values” in the column was when the Ole Seagull suggested that Branson’s foundational success relies on “individual entrepreneurship, patriotism, family values, and the heritage and tradition of the Branson area that has become an integral part of the Branson experience most of our visitors have.” Those things need no definition from either an Ole Seagull or “The Man in the Moon” because they are either impressed on peoples hearts and minds or they are not, people either value them or don’t, and will either come to a unique place called “Branson,” where they abound, or will not.

The title of the song “Keep Sweeping The Cobwebs Off The Moon” comes to mind as Moon gets to the alleged second error and says, “Where the Seagull really misses the mark is in his trying to blame the school district raising taxes on the use of TIF districts.” He then continues with his version of sweeping the cob webs off the reasons he would use to “question any new request for additional funds.”

The column Moon is apparently referring to, entitled “Is the city of Branson’s use of TIFs a factor in raising school district taxes?” was printed in the Jan. 28 edition of this paper. It is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials.” An Ole Seagull would simply suggest that the column title and its last sentence reading, “It is absolutely correct to say that the school district is having to raise, at least in part, their mil levy because of TIFs” makes it very clear that Branson’s use of TIFs is but a factor in the complex set of circumstances that are requiring the Branson R-IV School District to ask its patrons for a tax increase.

In the context of Moons letter, one could get the impression that he agrees with the city of Branson’s city administrator, Terry Dody when he recently said, that “it is absolutely incorrect to say that the school district is having to raise, in part, their mil levy because of the TIFs.” Now that leads to an interesting question that Branson voters could ask the mayoral and aldermanic candidates running for office.

The question would be, “Do you really believe that Branson’s use of TIFs doesn’t at least play a part in the school district having to raise taxes and why?” Particularly in the minds of the incumbents that voted for the TIFs the question might bring to mind the song title, “When My Blue Moon Turns to Gold Again.”

It was recently announced by the Branson R-IV School District that they will be going to the voters for the first increase in the mil levy on real estate taxes for the district in about 20 years. Might not a reasonable person wonder about the possibility that the city of Branson’s use of Tax Increment Financing, (TIF) is a contributing factor in the need for increased taxes for Branson’s schools?

Well, they need wonder no more. At a recent Branson Board of Aldermen meeting, the city of Branson’s city administrator, Terry Dody, addressed the issue of the city of Branson’s use of TIFs as relates to the proposed school tax increase. Among other things he said, “They are working enormously successfully and the school district is not having to raise its mil levy because of the TIF districts. The TIF Districts are actually positively impacting them.”

Now the Ole Seagull isn’t too bright but is there just the possibility that the thousands of relatively low paying jobs that were created by Branson’s TIFs brought lots of new kids into the Branson school district resulting in the increase of thousands of dollars per student per year to educate them? Is it also possible that at the same time, one of the primary sources of funding for the school district, commercial real estate taxes, on the very property used to generate the new students, is being confiscated by the city of Branson for its own economic development purposes?

“But Seagull, didn’t Dody say that the TIF Districts are actually positively impacting the school district?” Apparently so and in addition it appears that he closed his presentation with the conclusion that “it is absolutely incorrect to say that the school district is having to raise, in part, their mil levy because of the TIFs.”

It has been the Ole Seagull’s experience that Dody says a lot of things but, at the end of the day, what’s important is the truth. May an Ole Seagull suggest that those having the responsibility for running the Branson school district, its board and administrators, are in a much better position than is Mr. Dody to provide that truth.

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, it is inconceivable that the city of Branson’s use of TIFs is not, in the very least, a contributing factor in the school district having to ask the voters for the tax increase. Said another way, and using a paraphrase of Dody’s closing statement, the Ole Seagull believes that “It is absolutely correct to say that the school district is having to raise, at least in part, their mil levy because of TIFs.”

Two things have had a great impact on the way that the Ole Seagull looks at the marketing of Branson. One was a primary finding of the Sterling Branding Study, initiated and paid for by the city of Branson a few years ago. That finding showed that the vast majority of the visitors coming to Branson loved “the product” and would return again.

Where is the credible evidence that says Branson needed a new demographic or a new product? It’s interesting to note that although Branson’s percentage of first time visitors rose from 20.4 percent in 2003 to 23.3 percent in 2006 that Branson’s percentage of repeat visitors dropped from 79.3 percent in 2003 to 76.7 in 2006. What is bigger 2.6 percent of 76.7 or 2.9 percent of 23.3 and by how big a margin? In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, Branson’s prayer should be that the decline in the rate of return visitors is an anomaly and not the beginning of a trend.

The 2006 news story of the year is the continuing story our community working together to make positive character traits part of what our children and grandchildren experience every day, at home, in school, and in the community. The First PLACE program is a commitment by teachers, school administrators and support staff, area businesses, parents, relatives, friends, local government entities, the College of the Ozarks, and others to “foster a community where character is highly valued and intentionally taught.”

“Oh come on Seagull, you have to be kidding. With all that’s going on down at city hall, the New Branson, 25 story sky scrapers, the city of Branson trying to hijack the term ‘Branson’ for its own use, law suits on Branson Landing, etc. how can that be the local news story of the year?” Quite simply, because, to most people, the future of their children and grand children means much more to them than Branson Landing, the status of the convention center, 25 story sky scrapers, or even the community’s perpetual preoccupation with bringing more first time visitors to Branson.

Each month of the year a particular character trait is taught and emphasized in the schools. That teaching is then reinforced within the community and at home through First PLACE Partners, businesses and individuals, who have committed to “demonstrating one visible action each month that ties into the trait of the month.” The First PLACE character traits are:

Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor (September)
Responsibility – taking ownership of what you say and do (October)
Citizenship – being loyal to your country (November)
Compassion/Kindness – caring for others (December)
Commitment – being true to your word (January)
Honesty – being truthful in what you say and do (February)
Cooperation – working together toward a common goal (March)
Perseverance – demonstrating persistent determination (April)
Self-discipline – training and control of yourself (May)
Hospitality – welcoming others in a friendly way (June)
Patriotism – showing love for one’s country (July)
Patience – waiting calmly (August)

The story grows exponentially in importance when the fact that it’s not a matter of whether or not our children are going to have character is acknowledged. They are; it’s just a matter of what type of character they are going to have good, bad, or indifferent. On an individual basis, character is acquired, learned, and developed on a daily basis based on, among other things, environmental factors and the choices individuals make about how they live their lives and what they fill their minds with.

Proverbs says it best, “For as he thinks within himself, so he is.” In an Ole Seagulls life this basic truth has evolved into a simple irrefutable master guide line, “We will become what we think we are and that is controlled by what we have placed in our minds.” The First PLACE program is dedicated to filling the minds of our children and grandchildren with positive character traits that will help empower them to live up to their fullest potential in a way that will be a blessing to themselves and to others.

The Ole Seagulls favorite verse of scripture is, “Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, of excellence, or worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” As a community and as individuals, the First PLACE program provides the opportunity to not only “dwell on these things” but make them a vital part of the lives of our children and grandchildren, ourselves, and the very community that we call home. The First PLACE program, and the community’s continuing commitment to it, gets the Ole Seagulls vote for the top local story of 2006. What do you think?

During the Dec. 11, 2006 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, the city of Branson’s highest paid employee, city administrator Terry Dody, took issue with the media’s general coverage of the pitiful display of professionalism and decorum that he and city attorney, Paul Link displayed at the Oct. 23, 2006 meeting of the board. Among other things, Dody was apparently concerned about the Ole Seagull’s column of Dec. 10, entitled, “Is Dody right, should the record reflect that the board is taking no action in violation of our city ordinance?” which is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials.”

The reason the word “apparently” is used is because Dody never used the word “column” in his comments but instead refers to the very column he is addressing as “an opinion letter to the Branson Daily Independent.” The question could be asked, “Doesn’t Dody know the difference between a “letter,” opinion or otherwise, and a “column” as they normally appear in a newspaper?

One could get the impression that Dody is no more versed on the difference between an “opinion letter” and a “column” appearing in a newspaper than he is with the “Decorum” provisions contained in sub section 2-54(o) of the Branson Municipal Code. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, that would be an erroneous impression and Dody’s very carefully chosen choice of words provides an interesting and revealing insight as to his version of reality and truth as compared to the way that most other people would view them under similar circumstances.

Dody said that he thinks “that there needs to be some clarification” and was going to have “our city attorney make some comments regarding the facts and the comments that were made in that letter.” Those words jumped out at the Ole Seagull because to him, when Dody uses the “C” word, “clarification,” it’s a warning to compare very closely what he is saying to the reality and truth of the situation as most people would understand it given similar circumstances.

He further states that he wants that clarification “for the public.” The public that read the column read it in this news paper which is distributed free. What better way to provide clarification to that public, and the public in general, than through a written press release to all the media or, at the very least, a letter to the editor of the very paper that published what it was that allegedly needed clarification?

“Ah Seagull, if he had done that wouldn’t the public have had convenient documented access to exactly what he said from the “horses mouth,” been able to evaluate it, and comment on it?” Of course they would, but how many people who said and acted like Dody did at the Oct. 23, 2006 board of aldermen meeting would really want that to happen?

Dody, then asked city attorney Paul Link “to make some comments regarding the facts and the comments that were made in that letter regarding that there was no reason that person should have been called out of order…” May an Ole Seagull suggest that, the column, which as indicated above, is on line for all to read, contained no “facts” or “comments” stating there “was no reason that person should have been called out of order” or “was not out of order.”

“But Seagull, Dody says it does.” Well, although that doesn’t, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, make it so, it does provide yet another opportunity to the public for a clarifying, interesting, and revealing insight as to his version of reality and truth as compared to the way that most other people would view them under similar circumstances.

This column was originally written over 10 years ago and is modified and republished each year as an Ole Seagull’s testimony as to what Christmas means to him. The political correctness of “Merry Christmas” may change but the true meaning of CHRISTmas will never change.
The “Grinch” never came any closer to stealing the true meaning of Christmas than has being “politically correct.” In recent years their has been a move to change the traditional Christmas greeting of “Merry Christmas” to the “politically correct” terminology of “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

“But Seagull, you wouldn’t want to offend those who are celebrating Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or something else would you?” Absolutely not, but most people are not offended by the use of the term “Merry Christmas,” which means so much to the vast majority of Americans to whom the celebration of Christmas is so significant and special. Those who want to preserve the history and tradition of the “Christmas” that the U.S. Congress designated as a legal holiday on June 26, 1870.

What do “Happy Holidays,” and “Seasons Greetings,” have in common with “_ _ _ _ _ _ mas?” They leave “Christ” out. So what? What does Christ have to do with the celebration of Kwanza, Hanukkah, Santa Claus, presents, office parties, red nosed reindeer, decorating trees, wreaths, holly, sleigh bells, retail sales, booze, and feasting? Not much.

What does Christ have to do with CHRISTmas? Everything! Without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas. There can be a holiday, a season, festivals, and religious observations of every persuasion but, without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas, in either fact or spirit. One cannot even say or spell the word “CHRISTmas,” let alone explain its actual history, meaning or origins, as it is celebrated in the United States, without Christ.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia states that Christmas is “Christ’s Mass in the Christian calendar, the feast of the nativity of Jesus.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “Christmas” as “A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.” Jesus who? Jesus, the Christ Child, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago.

First there was Jesus Christ and because of Christ there is the celebration of His birth, CHRISTmas. Secular customs and traditions have developed since; but, first there was Christ.

Even the greatest current secular symbol, the “Ho, Ho, Ho” jolly old Santa Claus seen everywhere during the Christmas season, was first made popular in New York during the 19th century. And before that the European traditions of “Sinterklaas,” and Saint Nicholas can be traced back hundreds of years; but, first there was Christ.

Why, there are even some who would try to replace the bright guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem with the red glow of the nose of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Rudolph’s nose has been guiding Santa’s sleigh since 1939 when Robert May wrote a verse for a Montgomery Ward promotional comic book. In the late 1940’s his brother-in-law adapted the verse and used it in the song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer;” and the cowboy crooner, Gene Autry, made Rudolph famous but, first there was Christ.

When someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings,” rather than “Merry Christmas,” those wanting to share the gift of Christmas could ask, “What Holiday?” or “What Season?” What better way to create or reinforce an awareness of the “reason for the season,” that very first Christmas when “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life?”

If we keep the spirit of the Christ Child and His love in our hearts and share it with others, Christmas, in its truest sense, will be with us everyday of the year, Merry Christmas folks, Merry Christmas.

An Ole Seagull, and the rest of the Groman Family would take this opportunity to wish you and yours a blessed Merry Christmas.

It’s “Final Jeopardy” in the game of “Jeopardy,” city of Branson style. The Final Jeopardy question is “The person who found it remarkable that accusations accusing the city of Branson’s attorney, Paul Link, of discrimination, coercion, twisted untruths, bullying, harassment, breaking the law, blackmail, lies, and violating the lawyers code of ethics was not mentioned in the Ole Seagull’s Dec. 10 column entitled, “Is Dody right, should the record reflect that the board is taking no action in violation of our city ordinance.” Unremarkably, all three contestants, write the correct response, “Who is Paul Link?”

Link made the statement as he and Branson’s city administrator Terry Dody took exception, at the Dec. 11 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen, with not only the columns coverage of their antics at the Oct. 23 meeting of the board but the general media’s coverage of their actions at that same meeting. The column, available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials,” documents, what the Ole Seagull believes is, the unprofessional, bullying, and interruptive behavior, of Link and, particularly, Dody, that took place at the Oct. 23 meeting. The behavior occurred as a member of the community had the floor and was trying to make a presentation that, among other things, questioned the professionalism of some of Links actions.

Link, in referring to his actions at the Oct. 23 meeting said he “was accused of discrimination, coercion, twisted untruths, bullying, harassment, breaking the law, blackmail, lies, and violating the lawyer’s code of ethics.” He went on to say that it was remarkable to him that the column, “did not state any of these remarks or find any of these issues a violation of a decorum ruling but found the statements made by Mr. Dody and myself to stop these disparaging remarks were a violation of decorum.”

The Ole Seagull can readily understand Links concerns. If he had sent the initial letter to Pamela Dapprich, dated Sep. 15, and some of the other letters that Link has sent out, he too would be sensitive about the accusations that Link mentioned in his statement, “discrimination, coercion, twisted untruths, bullying, harassment, breaking the law, blackmail, lies, and violating the lawyers code of ethics.” The reason they were not mentioned in the column is pretty simple, the column was about what the Ole Seagull believes was the unprofessional actions of Link, and, particularly, Dody at the Oct. 23 board meeting, not about anything else.

Even if the speaker was in violation of the city’s decorum ordinance at the time Link and Dody interrupted the meeting, how could that possibly excuse Dody’s behavior? How nice it would be if, without “smoke and mirrors” and spin, the city would simply furnish the specific legal authority that authorized Terry Dody to do what he did at that meeting? How hard should that be if such an authority actually exists?

Link, as a person with basic reading skills, let alone an attorney, should not have found it remarkable that the column “did not state any of these remarks or find any of these issues a violation of a decorum ruling.” Did not that same Paul Link, at the Nov. 27 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, quoting from the city’s decorum ordinance, say, “Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the board or who interferes with the order of business before the board AND who fails upon request of the presiding officer to cease such activity (caps and underline added) shall be barred from further audience before the board.”

Does it take more than basic reading skills to read that and determine that it’s not the remarks themselves that are a violation of the ordinance? It is a combination of the remarks and the failure of the person making the remarks to cease such remarks when requested to do so by the presiding officer, the mayor, that constitutes the violation of the ordinance. The official recording of the Oct. 23 meeting clearly indicate that, prior to the interruption of the person speaking by Link and Dody, that the presiding officer had not requested the person speaking to cease any activity. Even had that happened and the person ceased such activity there would have been no violation.

Although an examination of the official recordings of the Oct. 23 board meeting will establish that there was absolutely no violation of the city of Branson’s decorum ordinance by the speaker can the same be said for Link and Dody? Could a reasonable person listen to the recordings of the meeting and determine that the actions of Dody and Link violated the city’s decorum ordinance by conversation that delayed or interrupted the proceedings and disturbed the person trying to speak?

To paraphrase Paul Link, “I guess I should not assume that someone having a responsibility to enforce the law would actually know the law but Paul Link is entitled to his opinion and the board of aldermen are free to let him do whatever they want him to do but is anyone charged with enforcing the law entitled to make their own law?”

The official CDs of the Nov. 27 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen indicate that city attorney Paul Link, in referring to the “musings” appearing in the “free press,” said, “Contrary to these musings, it is the city administrator’s and city attorney’s legal duty to advise the board of aldermen that their decorum rules are not being followed.” If there is, the Branson Municipal Code manages to hide that fact well. There is no such provision contained anywhere in Section 2-54, governing the conduct of aldermen meetings, or in the sections of the code that specifically set forth the duties of the city attorney and city administrator.

But, even if there was such authority, at what point do the actions of Link, and the city of Branson’s administrator, Terry Dody, go beyond advising the board of aldermen about their decorum rules and become a violation of those very same rules? Could the following excerpts of the Oct. 23 meeting, while Pam Dapprich is trying to speak, indicate such a point? Each comment was transcribed from the CD by the Ole Seagull as best he could and is followed by the “Ole Seagull’s Thoughts,” his initial reflections and opinions, as he listened to the CDs for the first time.

Link Interupting Dapprich: “Mr. Mayor, I’m, I’ve let this go for quite a while but I’m going to have to call some sort of decorum ruling on this. I’ve, it has repeatedly been said that I am lying and misrepresenting.” Ole Seagull’s Thoughts: What section of the Branson Municipal Code gives you the authority to “call some sort of decorum ruling?” And if there is one, exactly what decorum rule is she allegedly in violation of? Isn’t your signature on the Sep. 15 letter to Dapprich that she read from?

Dapprich: “Don’t take my ten minutes….” and tries to continue but

Link Again Interrupts: “Mam, I’m not taking your ten minutes but we’re not going to listen to this anymore.” Ole Seagull’s Thoughts: Where is the “we” here? Where in section 2-54 of the Branson Municipal Code does it say that either the city attorney or administrator will decide what the board of aldermen will or will not listen to?

Dapprich: Tries to continue on but …

Terry Dody Interrupts: “Mr. Mayor some kind of action does need to be taken she’s in violation of decorum rules, in violation of the ordinance.” Ole Seagull’s Thoughts: Oh really, and exactly what decorum rule is she in violation of? At this point all that has happened is that Link has mumbled something about having to call some sort of decorum ruling. Even assuming that he has the authority to do so, what ruling has he made that anyone could be in violation of?

Dapprich: Tries to continue on but …

Dody again interrupts: “She needs to be called out of order, I’m sorry.” Ole Seagull’s Thoughts: Why does she need to be called out of order? What exactly has she done? Why is the mayor letting this guy continue to interrupt the meeting? Someone should put him in his place.

Mayor: “You are out of order. What is the time.) (Clerk gives time as 6:30) Ole Seagull’s Thoughts: Who is out of order and for what?

Dapprich: Tries to continue on but …

Dody again interrupts: “Mr. Mayor is she out of order. Mr. Mayor is she out of order or is she not out of order you must make a decision on this.” Seagull’s Thoughts: Why is he browbeating the mayor like this? What could she possibly be out of order on? She can’t get a word in edgewise with you interrupting! When is the mayor going to tell him to cease and desist?

Dapprich: Tries to continue on but …

Dody again interrupts: Mr. Mayor let it be placed on the record then that the board is taking no action in violation of our city ordinance. You need to be aware that she has violated the ordinance and you are taking no action.” Ole Seagull’s Thoughts: The class of this act speaks for itself! And, putting the board on the record as possibly violating the city of Branson’s ordinances accomplishes what good purpose? Besides, how is the board in violation of a city ordinance by ignoring the advice given in this case?

Dapprich: Tries to continue on but …

Dody again interrupts: “Mr Mayor, I do need to state, you are setting a precedent that if you do not take action you will not be able to further enforce your ordinances any more, I’m sorry.” Ole Seagull’s Thoughts: In terms of his actions at this meeting, a lot of people sure would agree with the last part of his statement. Based on her presentation, the Branson Municipal Code, and facts involved with this specific situation, Dapprich was, at that point, in violation of what ordinance? How? Exactly why won’t the mayor be able to enforce his ordinances anymore?

At that point the mayor asked Dapprich to please stop talking, she did and the meeting proceeded on. “But Seagull, it appears that there was no decorum issue until Link and Dody made one.” Could a reasonable person actually get that impression?

Last weeks column, was entitled, “Can it be, the ‘Dodink Magic and Variety Show’ appearing in Branson city hall.” It suggested that three of the agenda items scheduled for the Nov. 27 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen “could provide enough excitement, drama, slight of hand, and maybe even a little bit of song and dance” to be an imaginary show called by that name. The column is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials.”

Things got off to a slow start as one of the city of Branson’s higher paid senior level management employees, city attorney Paul Link, gave a power point presentation on the decorum rules applicable to all board of aldermen meetings. In general, it was about as exciting and dramatic as having a root canal performed with a teaspoon.

To an Ole Seagull, taken in total, the presentation appeared to be an arrogant attempt at justifying the unjustifiable, the actions of both he and the city of Branson’s highest senior level management employee, city administrator Terry Dody, during the public comment portion of the board of aldermen meetings. But, the song and dance routine was a presentation highlight. Sung and danced in terms of the legal mumbo jumbo shuffle, it tried to substantiate their actions on the basis that they have a legal responsibility to make sure that what the aldermen did at their meetings was in compliance with applicable ordinances.

The presentations slight of hand, although not quite as good as the song and dance routine, was worthy of one of Branson’s best illusionists. While diverting attention by attempting to justify their actions as necessary to make sure that the city’s elected board of aldermen, and everyone else at the meetings, followed the city’s ordinances, the presentation remained mute on the apparent failure of the very same senior level management employees to comply with those same ordinances on more than one occasion.

For the sake of argument only, let’s say that there is some credibility to the presentations legal responsibility argument. How is that justification for either of the senior level management employees, or anyone else for that matter, to speak on other issues without signing the sign up sheet? Is there one ordinance applicable to them and one to the rest of us? Of course we might never know because the presentation was approved without allowing those in attendance the opportunity to speak or ask questions.

Interestingly, that same concept played a key roll in the most magical moment of the evening. How special was it when, right before their eyes, the audience “saw” a 12 story building resurrected into a 25 story sky scraper.

One can only wonder why those having the responsibility to make sure that what the aldermen do at their meetings is in compliance with applicable ordinances didn’t do that at the Sep. 25 meeting when the board voted unanimously to reduce the sky scraper from 25 to 12 stories. It would seem that pointing out that an ordinance they were about to approve was legally insufficient to do what they wanted to do would be a very important part of that responsibility.

How much effort would it have taken to suggest that instead of using stories as the basis of the amendment that they use the number of feet as was used in the height section of the ordinance they were approving. How hard would it have been to suggest that the number “300” be changed to read “150” wherever it appeared in the ordinance? Now some might ask, “But Seagull, if they had spoken up and corrected the situation that night, when it was obvious that most of the aldermen were leaning toward the 12 story compromise then what would have been the legal basis for bringing it back up again at the Nov. 27 meeting.” For what it matters, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, not much, not much at all.

The best show in Branson on Monday, Nov. 27 just might be the imaginary “Dodink Magic and Variety Show,” to be presented as part of the Branson Board of Aldermen meeting starting at 7:00 p.m. Although not listed formally on the agenda for the meeting, may an Ole Seagull’s overactive imagination suggest that there are three agenda items, scheduled to run back to back at that meeting, that could provide enough excitement, drama, slight of hand, and maybe even a little bit of “song and dance” to meet that bill.

They are, in scheduled order, a presentation by Paul Link on Decorum Rules as required by Branson City Code for all Board of Aldermen Meetings, a presentation by Joe Johnson of Lathrop & Gage regarding the protection of the use of the Branson name by City Council, and the “First Reading” of the of Bill No. 3344 which will authorize the building of a 300 foot skyscraper as part of the “The Point Entertainment Complex” located at 448 State Highway 248.

The more astute reader will note the common thread running through the entire “production” which, an Ole Seagull believes, is being choreographed and produced by two of the city of Branson’s highest paid senior level management employees. That thread is one that appears to be becoming more and more involved with the city of Branson’s “sewing” lately, “legal thread.” The agenda items seem to indicate that the “show” will star the city of Branson’s very own, highly paid senior level management employee, city attorney Paul Link, who, even a casual observer might say, provides the common “link” between all three agenda items.

The first act is a “presentation by Paul Link on Decorum Rules as required by Branson City Code for all Board of Aldermen Meetings.” Obviously no one knows what Link will say but, based on the city of Branson’s past actions regarding public input, it would not be surprising if that presentation was not another attempt by some of the city of Branson’s highest paid senior level management employees, to exert more control over the ability of those seeking to speak publicly at city meetings. In any event the presentation should involve drama and perhaps a little “song and dance” should the decorum of two of the city of Branson’s highest paid senior level management employees at recent board meetings come into question.

The second act, a “presentation by Joe Johnson of Lathrop & Gage regarding the protection of the use of the Branson name by City Council,” will probably be a bit more exciting than the first and should contain some historical drama and a lot of song and dance as the city of Branson, sparing no expense, brings in a guest performer to try to justify their actions regarding its claim to the right to control the name “Branson.” Why it wouldn’t surprise an Ole Seagull if there wasn’t some slight of hand worked into the act trying to convince the board and public that an orange is really an apple.

But, in true showmanship style they have saved the real magic for the last act. Through what an Ole Seagull believes is the failure of two of the city of Branson’s highest paid senior level management employees to do their jobs, the 25 story sky scraper that almost everyone thought had been reduced to 12 stories by the board of aldermen at their Sep. 25 meeting will again, “magically” reappear in all of its original 300 foot splendor. In fact, if an alderman doesn’t make a motion to amend it, and it is approved as presented, Branson could have its very first 300 foot sky scraper. That’s how many stories?

This act could provide a powerful finale to the show involving real drama, a 25 story illusion, a really good song and dance routine, and slight of hand as those involved try to make the simple appear complex. Things could really get interesting if just one alderman asked why the two very high paid city of Branson senior level management employees paid to, among other things, prevent something like this from happening sat idly by and let them pass an legally irrelevant ordinance that didn’t accomplish what they wanted to accomplish.

Of course that won’t happen because, although the agenda items mentioned above are scheduled as presented, their reference to acts in the “Dodink Magic and Variety Show” is but a figment of an Ole Seagulls overactive imagination relating to an obvious fictional show. Perhaps not so obvious however, is the fact that this imaginary show was a puppet show with the strings of the puppets being controlled by a master puppeteer in an effort to take “Branson,” and all that it has built, and use it for the new city of Branson that they are creating in their own image.

A portion of the Branson board of alderman’s meeting that took place on Nov. 13 was reminiscent of a scene out of Lewis Carroll’s “Alice and Wonderland.” Alice is having a conversation with Tweedledum and Tweedledee during which Tweedledum says to Alice, “I know what you’re thinking about, but it isn’t so, no how.” Tweedledee then says, “Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

During the Public Comment portion of the meeting, Pamela Dapprich was attempting to read a timeline and make comments on the events and circumstances involved with the city of Branson’s aborted attempt to get her to drop the term “Branson” from the name of the not for profit corporation that she is involved with. The tapes of the meeting indicate that, about six minutes into the ten minute presentation she is allowed by city ordinance, a senior, unelected, executive level employee of the city of Branson, city attorney Paul Link, breaks in and says, “Mr. Mayor, I’m, I’ve let this go for quite a while but I’m going to have to call some sort of decorum ruling on this. I’ve, it has repeatedly been said that I am lying and misrepresenting.”

What kind of Tweedledum logic is that? Forgetting, for the moment, Link’s authority to “call” anything during the Public Comment portion of the meeting without a request from the mayor, the Ole Seagull gives up, “What “sort of decorum ruling?” What is its basis? Of course we’re not about to find out at this point because, as Dapprich says, “Don’t take my ten minutes,” and attempts to continue before her ten minutes expired, Link breaks in again and says, “Mam, I’m not taking your ten minutes but we’re not going to listen to this anymore.” Well, “pardone moi,” but who is Link to tell the mayor and board of aldermen what they can or cannot listen to.

Evidently, the board of aldermen and the meeting’s presiding officer, the mayor, the one to whom both Roberts Rules of Order and the city of Branson’s decorum ordinance give the authority to in such matters, didn’t respond to Link’s interruption of Dapprich quick enough or in the desired manner. The city of Branson’s senior, unelected, executive level employee, city administrator Terry Dody breaks in and says, “Mr. Mayor some kind of action does need to be taken she’s in violation of decorum rules, in violation of the ordinance.”

Now isn’t that interesting, the situation has progressed from Links “some sort of decorum ruling” to Dody flat stating that “she’s in violation of decorum rules, in violation of the ordinance.” Even Tweedledee and Tweedledum know how to call this one, “If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t.”

Assuming that even senior, unelected, executive level employees of the city of Branson have to follow city ordinances like the rest of us, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, there were only two people in that room in violation of a city ordinance when Dody made his statement and one of them wasn’t Dapprich. Roberts Rules of Order and city of Branson ordinances, as governs the Public Comment Meeting, states very clearly that the presiding officer, in this case the mayor, has the responsibility for determining matters of order and decorum during the meeting and makes provision for requesting advice from others outside the board should he decide such advice is necessary.

The official tapes of the meeting indicate that, at that point, Dapprich had the floor. They also indicate that neither the alderman nor the mayor had called for a point of order regarding decorum or asked for any advice from Link or Dody. Instead, what the tapes reflect is that two of the city of Branson’s senior unelected, executive level employees delayed or interrupted the proceedings, disturbed a speaker, and spoke during the Public Comment Meeting of the board of aldermen without registering, all in apparent violation of one or more provisions of the Branson Municipal Code.

As Dapprich is attempting to continue, and the mayor and board continues to ignore both his and Links outbursts to this point, Dody again breaks in and says, “She needs to be called out of order, I’m sorry.” In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, “sorry” could describe the actions of two of the city of Branson’s senior unelected, executive level employees at the meeting and the boards continued failure to make them follow the rules like everyone else. As to anyone actually being “sorry” for the actions they took at the meeting, what did Tweedledum say, “…but it isn’t so, no how.”

A recent letter to the editor from Mr. Robert Cohn of Branson appeared to be primarily concerned with the Ole Seagull’s columns pertaining to the actions, or inactions, of the city of Branson’s elected officials and a few senior, unelected, executive level employees. The only factual content of the letter seemed to relate to the column entitled, “Does Branson need an SOB to save it from the city of Branson and it’s ‘Dodink Law’” published in the Nov. 5 edition of this paper. It is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials.”

The letter states that the Ole Seagull “complains that the rules limit him, to 10 minutes at the podium at the end of a Board meeting. It is people like Mr. Groman that make the 10 minute rule necessary as they don’t seem to be able to have their say in just a few well selected words.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, in its kindest light, Cohn’s statements indicate that he is a fountain bubbling over with miss information.

The column mentioned a specific action, taken on the official public record of the meeting cited, evidencing yet another situation where a senior, unelected, executive level employee of the city of Branson, in this case city attorney Paul Link, appeared to either abuse their authority or violate the laws of the city of Branson. The Ole Seagull wasn’t even at the meeting and, to the best of his knowledge, has never asked for an extension of time.

In yet another instance of missing the reality of the situation, Mr. Cohn states that the Ole Seagull is allegedly, “part of a small band of individuals that are not residence of Branson, Missouri, and yet spend their time finding fault ….” Cohn’s attempt to relate residency within the city of Branson with ones right to speak out about the issues that effect Branson is the type of cart before the horse logic that undervalues what makes the city of Branson financially relevant and overvalues the city of Branson’s contribution to what has made Branson what it is.

“Branson” is in the public domain; it is a visitor expectation; a community; a geographical region covering multiple counties, cities, towns, villages, and unincorporated areas; and, of critical importance, an economic development tool used for the benefit of all living, working, and conducting business in “Branson.” As is the case with many others, the Ole Seagull, while not a “residence” of the city of Branson, is certainly a resident of Branson.

What the city of Branson does or does not do, in the vast majority of cases, affects Branson and, in that regard, everyone in Branson has a vested interest, not just those few that reside within the city limits of the city of Branson. Where would the city of Branson be without the sweat, investment, and effort of those living in the Branson that is outside of the city limits of Branson?

If, over the next 10-23 years the citizens of Branson are going to lose millions of tax dollars so that certain “big box” stores are located within the city limits of the city of Branson rather than elsewhere in Branson, such as Hollister, is it not prudent for every citizen of Branson, including those living within the city limits of the city of Branson, to get involved? If the city of Branson is sending letters to Branson businesses outside of the city limits of the city of Branson alleging that they cannot use the term “Branson” in their business names is that too not an issue that transcends mere residency within the city of Branson?

The letter states, “I believe that Terry Doty would be the first to admit that he is human and capable of error.” Mr. Cohn probably doesn’t want to hold his breath waiting for that to happen. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, based on the public record, the chances of such an admission are about the same as Terry Dody admitting that his last name is spelled “Doty.”

“Seagull, have you gone nuts using a term like SOB in a headline in a column that appears on a Sunday?” When one considers what the city of Branson’s elected leaders and senior unelected officials are attempting to do to Branson, it is understandable why one might think that the letters SOB stand for something other than one who might “sob” because of the city of Branson’s use of “Dodink Law” or the acronym, “S.O.B.,” which could be used for an organization such as “Save Our Branson.”

In a previous column entitled, “Give us a break, the City of Branson can keep the term ‘Dodink’ but leave ‘Branson’ alone, please,” the Ole Seagull coined the phrase “Dodnik Law.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, it’s the kind of abusive law that the city of Branson’s citizens and small businesses can expect when the actions of the city’s senior unelected official, city administrator, Terry Dody and city attorney, Paul Link are not controlled by those having the responsibility to do so, Branson’s elected board of aldermen and mayor.

At the Oct. 23 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, during the Public Comment portion of that meeting, the city of Branson’s highest unelected official, its city attorney, the board of aldermen, and the mayor, provided yet another illustration of the arbitrary one sidedness of how Dodink Law is applied. As appears to be the case with increasing frequency as of late, it was again used to permit city of Branson officials to do exactly what they wanted to do, when they wanted to do it, regardless of what the very law they were allegedly doing it under says.

Section 2-55 of the Branson City Code, is the ordinance designed to “accommodate citizens and guests who have comments or information regarding city business.” Its requirements are straight forward and easy to read so that the average person knows what it is that they have to do to be able to speak. It says, “Any person wishing to appear and speak at the public comment meeting shall sign the speaker sign-up sheet located at the front door of the council chambers. Each person wishing to speak at the public comment meeting must personally sign the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the public comment meeting.”

The first thing of note is that the word “shall” is not optional. Who “shall sign the speaker sign-up sheet” according to the ordinance? “Any person wishing to appear and speak at the public comment meeting” must sign the sheet. According to the tapes of the meeting, Paul Link, the Branson City Attorney, had not signed the speaker sign up sheet. Paul Link is a “person” under Section 2-55.

After a citizen of the Branson area had expressed themselves, in accordance with the ordinance, Link, in apparent violation of the ordinance and without any acknowledgement or approval from the mayor, the meetings presiding officer, just started speaking. What did the city’s senior unelected official, Branson’s elected board of aldermen, and the mayor do in the face of this apparent violation of city ordinance and the decorum prescribed for the meeting? If the tape of the meeting is any indication, nothing! What makes the situation even more ludicrous is that the board of aldermen had just passed changes pertaining to that very section earlier in the meeting.

But wait, the “one law for you and another for us” application of Dodink Law isn’t over yet. As the speaker attempted to respond to Links unauthorized comments they were informed that they could not do so because their ten minutes was up. How arrogant and hypocritical, one application of the law for Branson city officials and another for its citizens and businesses. Yet another illustration of the professionalism and fairness that Branson area citizens, and businesses alike can expect if some S.O.B. like organization doesn’t save Branson from the city of Branson and its Dodink Law.

“Isn’t it unusual for citizens and businesses to have to form an organization to protect themselves from the very city whose relevance and revenues comes from them?” The answer is “Yes” but then what other city would try to do to its area’s citizens and businesses what the city of Branson has done and is trying to do? What city in its right mind would treat the very theatres, attractions, other entertainment venues, and the lodging industry that has made it so successful as the “financial incubator” for the “New Branson” that, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, is being built on the their sweat, investment, and effort? Exactly who wanted the convention center built downtown?

It seems that Missouri’s “Constitutional Amendment 2 – Stem Cell Initiative” is taking on national significance. As an Ole Seagull tries to analyze it all, he is constantly reminded of the old adage, “You don’t use the same gun to hunt elephants and mice.”

The front page of a major website supporting Amendment 2, www.missouricures.com, proclaims that the passage of Amendment 2 “ensures that Missouri patients will have equal access to any federally approved stem cell cures that are available to other Americans.” Yet, as one goes though the site, they will not find one instance where it is even alleged that Missouri patients do not currently, today and now, have “equal access to any federally approved stem cell cures that are available to other Americans,” not one!

Even more ludicrous however, is the site’s answer to the question, “Are the research and cures protected by the Initiative already allowed under federal and state law?” Incredulously, the answer to the question is “Yes. Current federal and state law allows stem cell research involving all types of stem cells – including adult stem cells and early, or embryonic, stem cells.”

If Missouri’s Stem Cell Initiative passes on Nov. 7, exactly what type of stem cell research will be permitted on Nov. 8 that was not permitted on Nov. 6 or, asked another way, what stem cell research is prohibited on Nov. 6 that will be permitted on Nov. 8? May an Ole Seagull suggest that the answer to both of those questions is zero, nada, none.

Why do supporters of the initiative say that Missourians need a constitutional amendment to give them equal access to that which they already have? According to the same www.missouricures.com website it is because some attempts have been made to try to regulate stem cell research in Missouri’s legislature. Information on the site says, “Making the Initiative a state constitutional amendment is the only effective way to ensure that the legislature cannot override the will of the people by passing some unfair ban on stem cell research and cures in the future.”

Now let’s get this straight, Missouri needs an amendment to its constitution to give the people of Missouri rights that they already have and to protect them from the very people that they, “the people” have elected to represent them. And what is it that they are being protected against; some possible “unfair” ban that those same elected representatives may or may not enact in the future. Its nuts!

When one thinks about whom will best represent “their will” and where they have the best chance of being represented, is it through their elected representative, be it at the city, county, state or national levels or through lawyers, judges and courts. Once passed, what the amendment means, its scope, and what is actually permitted and prohibited will be interpreted by lawyers, judges, and the courts at both the state and federal level and can have unintended consequences.

As but one example, when passed, soon after the Civil War, the intent of Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to give former slaves United States citizenship and all the rights associated therewith. In the years since its passage however, lawyers, judges, and courts have judicially expanded, interpreted and used that amendment to permit abortion, ban prayer from schools, try to take “Christ” out of “Christmas,” promulgate the alleged doctrine of separation of church and state and otherwise involve the federal government in state and local issues far beyond that intended by the original framers of the Constitution.

In an Ole Seagulls mind there is no doubt that, in terms of a “legal gun,” a constitutional amendment is an elephant gun. The question that he, and other Missouri voters, have to answer as they vote on Nov. 7 is whether or not they “want to hunt” stem cell research in Missouri with that gun.

“But Seagull isn’t it about the potential cures that can happen through stem cell research? About saving lives, eliminating pain, the difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, when life starts, harvesting eggs from women, human cloning, and all the other things that the different ads, both for or against the initiative tout?”

To an Ole Seagull, the central issues on Nov. 7 are not those issues. To him the primary issue is how those very important, and complex, issues are best addressed. Is it through the “one amendment covers it all approach,” as interpreted by the courts, or the through his elected representatives and the legislative process? Also of significance, is the answer to the question, “If I vote ‘No’ on amendment 2 on Nov. 7 won’t Missouri’s patients still have the same equal access to any federally approved stem cell cures that are available to other Americans that they have always had?”

This editorial cartoon, by Branson’s favorite editorial cartoonist, illustrates the current situation where the City of Branson is trying to assert that it has a legitimate right to the service mark Branson after the term has been in the public domain for over 120 years. For an additional editorial perspective two recent editorials appearing in the Branson Daily Independent and on line in the Branson Courier entitled, “Give us a break, the City of Branson can keep the term ‘Dodink’ but leave ‘Branson’ alone, please!” and “Wouldn’t it be better for ‘Branson’ if the City of Branson changed its name to the ‘City of New Branson?’” might be helpful.

At the October 10 meeting of Branson’s board of aldermen, Alderman Ron Huff read a statement about the City of Branson’s September 15th letter to the Branson Sports Club demanding that it take the word “Branson” out of its name because the City of Branson allegedly has the legal control of that term. One can only wonder and ponder how “Branson” ever got from its meager beginnings at Marble Cave in the late 1800s to the seven million plus visitors it had in 2005 without the City of Branson.

But not to worry, the City of Branson is here now to take control of the term “Branson.” This, in spite of the fact that the term “Branson” is, and has been, an economic development tool, in the public domain, that has been used by the entire “Branson” area for over 120 years. Is it not “Branson” that has made the City of Branson relevant?

Huff wondered whether or not those concerned about the actions that the City of Branson was taking against the Branson Sports Club would have been as concerned if, instead, the business had been named “Branson Exotic Dancers.” To an Ole Seagull that was an onerous Freudian slip evidencing the value system, he believes, is employed by the majority of the City of Branson’s elected leaders and its highest ranked unelected official.

Let’s not respond to the right or wrong or reality of the actions that the City of Branson took against a local business and the public embarrassment that those actions caused. Instead let’s attack those who dare to question those having the responsibility for what happened. A responsibility that, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, rests solely with the City of Branson’s elected leadership and their failure to control the actions of the city’s highest ranked unelected official, city administrator Terry Dody and hold him accountable for what happens on “his watch.”

Was it an Ole Seagull or the media that sent the September 15, letter to the Branson Sports Club or was it the City of Branson? A letter that most reasonable people would say appears to be designed and created to give the clear impression that because the City of Branson “owns the federally registered service mark BRANSON, MISSOURI (and design) Reg. No. 2,594,679 for use with municipal services” that it also had the right to prohibit or control the use of the word “Branson.” Incredibly, the words “Branson, Missouri” were specifically disclaimed in very registration cited in the letter.

The letter demanded that the Branson Sports Club formally change the name of their business to delete all references to “Branson.” It accused them, of among other things, deceptive trade practices, trademark infringement and false designation of geographic origin under various cited provisions of the federal “Lanham Act,” merely because the term “Branson” was used in their business name. Some people, an Ole Seagull included, might get the impression that the letter reeks with the stench of attempted intimidation and coercion but then, one person’s stench is another’s perfume.

Speaking of stench, recent news reports indicate that City of Branson officials announced that they were dropping the demand that the Branson Sports Club remove the word “Branson” from its name. The reports indicate that, according to city administrator Terry Dody, the city has recently determined that they had the name registered with the Missouri’s Secretary of State longer than 24 months which is beyond the period the city is going to enforce its alleged right to the term “Branson.”

Please, give an Ole Seagull a break! Can any reasonable person doubt, that prior to sending out the September 15, 2006 letter, that the City of Branson either knew or should have known that the Branson Sports Club Inc. had been in business since April 9, 2003? Isn’t it basic Research 101 stuff? Is there any reason to believe that the city’s research in other areas has been any better? If the answer is “No” what does that bode for the City of Branson’s future?

To an Ole Seagull, it bodes about the same thing as being down wind and close to the tail end of an agitated skunk as it raises its tail, very little good for anyone except, possibly, the skunk. One could wonder if it would be better for the “Branson” that seven million visitors came to visit in 2005 if the “City of Branson” would change its name to the “City of New Branson” and leave “Branson” alone.

In his Sep. 24 column entitled, “At least ten things that the Ole Seagull is positive about,” the Ole Seagull said, “He is positive that if people don’t turn out for the Branson Board of Aldermen’s meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, Sep. 25, and express their opinion, that the board will act on the planning and zoning changes for the erection of a 300 foot, 25 story cement and glass symbol to the New Branson, located at the very gateway to Branson, without their opinion being heard.”

The column continued, “He is positive that some believe it is ‘an affront to anyone with respect for the land,’ that it is not consistent with ‘maintaining the quality and beauty of our areas landscape,’ or the ‘natural beauty of this area’ that is so ‘extremely important to our tourists and residents and must be protected if we are to continue to be a top tourist destination.’” He should have stopped there but, he didn’t. He went on to state that “He is positive that he agrees with those statements.”

Mea culpa, subsequent events have convinced the Ole Seagull that he was wrong. “Mayor Lou” was closer to being right than he was when he said that if it was up to him that he’d build it 35 stories high instead of the 12 stories that the Branson Board of Aldermen compromised on.

At that meeting, one of the very first things pointed out by Mr. Rick Huffman, the CEO of HCW, one of the projects developers, was that there would be no TIF or other public funds requested by the developers for the project. That’s right folks, all their own money with no government subsidy! Now there’s a refreshing difference between this and most other “New Branson” projects. Isn’t that the way Old Branson grew and prospered, individual investment, effort, and risk?

When the issue of fire safety was raised, Branson Fire Chief, Carl Sparks, addressed the question in a professional manner that left no doubt in this Ole Seagull’s mind that fire safety would not be an issue because of the buildings height. Branson is blessed with a great fire department and personnel who are constantly training for the changing environments that they might encounter. A high-rise over ten stories is just one other situation that they will train for and handle in the same professional manner they would handle any other situation. When that factor is coupled with the increased fire safety building requirements for high-rises, where’s a legitimate concern?

By far, the biggest concerns related to the effect of the development blocking the view, effecting our natural beauty and the land, and the initial impression that people would get as they came into Branson. Things really fell into perspective when, while sitting at River Run Outfitters drinking coffee, a fellow fly fisher, local businessman, entrepreneur, and restaurateur, laughingly, asked two simple questions, “What view?” and “What first impression do people get now as they drive into Branson?”

As one drives into Branson from the north they get quick glimpses of the Branson Tourism Center and Branson One Stop. Of course that’s only after getting an eyeful of the Home Depot, perched high a top the nakedness of the Branson Hills “rock pile.” What’s the next thing they see? Is it not a big head with a funny fur cap on it at the north end of Yakov’s Theatre? One can only wonder how many drive by each day and think “What a view!”

Exactly what view or Ozark beauty will the project be blocking that the current development on the property is not currently blocking? From what an Ole Seagull has seen, especially while driving in from the north, not much.

In terms of its effect on, or respect for, the land; is the development being developed on virgin Ozark hills and woodlands or is it being built by replacing the asphalt, cement, and development that has already taken place? Even a cursory drive by the site will show the obvious.

As to the first impression on visitors, is it not just possible that, while serving as the “25 story cement and glass symbol to the New Branson,” the building could also generate excitement and symbolize the constantly evolving entertainment experience and expectation that has come to be known as “Branson?”

Some might ask, “Why bring it up, isn’t it a done deal at 12 stories?” Sure it is and what are the odds that Rockaway Beach will have casino gambling approved in 2008.

On Sep. 15, the attorney for the City of Branson, Paul Link, under the leadership responsibility of the City of Branson’s highest ranked unelected official, city administrator Terry Dody, sent a letter to the “Branson Sports Club, Inc., c/o Pamela Sue Dapprich, 414 Buchanan Rd., Branson, MO 65616.” In the letter Link said, “The City of Branson, Missouri owns the federally registered service mark BRANSON, MISSOURI” and that the purpose of the letter was to “protest your [her] unauthorized use [of] ‘Branson’ in connection with a business not located within the city limits of Branson, Missouri.”

Link’s letter then calls the business’s use of the common term “Branson” in its name a “deceptive trade practice” and alleges, among other things, the violation of federal statutes relating to the “false designation of geographic origin” and trademark infringement.” It goes on to say that “Within 10 days of the date of this correspondence, we expect to receive from you a written undertaking that you will formally change the name of your business to delete all references to ‘Branson.’”

But not to worry; the letter goes on to say that all can become wonderful again if Dapprich “would consent to annexation into the City of Branson when the City is ready to take you [her] in, then we would not prohibit the use of ‘Branson’ in your name.” Dapprich said that she was an outspoken opponent of the City of Branson’s recent failed attempt to force the annexation of the area that the Branson Sports Club is on into the City of Branson. She also pointed out that she had called a number of businesses with the term “Branson” in their names, located outside the city limits of the City of Branson, and that none had received a similar letter.

At about this point, to an Ole Seagull, the resulting stench is starting to grow and is eerily reminiscent of what he calls “Dodink Law.” In the instant case it’s the kind of law that appears to try to intimidate and coerce by alleging that the use of “Branson” in its name is a crime related to the “false designation of geographic origin” even while ignoring the fact that the very letter making the allegation is being mailed to a specific “Branson, MO” address.

It’s the type of law where the City of Branson can take, what it alleges is a proper service mark, “BRANSON, MISSOURI,” and say that it gives them the right to prohibit the use of the single word “Branson.” What’s next, a prohibition against a business using the word “Missouri” in their business title if they don’t meet some condition that the City of Branson establishes?

Dodink Law appears to delight in going after individual small businesses; it intimidates and coerces them to give into the demands of the city or face the alternative of fighting its unlimited resources and people, like Dody and Link, who receive their fat salaries regardless. It’s a choice that causes a lot of small businesses to give in simply because they don’t have the time or money to fight “city hall.” One can only wonder, although not for too long because of the obvious, why the City of Branson didn’t go for the maximum deterrent effect by sending letters to the City of “Branson” West and the owners of the Showboat “Branson” Belle with the same demands.

Was it because they would have probably told the City of Branson what to do with their demands? Surely the failure to do so had nothing to do with the fact that they have the resources to, not only fight them on its frivolous assertion that, based on the alleged validity of having the service mark “BRANSON, MISSOURI,” it also has the right to the term “Branson” but to challenge the validity of the City of Branson even being able to register the term “BRANSON, MISSOURI.”

Isn’t “Branson” a surname and the name of the post office that Ruben S. Branson started decades before there ever was a City of Branson? Would not most people say that the term “Branson, Missouri” is a post office address or is “primarily geographically descriptive?”

“Branson’s” biggest and longest running attraction, Silver Dollar City, is located where? Oh, and last but not least, doesn’t the fact that the City of Branson’s registration for the service mark upon which its letter is based, Registration Number 2594679, contains a disclaimer stating that, “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘Branson, Missouri’…” mean, at least as to the service mark covered under that registration, that any one is free to use those phrases as is otherwise permitted?

At the Sep. 25 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, while public discussion was being held on the plans to build a 25 story skyscraper, one of the projects developers, Rick Huffman, the CEO of HCW, used a quote, attributed to Walt Disney. He said words to the effect that, “We build this for those who come, not those that are here.” Unfortunately, for the fortunes of the 25 story building, a number of “those that are here,” not only showed up for the meeting but contacted their elected representatives about the proposed project prior to the meeting.

The net result is that “those who come” will be seeing, at least for the moment, if anything, a much shorter building. By a 6-0 vote, in spite of the mayor’s “in your face” gratuitous comments that he would like to see the building built to a height of 35 stories, the board honored the wishes of those they represent and voted to limit the size of the building to 12 stories.

Why would any reasonably thinking community, let alone one who already had the best of both worlds, adopt an economic development, or any other philosophy for that matter, that ignores the needs of its own citizens and existing businesses by espousing the concept that “We build this for those who come, not those that are here?” It’s a “Mickey Mouse” philosophy that flies in the face of the “Old Branson” philosophy that brought over 7 million people to Branson last year. A philosophy based on the concept of, “We build this for those we hope will come with those that are here.”

In an email that Branson City Administrator Terry Dody sent out to a number of people, including the Ole Seagull, on Sep. 21, he said, among other things, “It is unfortunate that you choose to carry Groman’s water for him in your e-mail by perpetuating his tag line of the ‘New’ Branson;’ a divisive term that he and a few others like to exploit to further there (their) hope of causing discord and conflict within the community.” Interestingly, the email Dody was responding to was from a local Branson business person expressing their concern about the city’s use of the City Tourism Tax to promote the convention center.

What caused Dody to divert his efforts from the “New Branson” to a lowly Ole Seagull and make the arrogant, condescending, and oh so inappropriate comment to the business person who sent him the email? Well, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, as to the arrogance and condescension part of the question, some people just have the gift.

Knowing the person to whom he sent the email, Dody was as wrong about that person “carrying anyone’s water” for them as he was about the fact that only the Ole Seagull “and a few others” are using the term the “New Branson.” The term “New Branson” did not originate with the Ole Seagull and, as indicated in the email he was responding to, means different things to different people.

Despite its different potential meanings, can any reasonable person doubt that there is a “New Branson” being created under the orchestration of the City’s chief unelected official, Dody, and certain developers as they direct the City of Branson’s elected officials in a stirring rendition of the “New Branson Hip Hop?” Is there just the possibility that the decision of the City of Branson’s chief unelected leader, and its elected officials, to ignore the united appeal of “Old Branson,” to locate the convention center closer to the theatres, attractions, retail, lodging, and restaurants that built Branson might be considered divisive and causes “discord and conflict within the community?”

The initial decision by City of Branson’s chief unelected official and its elected officials to use taxpayer, TIF, financing to make sure Branson’s neighbor, Hollister, did not get a Target and Home Depot helped eliminate community divisiveness and discord and conflict within the community how? Would the “New Branson” be coming into existence without the seven million plus visitors that the blood, sweat, tears, and financial investment of the “Old Branson” generates?

It’s not a matter of economic development; it’s a matter of how that development takes place. Under the “New Branson” philosophy, the “We” seems to be the City of Branson’s chief unelected official, its elected officials, the big developer(s) and others who need to create a “New Branson,” with a new different clientele to be successful. On the other hand, the “We” of the “Old Branson” philosophy is based on the very community that has made Branson what it is today and already has an existing clientele. Which philosophy is more likely to cause less discord and conflict within the community or be more divisive?

1. He is positive that everything he writes in this column is positively only his opinion. He’s positive that’s why the column is on the opinion page and not published as a news article elsewhere in the paper.

2. He is positive that if people don’t turn out for the Branson Board of Aldermen’s meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, Sep. 25, and express their opinion, that the board will act on the planning and zoning changes for the erection of a 300 foot, 25 story cement and glass “symbol” to the “New Branson,” located at the very gateway to Branson, without their opinion being heard. He is positive that some believe it is “an affront to anyone with respect for the land,” that it is not consistent with “maintaining the quality and beauty of our areas landscape,” or the “natural beauty of this area” that is so “extremely important to our tourists and residents and must be protected if we are to continue to be a top tourist destination.” He is positive that he agrees with those statements.

3. He is positive that the increased tourism figures reported for the first six months of this year had more to do with the marketing strategy that the City of Branson and the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce put into effect about two years ago than either Branson Landing or the convention center combined. He is positive that Branson Landing was not open for the vast majority of the first six months of this year and that the convention center has not yet opened.

4. An Ole Seagull is positive that if this marketing approach, adequately funded, is continued for the next few years, that it will bring more visitors to Branson than Branson Landing, the convention center, and the “New Branson” combined. That is if Branson’s current potential visitors don’t get conflicting marketing messages and marketing funds are not diverted in an attempt to specifically develop the new “higher class” Gucci, Prada or Armani market that the “New Branson” and its $400,000 plus condos, appear to be fixated on.

5. He is positive that Branson’s City Administrator, Terry Dody, said, “The city council is directing that $500,000 of the Tourism Tax be available for out-of-market marketing for the community’s convention center. All expenses to operate the convention center, including marketing, will be paid from convention center revenues or the city’s general fund.” He is also positive that if in fact the $500,000 for marketing is coming from the “Tourism Tax,” as Dody says, then it is impossible for it to be coming from either “the convention center revenues or the city’s general fund.”

6. An Ole Seagull is positive, based the wording of the enabling legislation for the District Tourism Tax, administered by the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District and the understanding of the tourism industry that helped pass the City’s Tourism Tax, that the arbitrary confiscation and use of a substantial portion of that tax, by the City of Branson, to specifically promote the community’s convention center, without the advice and consent of that industry, although, legal, is morally and ethically bankrupt.

7. The Ole Seagull is positive that political and financial compromises are necessary to operate a school district as large as the Branson School District. He is positive that the Branson School Board had their priorities right when they made the decision, based on the resources available at the time, to build classrooms for the districts students rather than a “locker room.”

8. The Ole Seagull is positive that there is more traffic using Highway 76, between its junction with Fall Creek Road and the Hollywood Wax Museum, on a daily basis, than there is using Branson Landing Boulevard. He is positive that it is safer for pedestrians crossing Branson Landing Boulevard than it is for pedestrians trying to cross Highway 76 between its junction with Fall Creek Road and the Hollywood Wax Museum.

9. He is positive that the public perception of a lot of people in Branson is that currently, and for the last few years, the emphasis of the City of Branson, has been on the “New Branson,” being built east of the tracks along Branson Boulevard, and in the Branson Hills area, rather than the other areas of Branson that are generating the revenues that are currently paying Branson’s bills. How many stop lights and pedestrian crossings are there on Branson Landing Boulevard? How many on Highway 76 between its junction with Fall Creek Road and the Hollywood Wax Museum?

10. He is positive that his opinions are but his own opinions, could be wrong, and that there will be both those who agree and disagree with them. He is also positive that the hundreds of published columns he has written, a lot of which are available on the internet at www.bransoncourier.com, will testify as to his personal belief in the truth of that which he writes and the facts supporting those beliefs. He writes with the full faith that his readers know that they are reading the opinion of one old man who, in terms of local clout and politics, is but “a lowly seagull walking along after the horse in the parade picking at the droppings,” will evaluate what they are reading in terms of what they know and believe to be true, and will then make their own decisions.

Over the last couple of weeks various people have indicated that Branson City Administrator, Terry Dody, has said words to the effect that the city of Branson will be using $500,000 of the City Tourism Tax, collected by theatres, lodging, attractions, and restaurants, to specifically market the new convention center. That appeared to fly in the face of the original intent of the tax and the public’s perception of what they were told would not happen as the plans for the convention center were being developed.

On Sep. 11, the Ole Seagull sent an email regarding the situation to Dody. On Sep. 14, in response to that email, among other things Dody said, “The Tourism Tax is not paid by theaters, attractions, etc. It is a pass through tax that they are required to collect from consumers and then remit to the city. How it is spent by the city is established by the enabling legislation. The city council is directing that $500,000 of the Tourism Tax be available for out-of-market marketing for the community’s convention center.”

For what it matters, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, respect, intent, integrity, trust, and ethics aside, this time, in terms of pure legality, and looking at the City Tourism Tax in a vacuum with no history, he is one hundred percent right. But the City Tourism Tax wasn’t conceived in a vacuum.

Someone didn’t wake up one morning in the early 1990’s and say, “We’ve got nothing else to do today so let’s go out and pass a tax.” It didn’t get from conception to birth without the full support of Branson’s theaters, attractions, hotels, motels, and restaurants, working with the city of Branson to get the funding necessary to meet their mutual needs.

The city of Branson was in desperate need of funding to meet the infrastructure costs of its spurting growth. Branson’s tourism industry needed marketing funds to maintain and grow the economic foundation that caused that growth, tourism. In a spirit of cooperation, respect, and trust they crafted legislation for a tax that dedicated the lions share, 75 percent to the city of Branson to meet its infrastructure needs and 25 percent to meet the marketing tourism needs of Branson’s tourism industry. In that same spirit, they worked together to get the legislation passed and the approved by the voters, initially and again after it was declared unconstitutional by Missouri’s Supreme Court in the mid 1990’s.

It’s probably not too much of an exaggeration to state that without the full support and involvement of Branson’s tourism industry, and particularly its political clout, there would be no City Tourism Tax. Is there a reasonable person that can believe that the support of Branson’s tourism industry would have been forth coming if there was even an inclination that the city of Branson, at some time in the future, in addition to the 75 percent of the tax for infrastructure would, arbitrarily appropriate 20 percent or more of the portion of the tax dedicated to tourism marketing for its own use? Even worse, do it without at least the advice, if not the consent, of the very tourism industry that the tax was designed to help and that was so instrumental in getting passed?

There is little doubt in an Ole Seagull’s aging mind that the marketing portion of the City Tourism Tax was developed and supported by Branson’s tourism industry to be used to promote Branson as a tourism destination for the benefit of Branson’s total tourism industry. It clearly was not the intent to have a significant portion of those funds specifically appropriated for the benefit of any particular theatre, lodging facility, attraction, restaurant or even “the community’s convention center.” That said however, from a pure legal point of view, the arbitrary action of the city of Branson in confiscating over 20 percent of the community’s marketing portion of the City Tourism Tax is legal.

To an Ole Seagull however, the question is one of respect, morality, and ethics rather than legal. Legally, Branson’s elected leaders, and its unelected leader, also have the capability to insure that the 25 percent of the City Tourism Tax set aside for tourism marketing is used in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of those who worked so hard to initiate and get the tax put in place. The only question is whether or not they have enough respect for the very tourism industry that enabled the tax and provides the source of its revenues and the integrity and ethics to do so.

When voters go to the polls on Nov. 7 they will have an opportunity to vote on a proposal to amend Missouri’s Constitution to “allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures.” The Official Ballot Title of the Initiative is “Constitutional Amendment 2 – Stem Cell Initiative.” Although, as is the case with most issues, there are pros and cons, it seems that both supporters and opponents alike have forgotten the old adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

One thing for sure, once passed by the voters, it will not be them or their elected representatives who will determine how the amendment is interpreted. That will be done solely by the courts, the same courts that interpreted Missouri’s river boat gambling amendment to the point where the vast majority of Missouri’s “river boat casinos” have about as much resemblance to a river boat as Table Rock Lake does to the Mojave Desert.

The Ole Seagull had a dream in which he was asked to leave the Taney County courtroom where the infamous “Olson Chainsaw Gang” was in the process of being prosecuted by the city of Branson for allegedly sawing a tree down in front of their business over two years ago. A huge 12 foot specter of Paul Link, the city attorney for Branson, loomed over the Ole Seagull in the courtroom. With a big grin on its face the specter said, “Question the authority of the Dodymeister and the letters I write will you, you’re out of here because we are going to reserve the right to call you as a witness.”

As the dream continued, the Ole Seagull asked, “How can you do that, I wasn’t subpoenaed, I’m not on any witness lists, and I’m missing my nap so that I can observe and report, first hand what is going on.” Link just smiled, snapped his fingers and what looked like three foot munchkin replications of Branson’s board of aldermen, lead by a shinny red faced munchkin wearing a mayor pro tem button, came running out from under the city of Branson’s prosecution table. They ran up to me and without any further ado pulled me from the court room all the time saying, “Speak out against the Dodymeister and question the letter writing of our city attorney, bad Seagull, bad Seagull, no courtroom for you today.”

As the munchkins threw the Ole Seagull out the door the mayor pro tem munchkin said, “You don’t get it do you Seagull, just like Monday night, we, and the Dodymeister, can do whatever we want, anyway we want, to whomever we want, and whenever we want.” As the Ole Seagull lay withering on the floor he said, “Forgive me, I’ll kiss the ring, please just this once do the fair and right thing and let me back in.” There was simultaneous laughter as they slammed the court room door.

In dream time, about an hour and a half later, the courtroom doors burst open and someone came out and said, “It’s over; they have been acquitted because the city couldn’t even establish corpus delecti.” Even in a dream, to an Ole Seagull, that’s the Armani, Gucci, and Prada way of saying that the city could not even prove that a crime had been committed. All in the hallway were abuzz that the defendants had been acquitted without even having to present their case and were asking the rhetorical question, “How embarrassing to the city is that?”

All of a sudden, as the doors to the courtroom slowly opened and a 12 foot Lady Justice walked through the doors, a hush fell over the crowd. Tears were streaming from under her blindfold as she dragged a three foot munchkin replica of the Dodymesiter through the doors as it repeatedly yelled, “I’m Teflon, nothing sticks to me, and I was hidden. How did you know I was in there?”

Without a word and with a gentle heave she tossed the Dodymeister into the air, as one would do when they were about to hit a ball with a bat. She drew her sword back and, with a mighty full swing, hit the Dodymeister right out of the courthouse with so much force that the general consensus of opinion is that his next public appearance will be as a fireball coming out of one of the tubes in a performance of the fire and light show at Branson Landing.

Next she turned to the 12 foot specter of Paul Link. Everyone present could feel her eyes just staring into his from behind her blindfold and could sense the question she was silently asking of Link, “What does the way the city of Branson has handled this case over the last two years have to do with ‘the fair and equal administration of the law, without corruption, avarice, prejudice, or favor’ that I symbolize?”

As Link blurted out the words, “Very little but the Dodymeister wanted it this way,” he shrunk in size down to about six feet, towering above the three foot munchkin replications of Branson’s board of aldermen who came through the door next looking lost and confused. For the first time Lady Justice spoke as she patted each little munchkin on its head and, pointing to Link said, “Don’t fret little ones, just follow him back to Branson, and play your little games by your own rules in your own little sandbox. Just remember that when you come into my house justice rules!”

With that she looked over at Don Stephens, the director of planning and development for the City of Branson, the city forester, and the detective, all who had testified for the city of Branson, shook her head sadly, turned, and started back into the court room. As she passed the Ole Seagull and entered the courtroom she lifted her blindfold, looked him in the eye, winked, and said, “The city couldn’t pull a rabbit out of the hat after all.”

Wow, what a dream.

Recent news articles reported on the next step in the new “Hip Branson,” a proposed a 25-story, 300-foot-tall resort complex to be built on Highway 248 near Highway 65 on the site of the former Branson Inn. According to one article, Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW Development Company, the developer of the project, said, “You’ll see it for miles” and “It’s going to be gorgeous.” In talking about the retail stores to be located on the bottom floor of the complex Huffman is reported to have said, “The kind of stores you might expect to see would be Prada or Armani.”

There’s, probably, no disputing that one will be able to “see it for miles” but whether or not it is “gorgeous” is relative. It will probably be a lot more gorgeous to the developers and investors who are building it and planning to make millions off it and the Prada, Armani, and Gucci type of crowd it is intended to cater to than it is to a J. C. Penny, Wal-Mart, Kmart, Bass Pro kind of guy like the Ole Seagull.

Does the current average visitor to Branson expect to see Prada or Armani? Does Armani or Prada even enter their minds in making their decision to come to Branson? After arriving in Branson is the average current visitor, like the vast majority of people that live in “Branson,” more likely to shop at Wal-Mart or Prada or Armani? Do the finances of the typical visitor to Branson, as well as the vast majority that live here, indicate that they are more likely to buy a six hundred dollar Prada shoulder handbag or something just as functional for a lot less than half of that? And therein lays Branson’s marketing conundrum and, more importantly, the difference between the new “Hip Branson” and “Branson.”

To an Ole Seagull, the “Hip Branson” is trying to use the income and visitors generated by Branson to remake Branson into something that it is not in an effort to attract the “Armani, Gucci, and Prada” type visitor. These visitors evidently want something that Branson’s existing product of constantly evolving shows, attractions, retail establishments, restaurants, and entertainment, all based on family values, doesn’t provide. The very same Branson and product that brings the seven million visitors to Branson that the Hip Branson is relying on intercepting for its initial survival and to fund its hoped for growth.

Now call an Ole Seagull foolish, but, if the branding study that the City of Branson of Branson paid for, and has been the basis for Branson’s marketing program for the past two years, was accurate, the problem is not Branson’s current product but making more people aware of that product. In fact, the study showed what people who have been coming to Branson for years, and those who invested their lives and own funds in developing Branson, already knew, that once people came and experienced Branson they loved it and would come back.

What is needed isn’t a new “Hip Branson” or a radically different product, just more effective marketing of Branson to potential users of Branson’s existing product. It is a marketing problem not a product problem! Specifically it is a marketing budget problem of having enough funds to market Branson’s product into existing and expanded markets with enough critical mass to really penetrate the market, reach those to whom Branson’s product would appeal, and overcome any misconceptions they might have about what Branson has to offer.

The “Solomonic” problem facing those charged with the marketing of Branson is the primary direction of Branson’s marketing emphasis. Will it be directed toward trying to reach those millions of potential visitors who are a fit for Branson’s constantly evolving current product or towards trying to develop and create a new market for the new Hip Branson? Will its emphasis be based on one of Branson’s strongest brand identifiers, “values,” or on Armani, Gucci, and Parada?

In a move reminiscent of the “I think I can, I think I can” attitude of the little steam engine from the classic children’s story, “The Little Engine That Could,” Rockaway Beach just keeps chugging up the mountain, against seemingly insurmountable odds, on its quest to achieve its economic development dream of bringing casino gambling to its city. Recently it was announced that Rockaway Beach has received a proposal for a $144 million dollar casino project and that it will keep on chugging.

In a column entitled “What are the odds of casino gambling ever coming to Rockaway Beach?,” published on Mar. 19, the Ole Seagull said, “…that without substantial financial assistance from outside sources Rockaway Beach simply cannot mount another credible campaign to bring casino gambling to its city.” He asked, “In view of what happened last time and the fact that the resistance from Branson and other casino gambling destinations will not go away, what are the odds that Rockaway Beach can get the financial support it needs to try again?”

Actually, it was a little worse than that because he answered his rhetorical question by saying, “The odds of success are ‘too much to one,’ and only a masochist would put money into such an effort without having at least the support of Branson’s city government and Branson’s local movers and shakers.” The proposal Rockaway Beach received is from Barden Development Inc., a privately held company out of Detroit, Michigan. It operates a number of other casinos in Las Vegas, Gary, Indiana, Tunica, and Black Hawk, Colorado and is owned by Mr. Don Barden who, research indicates, is certainly no masochist when it comes to business decisions.

An article entitled, “Detroit casino firm enters city slots race” appearing in the Dec. 5, 2005 edition of the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette reported that “Mr. Barden’s casinos employ more than 4,300 and generate more than $500 million a year in revenues.” It continued, “Barden Companies is one of the largest African-American owned businesses in the United States” and went on to report the company’s, then recent, $253 million purchase of the Trump Casino in Gary, Indiana, and the firms $300-$350 million attempt to get the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania’s one slot license.

Unfortunately for Mr. Barden, but perhaps fortunately for Rockaway Beach, it seems that the Pittsburgh project has turned into a three way horse race for the sole Pittsburgh slot license based, not on factors relating to the gambling or casino operations, but which of the three firms trying to get the license will do the most for building the Pittsburg Penguins a new arena. Wow, the Ole Seagull thought that only happened in the city of Branson, where the location of its new convention center was based, not on factors relating to what would be the best for Branson’s existing businesses, shows, and attractions or its millions of visitors, but on getting State of Missouri TIF funds and building the new Branson Landing retail and entertainment complex.

On Jun. 2, the Pittsburgh Business Journal reported that, “The Pittsburgh Gaming Task Force said it is ‘not satisfied’ with the three applicants for the city’s slots license.” It pointed out that the Pittsburgh Gaming Task Force, in its report to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, which is expected to make a final decision on the Pittsburgh slot license by the end of 2006, said that dissatisfaction was based on the proposals “inadequacies in or failure to address several areas such as–but not limited to–traffic, the design of the facility, and the mitigation of the negative social impact of gaming.”

According to the article, out of the major categories that the Pittsburgh Gaming Task Force rated, financial, site, traffic, commitment to a new arena and diversity the Barden group, graded best only in the diversity category. But, with Pittsburgh’s apparent propensity for mixing Penguins and a new stadium for them with the casino slot license and the fact that one of the other two proposals has the endorsement of the Penguins, that is not surprising.

If they are unsuccessful in Pittsburgh that would be Pittsburgh’s loss and could be Rockaway Beach’s gain. Penguins and their arena aside, the Barden group appears to be on a tear in acquiring and running casinos. At least on the surface, it would provide the opportunity for the Barden group to concentrate its considerable resources and talents on the Rockaway Beach project without the dilution that a project the size of the Pittsburgh project could have.

Couple that with the factor that they rated best in the diversity category in Pittsburgh and you can see why the “Little Rockaway Beach Casino Engine” just might keep chugging along saying, “I think I can, I think I can, ….

A July 7, 2006 letter, from Branson City Attorney Paul D. Link to James Strahan, the Taney County Assessor, was purportedly sent to address specific concerns that Strahan had raised at a May 31, 2006 meeting about the current sewer agreement between the city and Taney County that was entered into on February 28, 2000. After addressing these concerns in a precise professional manner, and for reasons known only to him, Link, like the character Alice, in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” appears to fall down a hole into a fantasy world.

Link’s letter says, “My research has uncovered some interesting facts concerning sewer construction in Taney County.” The terms “research” and “fact” have a fairly objective meaning to most people, “Research” means a “close, careful study” and a “Fact” is “a truth as opposed to fiction or mistake.” On the other hand, the term “interesting” is a relative term meaning different things to different people. Unfortunately, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, the only “interesting fact” that Link’s research reveals, having relevancy in 2006, is just how low the unelected leadership of Branson will lower the bar on professionalism and ethics for their own purposes.

Link’s alleged facts and his conclusions are reminiscent of the discussion that Alice had with the Pigeon in Wonderland when she said, “But I’m not a serpent, I tell you!” The Pigeon said, “`Well! What are you? I can see you’re trying to invent something!” And try to invent something Link did.

One of Link’s interesting facts was a statement that in 1994, over 12 years ago, the Coon Creek Sewer Project included “sewer lines into undeveloped properties some belonging to elected officials.” The letter cites as one of these three lines “A 21″ line extended 2765′ into undeveloped property which to this day has no flow in it. (Strahan $82,970.)”

When one considers that the property mentioned above appears to belong to John Strahan, the father of James Strahan and Eastern District Taney County Commissioner Danny Strahan, who was a Taney County Commissioner in 1994, it doesn’t take a Solomon to see what Link is trying to invent. To an Ole Seagull the insidiousness of Link’s insinuation is as obvious as the mean spirit of a city’s leadership that condones and encourages such activity.

Unfortunately for Link and the quality, depth, and professionalism of his research, official maps of Taney County indicate that the sewer line in question does not go into the Strahan property. It’s not even close and stops about three quarters of a mile away from the Strahan property line. Said another way, Link’s stated fact is simply not true.

Another of the facts stated in Links letter was that, “If the county’s matrix would have been followed and these monies put to the top project, then the monies would have been spent correctly, lowering the overall cost to the project.” The “top project” being referred to is the Bee Creek Sewer Project but does the letter contain one iota of evidence to support, what the Ole Seagull believes is, his inane and baseless conclusions?

Interestingly enough the letter remains silent on two major points. The fact that, for whatever reason, the Coon Creek Project was only one of multiple Taney County sewer projects to be built between 1994 and the present even though the Bee Creek Project still remains to be completed. Even more telling, in view of Link’s insinuations, is the lack of an explanation as to why the city of Branson elected to enter into a new sewer agreement with Taney County on February 28, 2000.

Link’s logic, about the 1994 costs for the Coon Creek Sewer Project lowering the overall cost of the Bee Creek Project in 2006, makes about as much sense as saying that the $5 million dollars that the city of Branson paid to the Australians for their participation in the early stages of the Branson Landing Project lowered the cost of the Branson Landing Project to the city of Branson by $5 million. But then if the city says it’s so it is. Isn’t it? Sure, and if you believe that you probably believe that Pointe Royale drive will remain a public street and that Branson will support the Rockaway Beach casino gambling effort.

It is legal for a person to park their car in the parking lot of Branson Landing, take a six pack of cold beer out of their cooler, pop the top on one, and drink it as they walk down the Landing’s promenade, hopefully crowded with people, including families and children all having fun. Yet it would be illegal for that same person to park their car in downtown Branson, take a six pack of cold beer out of their cooler, pop the top on one, and drink it as they walked down Commercial Street, hopefully crowded with people, including families and children all having fun. The difference in the two results is the difference between public and private property.

With the appropriate permits, it is legal for vendors in Branson Theatres to sell cups of beer to be consumed in an area filled with people, including families and children, as they watch the show. With the appropriate permits, it is legal for vendors on the “public square” in Branson Landing to sell cups of beer which are to be consumed in an area filled with people, including families and children, as they listen to a band concert or watch a show being presented. In both instances, the beer is being served on private property legally.

Now there are those that might be quick to say, “But Seagull, the city of Branson owns the land so that makes it public land not private land?” The part about the city owning the land is right but, as part of the private public partnership that was used to develop Branson Landing, the city negotiated and entered into a 99 year Master Lease for the land with Branson Landing’s developer, HCW Development Co.

The net result of that lease is that Branson Landing, its promenade, “Public Square,” stores, and restaurants, condos, parking lots, etc. are treated as private land not public land. Said another way, for about the next 99 years, subject only to applicable laws and to restrictions negotiated into the lease, HCW has full control of the property and can use it and sub lease it for any lawful purpose in any manner it chooses.

Does this mean that the city has no more control of the promenade, public square, parking lots, etc. at Branson Landing than it does the Wal-Mart parking lot? That’s exactly right, for all practical purposes it is private land controlled by HCW.

Could the city have negotiated provisions into the Master Lease restricting how alcohol is served, specifically prohibiting the sale or distribution of any pornographic or obscene performances or materials as defined by Missouri Law, restricting new theatres, requiring prior city approval of tenants or their activities to ensure their consistency with Branson’s value system, or requiring that purple petunias be planted in pots at each public entrance into Branson Landing, etc.? Whether or not they would have been successful, the city could have tried to negotiate whatever it wanted into the lease.

Of course no one will ever know exactly how much effort was expended in this area because the negotiations were closed to the public under an exception to the Sunshine Law. Unless an Ole Seagull misses his guess however, about as much effort was spent on negotiating the planting of purple petunias at the entrances to Branson Landing as was spent trying to protect Branson’s value system.

The good news is that HCW has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Branson Landing and has a very real interest in preserving a family friendly environment at the Landing. In a conversation with Mr. Rick Huffman, the CEO of HCW, he expressed HCW’s intent to strictly control open containers of beer and alcohol on the promenade, public square, and other public access areas of Branson Landing. Huffman further indicated that, to the maximum extent practicable, it was HCW’s general intention to prohibit open containers of beer and alcohol in Branson Landings public access areas except for special events, held in the evening hours, and restricted to areas deemed appropriate for the event by HCW.

The wisest man that ever lived said, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” As the “New Branson,” currently being built by the City of Branson and its developers with taxpayer dollars, emerges from “Branson,” the Branson that private entrepreneurs built with their own money, it would behoove us to consider a paraphrase of that question, “For what does it profit a community to gain a few bucks, and forfeit its values?”

Why? The very family value based system of Branson that makes our community such a great place to live and is the bed rock upon which its economic success rests is being gambled on the New Branson. A Branson based on family values and community interest is being wagered on a New Branson where anything is all right as long as it raises revenues to salve the seemingly insatiable appetite of the City of Branson for revenues and puts dollars in the pockets of its developers.

The amazing thing is that the vast majority of the very families benefiting from Branson, both those who built it and those who live in the community because of it, their leaders, associations, churches, etc. are taking no action, are standing idlely by, and letting it happen. What if the Lord appeared this very night and asked the question, “What have you done with the Branson that I entrusted to you?” If the public record is any indication, there would be a lot of people, churches, organizations, and elected officials who would be mute while the City of Branson’s unelected leaders and their developers just smirked.

A front page article, in the July 12-13 edition of this paper entitled, “Alderman urges Huffman to ‘reconsider’ alcohol sales” indicates how little control even the City of Branson’s elected officials have over the changing value structure of the New Branson. The article reported that Branson Alderman Jack Purvis gave an enthusiastic report on a recent visit to Branson Landing, Branson’s $400 million dollar New Branson icon, at the July 10 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen.

It also indicated that Purvis, based on his observations, was concerned about the mix of alcohol and children in the public square and asked the developer to please reconsider the way alcohol is served at Branson Landing. The article reports that although Rick Huffman, developer of Branson Landing, addressed the issue of open container sales during the regular Branson Board of Aldermen meeting on June 26 he made no comments in response to Alderman Purvis’ request.

As was the case with the question of potential pornography being brought into Branson Landing by the Hilton Hotels, which was brought up by City Administrator Terry Dody at their June 26 meeting, the City of Branson’s elected leaders, for whatever reason, again sat mute. There are those who might ask, “Don’t we need a new demographic in Branson and won’t this help us to get it?”

To that an Ole Seagull would reply, “Not really.” A recent branding study paid for by the City of Branson showed that the majority of the people who come to Branson love the experience, will come back repeatedly, and that one of the primary identifiers with the Branson experience is values.

Now let’s see, the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on the New Branson will bring how many new visitors to Branson over the next five years? One can only wonder how that number would compare to the number of new visitors that $10 million a year, spent on expanding the range and penetration of marketing what Branson currently has to offer, over each of the next three years, would bring in.

Interestingly enough, the New Branson can not only survive, but can thrive, on Branson’s existing value system; but Branson, both from a quality of life and economic perspective, will suffer tremendously without it. Does it make more sense for Branson to gamble its value system against the New Branson concept of anything for a buck or for Branson to fight to preserve the family value system that has worked so well for it up to this point? To an Ole Seagull the answer is pretty simple, for what does it profit a community to maybe gain a few bucks, and forfeit its values?

At the Jun. 26 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, Branson City Administrator, Terry Dody made a report to the board regarding the issue of pornography coming to the Hilton Hotels at Branson Landing. In that report Dody said, “So I want to make it clear that we are not talking about pornography because pornography is illegal.” To an Ole Seagull that statement makes about as much sense as saying we are not talking about speeding because the car was going 65 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone and speeding is illegal.

At the outset, let’s make one thing clear, very clear, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Miller v. California said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and that such material can be regulated by the States. The court said, “In our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.”

It should also be stressed the issue is with the commercial exploitation of obscene material not with the morality of any individual or what they do with pornography for their own private use. The issue facing Branson is the growth of the commercial exploitation of obscene materials within the community and the potential impact of such growth on the character of our community.

What was the basis of Dody’s statement? According to Dody it was that movies containing content similar to the content contained in the movies that Hilton Hotels wants to bring into Branson Landing, adult movies rated for mature audiences, are found in a number of pay for view type things in a number of our hotels here in town and that “you can also get it off your cable TV if you want.”

What an interesting legal concept, the Hilton hotels are not showing pornography because a number of other places in town are also showing movies with the same type of content. Using that logic, could someone traveling at 65 miles an hour, in a 45 mile per hour speed zone, that is being passed by other cars traveling faster, be charged with speeding if it was the car that the police pulled over for speeding? Would it be a defense at trial to say that other cars were also speeding?

The good news is that Dody has gone on record as acknowledging that pornography is illegal. In fact he used the same language earlier in his presentation in discussing the alleged suggestion “that the city council, both the elected and the non elected officials, have allowed the creation or existence pornography” in Branson Landing. He said, “First of all that the city can’t do that wouldn’t do that. Pornography is illegal and were we aware of any such thing we would have to take the appropriate legal action or notify the appropriate legal authorities to take care of that.”

If one can take Mr. Dody at his word, all that has to be done is make him aware that the movies the Hilton Hotels wants to bring to Branson Landing are pornographic and the city will “take the appropriate legal action or notify the appropriate legal authorities to take care of that.” Here’s a simple test that could resolve the issue.

Have the management of the Hiltons of Branson set up a special showing of any of the current movies, chosen at random, from the “Adult Collection” of the LodgeNet pay for view service that Hilton Hotels currently offers. Invite Dody, his City Attorney, the Branson Board of Aldermen, the Mayor, the President of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the Chairman of the Branson Theatre Association, the Chairman of the Lodging Association, a couple of our areas pastors, the principals from our areas elementary schools, Rick Huffman, anyone else they wants to invite AND, here’s the most important part of all, their families, except for minor children, to a night of family fun at the movies.

Show the movies and after each one, or as people leave during the movie, have a simple three question questionnaire filled in by answering either “Yes” or “No” to the following three questions, (1) The movie is inordinately interested in sex, (2) The movie depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and (3) The movie lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Legally precise, probably not but from a community standard point of view, if it contains sex like pornography, offends like pornography, and has as much social value as pornography, it is pornography.

On March 3, 1836, Colonel William Barret Travis, the Commander of the Alamo, wrote to Texas Governor Smith, “…victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse for him than defeat.” In the early predawn hours of Sunday, March 6, 1836, after 12 days of almost constant bombardment and siege, the soldiers of Mexican General Santa Anna, numbering in the thousands, made their final assault on the Alamo, overwhelming and killing everyone of its 189 defenders.

The prophetic words of Colonel Travis and the spirit of the Alamo manifested themselves, only 46 days after its fall, at the Battle of San Jacinto. The Mexican army, under Santa Anna, outnumbered the Texas army, under the command of General Sam Houston, by over a two to one margin. In spite of these odds, the Texas Army, inspired by the sacrifice of the Alamo defenders and shouting the battle cry, “Remember the Alamo,” defeated the Mexican army and captured Santa Anna.

What is it about the Alamo that so inspired the Texas army at the Battle of San Jacinto and has touched the hearts and souls of generations since? What are we to remember? Was it their courage or that they spent their lives for a noble cause? Was it the fact that so few stood against so many for so long, the fact that the defenders of the Alamo could have elected not to give their lives in a battle they knew they could not win, or a combination of these factors?

History records that on the first day of the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna had the scarlet flag of “no quarter” run up on San Fernando Church within the sight of the Alamo defenders. It meant surrender or die. Despite the odds against them, instead of surrender, it was answered with cannon fire from the defenders of the Alamo.

Days into the siege, after receiving messages that no further help would be coming, Colonel Travis, explained the hopelessness of their situation. He gave the Alamo’s defenders a choice of escaping, surrendering and perhaps living, or of fighting on and the certainty of death. The chances of escape were pretty good as people had been going through the Mexican lines all during the siege.

All, but one, chose to fight on. Unknown to them at the time however, was the special place in history where their choice would be forever enshrined. That place where the spirit of honor, dedication to purpose, valor, and willingness to sacrifice all, for a noble cause, is revered and preserved.

Why, as James Bowie said, would they “…rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy?”Their individual reasons probably varied the nobleness of the cause, loyalty to each other and their country, honor, duty, freedom from tyranny, and, for some, like Bowie, the defense of their homes.They were however, bound together by the common threads of their courage, their belief that it was right and necessary to fight the army of Santa Anna at that time, in that place, no matter what the price, and in their commitment to pay that price.

The spirit of “Remember the Alamo” represents that which is courageous, honorable, and worthy of commitment in the hearts of individuals and nations. It was in the hearts of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as, on July 4, 1776, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of a new nation. From July 4, 1776 to July 4, 2006, from Valley Forge to Bagdad, and countless places in between, America’s greatness, and very existence has depended on that “spirit” and those willing to commit and sacrifice their all for it.

It is the “American Spirit,” the very lifeblood of our nation.May that Nation “Under God,” be eternally blessed with that spirit, for without it, She would not have been born and would not long endure.Happy Birthday America, Happy Birthday!

The song, “Ya Got Trouble,” from the musical “The Music Man,” has a line, “Well, ya got trouble, my friend. Right here, I say trouble right here in River City.” With a little adaptation to “We got porn my friend, right here, I say porn right here in Branson City,” the line could describe what we currently have in a couple of Branson hotels and may soon have in the Hilton Hotels at Branson Landing on land owned by the City of Branson.

At the outset, it should be pointed out that this is not about the morality of any individual or what they do in the privacy of their own hotel room or home. It’s about the character of our community. the family friendly values that make Branson such a wonderful place to visit or live and underpin its economic foundation, and the contemporary community standards that will determine whether or not something within that community is obscene.

Recently the Ole Seagull heard that the Hilton Hotels in the Branson Landing would definitely be offering sexually explicit movies through their pay per view movie program at one or both of the two hotels they would be operating there. Both of those hotels are located on property that the City of Branson owns and a lot of the amenities and public infrastructure of Branson Landing is being financed with public tax dollars.

Because of the incongruity of sexually explicit movies with the character of our community and the values upon which its basic economic foundation is built, the Ole Seagull sent an email to Mark W. Hartman, General Manager, Hiltons Branson about the situation. When asked, if under the typical Hilton scenario whether a person would “be able to turn on their tv, select pay for view, and access a selection of adult movies that will show naked or semi naked people performing sexually explicit acts?” Hartman replied, “They will be able to choose MA rated movies.”

An Ole Seagull would point out that the rating “MA” is not even on the rating guide for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). It would be a good bet that the majority of the current films with an “MA” rating would meet the definition of “Explicit sexual material” “nudity,” and, based on what he hopes is Branson’s current contemporary community standard, “obscene” as defined under Missouri’s pornography statutes.

In response to the question as to whether or not any consideration was being given by Hilton to changing their typical scenario at Branson Landing “to be more consistent with the family values that Branson is noted for” Hartman replied, “Not that I am aware of.” Taken in total, the responses add new meaning to what Conrad Hilton meant when he said, “It has been and continues to be our responsibility to fill the earth with the light and warmth of hospitality.”

A reasonable person might ask the question, “How in the world, in Branson, Missouri, America’s home of family values and entertainment, can anyone use City of Branson owned land to promote sexually explicit acts whether legally obscene or not?” The answer is relatively simple. The non elected and elected leaders of the City of Branson led the city into a long term lease of the property to the developer of Branson Landing without including conditions limiting or prohibiting these and other acts that are inconsistent with Branson’s entertainment heritage and value structure.

It’s kind of ironic, the very community that got so aroused about the alleged moral depravity that would occur in it if a casino went in at Rockaway Beach, over ten miles away from Branson, did nothing as the serving of alcohol expanded into its family friendly entertainment venues right in Branson. Is there any reason to believe that, without the economic issues that really powered the Rockaway Beach gambling issue, our community will rise up and fight this latest encroachment against the value system that has made Branson what it is today? If history is any indication the answer is, “We got porn my friend, right here, I say porn right here in Branson City.”

The Ole Seagull’s Jun. 11 column, entitled “Will the City of Branson be coming for your customer list next?” evoked an email response from Branson City Attorney Paul Link. In addition to the Ole Seagull, Link sent the response to Branson City Administrator Terry Dody, the Mayor, and the Branson Board of Aldermen. (Note: the Jun. 11 column and is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under editorials.”

The column was prompted by a letter that Link recently mailed to a lot of Branson businesses demanding that they furnish their customer lists to the city within 30 days and stating that the “City Code” required them to do so. Specifically the column responded to, among other things, the fact that the City Code contains no such requirement and the Attila the Hun like tactic the letter tried to use to coerce compliance with a non existent legal requirement.

In the response Link says, “I would venture a guess that you are getting your information from the handful of individuals that tend to be against virtually everything the City does.” His guess is as wrong as was the statement in his letter implying that the City Code required businesses to submit their customer lists as the letter demanded.

Even a cursory reading of the column indicates that it is based on documentary evidence. That evidence includes Links original letter, Dody’s response to an email inquiry the Ole Seagull sent him regarding the letter, and a review of the City Code sections that Dody referred to in his response. The documents speak for themselves and the only “individuals” furnishing information used in the column were Link and Dody. Does that equate to a “handful of individuals that tend to be against virtually everything the City does?”

Link goes on to say, “It surprises me that you would be in favor of allowing businesses to get by without paying taxes when those very taxes go to the improvement of Branson through infrastructure, marketing and subsidized utility services for the whole community.” Well Link wasn’t the only one surprised because the column contained as much mention of “allowing businesses to get by without paying taxes” as the City Code does authorizing the City of Branson to use a mass mailing to require Branson businesses to send their customer lists to the city so that it can go through them on a “fishing expedition” to determine the tourism tax compliance of the businesses in the lists.

Now things start to get almost laughable. The tax Link talks about has been in effect for over ten years and the City of Branson has the responsibility for collecting that tax. Exactly how many dollars has the City of Branson lost over the last ten years because of its failure to fulfill its responsibilities in this regard? Indeed, a good argument could be made that the city’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities appears “to be in favor of allowing businesses to get by without paying taxes when those taxes…”

Link said, “I must state that I am very surprised that a person I have heard is a lawyer would have such a shallow and lack of understanding when it comes to reading ordinances.” For what it’s worth, that “shallow and lack of understanding” is based on 25 years of experience in interpreting, and teaching Federal Regulations involved with the safe transportation of Dangerous Goods, both domestically and internationally, giving compliance advice to companies, and defending companies that had been charged with violations of those regulations.

In this case however, legal experience has nothing to do with the situation. It is simply a matter of reading. The City Code either contains a provision requiring the submission of the information as demanded in the letter or it does not.

Links own words say it does not! In the email response he says, “Obviously the Tourism Tax Code does not have a provision that states that Paul D. Link is authorized to send out letters to all theaters and hotels to obtain lists of people engaged in the process of selling admission to said entities.”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, the city’s typical smoke and mirror show aside, the letter sent to Branson’s businesses demanding that they submit their customer lists to the city within 30 days because the City Code required it, when it was “obvious” that City Code did not, was deceptive. Even worse however, is not simply the shallowness of the professionalism and integrity involved with the attempt but the fact that Branson’s elected leadership, its Mayor and Board of Aldermen, tolerate the very businesses that have made Branson what it is being treated in this manner.

When will it stop? Just about the time one thinks that it is impossible for the City of Branson’s unelected leadership to get any more arrogant or heavy handed with its citizens or businesses it manages to exceed expectations and achieve the seemingly impossible. It gives one pause to wonder; where is Branson’s elected leadership, its Board of Aldermen and Mayor, while stuff like this is going on?

Recently a “To Whom It May Concern” letter, from, the City of Branson, signed by Paul D. Link, the city attorney, was mailed to a lot of the City of Branson’s businesses paying the city’s tourism tax. The letter demanded that the businesses furnish the city with “a complete and accurate list identifying all persons, firms, corporations, agents or entities whomsoever that engages in the sale, transfer, conveyance, exchange, barter, or by any means whatsoever for admission, rooms, meals, services, etc. to your establishment.” Said another way, the letter said “Send us a list of your customers.”

At the outset, the demands verbiage, “all persons,” “whomsoever,” and “by any means whatsoever,” creates a scope of applicability so broad that is an impossible condition to meet. Issues relating to that aside however, what was the justification for this intrusive demand on Branson’s private businesses?

Surely it’s a matter of national security or something of that importance isn’t it? Well not quite. The letter continues, “City Code requires that you provide this information so that a determination can be made on the amount of Tourism Tax that should be collected and remitted.”

Now there’s a scary thought, the City of Branson actually having laws on its books that permits it to use a general mailing to invade the privacy of Branson’s businesses and demand their customer lists. If that is the case what’s next, a letter to all the building supply stores demanding similar records to help the City of Branson enforce its various laws pertaining to everything from tax collection, to building permits, inspections, etc.

On Jun. 5, the Ole Seagull sent an email to Terry Dody, Branson’s city administrator, asking for, among other things, the “The specific section number of the City Code that requires businesses to provide “a complete and accurate list identifying all persons, firms, corporations, agents or entities whomsoever that engages in the sale, transfer, conveyance, exchange, barter, or by any means whatsoever for admission, rooms, meals, services, etc. to their establishments.” On Jun. 6, Dody replied saying, “Read Article VI. Tourism Tax in the Branson City Code, looking first at Sec. 82-151 ‘Definition’ and particularly the definitions of ‘Sale and Sales’ and ‘Sale at Retail’, and then read Sec. 82-157 ‘Examination of books and records.’”

On Jun.7, the Ole Seagull did just that. He could find no such requirement in the sections to which Dody referred and for good reason, it wasn’t there!

The sections to which referred contain requirements for businesses making “sales” subject to the City of Branson’s tourism tax to make their books and records available to the city during reasonable times during business hours for audit and to furnish reasonably sufficient work space, lighting, and working conditions for the conduct of the audits. They are pretty standard audit requirements but contain no authorization for the City of Branson to use a mass mailing to require Branson businesses to send their customer lists to the city so that, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, it can go through them on a “fishing expedition” to determine the tourism tax compliance of the businesses on the lists.

“Be still, be still, my beating heart;” it gets worse. The letter continues, “Compliance with this request overrides any concerns you have about divulging names of those you do business with.” Oh really and exactly how does compliance with the city’s demand “override” or even address the concerns that the businesses it is trying to coerce the information from might have? Through what omnipotent power does the writer of the letter profess to know the concerns of the businesses he is addressing?

Did the letter address any concerns, let alone the obvious concerns that most prudent businesses might have, such as potential legal exposure from furnishing the information to the city or how the City of Branson might use the information? Is it unreasonable for any business receiving the letter to have concerns that if the city used the information in the same arrogant overbearing manner in which it is attempting to coerce information from them that it could impact on the business relationships they have with their customers or, of equal importance, on Branson’s reputation within the tourism industry?

The last sentence of the city’s demand to its businesses reads “Be advised and govern yourself accordingly.” Would it be unreasonable for an Ole Seagull to ask Branson’s elected leadership, its Board of Aldermen and Mayor, to “please” exert influence on Branson’s unelected leaders to heed its own admonition and reconsider their demands before the situation escalates much farther? He prays not.

As Branson Landing opened last weekend it seems that everyone had an opinion about when it should have opened, why this feature wasn’t ready, why it doesn’t have this or that type of store, etc. Without getting into the merits, or lack thereof, of those opinions, may an Ole Seagull suggest that what is important is what Branson Landing is, not what it isn’t. Why?

The most obvious fact is that Branson Landing is built and is open for business. In terms of concept, design, anchors, structure, features, and initial tenants it is what it is. Like San Antonio’s River Walk, Seattle’s Pike Place Market, Bloomington, Minnesota’s Mall of America, Branson Landing provides visitors and locals with the opportunity to experience something that is unique not only locally but in the entire world.

The location of Branson Landing on Branson’s Lake Taneycomo’s lakefront, proximity to historic downtown Branson and all the rest that Branson has to offer, coupled with its design, public square, and street entertainment, combine to provide it with a uniqueness that is solely its own. When that is blended in with the soon to open fire and water show, the Lake Taneycomo Boardwalk, a condominium residential component, its own hotel, and the variety of shopping and restaurants available at Branson Landing the result is an exciting incomparable experience available only at Branson Landing in Branson, Missouri.

Trying to compare Branson Landing to a traditional mall serves no useful purpose simply because Branson Landing is an “unmall” hybrid life style project. This leading edge retail concept is currently replacing malls and their traditional multiple department store anchors all over the country. In the case of Branson Landing there is one department store anchor, Belk’s, an “alternative anchor,” Bass Pro Shops and a host of specialty stores and restaurants that are consistent with the developers vision for the project, space limitations, and what the Branson market can support.

The result is a shopping experience that offers customers everything from boats and fishing tackle to clothes, jewelry and accessories for just about all ages and demographics, shoes, candles, souvenirs of every type, and just about everything else in between. It is a shopping mix that offers an infinite choice that should appeal not only to Branson’s current visitors and locals, but to the younger visitor and their families that are so vital to the future success of Branson.

Its specialty sandwich, pretzel, ice cream, wrap, popcorn, coffee, gyro, pizza, and candy shops provide many different quick food choices for Branson Landing visitors. Factor in Branson Landing’s excellent selection of full service restaurants offering everything from general fare, to specialty restaurants serving Bar-B-Que, fine steaks, sea food, and Mexican food, all located within one convenient destination, and the result is an epicurean delight with a selection of food, drink, and pricing to fit just about every desire and budget.

Branson Landing is designed, consistent with the reality of the size constraints of the land upon which it is built, to maximize the beautiful Lake Taneycomo lakefront. Its center piece, the town square and fountain, is keyed to the lake and will provide direct access to the boardwalk. The design of the mile plus long boardwalk offers visitors to Branson Landing an opportunity to walk its length and experience the majestic beauty of Lake Taneycomo separated from the bustle and excitement of Branson Landing that is taking place just a few feet above them. A number of the restaurants have locations that feature views of the lake and its bluff from their dining room or patio.

Like Branson itself, Branson Landing is an exciting vibrant, entertainment experience. Street performers of just about every type help create an atmosphere of fun and excitement. The fire and water show on the lakefront at the town square will provide a spectacular show that will be unique and, like Branson Landing itself, will become an icon for Branson and a must see experience. Blend that with special events on the town square, a dinner theatre experience, and other specialty events that tenants will be sponsoring and the entertainment possibilities for Branson Landing become endless.

Branson Landing might not be a lot of things but this one thing it is, a unique exciting experience unlike anything else available in Branson. An experience that is, at one time, complete in itself yet blends in with, and compliments, the rest of what Branson has to offer. It is another reason to visit Branson for the first time or to come back again which can now proudly proclaim, “Our doors are open –come on in.”

The purpose of the original Memorial Day was to honor those who died in the Civil War. Its purpose today has evolved into remembering and honoring all who have died in the service of our country. What better way is there to honor and remember them than to honor and remember their living comrades, those men and women who have and are currently honorably serving in America’s Armed Forces.

Someone a lot wiser than an Ole Seagull said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Since the earliest days of our history America’s Armed Forces and their families have paid the price for the freedoms and privileges that we, as a Nation, all enjoy and sometimes take for granted. Memorial Day gives us a unique opportunity to not only honor the dead but to pause, honor and say “Thank You,” to those who have and are currently serving and their comrades who are Missing In Action.

The very act of going into the Armed Forces puts one’s life at risk. Immediately upon being “sworn in,” members of the Armed Forces have given control of their lives to their military and governmental leaders. It is a control that is absolute and, from an honor point of view, irrevocable.

It could be exercised through an order “to take that hill,” in the face of withering machine gun or mortar fire, to patrol a neighborhood in Baghdad, or the assaulting of a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. Or, it could be an order to serve in a supply depot, training facility, or hospital thousands of miles away from the battle. Regardless of where or how one serves, the risk to their life is an inherent part of serving and is omnipresent.

History records that it is the politicians, and those in power, who start wars and that it is the men and women of their Armed Forces who pay the price of those wars. It is a price paid in separation, stress, blood, suffering, anguish, and, sometimes, death by those, who have and are currently, serving in our country’s Armed Forces and their families.

Theirs is not the job of judging whether or not the politicians and those in power are risking their lives in a noble or just cause. Their job is to do their duty. Some have served in conflicts that were “popular” such as World Wars I and II and Dessert Storm. Others served in conflicts that were not as publicly popular, such as Korea, Vietnam, and, if current polls are any indication, in Iraq. Through it all however, the men and women of Americas Armed Forces and their families have done their duty, sacrificed, and given unstintingly of themselves.

The eloquent words of William James remind us that “No matter what a man’s frailties otherwise may be, if he be willing to risk death, in the service he has chosen, that fact consecrates him forever.” Since the beginning of our Republic the members of our country’s Armed Forces and their families have assumed that risk, done their duty, and ensured that a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” For that we owe those who have and are currently, serving in the Armed Forces our undying gratitude, honor, respect, and support, not only on Memorial Day but, every day we as a Nation enjoy the fruits of their efforts, sacrifices, and service.

The recent publicity involved with the illegal immigration issue illustrates how hard it is to identify someone. In the case of illegal immigrants it is how to identify those that are in the United States legally from those who have entered the country illegally but identification is a problem that transcends just immigration.

How about the bartender who needs identification information to know if they can legally serve a drink to someone, a retail store clerk in terms of selling tobacco products to minors, the airline check in agent checking someone in for a flight, or other national security checks etc. Is not the most used form of identification document the state issued driver’s license with a picture on it?

Just this week, the Ole Seagull flew to Tampa. He had to present “a government issued picture ID” as he checked in for his flight. As is the case with most people, he presented his state drivers license. The ticket agent took it, looked briefly at me to insure that the smiling face standing before her was the same as was on the license and entered the name on the driver’s license into her computer, which printed the ticket.

He then walked up to a security check point where a security person again looked at the license and boarding pass, comparing the names on each, and passed him on to the screening point. He went through the physical screening and boarded the plane.

If the Ole Seagull was a betting Seagull he would bet that nowhere in the process was a check run to see if the driver’s license presented was a validly issued license. Even if that had been done what are the odds that the picture on the drivers license presented was compared to the picture on the actual driver’ license issued to make sure that the person presenting it was actually the person to whom it was issued?

How long does it take an underage teenager to come up with a false driver’s license if they want to drink? Would it take any longer than it would for terrorist or an illegal immigrant to do the same thing? If personal identification is truly as important as it seems to be, for everything from underage drinking and national security to eligibility for government benefits and preventing illegal immigration, doesn’t it make sense to have a system that at least uses a standard format for identification and makes an attempt to validate the identification when it is presented?

Specifically, isn’t it time for a standard verifiable “National Picture ID Card,” NPIC, issued by the Department of Homeland Security? The governing words are “standard” and “verifiable.” The NPIC would be standardized in format. At a minimum it would contain a unique identification number, the picture of the bearer, standard identifying information and the holders current “Citizenship Status.”

With one Federal Agency charged with the issuing of the National Picture ID Card and the current state of information and data transmission technology, verifying the NPIC upon presentation should not be a burden. Once the card is presented, the person using it for identification enters the unique identification number into the system and gets verification in the form of, what should be, a duplicate of the card they have in their hand. By comparing the two the appropriate identification determinations can be made.

Once the cards are issued, how they are used is dependent upon the identification problem being addressed. In the case of security that could be a verification of the fact that the person presenting the NPIC is who they say they are. In the case of underage drinking it might be identification verification plus age, and in the case of illegal immigration as a means of separating legal immigrants from illegal.

How many fewer illegal immigrants would there be if there was a national requirement that such a card be shown by EVERY job applicant and verified by EVERY employer with stiff criminal penalties for non compliance. If employment is the major reason for illegal immigration it would do no good to cross the border illegally because they would not have an NPIC to present for a job and even if they forged one it would not withstand the verification process.

Oh the Ole Seagull is not naïve and knows full well that there would be problems but he also believes that none of them would be insurmountable if there was a national consensus to solve them. The money it would cost for such a system would be pale in comparison to the money that would be saved if such a system helped prevent just one “9-11,” control the flow of illegal immigration across our boarders, or reduce fraudulent government claims, etc.

What’s the most exciting thing that’s happened in the Branson area over the last year? The Titanic Museum, the Great Exposition at Silver Dollar City, the highway 65 improvements to the south, Branson Landing, Branson Hills, voters approval of a marketing tax, etc.? All worthy candidates but, to an Ole Seagull, the most exciting thing that happened isn’t any of those. It isn’t even something that can be measured using the normal gauges of success that the Branson area loves to use, tax revenues, rate of first time visitors, theatre seats filled, occupancy rates, etc.

It is the completion and overwhelming success of the first school year of the FirstPLACE program. FirstPlace is a common sense program that uses a combination of our areas schools, the community, and family to fill the minds of our children with, and reinforce, positive character traits that can forever change their lives.

Each month of the school year the schools emphasized and intentionally taught one character trait. That trait was reinforced during the month not only at school but throughout the community as “partners,” and, hopefully families reinforced that trait by committing to demonstrate one visible action each month that tied into the trait.

The character traits covered each month were as follows: September – Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor; October – Responsibility – taking ownership of what you say and do; November – Citizenship – being loyal to your country; December – Compassion/Kindness – caring for others; January – Commitment – being true to your word; February – Honesty – being truthful in what you say and do; March – Cooperation – working together toward a common goal; April – Perseverance – demonstrating persistent determination; May – Self-discipline – training and control of yourself.

Some might say, “But Seagull, what’s exciting about that?” Quite simply, that it happened! What does that say about a community that has the honesty to acknowledge the importance of character education in preparing its children for their future citizenship and accepts the responsibility to meet that need? Its one thing to recognize a need, but our community had the respect, compassion, and kindness for its children to make the commitment to unite together in a spirit of cooperation to fulfill that responsibility.

Our actions say that we are a community that cares and has the wisdom, self-discipline, and perseverance to meet the needs of our children even as it faces the economic, environmental, quality of life, and other challenges of today’s ever changing and competitive reality. We are a community that is blessed with a myriad of people and organizations that recognize and respond to its various needs.

The College of the Ozarks, an institution where character is a foundational part of the educational process, recognized the need and accepted the responsibility for taking a leadership roll. The result was the FirstPLACE program, a partnership among The Keeter Center for Character Education at College of the Ozarks, Characterplus, and the public schools in Taney County to foster a community where character is highly valued and intentionally taught.”

It would be easy to say, “And the rest is history” but that really wouldn’t be accurate. The rest was a lesson in self discipline as people and organizations made and implemented the decisions necessary for them to fulfill their FirstPLACE commitments and responsibilities. The cooperation of all the elements required for the success of the program, businesses, parents, grandparents, the special efforts of our area’s teachers and educators, and the community perseverance so necessary to make the character traits being taught something our children can use for the rest of their lives was, to an Ole Seagull, exciting to behold.

A person can be no more than what is in their mind. A great book says, “Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, of excellence, or worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” How much more exciting can it get than to have the minds of our children filled with “these things,” not much, not much at all.

This column is humbly and respectfully dedicated to Sue Head and Sharon Friesz, from the The Keeter Center for Character Education at College of the Ozarks, the FirstPLACE “angels” of self discipline, respect, responsibility, citizenship, commitment, honesty, and perseverance but most of all, compassion and kindness.

Prior to the passage of the new eminent domain legislation by the Missouri Legislature recently, could the City of Branson take your home or business through the use of eminent domain, and give to another private individual or entity because it would generate more revenue and jobs for the city than it receives from your property? The answer was “Yes.”

After the passage of the new eminent domain legislation by the Missouri Legislature recently, can the City of Branson take your home or business through the use of eminent domain, and give to another private individual or entity because it will generate more revenue and jobs for the city than it receives from your property? The answer is “Yes.”

Recent media coverage of the new eminent domain laws passed by the Missouri legislature on May 5 trumpets the comforting thought that the homes and businesses of Missourians cannot be condemned using eminent domain for economic development. The changes were in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court case.

In that case, long term residents had their homes taken by their city through the use of eminent domain and given to private developers for economic development because the new development would generate more revenue and jobs for the city than the taxes on the homes did. The Supreme Court said the use of eminent domain for that purpose was permitted by the U.S. Constitution but that it was up to the individual states as to how, if at all, that permitted use was implemented. The state of Connecticut, where the property in question was located, had a state law that permitted the taking of private property for economic development so the court ruled in favor of the city and the residents lost their homes.

In an effort to insure that the same thing could not happen in Missouri, various actions were instituted at the state level with the net result of that action being the passage of the recent legislation. The legislative mandate states, “No condemning authority shall acquire private property through the process of eminent domain for solely economic development purposes” and, at first blush, all seems well.

But wait, “Not so quick kemo sabe,” why is the word “solely” used if the legislative intent is to truly prevent government entities from taking the property of residents and business owners through the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes? In that context, why not use a more restrictive word such as “primarily” rather than “solely?”

The difference is dramatic. Using “solely” as the criteria if there is any other purpose involved, the use of eminent domain for the purposes of economic development would be legal regardless of the degree of the other use. On the other hand if a more restrictive word such as “primarily” had been used and the evidence showed that the primary purpose of the eminent domain was for economic development its use would not be authorized.

Why didn’t the legislature use a more restrictive term? Could it be because they wanted to permit the most flexibility for land to be taken by cities using the power of eminent domain for economic development while appearing to restrict its use? Unfortunately, the bad news gets even worse.

The legislation specifically defines the term “economic development” as the “use of a specific piece of property or properties which would provide an increase in the tax base, tax revenues, employment, and general economic health.” If only it stopped there but it does not; it goes on to exclude from the definition, among other things, “the elimination of blighted, substandard, or unsanitary conditions.”

Interestingly enough, the new legislation does not contain a definition of “blighted.” Instead, in a move reminiscent of the old bean under the shell trick, the legislation states that the blight determination in eminent domain cases will be determined “with regard to whether the property meets the relevant statutory definition of blight.”

The City of Branson has already proven itself to be the master of “statutory blight” which, according to recent ads recently published in local newspapers by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen, consists of, among other things, “criteria which do not necessarily meet or follow the standard dictionary definition of blight.” In terms of the City of Branson using its eminent domain authority to take private property for economic development purposes, what is the net result of combining the City of Branson’s, seemingly, insatiable need for more revenues to pay for more and more government by giving taxpayer funds to developers to compete against their existing businesses and their propensity to use statutory blight? Repeat after me, “Our Father who art in heaven….”

During the week of Apr. 10, a full page ad appeared in local news papers entitled “The Truth About Branson’s TIF Projects.” It is a message “from “the Branson City Council about the city’s use of Tax Increment Financing” (TIFs) and states that it was “Paid for by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, if what they paid for the ad was based on the major truths contained in it they should have received a 50 percent discount!

Among the inaccuracies and half truths in the ad, a couple of things that almost everyone can relate to, illustrate just how little respect for the intelligence of the ad’s readers that those paying for the ad have. They also provide a perspective into their idea of “truth” and provide an excellent example of the fact that a conclusion is only as valid as the basis upon which it is based.

Among other things, the ad states “Our 7 million visitors arriving each year fuel our economy and none of those tourists choose to vacation in Branson because we have an outstanding school district.” The Ole Seagull doesn’t know if the number is zero or not; but, he’d be willing to bet that the number of those same seven million visitors who came to Branson, because a portion of it was located within the city limits of the City of Branson, TIF Districts, or Branson Landing, is the about the same as the number who came because of its outstanding school district.

Using the obvious truth of that sentence of the ad and the thought “we have an outstanding school district,” the ad transitions into a conclusion that is simply not true. The next sentence reads, “But we do have an outstanding school district because people choose Branson as their vacation destination.”

What a baseless, inane, and inaccurate statement. The truth as to the reason why Branson has an outstanding school district is very simple and is known by most people living within the Branson area except, evidently, those paying for the ad.

It is because the Branson School District is blessed with outstanding teachers and programs coupled with professional administrators, a board of education, and patrons dedicated to working together to provide the districts children with an outstanding educational experience. An obvious truth is that if none of the seven million visitors to Branson came because of the outstanding school district they probably didn’t come to teach, administer, or otherwise help educate the children of the district either.

Some might ask, “But don’t the tourists pay for it all?” Not hardly. In general tourists pay retail sales tax not personal property and real estate tax, the primary funding mechanism for the school district. In truth it is the businesses and patrons of the school district who pay the lion’s share of educating our children not our visitors.

The ad further states, “New residential and commercial construction outside the TIF Districts (either completed, underway, or already permitted) and directly caused by the districts will add over $6.5 million annually of new revenue to the school district.” Now there’s a conclusion but where is the basis? Could it be that a large part of that construction was directly caused by the millions of visitors who were already coming to Branson rather than TIF Districts? Indeed, how far along would the very TIF districts referred to have gotten but for those millions of visitors coming to Branson?

Now here’s an Ole Seagull truth, “The ‘Branson’ that seven million visitors came to visit in 2005 is the expectation of an enjoyable experience, not the City of Branson.” It is an expectation that has been created, met, and exceeded by Branson’s pioneers and entrepreneurs through their value systems, efforts, risk taking, personal investment, and involvement in Branson’s entertainment industry for over half a century. It is the bedrock foundation which drew the seven million visitors to “Branson” in 2005.

The basis for this “truth” is contained in the answers to three simple questions. Is Branson’s biggest attraction, Silver Dollar City, located within the City of Branson? Out of the 7 million visitors who came to Branson in 2005, how many cared whether or not the portion of Branson they wanted to experience was located within the city limits of the City of Branson, its TIF Districts, or Branson Landing? How many came simply to be entertained and experience “Branson?”

In terms of comparative history, the week of Apr. 10 2006, will probably do as much for the integrity of Branson’s unelected and elected leadership as the deceitful attack on Pearl Harbor did for the chances of the Japanese winning World War II. A lie can be either by commission or omission. Deceitful acts can be overt or covert and both lies and deceitful acts can be either legal or illegal.

In true “New Branson” style both the City of Branson’s elected leadership, the mayor and board of aldermen, and the head of its unelected leadership, City Administrator Terry Dody, seem to glory in their perception that they have met the strict legal definition of “blight” and the other legal requirements for the Branson Hills TIF. Slavery was once the law of the land and legal. Did that make it either ethical or moral? There are legal loop holes in laws that people find, exploit and abuse every day but that doesn’t make it moral or ethical, just legal.

The comments of Dody at the Apr. 10 meeting of the board of aldermen and the publication of an ad in local newspapers “Paid for by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen” later that same week appear to be a continuation of a Branson Hills Development TIF strategy consisting of a mixture of truth spun in with a little deceit, the use of smoke and mirrors as needed, and apparent legality. The legality of the Branson Hills TIF might eventually be decided by a judge but the morality, ethics, and common sense involved with the City of Branson’s handling of the TIF, as applies to the entire Branson area, not just the City of Branson, is within the ability of each person living within the area to determine.

As an example, at the Apr. 10 meeting the Ole Seagull read a portion of a letter written by Branson’s primary unelected leader, City Administrator Terry Dody. It was part of a presentation to the board about, what he believes, was deceitfulness in the process that the City of Branson is using to take millions of dollars in tax revenues that the voters approved in Nov. of 2005 to market Branson and, instead, use it to expand the Branson Hills TIF.

The Ole Seagull made a simple request of the board regarding the marketing tax that the voters had approved. He asked the board to “take whatever action was necessary to insure that the proceeds of the Tourism Enhancement District retail tax that the voters approved in Nov. of 2005, AFTER both the Branson Hills and Branson Landing TIF Plans had been approved, goes 100 percent toward the marketing of Branson and not to pay off TIFs in Branson Landing and Branson Hills.”

The tapes of the meeting indicate that as the board and mayor sat mute Dody sprang into action. He said, among other things, “What Mr. Groman is referring to is that after the TIF law was put onto the agenda or onto the ballot before it was passed at the same time concurrently happening with that was a relocation of the foot print for the Wal-Mart Store.” Dody appears to use a combination of smoke and mirrors, truth, and deceit to arrive at a statement of fact that simply is not true. How could the Ole Seagull, or anyone else for that matter, refer to a TIF law that was never put on the ballot?

A few seconds later Dody says, “It just so happened that the TIF vote was put on the ballot at the same time that Wal-Mart was redesigning its foot print up there.” Even after this second reference to a TIF vote that never happened did even one member of the Branson Board of Aldermen question this obvious departure from truth and reality? No, not one!

Dody goes on to stress that “There was nothing done under the table there was nothing done deceitful” that “everything was done out in the open” and “fully disclosed.” A few seconds later Dody again states that “nothing was done under the table, nothing was misstated except your comments…” Oh really, it’s pretty simple, prior to the Nov. 2005 election by the voters to approve tax increases, to be used to market Branson and build a new Taney County judicial facility, the City of Branson was either actively negotiating to divert millions of those dollars to other uses or it wasn’t.

Those other uses either included the expansion of the Branson Hills TIF project or they did not. Most important of all, in terms of integrity or deceit, those discussions were either discussed “out in the open” or “fully disclosed” or they were not. That happened at what public meeting prior to the Nov. 2005 vote to increase taxes to pay for the marketing of Branson and build a new Taney County judicial facility?

Dody’s use of the words “under the table,” twice during his spontaneous response, was an interesting choice of words that was his and his alone. Branon’s prayer should be that this isn’t the Freudian slip of the century.

Perseverance is demonstrating persistent determination. At its simplest, perseverance is finishing what is started. It is the characteristic that separates life’s winners from its losers even as it makes winners out of those who appeared to have lost. It is to character what the heart is to the body.

Teddy Roosevelt, Americas 26^th President, described perseverance very poignantly and eloquently when he said, “The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly…Who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat.”

The credit belongs to the person who makes the decision to enter the “arena” for a purpose, does their best to achieve that purpose and preservers to the end. In a long distance race with 20 runners only one will win first place. Does that mean that the other 19 lost? No, it means they didn’t come in first.

Did they put forth their best effort and strive to the end to achieve what they wanted to accomplish during the race or, when things got tough, did they slack off or quit? If, at the end of the race a runner can echo the words of the new testament writer, Paul, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith;” they, regardless of their final position, have won.

Walter Elliott said, “Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short races one after another.” In a similar manner, the course of life is not one long race; it is many short races run one at a time. The winners in life are the ones who, regardless of the outcome of each race, on a daily basis, continue to fight the good fight, keep the faith and persevere until life’s course is finished.

However, perseverance is a two edged sword. A sword that can effect lives for either good or bad because, as sure as oxygen is necessary for life; our lives are going to reflect those things and people we persistently determine to think about and associate with.

That being the case, how does one put themselves into a position to have the right thoughts, friends, and associates? To paraphrase the words of new testament writer, Paul, by having the perseverance to think about whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, excellent, and worthy of praise and associating with those who do the same.

The Apr. 5-6 edition of this paper contained an article entitled, “County, city remain at odds over new Branson Hills TIF.” The article reported that among others, Ed Akers, the president of the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District (TCED) met with the Taney County Commission on Tuesday morning Apr.4 to discuss the county’s actions regarding the TIF (Tax Increment Financing) at the Branson Hills Redevelopment Project.

Akers said, “We are very concerned about the loss of the tax revenue for us to promote the area for tourism” and “Our board voted to advise the public about the consequences of losing these tax dollars.” Oh really, if the board is truly concerned about the loss of its tax revenues at the Branson Hills Redevelopment Project it has sure managed to hide it well up to this point.

The TCED has been in existence since before the first discussion of the Branson Landing TIF and years before any public discussion on the Branson Hills TIF. The Ole Seagull has been the Taney County representative on the TIF Commission for both of these TIFs. In all of that time, not once, has a representative of the TCED appeared in front of the Commission or has the TCED submitted any other documentation regarding any concerns it may have had, or requesting any abatement of the TIF, as to its tax revenues.

Is there just the possibility that both the city and developers, wanting millions of tax payer dollars to subsidize their projects, would have agreed to some accommodation with the TCED had it been requested? Why wouldn’t they when no tax had been authorized by the voters yet and the proceeds of such a tax, even if enacted, were not part of the specific financials used in the original TIF process?

For example, revenues from the TCED retail sales tax were not part of the original TIF Plan for the Branson Hills Project dated May 25, 2004. Then suddenly, in Dec. of 2005, the TIF Plan was amended to, among other things; add the TCED retail sales tax as a revenue source to pay off the TIF.

Interestingly, at the same time the TCED’s retail tax revenue was added to the plan, it appears that the reimbursable expenses that the developer received went up over $2 million. Where was the concern of the TCED board then, when timely action on their part might have saved them, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands in tax revenues and possibly millions?

“Seagull, is there a chance that that the city was negotiating with the developer and a big box store to TIF the TCED Retail Sales Tax prior to the election even as the voters were being told that the entire proceeds would go to marketing?” The chances of that happening are about as great as a city government that cares about public input from its citizens, scheduling a TIF public hearing for 6:00 p.m. on Good Friday evening of Easter weekend. “But Seagull, hasn’t the city scheduled a TIF hearing for 6:00 p.m. on Apr. 14, Good Friday evening.” Come to think of it that’s exactly what they’ve done.

After the voters passed the tourism tax in Nov. of 2005, and it became apparent that the City of Branson intended to take 50 percent of the TCED tourism tax the voters had just approved, the board among other things, voted to send a letter to the City of Branson asking the city not to collect the TIF in Branson Hills. When Akers and the board were asked to also include Branson Landing in the same letter the request was ignored.

It’s hard for an Ole Seagull to reconcile Akers stated concern “about the loss of the tax revenue for us to promote the area for tourism” with his action ignoring the potential loss of tax revenues at Branson Landing. Again, just how much in tax revenue is the district losing by not getting its full tax from Branson Landing?

It seems as if the TCED Board has the cart before horse. Shouldn’t it be addressing its concerns about losing tax revenue to the City of Branson, the entity that is actually taking the revenue from them, not the Taney County Commission to whom the City of Branson is doing the same thing?

To an Ole Seagull, the reality of the current situation is that, as a direct consequence of the TCED Board’s consistent pattern of failing to take timely, appropriate and effective action, millions of dollars in tax revenues, that the voters entrusted to them to use for the marketing of Branson, will, instead, be used by the City of Branson to pay off TIF obligations for Branson Landing and Branson Hills. What a pathetic travesty!

Rockaway Beach’s initial attempt to bring casino gambling to the Branson area a couple of years ago initially evoked a “Ho hum, they’ll never do it” attitude from a lot of people in the area. That attitude changed dramatically however, as the attempt gained momentum, financial support, credibility, and approval to be on the ballot for a statewide vote on the matter.

Little Rockaway Beach fought a gallant fight for that which they believed in as did their opponents and, at the end of the day, lost the fight. Some might say that it serves no useful purpose, at this point, to rehash why or how they lost because it can not change what happened or the impact on the future of casino gambling in Rockaway Beach. Although partially true, there are at a minimum, two reasons for its defeat and four present realities that might be of value in determining the odds on whether or not casino gambling will ever come to Rockaway Beach.

The first and most important thing that defeated Rockaway Beach’s chance of getting casino gambling was the opposition of Branson. Under the leadership of Peter Herschend, and with the full support of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the City of Branson, the majority of the Branson tourism industry, and a lot of members within the community, that opposition out maneuvered and out politicked the better funded Rockaway Beach effort at every turn.

Another formidable factor that contributed to the issues defeat was that the other casino gambling destinations, for obvious reasons, did not support Rockaway Beach’s efforts. A local news paper article appearing at the time reported that Boonville residents wanted to protect their casino from competition and for that reason, the Boonville Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose Rockaway’s efforts. It’s not very likely that the voters in Kansas City, St. Louis, and other areas that have casinos felt very much different.

The first present reality is that without substantial financial assistance from outside sources Rockaway Beach simply cannot mount another credible campaign to bring casino gambling to its city. For its’ initial effort, Rockaway Beach didn’t have a lot of its own money to gamble in the effort but it was able to obtain sufficient financial support from outside sources. It’s hard to imagine that Rockaway Beach today, has any more of its own money available to gamble on another try than it had for its original attempt.

In attempting to obtain that outside financing the two reasons discussed above for its defeat become present realities two and three. In view of what happened last time and the fact that the resistance from Branson and other casino gambling destinations will not go away, what are the odds that Rockaway Beach can get the financial support it needs to try again? In an Ole Seagull’s opinion the odds of success are “too much to one,” and only a masochist would put money into such an effort without having at least the support of Branson’s city government and Branson’s local movers and shakers.

As to the government of the City of Branson itself, can any reasonable thinking person, after watching the price it has been willing to extract from its neighbors, Taney County, and its school district for its own economic growth, possibly believe it will do anything that might put a dollar in another taxing entities pocket? Absent economic disaster to the economy of Branson what are the odds that Branson’s movers and shakers would support casino gambling in Rockaway Beach? Probably about the same as the tenants at Branson Landing paying for and supporting a trolley or other public transportation to take people from their businesses and restaurants up the Main Street hill to businesses in Historic Downtown Branson.

Some might ask, “But what if the “new Branson” decides that it needs gambling to be successful, won’t it support casino gambling in Rockaway Beach then?” That involves the fourth present reality. The “new Branson” is only interested in making a buck for itself without regard for much else such as Branson’s history, traditions, quality of life, values, existing businesses, the financial health of the school district, and particularly, the economic development of areas other than itself.

If the “new Branson” decides that casino gambling is needed, the odds of it being in Rockaway Beach are about the same as Target being built in Hollister. “But Seagull, Target is already built in Branson.” So the odds of it being built in Hollister are how much? In an Ole Seagull’s opinion about the same as Rockaway’s chance of ever getting casino gambling.

The number one question the Ole Seagull is asked is, “Do you think that Branson Landing will be a success?” The answer depends on how “success” is defined but, in the final analysis, Branson Landing cannot fail! The politics, egos, money, and City of Branson support that have been, and will continue to be, invested in Branson Landing virtually assure its success. The only question is how that success is defined and obtained.

Success can be defined as “Having a favorable outcome or achieving a desired or intended result.” Whether or not something is successful depends on what outcome or result is desired and the level of expectation.

There are those who will define the success of Branson Landing strictly in terms of itself and its financial success or failure, can it pay its indebtedness, and are its tenants making a profit, etc. From an Ole Seagull’s perspective however, it is how that financial success or failure is achieved that counts.

For what it matters, the Ole Seagull defines the success of Branson Landing in terms of what it does for Branson’s “stake holders.” They are the people currently working and living in and around Branson and the non tax payer financed businesses theatres, attractions, lodging establishments, restaurants, retail, and other businesses that are operating in Branson outside of Branson Landing.

The measure of that success or failure is simple. If on Dec. 18, 2010, Branson’s stakeholders are enjoying a better quality of life and economic success because of Branson Landing then it is successful. If instead, Branson Landing has impacted the stakeholders quality of life or chances for economic success in a negative manner then it is unsuccessful.

What are the chances of Branson Landing being successful under that definition? Pretty good if the results of a recent 24 hour on line poll mean anything. The poll asked the question, “Will the addition of the Branson Landing development make you more likely to visit Branson?” The results from 595 respondents were that 73 percent of the respondents said “No” and 27 percent said “Yes.”

At this point some are probably thinking, “Why the old bird has finally lost it. How can about a three to one margin against something end up positive?” That logic is consistent with the comments that the Ole Seagull received this week about the poll. Yet, the actual marketing and statistical value of the poll aside, could one not use the same results and, comparing apples to apples, say that Branson Landing has the potential to be very successful for Branson.

All this marketing stuff is confusing to an Ole Seagull but he was very impressed by the 2006 marketing program that the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB, the marketing agency for the City of Branson, is pursuing this year. It continues the proven methodology of coordinating various marketing tools, the internet, TV, radio, and print media with other marketing strategies into an effective integrated marketing plan that, if continued, will in and of itself be successful for Branson’s stakeholders.

Let’s assume that a total of at least 50 million potential Branson Visitors are reached through that marketing each year. Applying the results of the poll literally, and without consideration as to its validity as a statistical marketing tool, about 73 percent of them will not be more likely to come to Branson because of Branson Landing. That leaves 27 percent that will. Isn’t 27 percent of 50 million about 13.5 million?

If Branson Landing is even a small factor in 13.5 million plus people a year deciding to eventually come to Branson, let alone one that would make it more likely that they would come, doesn’t that put Branson Landing in a position to be one of the biggest successes in Branson history? Now there’s a great question for a poll!

It was a horrible dream the Ole Seagull was having. Bobblin Hood and his merry band were running the Branson City government. It was kind of surreal because the merry band and their leader, Bobblin Hood, were at a meeting that, if were not a dream, could have been mistaken for a Branson Board of Aldermen meeting.

They were talking about some Ole Seagull who had sat on the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Commission with them. They were not pleased that he had not only voted against the TIF but had gone back to the Taney County Commission that he represented and recommended, in an open and public meeting, that they consider filing a lawsuit against Bobblin Hood and his merry men.

Friar Tuck, one of the merry men, reminded the merry band that the Ole Seagull said that he voted against it because he did not believe that the land covered by the TIF was blighted, that the expenditure of about $49 million in taxpayer funds to “big box” stores that would be locating within the county anyway made sense, or that the ratio of taxpayer funds reimbursed to the developer, as compared to the developers cost, was appropriate.

At that time Maid Marion spoke up and asked, “Didn’t he also say that he believed that there is something inherently wrong with the City of Branson using taxpayer funds, and the future tax revenues of other taxing entities, without their approval, to constantly feed its own economic growth at the expense of its neighbors and the orderly and efficient development elsewhere in the county? Then, to everyone’s surprise, Friar Tuck said, “He just might have a point, if the City of Branson wants to obligate its own future tax revenues that’s one thing, but when it does so at the expense of other taxing entities, without their consent, that is something else.”

Bobblin Hood came out of his seat incensed and pointed out that the City didn’t even have enough money to make sure that the access to the city’s only emergency room was maintained as they built their new $400 million dollar plus project in down town Branson. He asked, “How else are we going to get enough money to keep neighboring communities, and the county itself, from developing and having economic independence from the City of Branson if we don’t confiscate the county’s future tax revenues and use them for our own benefit?

Little Jon, who in stature is not little at all, got all red faced as he agreed and said, “If we don’t do this those businesses will go to Hollister and we can’t have that.” With Bobblin Hood bobbing his head in agreement, Little Jon went on to point out that if that happened there was the potential that revenue, businesses, and opportunities for economic growth might trickle down to other areas of Taney County besides Branson. He then asked, “If that happened, Branson would no longer be able to tell everyone else in the county how dependent they were on Branson?”

Bobblin Hood chimed in and asked, “Besides, how could the county and the rest of the area govern itself without the omnipotent overseeing of this merry band and, of course, its very humble leader? What would the masses do without us? It’s for their own good that we must confiscate their future tax revenues.”

In terms of daily living, the word “honor” does not come up much and yet, in one form or another, it influences just about every aspect of daily life. As an example, what would happen if people did not honor traffic laws, traffic lights, and stop signs? Wouldn’t that make the drive to work or school a little more exciting than it should be? What happens to people, families, and businesses when they fail to honor their commitments and obligations? Generally, not much that is positive.

Each of those situations represents a different definition of “honor.” The case of the stop sign illustrates the “respect for” definition. Honesty doesn’t play a big part in why people stop at stop signs or obey traffic laws; rather it is the respect for, among other things, the law, personal safety, and potential fines and penalties that influences their decision.

The failure to honor commitments and obligations relates to the “personal integrity” definition of honor. Honesty, being truthful in what you say and do, is an integral and necessary component of this type of honor, in fact, without honesty there is no personal integrity or honor.

Now here’s the tricky part, except for the one person who taught us the meaning of honesty when He said, “Let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no,” all have been dishonest. At one time or another, for good reason or bad, to protect themselves or someone else, or for the convenience of the moment, all have, to some degree, lied or failed to do that which they said they would do.

Does that make them a dishonest person? Absolutely not, any more than committing an occasional honest act makes a dishonest person an honest person. It’s not the fact that a person has done something dishonest or honest, it’s how they do it that determines whether or not they are an honest person.

That is determined by what they honor, have respect for, in the living of their daily life. Do they have a respect for the truth and keeping their commitments? Do those that know them say, that’s a person that can be trusted and depended on? Or, are they a person who has little or no respect for truth and keeping their commitments? The type of person that people say can’t be trusted or depended on?

Most would have no trouble equating the term honor with honesty while they might find it a bit like an oxymoron if used in connection with dishonesty. Yet, that doesn’t change the basic fact that it is what a person honors, has respect for, that determines whether or not they are honorable. In the final analysis there is a certain symmetry to the principle that what a person honors ultimately determines whether or not that person is honorable.

No one is born with personal integrity and honesty and it’s not an absolute or perfection thing. It’s a commitment to a way of life that can be summed up in a paraphrase of the first line of the Boy Scout Oath, “On my honor I will do my best to be honorable.” An honest person is one who, in spite of an occasional misstep, does their best to honor that which is honorable and to make sure that their “yes” means yes and their “no” means no.

An argument could be made that the ill fated attempt of Branson city officials to involuntarily annex 1024 acres of land north of Branson is a perfect illustration of what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.”

If voting is an indication of public sentiment, the results speak for themselves. There was 70 percent of the total vote against the annexation. This included about 66 percent from within the City of Branson itself against the annexation as well as 93 percent from within the area sought to be annexed.

If sentiment is defined as “an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling,” the question then becomes one of does the vote indicate a public “gut reaction” that goes beyond the annexation issue? Something that caused the public, both within and without Branson, enough concern to vote the way they did?

There are many reasons people locate outside of city limits and very few, if any, are because they want to get involved with the type of situation that the “new Branson” represents. One can only wonder how those whom the city sought to involuntarily annex felt when they first heard that the “new Branson Juggernaut” wanted to take them into the fold.

On second thought, maybe it doesn’t take too much wonderment. The 93 percent vote against the annexation by those the city wanted to annex really doesn’t leave too much to wonder about.

How are public attitudes and judgments influenced when Branson’s City Administrator, appears before the Branson school board and tells them that they will, for the first time, have to pay building fees because it would cost the city money that it could not spare? How much does that sentiment change and in what direction when, shortly thereafter, the city has an epiphany and substantially reverses its position? Is this the type of action that inspires feelings of either trust or confidence?

Is it even possible that public feelings toward Branson city officials could be influenced by the priority that they have given to the fountains in Branson Landing as compared to insuring that access to the areas only emergency room was not impeded by the city’s routing of Branson Landing traffic? Comparatively speaking, how much has the city spent on fountains? On maintaining ready access to the emergency room?

Is there any impact on public sentiment when the city administrator and board of aldermen vote to take millions of dollars from other taxing entities just to make sure that big box stores come to Branson rather than to a neighboring community in the county? What would be the attitude of the property owners within Taney County, including those living within the city limits of Branson, if the county had to start collecting real estate taxes to make up for the loss in revenues caused by Branson’s indiscriminate abuse of Tax Increment Financing?

At this point, one can only wonder about the sentiment of Branson’s existing stakeholders as they watch millions of taxpayer dollars being spent to develop the very competition that will compete against them for the visitors that their efforts and funding developed. What is the public sentiment of the city’s existing retail base as to its ability to withstand a 20 percent “hit” over the next two years?

Perhaps the lesson to be learned from the election is in a warning attributed to Abraham Lincoln. He said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

In Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” a sailor surrounded by salt water that he couldn’t drink said, “Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.” Paraphrased that could become the slogan for the new Branson, “Millions, millions for the new Branson, nor a dollar for Branson.”

What is the difference between the “new Branson” and “Branson?” In a word it’s “character.” Economically, “Branson” was built by families who literally invested their lives and fortunes to build it. As they did so they enhanced Branson while preserving its character and essence.

Perhaps as important as what they built was the way they built it, with commitment, respect for each other, their neighbors, and by taking, upon themselves, the personal responsibility to pay for what they were building. Along with building Branson economically, they demonstrated the type of citizenship that provided the schools, infrastructure, and environment that made Branson the type of place that people would not only enjoy visiting but want live.

The “new Branson” is being built by developers and “Wally-World” big box stores who want to invest as little of their money as possible. Its very success appears to be not only built on the backs of those who built Branson and Branson’s current businesses, but in changing the character and essence of Branson. Didn’t a national magazine recently report that a major mover and shaker involved with the new Branson indicated that one of the goals for the “new Branson” is to physically shift “Branson’s center of gravity towards” the the new Branson?

It seems that the major commitment of the new Branson is to get the City of Branson to give them millions upon millions of dollars so that it can build stores, restaurants, lodging and entertainment facilities that will compete directly with Branson’s existing similar facilities. And, it seems, over the last few years, that the new Branson has found a money “honey hole” in the Branson Board of Aldermen and Branson’s current City Administrator.

Millions upon millions of dollars has been and is being spent to develop the new Branson while how many millions is being spent to help the Branson upon whose backs the new Branson is being built? For example, how many dollars has the city allocated over the past five years, or the next ten years, to solve the problem of getting pedestrians safely from one side of the Branson Strip to the other?

How much respect does the building of the new Branson show to Branson’s existing “stakeholders” and businesses while it uses taxpayer funds to finance and reimburse it for the cost of developing the new Branson that will compete against them? How respectful is it to obligate the future tax revenues of Taney County, the Branson School District, and the Branson/Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District without not only their consent but against their expressed wishes?

Of course, the respect shown to Branson’s neighbors by the new Branson, as it spends millions of taxpayer dollars just to keep stores from going elsewhere, besides the new Branson, speaks for itself. It speaks not only in terms of greed but in the actual cost to all who live in Branson and Taney County. How many millions of dollars are the residents of Taney County, including those living within the city limits of Branson, going to pay so that stores like “Wally – World” will be located in the new Branson instead of elsewhere in the county?

Where would Branson be today if those who built it only took on the personal responsibility of paying for it only when taxpayer funds were used to reimburse them for 35 percent of the cost of what it was they were building? Exactly what is the percentage of the total cost of the Branson Hills redevelopment project that the developer is being reimbursed for with taxpayer funded TIF funds?

In the new Branson, the City of Branson conveys information to its school district indicating that it will be charging the district about $85,000 in building fees for current and near term building projects; something that Branson has not done before. What is the rationale for the change? According to published reports, Terry Dody, Branson City Administrator, indicated that it was because it would cost the city money that it could not spare. Ah yes, “Millions, millions for the new Branson, nor a dollar for Branson” or evidently, its schools. Welcome to the “new Branson.”

When the framers of our nations Declaration of Independence made their commitment to its principles they said, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Yet even as they signed their names, it was the commitment of Soldiers at places like Lexington, Concord, Ticonderoga, and Bunker Hill that breathed the very meaning into its words and provided the hope of realizing its promise.

From Valley Forge to Yorktown, it was the commitment of its Soldiers that won America its freedom and from Yorktown to Iraq it has been the commitment of her Soldiers that has preserved that freedom. Without that commitment, the Declaration of Independence would have been just another piece of paper, America would not have come into existence, long endured, or have had any hope for a peaceful and successful future.

It is a sad fact of life that the politicians, and those in power, start wars and that it is the Soldiers, their families, and the people of the nations they represent who bleed, die, suffer, and otherwise pay the price of war. It’s an amazing thing that a nation can send its sons and daughters off to bleed and die in a war even while it debates whether or not it should have gotten into that war in the first place and how long it will stay in it. What a strange dichotomy; the very freedoms that our Soldiers are fighting for end up providing aide and comfort to the very enemy they are fighting.

Yet, in spite of this, each day our Soldiers pay the price of war and do their duty. And what a price it is, a price not only in lives lost but bodies, lives, and families maimed forever, both physically and mentally. How can they do it day after day, particularly when, at times, it seems that the nation they are fighting for is divided on its commitment to the very war they are fighting?

Why would they risk their very lives and be willing to pay the “price” in the face of, not only, such indecisiveness but actions that just plain make their job more dangerous? An Ole Seagull would suggest that it is because of their “commitment,” being true to their word, to an oath taken, their fellow Soldiers, and honor, the Soldier’s Commitment.

The Soldier’s Commitment begins with the oath that each takes the day they enlist. In taking that oath each Solider makes the commitment that they “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” that they “will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;” and “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over them.”

From the outset, the Soldier’s Commitment is to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them. They don’t get to vote on whether or not the President is right or wrong, to pick where or when they fight, or which orders are obeyed or not obeyed. It makes no difference whether the war is popular or not with the public, the Soldier’s Commitment is to fulfill their oath and do their duty no matter what the personal cost or sacrifice is to themselves.

Although in most cases the Soldier’s Commitment to their fellow Soldiers is unspoken, it is there. It is an inherent part of military camaraderie and provides the motivation that empowers Soldiers to do their duty in the face of fear, loneliness, and the constant horrors of war.

Throughout the great history of this nation it has been the Soldier’s Commitment and its spirit, at places like Valley Forge, the Alamo, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, Pearl Harbor, the Beaches of Normandy, the Chosin Reservoir, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, and countless other places, that has inspired a nation and changed the course of history. It is, at once, both a perfect illustration of what it means to be true to your word and that true commitment comes at a price. What a blessed nation America is that her Soldiers have always been willing to pay that price.

This column is respectfully dedicated to Scotty West, a 2003 Branson High School graduate, and his family, mom Leanne, a teacher in Kirbyville, dad Scott, a supervisor with Empire Electric, his younger sister Mariah, and his brother, Sam. On Dec. 16, 2005, while serving with the United States Army in Iraq, Scotty, was seriously injured by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The injuries he sustained required that both of his legs be amputated below the knee and has placed Scotty in a virtual constant battle for his life requiring numerous surgeries, the most recent of which was on Jan. 18. Those wishing to encourage Scotty or thank him for his service may do so by mail to: PFC Scott West, c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20307-5001 or, on the internet, through www.caringbridge.com. Just click on “Visit a Caring Bridge Site” and type in “scottywest.”

The December issue of the wannabe hip magazine “Details” contained an article entitled, “Will Branson Missouri, Ever be Cool” by Bart Blasengame. Ironically, while striving to tell Branson how hip and cool it ought to be, the piece totally misses the point on how cool Branson actually is.

Just how cool is prostitution, whether legal or not? How cool are shows that need, three nubile assistants who spend “the majority of the act with cleavage splayed out like an all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet” to entertain audiences? What kind of cool is it that disrespects the very visitors that provide Branson’s livelihood? What type of cool refers to those who have sacrificed for our country in the service of its armed forces as “crotchety war veterans?”

An Ole Seagull would suggest that in order, the answers to the above questions are, “Not very” and “Hip Cool.” That’s the type of cool that results from adding “hip” to the dictionary definition of cool, “marked by deliberate effrontery or lack of due respect or discretion” It’s the exact opposite of Branson Cool.

How cool and unique is a travel destination where what is moral and ethical matters as much or more than what is legal? How cool is it to be entertained by entertainers using their innate talent and abilities to provide a memorable family entertainment experience rather than a display of cleavage or “nice looking gals in skimpy outfits?” What type of cool is it that respects the visitors that provide Branson’s livelihood? Honors America’s veterans and Her God?

An Ole Seagull would suggest that in order, the answers to the above questions are, “Very” and “Branson Cool.” That’s the type of cool that results when the warmth, family friendliness, and hospitality that Branson is famous for is combined with another dictionary definition of cool, “excellent or first rate.” It’s the exact opposite of Hip Cool.

It’s the cool that has made Branson what it is today. It’s the cool that was good enough to generate the traffic and revenues that attracted the very developers, entertainers, entrepreneurs, professional bureaucrats, etc. to Branson who now tell us that a more Hip Cool is needed to get the younger crowds they say is needed for the success of Branson’s future. To that an Ole Seagull would simply say, “Bull roar.”

What Branson needs is the effective marketing of Branson’s product and the continuing commitment to those values that make the Branson experience unique. From Cirque to the Duttons, with just about every kind of show one could imagine in between, a variety of quality national acts appearing at venues like the Welk Theatre, Grand Palace, and Tri-Lakes Center, from Shepherd of the Hills to Silver Dollar City, lakes, natural beauty, and shopping galore, the Branson area has it all.

The City of Branson recently spent over $100,000 on a branding study which established that the vast majority of people who come and experience Branson like the product and will return. There isn’t one mention about changing the product Branson offers and the reason is as simple as it is obvious, Branson doesn’t have a product problem it has a marketing opportunity! How cool is that?

And it gets even cooler. The number one identifier that the branding study showed that visitors associated with Branson was values, the same values that have been an inherent part of Branson’s entertainment industry since its very beginning respect, God, Country, and family. Those same values that not only make the Branson area a unique entertainment venue but that special place that a lot of us call “home.”

In the final analysis, although a warning, the article is but one man’s opinion of his perceptions. As Joe Sullivan, local show producer, so succinctly expressed in a recent email, “This article may have put Branson on the radar screen of some two million people who otherwise might not have known that Branson exists. Perhaps they will be intrigued by the mystery of a life they’ve not experienced, come to check it out and, as so many others have, fall in love with our little city and become regular visitors.” Now that’s cool, really cool, Branson Cool.

Seagull Note: While this column addresses the specifics and verbiage used in the article it must be a matter of perception because the Ole Seagull saw the same show that the writer of this article did and wrote a review on it in June of 2005. In that review he said, “The Ole Seagull has six young grandchildren and saw nothing in the show in terms of costumes or content that would cause him concern” and “The shows choreography, costuming, dancing, singing, magic and their seamless integration as the show magically flows from one number to the next is a wonderful entertainment experience ….”

Even in this day of graphic intense video and computer games most can remember the video-arcade game that started it all in 1980, “Pac-man.” Who can forget the little round yellow critter with the chomping mouth that seemed to exist only to gobble up every pellet within its reach. In a similar manner, in the game of “Branson Tif-man,” the City of Branson seemingly exists only to gobble up all the current tax revenue it can from other taxing entities in its seemingly insatiable greed to use TIF (Tax Increment Financing) to control the economic future of this region regardless of the cost to its citizens and neighbors.

What is that cost? Oh about, $49 million dollars. Whoa there, hold on Seagull, isn’t it true that if $49 million in TIF wasn’t spent that the big box stores would have gone elsewhere? Oh really, how much of a TIF did it take to get Lowes or Kmart into our region? What TIF was used to get Wal-Mart into Branson originally or to its new location at the Branson Mall?

How much of a TIF was given to IMAX, the Branson Mall, the Red Roof Mall, or Tangier Mall? Didn’t the city’s own consultants point out that the negative impact on existing retail in Branson because of the TIF financed Branson Landing would be over 20% for the first two years after it opened? Curiously, no one has ever explained what is going to miraculously reverse the trend after the first two years. How does the use of still more TIF financing to build still more retail in Branson Hills help either Branson Landing or Branson’s existing retail establishments?

Why would any developer invest in Branson without trying to get a TIF? How can they compete against TIF financed developers who are getting reimbursed for the cost of their land, grading, site lighting, landscaping, vehicle curbs, loading docks, etc? How much more competitive could other developers in the Branson area be if they too were reimbursed millions of dollars in fees they have to pay for engineering, survey, construction management, and other fees and permits, etc?

Not too long ago it seems, there used to be an effort to develop our region for the benefit of all. Wasn’t that the purpose of the Branson Area Regional Economic Development Association (BREDA)? When did things change from trying to develop our region for the betterment of all its citizens to the Branson gets it all scenario?

Were an Ole Seagull a betting Seagull he would bet it was when developers determined that the City of Branson was only too eager to play the game of “Tif-man.” When they realized that, in its zeal and greed to prevent further retail development along the Highway 65 corridor south of Branson and to prevent any further big box stores from going into Hollister, that Branson would jump at the chance to use a TIF and the charade of blighted land.

To help insure that the TIF commission makes the recommendation that the City of Branson wants, and to control the process, from the way minutes are kept to the selection of the commissions chairman, the City of Branson appoints its six aldermen to the ten person commission. The practical result is that the Branson Board of Aldermen gets the recommendation they want from the commission and forwards it to themselves for final action. To paraphrase a popular local Russian comedian might say, “What a process!”

The sad thing is that the citizens of this region are going to lose millions of dollars in taxes to get the benefit of the big boxes that had already made the decision to come into our area. Some would, with some justification say, “Come on now Seagull, maybe they were going to come into our area but they might not have gone into Branson.”

To that an Ole Seagull would say, “So what? Are the future finances for our school district and development within the county worth risking so that the City of Branson and its aldermen can continue to play Tif-man?” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, at a minimum, the TIF laws should be amended to prevent any taxing entity taking the revenues of another without their consent. Until that happens every taxing entity that does not want to have their tax revenues taken should play their own game with the City of Branson regarding any new TIF or the expansion of any current TIF, the game of “Sue-man.”

The “Grinch” never came any closer to stealing the true meaning of Christmas than has being “politically correct.” In recent years the traditional Christmas greeting of “Merry Christmas” has been changed to the “politically correct” terminology of “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings.”

“But Seagull, you wouldn’t want to offend those who are celebrating Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or something else would you?”

“What’s to offend unless someone is looking for a reason to be offended?”

To an Ole Seagull, it appears that if anyone should be offended it is the vast majority of Americans to whom the celebration of Christmas is so significant and special. Those who want to preserve the history and tradition of the “Christmas” that the U.S. Congress designated as a legal holiday on June 26, 1870.

What do “Happy Holidays,” and “Seasons Greetings,” have in common with “_ _ _ _ _ _ mas?” They leave “Christ” out. So what? What does Christ have to do with the celebration of Kwanza, Hanukkah, Santa Claus, presents, office parties, red nosed reindeer, decorating trees, wreaths, holly, sleigh bells, retail sales, booze, and feasting? Not much.

What does Christ have to do with CHRISTmas? Everything! Without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas. There can be a holiday, a season, festivals, and religious observations of every persuasion but, without Christ there can be no CHRISTmas, in either fact or spirit. One cannot even say or spell the word “CHRISTmas,” let alone explain its actual history, meaning or origins, as it is celebrated in the United States, without Christ.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia states that Christmas is “Christ’s Mass in the Christian calendar, the feast of the nativity of Jesus.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “Christmas” as “A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.” Jesus who? Jesus, the Christ Child, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago.

First there was Jesus Christ and because of Christ there is the celebration of His birth, CHRISTmas. Secular customs and traditions have developed since; but, first there was Christ.

Even the greatest current secular symbol, the “Ho, Ho, Ho” jolly old Santa Claus seen everywhere during the Christmas season, was first made popular in New York during the 19^th century. And before that the European traditions of “Sinterklaas,” and Saint Nicholas can be traced back hundreds of years; but, first there was Christ.

Why, there are even some who would try to replace the bright guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem with the red glow of the nose of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Rudolph’s nose has been guiding Santa’s sleigh since 1939 when Robert May wrote a verse for a Montgomery Ward promotional comic book. In the late 1940’s his brother-in-law adapted the verse and used it in the song “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer;” and the cowboy crooner, Gene Autry, made Rudolph famous but, first there was Christ.

When someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings,” rather than “Merry Christmas,” those wanting to share the gift of CHRISTmas could ask, “What Holiday?” or “What Season?” What better way to create or reinforce an awareness of the “reason for the season,” that very first CHRISTmas when “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life?”

If we keep the spirit of the Christ Child and His love in our hearts and share it with others, CHRISTmas, in its truest sense, will be with us everyday of the year, Merry CHRISTmas folks, Merry CHRISTmas.

The Ole Seagull and the Groman Family would take this opportunity to wish you and yours a blessed Merry CHRISTmas.

Christmas celebrates love and the birth of a child. The children of Faith Lutheran Church in Branson, Missouri gather with Pastor Wanner in celebration of that birth and love. What better way to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas or, in the spirit of that love, a Happy Hanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, or just the joy, peace, and love of the Christmas Season.

Editors Note: It should be noted that although it is the opinion of the cartoonist, this editior, and a lot of other people in and around Branson, that the ammendment to Branson’s exisiting TIF plan for that area is to try to entice Wal-Mart into the development,it is just that opinion. Although there’s a lot of “winking” going on, there has been no official announcment by the developer or anyother credible source that Wal-Mart was the reason for the requested ammendment.

It seems that prices are not the only thing that the insipid little Wal-Mart smiley face is slashing. Currently, it appears that the little critter is more interested in slashing Christmas from Wal-Mart stores than in slashing prices.

In a recent Associated Press story, entitled “Wal-Mart Says Happy Holidays Covers Several Events,” Dan Fogleman, Senior Manager, Public Relations for Wal-Mart said that Wal-Mart is encouraging the use of the term “Happy Holidays” to “include celebrations from Thanksgiving to Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year’s Eve as well as Christmas.” It’s an interesting, if somewhat confusing concept but, more importantly, what a strange way for Wal-Mart to show just how much they care about the feelings of the vast majority of its customers to whom the holiday of Christmas is so special.

An Ole Seagull is confused. If, for whatever reason, it was truly the “celebration” of certain events that Wal-Mart management wanted combined into a single greeting, why use the term “Happy Holidays” instead of “Happy Celebrations?” It becomes even more confusing when one considers that although all five could be celebrations only two of Wal-Mart’s named celebrations are official holidays, Thanksgiving and Christmas, and only two are recognized as religious Holidays, Hanukkah and Christmas.

So exactly what does the term “Happy Holidays” mean? To an Ole Seagull, in this time and place in history, it is the term used by those who want to, not only obscure the significance, meaning, and importance of Christmas, but remove the very word “Christmas” from public display or mention.

It’s amazing, from a business perspective, why any business, but especially Wal-Mart would want to do anything but promote Christmas let alone something that obscures it. Is there another single holiday besides Christmas that means as much to the vast majority of their customers besides perhaps, Easter and Thanksgiving? What other holiday generates as much economic activity for Wal-Mart or the nation’s other retailers? Is it Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or New Year’s Eve? Not in this life time!

Yet, in spite of all that Christmas does for their bottom line and all that it means to most of its customers, how does Wal-Mart’s management shows its “holiday” compassion and kindness and just how much it cares about the Christmas feelings of those customers? Apparently, by intentionally taking steps to remove the word Christmas from their corporate culture.

They know they can get way with it because they are the biggest retailer in the nation and know that most of their customers, including Christians, will tend to ignore their actions regarding Christmas in favor of the cheaper prices and merchandise selections they offer. Oh, how well they think they know the level of commitment that most of their customers have to themselves, saving money, and convenience as compared to the true meaning of Christmas.

But wouldn’t it be interesting to see what Wal-Mart would do if those who value the traditional Christmas, and resent Wal-Mart’s arrogant actions toward it, simply resolved to shop at Wal-Mart 20 percent less during the next year. Oh, they’d shop at Wal-Mart, particularly for the bargains, but would purpose to take 20 percent of the business elsewhere. How special it would be if every person participating in that program just wrote the word “Merry Christmas” on a slip of paper and handed it to the Wal-Mart Associate checking them out as they paid for their merchandise throughout the year.

Is that the Wal-Mart smiley face zapping prices in the book section? It’s the smiley face all right but it’s not zapping prices. It appears to be hovering over a book that has fallen off the shelf and flipped open as it fell to the floor. Wait, is its head bowed, is that tears falling from its eyes as people rush by, pushing it out of the way as, in their urge to shop, they step over and on the page of the book that reads, “for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord?”

To an Ole Seagull’s tired old mind, it’s pretty simple. The reason the tax payers are paying over $49.3 million dollars and that the education of our children and grand children is being placed at risk is because the Branson Board of Aldermen didn’t want the big box stores like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, etc. to go to Hollister.

Here’s the kicker, were an Ole Seagull a Branson Board of Alderman he would have wanted the same thing. In fact, among other things he would have considered the use of Tax Increment Financing which is commonly referred to as a TIF. The difference would have been how the decision to use the TIF would have been made and its extent if the end result had been to use it.

Please hang in there for a minute, as the Ole Seagull uses a brief paragraph in an attempt to share his understanding of what a TIF, Branson style, is. This understanding could be critical to the education of our children and grandchildren.

In its simplest form, it is a mechanism whereby one taxing entity, in this case the city of Branson, takes tax money from other taxing entity’s, the Branson R4 School District, Taney County, etc. for its own perceived economic benefit. The money is then given to developers to reimburse them for certain development costs. It can do it regardless of whether or not the other taxing entities agree to such taking or the impact that such taking could have on the operation of the taxing entities from which it is taking revenues.

Unfortunately, as to the Branson Hills project, in spite of lawyers swearing to the contrary, the Ole Seagull has a tough time believing the legal fiction that vacant land is “blighted” and the concept that there can be a redevelopment project before the land had ever been developed in the first place. The concept that taxpayer money should be used to reimburse developers the approximately $184,000 per acre they paid for the allegedly blighted land is beyond his understanding.

Even if one got beyond that, there were other real and practical considerations, not the least of which was the opposition of the Branson R4 School District. Their concern is based on the impact that the diversion of 50 percent of the tax revenues from TIF projects, for up to 23 years, could have on the ability of the school district to maintain the quality of their product, the education of our children and grandchildren.

It costs over $6300 per year for each student sitting in a seat in the Branson schools. Of that amount approximately $5000 per student comes from local tax revenues, a primary source of which is real estate property taxes. The vast majority of the schools income from the real estate tax is from commercial real estate. Under the current Branson TIF for Branson Hills, 50 percent of the commercial real estate taxes will be used, for up to 23 years, to pay the TIF off. Unfortunately, the school district cannot wait for up to 23 years to pay for the education of its children.

There is a dizzying array of figures that the City and developers present to show just how much money the TIF will generate for everyone. It simply dazzles an Ole Seagull’s mind but this one thing he knows, if the person that has the responsibility for the financial planning of the Branson schools, Brian Blankenship, its business manager, says there is a problem, as he so succinctly did at the Dec. 14 meeting of the Branson TIF Commission, then there is a problem. A problem that the school district has been trying to resolve since this TIF was first proposed.

For those and other reasons, as a Taney County representative to the Branson TIF Commission, the Ole Seagull voted on Dec. 14, as he has voted in the past, against the Branson Hills TIF. But, as in the past, it was an exercise in futility because six of the ten member commission, is composed of Branson Aldermen. In spite of the school districts objections and Blankenship’s excellent presentation, they voted for the amended TIF Plan. The final vote was the six Branson Aldermen against the two Taney County and two Branson R4 School District representatives.

The bottom line is this, if the school district doesn’t have the funds it needs, because, among other things, the number of kids it has to educate, exceeds its current income, there are only two choices, cut back on the quality of the educational experience that our children receive or raise taxes. The first option is no option; that leaves only the raising of real estate taxes. That is unless, between now and when the Branson Board of Aldermen meet to formally approve the recommendation that it voted to send itself for approval, common sense prevails and an accommodation is made to meet the school districts concern.

In its simplest and most basic terms, on Nov. 8, in a very practical and unselfish act, the voters of the Branson area voted to, among others, tax themselves so that adequate funds were available to bring new visitors into the Branson area as soon as possible. Now don’t get all riled up, the Ole Seagull knows that, in pure legal terms, the purpose of the tax is to provide funds for “the marketing, advertising, and promotion of tourism, the administration thereof, and a reasonable reserve” to “enhance the economic health of the district.”

That said however, the reality of the situation appears pretty simple. If, the end results of all that legalese and the Nov. 8 election, is not a timely significant increase in the number of new visitors to the Branson area the marketing will be of as much value to Branson as Terrell Owens is to the Philadelphia Eagles’ hopes of going to the super Bowl this year.

Prior to the passage of the tax the voters were told, and bought into the concept, that Branson needs to quickly and significantly increase the number of its first time visitors. They voted for a new tax so that there would be enough marketing money for Branson to market itself against its competitors who all have marketing budgets significantly greater than Branson’s $3.1 million i.e. Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge’s $11 million and Wisconsin Dells’ $7.1 million.

They were led to believe that the new tax would raise about $6 million dollars, which, when added to the approximately $3.1 million currently used to market Branson, would, for the first time, give the Branson area the marketing funds needed to competitively market it against other tourist destinations, approximately $9.1 million. But what happens to that competitiveness if the approximately $3.1 million currently being used to market Branson is reduced, eliminated, or used for other purposes?

The net result is that instead of having an additional $6 million dollars to market Branson there would only be an additional $2.9 million. Even worse, however, is the distinct possibility of still not having enough money to market Branson effectively against its competitors. How can this happen after the voters just provided another $6 million dollars so that Branson would be able to market itself competitively?

Hypothetically, let’s go to the “Tourist Destination 500” auto race. It’s a winner take all challenge with the winner getting one million new first time visitors. The Branson car is racing against the Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge and Wisconsin Dells cars. At a minimum, it will require 100 gallons of fuel to finish the race. The Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge car has 120 gallons, the Wisconsin Dells car has 110 gallons, and the Branson car has 66 gallons. Anyone want to guess which car doesn’t have a chance of finishing the race let alone winning?

To an Ole Seagull, marketing’s fuel is funding. If it takes $8-9 million to finish the “marketing race” and Branson only has $6 million will the final result be much different than it will be in the “Tourist Destination 500” race described above? It won’t make any difference how brilliant the race strategy was, how skillfully the car was driven, or how far ahead Branson was when the car ran out of gas short of the finish line, the Branson area still loses.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that Branson’s $3.1 current million marketing effort is funded with $2.3 million from the current City of Branson Tourism Tax and about $800,000 from Marketing Partners, local tourism businesses that contribute marketing funds to the marketing of Branson. Obviously, if that support is not maintained it will reduce the amount of “new” funds available to market the Branson area from $6 million to $2.9 million.

To keep that from happening, doesn’t it make sense for the City of Branson and the Marketing Partners to maintain the same levels of marketing support they have in the past? To work to find a way to combine that support in a coordinated cohesive marketing effort with, and controlled by, the independent Tourism Community Enhancement District Board?

To an Ole Seagull it does. Why? In addition to insuring that faith is kept with the voters, it will also provide the Branson area with the benefit of its best funded market effort ever at a time when it is sorely needed. If made in a timely manner, this effort can help those businesses that are hurting now, and, trust an Ole Seagull on this, the many more, particularly existing retail, that will be hurting over the next year or two if significantly more new and return visitors are not brought into the Branson area quickly, like “yesterday.”

The Nov. 4 edition of this paper contained a letter to the editor signed by Mayor Louis E. Schaefer expressing concerns about the Ole Seagull’s Sunday Oct. 16 column entitled “A question for Branson’s elected and appointed officials, Would you like to be treated this way?” The style and tenor of the letter was strangely reminiscent of a similar letter on the same topic that was published in the Sep. 29, 2004 edition of this paper. That letter was signed by City Administrator Terry Dody. Oh, and by the way, evidently the answer was “Yes.”

From the “get go,” let’s be clear on what the issue is. It’s not about a tree being cut down, annexing land, what’s in the minutes of meetings, the city requiring the removal of a “breakfast special sign” from a downtown restaurant that had been in place for years, some one being able to speak at public meetings or how they do it, the manner and way in which the liberty tree was removed, etc. To an Ole Seagull it’s about treating people the right way, the way things are done, and, what he believes is yet another example of how Branson is changing under the leadership of the man who seemingly controls its government in a Caesar like grip.

Why the Ole Seagull almost expects to see supplicants throwing palm branches down in front of his Suburban SUV as he drives through “his kingdom,” whoops, sorry, a slip of the tongue, “the city of Branson.” Some might say, “But Seagull, the Mayor doesn’t drive a suburban SUV.” Of course they would be right. Would all those who believe that either the Mayor or the board of aldermen actually control Branson’s city government please raise their hands? Hail Caesar!

Annexation or elections, the city’s new reputation under its current unelected leadership speaks for itself. As that leadership transforms the Branson that used to be into the new “upscale” Branson of the future it sometimes seems that all vestiges of the old, every tree, rock, and, seemingly, the very spirit, personality and “niceness” that used to be Branson, must go. Oh, they’ll talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk the new Branson appears to be as devoid of the old Branson as the Taneycomo Lakefront is of its trees.

Dody’s letter of a year ago, the current letter, and the city’s handling of the tree situation from day one are but manifestations of what businesses and citizens alike can expect in the new Branson. What is the chance that three business owners simply woke up one morning and said, “We’ve got nothing else to do today so let’s cut down a city owned tree?” An Ole Seagull would suggest that they are about the same as the city of Branson accepting any responsibility for what happened to the tree.

What bodes ominously for the future of Branson however is the manner in which Branson’s uncontrolled unelected leadership is transitioning Branson from the old to the new. One prime example from the mayor’s letter illustrates the point. It said, “The opinion column incorrectly states that after issuing a ticket the ‘city took no further action to pursue the case until the sisters recently filed a motion to have the case dismissed.’”

In fact, the column didn’t even contain the words “issuing” or “ticket” or any word close to them. Further, the sentence preceding the sentence that the writer of the letter quoted from stated, “After the charges were filed in the Branson Municipal Court, the sisters requested, for obvious reasons, a change of venue into the Taney County Court system.”

Even omitting that wasn’t enough of a distortion for the writer of the letter. The first part of the sentence that the writer selectively quoted contained the words “The request was granted and” immediately prior to the words “the city took no further action to pursue the case until the sisters recently filed a motion to have the case dismissed.” The integrity of someone who would intentionally mislead in this manner is as obvious as the motivation prompting the action.

Although the Ole Seagull would relish the opportunity to continue through the letter and deal with each issue on a similar basis what would it accomplish? To the Ole Seagull, this issue has never been about the commission of a crime. It has been about the responsiveness of government, effectively communicating with people, and treating them the way that they would like to be treated. He believes but for the actions of the city itself, the tree would still be standing.

At the end of the day however, what an Ole Seagull believes matters not; what matters is that Branson’s Caesar will still be Caesar and he will still rule supreme. Hail Caesar!

Common sense tells an Ole Seagull that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a day of “giving thanks.”Generally speaking, who among us says “thank you” to “no one?” Generally, when thanks is given it is for something and is “given” to the person or entity believed to have provided that something.

Yet, even as some would take “CHRIST” out of CHRISTmas they would take the “Giving” out of Thanksgiving. To whom are we giving thanks? From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is rooted on giving thanks to God for blessings bestowed.

The true meaning of “Thanksgiving,” and its involvement with the very foundation of our Nation can be readily gleaned from the Proclamations establishing it and history itself. One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor.”

On December 18, 1777, after the victory over the British at Saratoga, the Congress recommended, “That at one time, and with one voice, the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that, together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings they may join the penitent confession of their sins; and supplications for such further blessings as they stand in need of.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best. “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nations history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people.As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

The character trait for November for the FirstPLACE character education program, taking place in the schools of Branson and Taney County, for the month of November is “Citizenship – being loyal to your country.” What exactly does it mean to be “loyal?”

In general terms, a loyal person is one who is faithful to a person, a cause, obligation, duty, or has a steadfast allegiance to their country. How exactly does one show their loyalty to their country?

In reflecting on that question, the Ole Seagull is reminded of the verse of scripture saying, “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” In terms of citizenship, the Ole Seagull would suggest that “Citizenship without works is meaningless, being but a word.”

The works of citizenship are generally performed out of a sense of duty to ones country.

Duty, in general is “an act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion.” Loyalty to anything, friend, family, God or country, entails duty and, without the performance of that duty, is basically meaningless.

Of what value would the Declaration of Independence be today if after saying “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” and signing it, its signers had sent it to England and done nothing else? From the “shot heard around the world, fired April 19, 1775 from Lexington Square, to the next patrol in Iraq, where would our nation be without the sacrifices of those who do their duty on her behalf?

Some of the duties of citizenship are not as dramatic or demanding. They are the simple things like respecting our flag, our laws, each other, our history, and those in authority. Things like taking the responsibility to pay taxes, follow laws, participate in government and its processes, keeping abreast of local and national issues, and, perhaps as important as anything, voting based on your knowledge of the issues and what would be best for ones “country” rather than just themselves.

“Citizenship – loyalty to ones country” is not simply a national thing. It starts with individuals, families and homes and spreads into local, state, and national governments. A nation’s citizenship is but a reflection of that nation’s individual, family, and local citizenship.

As the final curtain was falling on one of the most distinguished military careers in the history of our nation, General Douglas MacArthur spoke to a joint session of the congress on April 19, 1951. To an Ole Seagull, the last nineteen words of that speech embody the very essence of what citizenship is when he described himself as “An old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.”

An Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that our great nation would be served, starting in our homes and going into the halls of government, at all levels, by those doing their duty as God has given them the light to see that duty.”

The Branson Daily Independent, and obviously the Ole Seagull, recommends a “Yes” vote for tourism on Nov. 8. We fully support and endorse the one percent sales tax to be used for the purpose of promoting tourism within the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District

Tourism is an extremely competitive business with many destinations and opportunities competing for tourists and their dollars. Combine that with the fact that Branson’s competitors have coordinated marketing budgets that are three to five times that of Branson and it is easy to understand why Branson’s overall visitor total is at best anemic and its rate of first time visitors has fallen to critical levels.

Some say that the answer is new things, shopping, shows, stars etc. Since it’s earliest entertainment days Branson’s entertainment product has evolved and changed to meet the needs of its visitors and provide them with an experience that will bring them back again. The current Branson entertainment product is the result of an on going process of adaptation, innovation, improvement and the blending the best of the new with Branson’s rich heritage of family entertainment.

Recent independent research indicates that the majority of the people coming to Branson like what they experience and return. That’s not a hard thing for an Ole Seagull to believe because he came to Branson, liked what he experienced and has been living in the Branson area for the last 20 years. Come to think of it there are probably a lot of people reading this column that have had a similar experience.

In any event, whether it is the unproven new, the tried and proven, or a constantly changing blend of both, in terms of Branson, or any other travel destination, the concept of “build it and they will come” only happens in the movies. Without effective marketing, what will make people want to come and experience Branson?

There are those who say that it is the job of the attractions, shows, restaurants, lodging establishments, etc. to pay for the marketing of Branson. Yet, this very week a lot of people are going to look at store ad inserts in newspapers. The purpose of the ad is to bring customers into the store with the intent that, once they are inside, those customers will purchase the goods that the store is selling.

“Branson Promise,” is a specialty coffee which is on the shelf with 20 other coffees in a local grocery store. How much of the 21 brands of coffee in the store, including “Branson Promise,” will be sold if the store’s marketing does not bring customers into the store? On the other hand, assuming that the store’s marketing is generating traffic, it is up to the makers of “Branson Promise” to market it so that when the stores customers make a coffee selection at the store it is “Branson Promise” rather than one of the other 20 brands of coffee that is being sold.

Branson and other tourist destinations are the “stores” who compete with each other to get visitors. The individual attractions, shows, restaurants, lodging establishments, etc. are the 21 brands of coffee that must market and differentiate themselves from their competitors. The challenge is the same in both instances. If the store, Branson, fails to generate enough visitors, then both the store and those whose products are being sold within the store lose.

Branson desperately needs more funding to competitively market what it has to offer. The proposed tax is as fair a way as there is to provide that funding. As a lovely lady that I know and respect recently said, “This is designed to not only help the economy but insure that it does not hurt the resident” which is why the vast majority of the total tax collected will be paid by the very tourists that the tax is going to market to and the tax itself does not apply to items such as groceries, prescription drugs, medical supplies, gasoline, and other items exempted by Missouri law.

In a community of independent entrepreneurs, diverse attitudes, priorities and backgrounds it’s an amazing feat to have an important initiative of this scope so widely supported. By all of us investing a little, we can, in the words of that same lady, “Stay competitive, stay in the forefront, and maintain our quality of life as we know it — and love it!” We encourage you to vote YES for tourism and our future on Nov. 8.

What happens to the body when the heart does not receive a “constant supply of fresh oxygen enriched blood?” The Ole Seagull isn’t a doctor so he can’t give a medical answer but he feels safe in saying, “The same things that happen to a tourist destination, like Branson, whose marketing does not generate a constant supply of new first time visitors, very little that is good and a lot that could be really really bad.”

Marketing is to Branson what the heart is to the body and funding for marketing is what blood is to the heart. It’s kind of a “catch 22,” even as the heart needs blood to continue pumping the blood so necessary for a healthy body so too does marketing need funding to generate the new first time visitors that Branson needs to maintain and grow its vital tourism industry.

Interestingly enough, one pint of blood going into the heart is one pint of blood coming out of the heart or basically a one for one exchange. On the other hand, the best current estimates are that when the City of Branson, through the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB, its current marketing contractor, spends one dollar on marketing the result is one dollar going in and $24 being generated because of the one dollar marketing expenditure; that’s about a 24 to one exchange.

At this point some might say, “If it’s such a great deal why don’t Branson’s businesses pony up the money, why ask the taxpayers to pay for their marketing?” Now the Ole Seagull knows you asked first but let him ask a question before he answers. What happens to the body if the heart does not get enough blood for one reason or another due to injury, clogged arteries, etc? Won’t the blood flow out of the heart be reduced with its attendant negative effects on the body?

The same thing happens with marketing. If the marketing program does not get the funding it needs to do what it has to do its efficiency is reduced along with the rate of new visitors and return visitors. Quite simply, the answer to the question is that no major tourist destination, including Branson, can get enough marketing funding from its businesses alone so that those businesses can survive and there will be enough funding for an effective marketing program.

The challenge is to market in a manner that will maintain the health and vitality of the very businesses that provide the reason for tourists to come. The very businesses that provide employment and are the primary economic lynchpin for most of the income generated in the Branson area. That’s why every major tourist destination uses taxes, paid primarily by the tourists upon whom their very economic livelihoods are based, to help fund their marketing efforts.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, in the Ole Seagull’s opinion, Branson has never had enough money to effectively market what Branson has to offer. If Branson’s marketing was a heart it would be on life support simply because there was not enough blood, funding, coming into it to permit it to work effectively.

The good news is that the vast majority of those that Branson’s limited marketing reaches, and influences to come to Branson, like Branson and will return. The bad news is that competing destinations like Wisconsin Dells and Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge spend $7 and $11 million respectively compared to Branson’s $2.9 million. Given that they are competing for basically the same type of visitor as Branson doesn’t it make sense for Branson’s marketing to have the funding necessary to market itself competitively and effectively?

On Nov. 8 voters within the Tourism Enhancement District will decide whether or not to provide Branson’s “tourism heart,” its marketing program, with the funding necessary to effectively market what Branson has to offer. If they vote “Yes” then, for the very first time, Branson will have enough funding to competitively and effectively market Branson.

The easy thing to do is to fluff it off by saying something like, “No way I’m voting for any new tax” or “let them fund their own marketing.” The harder and more responsible thing to do is to look at the reality of the situation and how important tourism is to not only the economic well being of our community but the quality of life that all living in the Branson area enjoys.

“Ah Seagull, you don’t even live in the district. Why do you have a ‘Vote Yes for Tourism’ sticker on your car and sign on your front lawn.” Please tell me that’s a rhetorical question.

On Aug. 29, 2004, in broad daylight, a person or persons unknown cut down a Bradford Pear tree located in front of Jimmy Jets Grill in historic downtown Branson. At the time no one, including, evidently, the police officer who drove by as the tree was being cut down, was aware that a crime was being committed. What small business trying to operate and survive in Branson would dare to intentionally violate an edict of Branson city government? Can anyone, even the police officer who drove by the scene of the alleged crime as it was happening, honestly testify that the chain saw wielding fiend that cut the tree down was the Ole Seagull1?

Come to think of it, there’s probably more evidence as to who it was that cut down dozens of beautiful Oak and other trees on the Taneycomo Lake front because they stood in the way of what the city wanted to do. Even the beloved “Liberty Tree” was not immune to either the price of progress or the lack of respect that the city showed those citizens and businesses that were concerned about preserving the tree. In spite of intense public interest in the tree, or perhaps because of the intense public interest in the tree, it was taken down without any public warning or discussion by the city.

It was that same lack of concern, and compassion on the part of the city that lead up to the demise of the tree in front of Jimmy Jets on Aug. 29, 2004 and the subsequent charging of the now infamous “Olson Sisters Chainsaw Gang,” with the heinous crime of causing its demise. Three columns by the Ole Seagull chronicle the efforts of the Olson sisters to get advice and counsel from the city, the runaround given to them by the city, and the pathetic attempt by the city to cover up its ineptitude and lack of concern regarding the situation after the demise of the tree and the filing of charges against the sisters by the city.

Those columns, in order of suggested reading, are entitled, “Score: Birds and Trees, 10 – City of Branson, DBMA, and Downtown Restaurants, 0,” “In Cold Sap – a story of better actions government through communications,” and “Nixon had Watergate – is this Branson’s Treegate.” They are available on line at www.bransoncourier.com. Just enter the word “Sap”, with an upper case “S”, in the “Search Articles” box at the top of the page and press the “Search” button.

After the charges were filed in the Branson Municipal Court, the sisters requested, for obvious reasons, a change of venue into the Taney County Court system. The request was granted and the city took no further action to pursue the case until the sisters recently filed a motion to have the case dismissed.What an excellent opportunity for the city of Branson to demonstrate compassion and concern along with treating those they serve the way they would like to be treated.

How did the city respond after a year of inactivity on the case? Is it possible that the city attorney suggested to the sisters that each of the three sisters pay a fine “so that we can replant the trees?” Surely not in light of the fact that it has been over a year since the demise of the tree and everyone knows that the Bradford Pear Trees downtown are coming down as part of the down town’s “Cityscape Project.”

Does the city of Branson really want to pass up this opportunity to treat others as it would like to be treated? Is this not perhaps an appropriate time to remember the admonition, “Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” Why not take this opportunity to right a wrong rather than step on the tail of a sleeping tiger?

Ok, let’s get to the nubbin of it, eastern and western Taney County live in two different worlds. An outsider watching what has been transpiring recently would sense the same thing that the Ole Seagull sensed when he moved to Taney County just about twenty years ago. That eastern Taney County and the Taney County Commissioners treat the economic generator of the vast majority of Taney County’s tax revenues, the immediate Branson area and its tourism based industry, as an arrant child and a tolerated pain.

Well brothers and sisters let’s relieve the pain. Section 47-310 of the Missouri Revised Statutes says that “The question of dividing any county or of striking from any county any portion thereof, whether for the purpose of forming a new county or of adding to any other county” may be initiated on the petition of not less than one hundred voters of such county. Let’s, just for a moment, imagine, what could happen if just 100 people from Taney County petitioned for the western district of Taney County be struck from Taney County for the purposes of establishing a new county.

Oh, there’s more involved but wouldn’t it be worth the effort. Just think, instead of the Taney County Commission and eastern Taney County concerning themselves with what Branson is doing, or not doing, and the character of its leadership they can concentrate all their efforts on running the new slimmed down Taney County. Branson and Hollister will be located in the new county, which, for the purposes of this column only, the Ole Seagull will call Freeus County.

In the past, the Taney County Commissioners have expressed concern about Branson Landing. With Branson Landing being located in the new Freeus County they would no longer have to concern themselves with issues involving Branson Landing.

Well maybe all but one. The comparison that some people make to the expenditure of over $1 million in fees wasted trying to put the new jail in locations other than the one ultimately chosen and the alleged $5 million the Australians received from the City of Branson on the Branson Landing Project. One thing is for sure, the $1 million is going to contribute as much to the actual building of the new jail as whatever it was the Australians got from the city of Branson contributed to the building of Branson Landing. But, on a more positive note, will Taney County even need a new jail if Freeus County is formed?

With the establishment of Freeus County, current Taney County Commissioner Ron Herschend won’t have to take time from his busy day to disrespect all those involved in the FirstPLACE county wide character education program by using the program as a political tool to publicly lecture the Branson Board of Aldermen on character traits. Hum, come to think of it he will be out of a job so that will give him lots of time to stand in front of the mirror and repeat “Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor” over and over until it becomes his own.

Taney County Commissioners and the citizens of Taney County wouldn’t have to be concerned about taxes to promote tourism because most of the tourism, and the tax revenues it provides, would be in Freeus County. The good news is that they will have plenty of time to figure out how much they will have to raise personal property and real estate taxes or cut services on themselves to make up the loss of Branson’s tourism related tax revenues.

Bee Creek Sewer Project problems such as whether it will cost $16 million or $23 million, where the extra $7 million will come from if its $23 million, and the monthly interest payments on the $16 million dollars that was borrowed for its construction last January will become moot as to Taney County. Those and other problems such as the logic for not extending the project down the very lake shore it is designed to protect will become Freeus problems to solve and finance.

Oh, it would take some effort but won’t it be worth it? Isn’t it a “win-win” situation?” Don’t the impassioned words of Dr. Martin Luther King describe how a lot of people in both the new Freeus County and Taney County would feel if it happened, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

In terms of just the four laning of Highway 65, from a pure efficiency point of view, there is little doubt that the project could have been done quicker and cheaper if Highway 65 could have been closed to traffic while the construction was taking place. The reality of the situation was that the Missouri Department of Transportation knew that wasn’t an option and, along with budget and other considerations, had to plan to keep Highway 65 open while the project was under construction.

Does that mean that the project was not constructed efficiently? No, it means that, as is the case with a lot of situations in life, that it was constructed as efficiently as the reality of the situation permitted.

Were the efforts effective, did they have the intended or expected effect of making the highway travel between Branson and Springfield safer and quicker? Most people, who have driven on Highway 65 north of Branson before the four laning project was complete, would probably ask, “That’s a rhetorical question, right?”

What does the building of a highway have to do with whether or not the marketing of Branson is either “efficient” or “effective?” Well, let’s see if there are any parallels.

The remarkable thing about the marketing of Branson is that while trying to attract the new visitors necessary to keep Branson’s tourism industry healthy in the long term it has maintained the level of repeat visitations that it has from its loyal customers. Particularly with the rate of new visitors dropping to a dismal 20 percent, it doesn’t take a Solomon to figure out what would have happened to Branson’s tourism industry if its marketing efforts had ignored the needs of its loyal customers.

In terms of increasing the number of new visitors to Branson, from a pure efficiency point of view, there is little doubt that the rate of decline of the new visitors, necessary for Branson’s long term success, over the last ten years could have been reduced if the need to maintain Branson’s current level of repeat visitors was ignored. The reality of the situation is that those responsible for marketing Branson knew that wasn’t an option and along with budget and other considerations, had to plan to keep marketing to those who had visited Branson before while trying to increase the number of new visitors to Branson.

Does that mean that the marketing of Branson under the control of the City of Branson’s marketing contractor, the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB has not been conducted efficiently? No, it means that, as is the case of the four laning of Highway 65, it was conducted as efficiently as the reality of the situation permitted.

Have the marketing efforts to attract the new visitors necessary for Branson’s long term success been effective? Most people who have been watching the decline of Branson’s first time visitor rates over the last ten years to its current dismal rate of about 20 percent would probably ask, “That’s a rhetorical question, right?”

The Highway 65 project had a sufficient budget to keep the road open and to effectively complete the project. Branson’s limited marketing budget does not, and has never had, the funding to effectively maintain the levels of repeat visitors necessary for Branson’s current survival as a viable tourist destination while simultaneously generating the additional new visitors necessary for it’s future success. Just once in his lifetime an Ole Seagull would like to see what would happen to the new visitor rate over a period of five years if there was enough funding to market Branson effectively, just once.

In 1937 Winston Churchill said, “There’s no such thing as a good tax.” Well Sir Winston might just change his mind if he was familiar with the “retail sales tax” that is collected on most retail purchases, made in Branson and the immediate surrounding area.

Why? For two good reasons, the vast majority of the retail sales taxes paid is not paid by those living in Branson and the surrounding area and a large part of the operating budgets for both the city of Branson and Taney County comes from those tax proceeds.

The Ole Seagull is not much on statistics but, based on his understanding, he doesn’t believe that he would be too far off to say that for every dollar of retail sales tax paid by those living in the Branson area at least three dollars is paid by visitors to the area. Now even Sir Winston might smile at that return on an investment.

In public meetings the Taney County Commissioners have estimated that 75 percent or more of Taney County’s operating budget comes from the retail sales tax that is collected in Branson and the immediate surrounding area. That budget includes the salaries, and benefits paid for all Taney County employees, including the Sheriff’s Department, County Commissioners, and administrative personnel as well as funding for county roads and bridges, sewers, and other needed infrastructure such as jails and court houses, etc.

Some might ask the question “Doesn’t our real estate taxes pay for the operational expenses of operating Taney County government?” The answer to that question is as close as the last real estate tax bill that Taney County property owners paid. How much of it went for those purposes? If yours is the same as the Ole Seagulls, the answer will be “zero.”

Is there any reason to believe that the situation is vastly different within the city of Branson itself? Can any reasonable person actually believe that the majority of revenues required to run the city of Branson and service its infrastructure debt come from real estate or other taxes paid by the residents of Branson?

The next logical question is, “If the bulk of the revenue necessary to run local government does not come from the real estate tax and other taxes paid by those living in Branson and the surrounding area where does it come from?” The answer is that it comes from the retail sales tax, the vast majority of which is paid by visitors to our area.

Does the tourism industry have anything to do with visitors coming to our area? That’s really a rhetorical question, of course it does. What happens if visitors, for whatever reason, terrorist attack, gas prices or shortages, hurricanes, competition from other travel destinations, or lack of effective marketing don’t come to the Branson area in the numbers necessary to generate enough revenue from the retail sales tax for local governments to “pay the bills?”

From an Ole Seagulls perspective, he would expect that the local governments would respond by cutting their budgets as much as possible. Then they would have to raise revenues from sources other than the retail sales tax to cover the “short fall.”

At this point some are probably expecting a list of the revenue sources that might be used. However, for two reasons that will not be the case. The revenue sources are limited and obvious and, regardless of the name attached to the source, the actual revenue would come from those living in Branson and the surrounding area.

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, one of the best and most efficient ways to avoid having to deal with this type of situation is to make sure that Branson’s tourism industry stays healthy. That will require not only maintaining current visitor levels but moving the rate of new visitors from its current anemic rate of around 20 percent up to at least 30 percent. Although it seems trite, six words cover what is necessary for this to happen, “effective marketing,” “effective marketing,” and “effective marketing.”

Recently the Ole Seagull sat in a meeting where the actual plans for the four laning of Highway 65 to the Arkansas State Line were displayed and discussed. That meeting in conjunction with other publicly available information convinces him that that project is in fact underway and will continue as a priority.

Said another way, what should have been the priority in the mid ninety’s has finally become the priority. Oh, that we could go back in time and change some of the decisions that were made but we can’t, either as individuals or as a community. The reality of the situation is what it is.

And the reality is that as of Sep. 11, 2005, Highway 65 is in the process of being four laned, south, to Arkansas State Line and over $60 million has been spent on the Ozarks Mountain Highroad, State Highway 465, to have it dead end at State Highway 76. It doesn’t for one iota change what should have been done in the mid ninety’s or, more appropriately, what shouldn’t have been done, but it is today’s reality.

And what a beautiful scenic reality it is, a four lane highway that, as currently constructed, would be of more value to Branson as a hiking and bike trail or a permanent home for the Branson Area Festival of Lights, than as a traffic relief artery. It currently has exits only at Highways 248 and 76. Both exits are miles away from Branson’s core of activity and its alternate traffic relief routes.

Those taking the Highroad to Highway 248 and exiting back into Branson will be traveling on a dangerous twisty two lane road. Even more ridiculous is the fact that when they have done all that, they will be at the same point they could have gotten to quicker and more safely if they had simply gone to the Highway 248 exit in Branson and headed west, access to Branson’s excellent system of alternate routes at James Epps Road, Gretna Road, or the Shepherd of the Hills Expressway.

Currently, those that don’t exit on Highway 248 are forced to exit it at Highway 76 west of Branson’s strip. They then travel back into Branson on a two lane road that was designed and built decades ago to handle the traffic of that era.

If the Highroad was extended to the junction of Highways 165 and 265 it would enable our community, and the taxpayers of Missouri, to at least gain some benefit from the $60 million plus dollars that have been spent on it thus far. The two additional exits would give Branson’s visitors convenient and efficient entry to, and exit from, Branson through its west side while providing almost immediate access to the west end of Branson’s Yellow and Red alternate traffic relief routes.

On just about any Sunday, during the season, Highway 76 is backed up for miles with people leaving Branson via Highway 65. A Highroad interchange at Highway 376, and to a lesser extent, the junction of Highways 165 and 265, just north of Table Rock Dam, would relieve this congestion by providing an alternate to Highway 76 for the extremely large percentage of Branson’s visitors leaving Branson via Highway 65 to the north.

In view of the fact that at least part of an interchange has been stubbed out at the junction of Highways 165 and 265 it would seem to make sense to extend the Highroad that far. This would provide a direct route to the Dam area of Table Rock Lake, a loop back into Branson via Highway 165 and provide easy access to the Highroad for this relatively densely populated area.

For some time there has been a move to extend the Highroad to its junction with State Highway 376. Given the current reality of the situation, particularly the priority that the state is giving to the four laning of Highway 65 to the Arkansas State Line, the Ole Seagull thinks that it makes sense for the community to support the extension of the Highroad not only to Highway 376 but to the junction of Highway 165 and 265 just north of Table Rock Dam.

The Character Trait for September is” Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor”

For the school year 2005-2006 those people and businesses who care about the future of the children in Branson and Taney County should be in First PLACE, not second place or some other place but First PLACE. For at least one school year, as a community, let’s show our children the courtesy and honor, of demonstrating and reinforcing the character traits they are being taught in school so that they have a better chance to become a permanent part of their lives.

“First PLACE!” stands for “Partners Linking Arms for Character Education.” The First PLACE , program was covered in a column entitled, “Character takes First PLACE within our community,” that was published Aug. 21 in this paper and which can be found on the internet at https://bransoncourier.com/ under “Editorials.”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, it is the respect that our community and it’s families show our children regarding their efforts to learn these traits that will determine whether or not they become theirs to use for a lifetime. Will we give our children the courtesy and honor necessary to reinforce the traits being taught in school, overcome the negative influences and pressures that are counterproductive to good character, and encourage them?

Some might ask, “What does treating our children with courtesy and honor have to do with whether these characteristics become a tool that they can use for the rest of their lives?” In terms of what they are being taught, it shows “respect” for their efforts. It also shows that we value and honor the character traits being taught and their efforts to learn them.

One of the definitions of “courtesy” is the “Willingness or generosity in providing something needed.” Especially considering the limited time that our children are in school, it is obvious that our community, in addition to efforts within the home, must be willing to provide the encouragement and reinforcement needed for the learning process to grow to fruition.

That aspect of First PLACE is handled by businesses, churches, and civic organizations that become a “partner” by agreeing to do ONE thing each month that corresponds to the Character Trait of the Month. There are many partners doing just that and then some. There is however, one thing every business can do; they can prominently and publicly display the Character Trait of the Month in and about their businesses. Or can they?

On Sep. 1, the Ole Seagull went into five different businesses where he was conducting business. Only one, “Jersey Mike’s Subs” displayed a sign or other form of public encouragement and support regarding the Character Trait of the month. Jersey Mike’s had the nine Taney County Character Traits displayed on an eight by ten inch sign taped on their window and the same size sign saying “Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor” prominently displayed by the cash register.

As the Ole Seagull drove out Highway 76 he was reminded of a line from “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” which says, “Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink.” Oh, there were “Marquees, marquees everywhere, nor any word of respect.” Well almost. From downtown to Highway 165, the only encouragement or support of our children’s efforts the Ole Seagull observed on a marquee was the marquee for the Branson Methodist Church.

Just think of the positive message of encouragement and support that could be sent. Sent to not only our children but to their parents and those working so hard to make the character traits being taught a part of each child’s life, if the majority of our community’s businesses, churches, and organizations showed them the courtesy and honor of prominently displaying the Character Trait of the Month. What message does displaying nothing send?

For assistance in getting free signs or CDs from which you can print your own signs or to become a “partner” call 417-334-6401, ext. 4242, visit the First Place website at www.keetercenter.edu/firstplace. If all fails call the Ole Seagull at 417-294.0404 and leave a message. He will get back to you. The important thing is to do something that will publicly encourage and support our children as they study the character traits which will, one way or the other, shape their futures.

Sure, it will take a little effort but aren’t our children worthy of the courtesy and honor it would show them?

As he napped, the Ole Seagull surely must have smiled as he began to dream and heard the instrumental version of the “Howdy Doody Theme” drifting through the spaces of dream land. It was reminiscent of a simpler, nicer time and place. A time and place where millions of America’s kids spent many an afternoon in “Doodyville” with Howdy Doody, Flub-a-dub, Clarabell Hornblower and its other inhabitants while being entertained and seeing examples of positive character traits such as respect, citizenship, compassion, and cooperation.

!Character can be defined as “moral or ethical strength” or “the combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another.” It is not a matter of whether or not a person, group or thing is going to have character, they are; it’s just a matter of what type of character they are going to have good, bad, or indifferent.

Very few, if any, people are born “good” or “bad.” From an individual perspective, character is acquired. It is learned and developed on a daily basis based on environmental factors and the choices that individuals make about how they live their lives and what they fill their minds with.

Proverbs said it first, “For as he thinks within himself, so he is.” In an Ole Seagulls life this basic truth has evolved into a simple irrefutable master guide line, “We will become what we think we are and that is controlled by what we have placed in our minds.”

That’s why the Ole Seagull took note as Sue Head from College of the Ozarks and Cindy Raines from White River Electric explained the First PLACE, “Partners, Linking Arms for Character Education,” program at the Jul. 11 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen. The simple program uses a combination of our areas schools, the community, and family to fill the minds of our children with positive character traits that can forever change their lives.

The program is elegant in its operational simplicity. Each month of the school year, the schools will emphasis and intentionally teach one character trait. That trait will be constantly reinforced during the month not only at school but throughout the community as “partners,” and family reinforce the trait by committing to demonstrate one visible action each month that ties into the trait.

Our areas schools and teachers have been preparing for this program and are committed to it. Our community and families must also do their part so that the traits being taught in school are reinforced throughout the month. The only thing those outside the school have to do is commit to demonstrating one visible action each month that ties into the character trait of the month.

As an example, the trait of the month for September is, “Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor.” What an impact it could have if that trait was specifically mentioned during Sunday school, in sermons, in newspaper stories or columns, on radio shows, or appeared on various marquees around town. How about banks and utility companies “stuffing” something in the envelopes with the monthly bills about the trait of the month that customers could share with their children or grandchildren? Just think of the impact that a simple hand painted sign or poster or 8 x 11 inch piece of paper with the trait of the month displayed in retail businesses and offices throughout our community could have!

The neat thing is that the possibilities are endless and require so little, just the commitment to demonstrate one visible action each month that ties into the character trait of the month. Aren’t our community’s children and grandchildren worth the effort?

From a family perspective it could be as simple as writing the character trait of the month on a piece of paper and putting it on the door of the refrigerator or simply asking the children in the family what the character trait of the month is and what it means to them. Again, simple is good and the possibilities are endless.

The character traits for each month are as follows: September – Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor; October – Responsibility – taking ownership of what you say and do; November – Citizenship – being loyal to your country; December – Compassion/Kindness – caring for others; January – Commitment – being true to your word; February – Honesty – being truthful in what you say and do; March – Cooperation – working together toward a common goal; April – Perserverance – demonstrating persistent determination; May – Self-discipline – training and control of yourself.

The Ole Seagulls favorite verse of scripture is, “Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, of excellence, or worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” As a community and as individuals, the First Place program provides the opportunity to not only “dwell on these things” but make them a vital part of the lives of our children and grandchildren, ourselves, and the very community that we call home.

Should Branson change the name Ozark Mountain Christmas to Ozark Mountain Holidays?

In the Branson area, one of the busiest times of the year is Ozark Mountain Hanukah. Most can remember a time, not too long ago, when the majority of our businesses ended their season at the end of October. Then along came Ozark Mountain Kwanzaa and the season was extended until the middle of December. Not only was the season extended, but the period between the first of November and the middle of December, known as Ozark Mountain Holidays, became, in terms of economic success, the most important part of the year for a lot of Branson’s, shows, attractions, restaurants, and retail establishments.

Some might say, “Seagull, you’ve got it confused. It’s not Ozark Mountain Kwanzaa, Hanukah, or Holidays, its Ozark Mountain Christmas.” Is it? From a business and commercial sense, except for the Christmas portion of some shows, where is the evidence that Branson, “America as it should be,” is celebrating Christmas as opposed to some contrived politically correct version of something called “Holidays.”

As visitors to Branson drive up and down our streets are they more than likely to see the welcome “Merry Christmas” on a business or the words “Happy Holidays” or one of the other politically correct sayings that leaves “Christmas” out. As our visitors interface with the personnel working in Branson’s entertainment, retail, lodging, and food service areas, are they more likely to hear someone say to them “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays?”

As an example, the Dec. 24, 2004 edition of this paper contained a letter from a lady who, while eating in a local restaurant with her husband, received the greeting of “Happy Holidays,” from their server. When her husband said, “I think you mean ‘Merry Christmas’” she quickly responded, “Oh, we can’t say that unless the customer does.” The person writing the letter ended it by saying, “How sad.”

To an Ole Seagull it’s sad because it represents the trend in a lot of our area’s businesses and organizations to take the word “Christmas” out of Christmas. If Branson and its businesses are more concerned about being politically correct and not offending anyone by using the word “Christmas” that’s fine, let’s change the name of “Ozarks Mountain Christmas” to “Ozarks Mountain Holidays” and be done with it.

On the other hand, the Ole Seagull believes that if there was one place in the country that ought to be “Merry Christmas USA” it should be Branson, Missouri. Is not the celebration of the traditional Christmas a part of Americana that is an inherent part of Branson’s history and heritage? Among other things, doesn’t the origin of Branson’s Adoration Day Parade, now going into its 57^th year, testify to that fact?

History and heritage aside, from an economic point of view, doesn’t it make sense for Branson to promote the traditional “Christmas” rather than the politically correct “Happy Holidays?” People can go anywhere for the politically correct “Happy Holidays” but where can they go where “Christmas” is Christmas? From an economic perspective, it’s puzzling how a town like Branson, that markets traditional family values, in terms of its entertainment, could so quickly succumb to the politically correct “Happy Holidays” version of Christmas rather than seize the opportunity to promote the traditional “Merry Christmas” version.

The good news is that, in January of this year, the Board of Directors of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution establishing a policy of trying to keep “Christmas” in “Christmas.” The policy encourages the use of the term “Merry Christmas” in lieu of “Happy Holidays” in connection with the Chambers involvement with “Ozark Mountain Christmas” and in other situations where it is the intent of the Chamber to specifically express “Christmas” wishes or greetings to those celebrating the holiday of “Christmas.”

It’s a first step that, if followed by the City of Branson and other businesses, could put the “Christmas” back into Ozarks Mountain Christmas. One can only wonder what would happen if Branson’s simple message was, “We celebrate the holiday of Christmas, its promise and spirit and would love to have you come, visit, and share them with us?”

“Isn’t Branson Landing just another Branson shopping mall that is located on the shores of Lake Taneycomo?”

In a recent column the Ole Seagull referred to Branson Landing, Branson’s new $420 million master-planned shopping entertainment development, being built on the shores of beautiful Lake Taneycomo in historic downtown Branson. He ventured his opinion that it will “provide Branson with a tourist shopping, dining, and entertainment experience that is fresh, new, exciting and unique.”

For obvious reasons no one has questioned the “new” aspects of the comment. Some, however, have had a problem with the use of the words “fresh,” “exciting” and “unique.” Why some have actually asked,

“Isn’t Branson Landing just another Branson shopping mall that is located on the shores of Lake Taneycomo?”

Yeah sure, and some might consider a 15 pound Rainbow Trout as just another trout, hearing their granddaughter sing a solo as just another voice, and the Shoji Tabuchi Show as just another show. How many shopping malls in Branson have the blend of national brand retail stores, shops, galleries, restaurants, and ambiance that Branson Landing will have?

May an Ole Seagull suggest that the answer is “none?” In Branson today, to get anywhere near the shopping choices that will be available at Branson Landing, guests park their cars, shop until it’s time to eat, and then get in their cars to go somewhere else to eat. In terms of what Branson currently has to offer, just the combination of the pure shopping experience that Branson Landing will provide and the convenient availability of a variety of restaurants for just about every taste and budget makes Branson Landing fresh, exciting and unique.

Branson aside, do many shopping malls anywhere have an easily accessible and useable 1.5 mile waterfront boardwalk running its entire length that is integrated into its overall theme? How many are built on over a mile and a half of panoramic water front under the natural backdrop similar to Branson’s beautiful Ozark bluffs?

An active marina or an integrated waterfront “town square” big enough to accommodate 5,000 people for community and other special events, festivals, shows, etc. is an integrated part of how many shopping malls? How many have the choice of waterfront dining that Branson Landing will have?

A nightly, synchronized sound, light, fire, and water attraction costing $7.5 million is standard fare at how many shopping malls in the United States? More importantly, is there another shopping mall in all of America, offering all this, plus the depth, variety, and quality of the family entertainment that is “Branson?”

Like most attractions, shows, shops, etc. that have come to Branson since the Lynch family started operating Marble Cave as a sightseeing attraction in 1894 and the publishing of Harold Bell Wright’s book, “The Shepherd of the Hills,” in 1907, the reason that the Branson Landing is being built in Branson is because of what is already here. Just as those coming before did, Branson Landing will add to what Branson already is as it becomes part of that ever changing entertainment experience that is Branson.

Branson Landing is a lot of things but one of them isn’t “just another Branson shopping mall that is located on the shores of Lake Taneycomo.” It is a unique shopping entertainment destination, within Branson, that will provide an experience not currently available in Branson or anywhere else, and give people yet another reason to visit Branson for the first time or to come back again and more often.

The purpose of the Public Comment Meeting, authorized by Section 105.025 of the Branson City Code, “is to accommodate citizens and guests who have comments regarding city business to bring before the board of Aldermen for informational purposes.” It is written in simple easy to understand English so that those wanting to bring something before the aldermen can do so simply by reading it and complying with its simple straight forward conditions.

Subsection B. states, “Any person wishing to appear and speak at the Public Comment Meeting shall sign the speaker sign up sheet located at the front door of the Council Chambers. Each person wishing to speak at the Public Comment Meeting must sign the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.” Its application appears to be a simple matter of reading comprehension rather than a Solomon like legal interpretation.

It says that “any person” wishing to speak at the meeting shall do what? “Sign the speaker sign up sheet located at the front door of the Council Chambers.” When must they sign the sheet? The speaker sign up sheet must be signed “Prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.”

Both Alderman Stan Barker and Branson City Administrator Terry are “persons.” They spoke at the Public Comment Meeting about comments they wanted to present at the meeting without complying with the law and signing the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.

As would be expected, Section 105.025 does have exceptions to provide the flexibility for aldermen and the city administrator to respond to issues raised by the public at Public Comment Meetings. The only exception for aldermen is that “they may address any issues raised by any speaker at any point during the meeting.” In Alderman Barkers case there was no speaker at the meeting to raise a “point during the meeting.” He was the only speaker.

The only exception applicable to the city administrator says, “Items raised under public comment may be referred to the City Administrator.” The tapes for the Jul. 25 Public Comment Meeting indicate that Dody spoke first before any other speaker and that his stated purpose was to make sure that the Branson Board of Aldermen understood that they had the “the ability to talk during this Public Comment Meeting” and that there were “no restrictions as Mr. Groman has alluded to.”

The “allusions” referred to were published in a Jul. 24 column, entitled, “Who was that masked alderman? – Hi-Yo Blunder Away!” which can be found on line under Editorials at www.bransoncourier.com. Obviously, it could not possibly have been “raised under public comment” before the Jul. 25 meeting and could not have been referred to him at that meeting because he was the first speaker.

It’s really pretty simple. From an Ole Seagulls perspective, absent a specific exception stating that aldermen and city administrators don’t have to comply with the law like everyone else, both Dody and Barker should not only have followed the law but, because of their positions, should have set an example for the rest of us to follow.

What about the City Attorney’s legal opinion, issued during the Public Comment Meeting on Jul. 25 after he had carefully reviewed Section 105.025? Is that where he said, “There is no restriction, no limitation, no prohibitions of any kind on the mayor, any member of the board, or any member of the staff speaking or making comments in the Public Comment Section.” That’s the one.

Two quotes come to an Ole Seagull’s mind as he reads the opinion. One is “Houston we have a problem” and the other is a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

The Jul. 8 edition of the Branson Daily Independent contained a letter to the editor signed “Stan Barker, Ward 1 Branson Aldermen.” The letter was faxed as an attachment to an official City of Branson fax coversheet containing a written request for publication by Jerry Adams, the city’s communications director. It was in response to a Jul. 1 letter to the editor from John Logan.

“Seagull, do those facts make Barker’s letter an official communiqué from the city?”

“Official means whatever the city wants it to mean but one thing is for sure, it came from the city.”

The letter was signed under the “color” of Barker’s position and its publication was requested, in writing, by the city’s communications director. In addition, city resources were used, fax, materials,” phone lines, etc.”

Among other things, the letter said, “But worst of all by far is Logan’s self-serving attempt to use the mention of our young men and women serving in Iraq for his own personal gain. Spinning the truth to sell his cartoons is bad enough, but using the mention of our young men and women serving in Iraq is a blatant emotional ploy to muddy the waters for the sole purpose of selling his cartoons, is a completely reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act.”

Logan’s letter contained only one reference to the service of our troops in Iraq. That reference said, “Young men and women are fighting and serving in Iraq for an oppressed people.. yet our city leaders dare not raise a ‘nay’ finger to vote against the newly implemented pre-editing of public documents.”

“Gosh Seagull, how could any reasonable, truthful, or logical person get from that to the act that Barker and the city alleges?”

“You’re assuming that reason, logic, and especially truth, had something to do with it.”

To an Ole Seagull it’s not what the city did; legitimately respond to something it felt it had a need to, that is of concern. The concern is caused by the insidious way that they went beyond the issue and used the “color” of a city response to publicly accuse a specific individual of a “reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act,” without presenting one scintilla of evidence to back it up.

In a letter to the editor published in the Jul.10 edition of the Branson Daily Independent, as relates to this issue, Logan responded by stating that he was “extremely proud to mention our military in Iraq” and that he believed “they would be proud to be remembered.” As to his motivation for the cartoons, Logan simply said, “What personal gain can I achieve? Not a sixpence!”

At this point a reasonable and prudent person would probably have said, “Enough is enough, our city and area have more important issues to be dealt with, let’s move on.” But no wait, does the Ole Seagull hear the “thundering hoof beats of the great horse” Blunder, galloping into Branson. Is a masked alderman about to shoot the credibility of both himself and Branson’s governmental leadership in the foot with a “whoops” bullet just before he rides off into the sunset shouting, “Hi-Yo Blunder Away?”

During the “Public Comment Meeting” held on Jul.11, in complete violation of, and disrespect for, the requirements of Section 105.025 of the Branson City Code, governing who may speak during that meeting, Alderman Barker choose to respond to Logan’s Jul. 10 letter. During that response Barker did not present one scintilla of evidence substantiating the “reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act” that he alleged in his letter to the editor.

Instead, the tapes for that meeting indicate that Barker said, “Logan didn’t like my comment in regards to that I felt like that some of the things that he says are merely to help promote his cartoons. Well, he says here, that he has nothing to gain from that. Mr. Logan, how do you make your living?”

The Ole Seagull’s first instinct was to jump up, go to the podium, point out how arrogant, ludicrous, and irrelevant his question was and ask Barker just one question, “Where is the evidence backing up your allegations relative to the alleged reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act?” Well, OK, he would have asked two questions. The second would have been, “What do you call someone who publicly accuses another of committing ‘a reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act,’ without evidence substantiating the accusation?”

Of course the Ole Seagull didn’t dare go up to the podium least he be accused, by Barker, of some shameful action disrespecting the mayor, board, and citizens of Branson for not following the rules of the meeting. Come to think of it however, the risk was minimal. How intelligent would it have been for someone, who was themselves in violation of those rules, to accuse someone else of disrespect for not following those same rules?

“Who was that masked alderman?”

“Hi-Yo Blunder Away.”

At the Jun. 13 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen John Logan made comments in opposition to a resolution. The official city tape recordings of the meeting indicate that at the end of his comments Logan made a request to have his concerns and objections made part of the actual minutes of the meeting in addition to being included on the tape recording of the meeting.

Those same tapes show that almost immediately, Terry Dody, the City Administrator, without being asked for advice, or seeking permission to speak, from the mayor, the boards presiding officer, said, “Mr. Mayor just for clarification, John’s request will not be honored on the minutes. That’s not the intent of the minutes or the purpose of the minutes.”

“Whoa Seagull, doesn’t state law say that the City Administrator performs their duties “subject to the direction and supervision of the mayor?”

“That’s what it says,”

“Wouldn’t it have shown more respect to the office of the mayor and the board, the people he works for, if Dody had at least made it appear that he was giving them advice rather than telling them what would be done?”

“From a perception point of view, probably so.”

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, absent a specific request for his advice from the mayor, the best thing Dody could have done, at that moment and that place, was to have remained silent. This would have shown a positive example of complying with Section 105.020 of the Branson Municipal Code and eliminated even the perception of disrespect.

More importantly, it would have avoided the situation of creating an “us” vs. “him” type of situation and the meeting would have moved on to the next item. In subsequent days, as the minutes of the meeting proceeded through their normal generation and approval cycle, the city clerk and the leaders of Branson’s city government would have had the opportunity to consider and evaluate the request more fully without the bias created by Dody’s gratuitous statement.

As an example, they might have considered that within the legal and practical aspects of preparing a meeting’s minutes there is a lot of flexibility. Someone might have pointed out that the minutes of the May 31 meeting, approved by the board earlier in that same meeting, contained a perfect illustration of just how much flexibility is available.

The very first item under the “Regular Agenda” in those minutes pertains to the Convention Center Management Agreement. As to the comments made by Chris Lucchi regarding the agreement, those minutes state, “Chris Lucchi of the Branson Lodging Association reviewed the three concerns they had with 1) definition of revenues 2) booking policies and procedures and 3) the mechanism to edit and adjust the agreement.”

“Ok Seagull, I’m starting to get it. The same legal and practical considerations that enabled the gist of some of Lucchi’s comments to be put into the minutes provided the flexibility to display positive and caring leadership in Logan’s case.”

“Exactly, but instead the minutes, as to Logan’s involvement with the issue, merely said, ‘John Logan, 2277 Lakeshore Dr., Branson, addressed the Board.’ How much extra effort would it have taken to add five words so that it read, ‘John Logan, 2277 Lakeshore Dr., Branson, addressed the Board regarding his concerns and objections?’”

“Not much, but Seagull, this is about John Logan, the city’s perceived nemesis.”

“No, actually it’s about how people, regardless of their views, are treated, basic fairness, and the exercise of positive and caring leadership.”

On March 3, 1836, Colonel William Barret Travis, the Commander of the Alamo, wrote to Texas Governor Smith, “…victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse for him than defeat.” In the early predawn hours of Sunday, March 6, 1836, after 12 days of almost constant bombardment and siege, the soldiers of General Santa Anna, numbering in the thousands, made their final assault on the Alamo, overwhelming its 189 defenders. The immediate cost to the Mexican Army was over 600 killed and countless wounded. The cost to the defenders of the Alamo was the life of each and every one, 189 souls.

The prophetic words of Colonel Travis, the spirit of the Alamo, and the actual cost of the Mexican “victory” at the Alamo manifested themselves, only 46 days after its fall, at the Battle of San Jacinto. The Mexican army, under General Santa Anna, outnumbered the Texas army, under the command of General Sam Houston, by over a two to one margin. In spite of these odds, the Texas Army, inspired by the sacrifice of the Alamo defenders and shouting the battle cry, “Remember the Alamo,” defeated Santa Anna’s army. The short brutal battle lasted only 18 minutes, resulted in the deaths of over 630 Mexican soldiers, the capture of General Santa Anna, and won the independence of Texas.

What is it about the Alamo that so inspired the Texas army at the Battle of San Jacinto and has touched the hearts and souls of generations since? What are we to remember? Was it their courage or that they spent their lives for a noble cause? Was it the fact that so few stood against so many for so long or a combination of these factors? Or, was it the fact that the defenders of the Alamo could have elected not to give their lives in a battle they knew they could not win?

History records that on the first day of the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna had the scarlet flag of “no quarter” run up on San Fernando Cathedral within the sight of the Alamo defenders. It was answered with cannon fire from the Alamo and the siege began.

After receiving messages that no further help would be coming, Colonel Travis, explained the hopelessness of their situation. He gave the Alamo’s defenders a choice of escaping, surrendering and perhaps living, or fighting on and the certainty of death. The chances of escape were pretty good as people had been going through the Mexican lines all during the siege.

All but one elected to fight on and face certain death. Unknown to them at the time however was the special place in history where there choice would be forever enshrined. That place where the spirit of honor, dedication to purpose, valor, and willingness to sacrifice all, for a noble cause believed in, is preserved.

Why, as James Bowie said, would they “…rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy?”Their individual reasons probably varied the nobleness of the cause, loyalty to each other and their country, honor, duty, freedom from tyranny, and, for some, like Bowie, the defense of their homes.They were however, bound together by the common threads of their courage, their belief that it was right and necessary to fight the army of Santa Anna at that time, in that place, no matter what the price, and in their commitment to pay that price.

The spirit of “Remember the Alamo” represents that which is courageous, honorable, and worthy of commitment in the hearts of individuals and nations. It was born from the hearts of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as, on July 4, 1776, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of a new nation. From July 4, 1776 to July 4, 2005, America’s greatness and very existence has depended on it and those willing to commit their all for it.

It is the “American Spirit,” the very lifeblood of our nation.May that Nation “Under God,” be eternally blessed with that spirit, for without it, She would not have been born and would not long endure.Happy Birthday America, Happy Birthday!

Why would the folks at Branson’s Silver Dollar City spend $10 million on one new ride? Does anyone believe that they woke up one morning and said, “We’ve got nothing else to do today so let’s see if we can lose money by spending $10 million to build a new type of air launch coaster?

“Is that the new ride they call ‘Powder Keg?’ The one that shoots riders 110 feet into the air after going from 0 to 53 miles per hour in just 2.8 seconds?”

“That’s the one.”

“If that’s the case, then my answer to your first question is ‘to make money’ and the answer to the second question is ‘of course not!’

“What if that wasn’t the case?”

“The answer would still be the same.”

Anyone that was not part of the process involved with the decision to build Powder Keg doesn’t know the details and the rationale that was used. But, in general terms, most people would have little problem agreeing with answers given to the two questions simply because one of the primary purposes of a business is to make money and most businesses do not deliberately spend $10 million dollars on something that they believe will lose them money.

To an Ole Seagull, the financial success and viability of Silver Dollar City is dependent on its ability to attract a constant supply of visitors. To do that there must be “something” that attracts visitors initially and “something” that keeps them coming back.

That “something” is no one thing, it is a delicate ever changing combination of people, factors, and things that has been providing “amazing family adventures” and experiences worth remembering to Silver Dollar City’s visitors for decades. Powder Keg is part of that wonderful “something” that keeps Silver Dollar City new and exciting and gives people yet another reason to visit for the first time or to visit again.

Silver Dollar City’s success is not based on Power Keg or any one “something.” It’s based on its ability to market its solid foundation of core features, traditions, values, and relationships into which, periodically, just the right amount of “something” is blended to keep it fresh, new, and exciting.

“But Seagull, what does that have to do with Branson Landing?”

“Everything, Branson Landing is a “something” for Branson.”

Branson, as a major tourist destination, is in the same position as Silver Dollar City. To be financially successful and viable it must attract a constant supply of visitors. To do that there must be “something” that attracts visitors initially and “something” that keeps them coming back.

Will Branson Landing in and of itself guarantee that Branson will continue to attract the supply of visitors that it needs? Absolutely not! It is but another “something” that is added to the efforts of people like Gary and Pat Snadon, the Hall’s, Herschend’s, Glenn Robinson, Ron Layher, Dorothy and Shoji Tabuchi, Joe Sullivan, Andy Williams, Jim Thomas, the Pressley’s, the Mabe’s, Jim and Ann Stafford and many others.

What it will do is provide Branson with a tourist shopping, dining, and entertainment experience that is fresh, new, exciting and unique. It is another “something,” that when blended into and marketed with Branson’s solid foundation of family entertainment, traditions and values gives people yet another reason to visit Branson whether for the first time or as a repeat visitor.

Yet, at the end of the day, to an Ole Seagull, the “something” that matters the most is his belief that God has made Branson “something” special. In the final analysis Branson just might be that “something” that provides some of its visitors with an eternity changing experience.

Isn’t it “something” the way it all comes together?

At its basic level a business is kind of like living life. If there is no life left at the end of the day tomorrow, at least in terms of this earth, is no consequence. Or, as Ole Forrest Seagull once said, “Life’s like a pineapple cream pie, when it’s gone it’s gone.”

Can someone help an Ole Seagull understand exactly how the movement for reparation, payment of some sort, to today’s black Americans by the rest of today’s Americans because of slavery in America’s past, does anything but help divide our nation? Is the term “African American” a term of unification or division? Does it not remind all Americans “of the vestige of slavery?”

Recently a bill passed the state legislature that made major changes to the law that set up the board of directors for the “tourism community enhancement district.” This is the board that will make the determination “if” and “when” a one percent retail tax, to be used solely for the marketing of Branson, will be submitted to the voters of the district for their approval. If the tax is approved, it is also the body that will control how the tax will be used to do that marketing.

One of the problems that caused the need to change the original legislation was the fact that, under its provisions, the board was not appointed by elected public officials, city board of aldermen, county commission, etc. Indeed a majority of the five person board, three, was appointed by the Indian Point and Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce.

It is a testament to the changes that have taken place at The Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce over the past few years that it was instrumental in getting these changes through the legislature.

“Ah Seagull, just what was the ‘testament?’”

“Flexibility, trust, openness, the willingness to get in there and work for the changes even though they knew that they could work against their own economic interests.”

“Oh come on Seagull, everyone knows that if the tax is passed the Chamber is the one that is going to get the contract.”

“Then ‘everyone,’ although not too hard to do, knows more than the Ole Seagull because he simply doesn’t believe it.”

“Well the Chamber got the city contract for marketing didn’t they?”

“That they did and, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, they did it ‘the old fashioned way, they earned it.’”

In the final analysis, an Ole Seagull believes that the districts board will do the same thing that the Branson Board of Aldermen did, try to select the best organization that they can to market Branson. That is assuming that the tax passes and for that to happen, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion two things could be done to increase the chances of that happening.

First, immediately after placing the tax on the ballot all those members of the tourism community enhancement district’s board who were appointed by either the Branson Lakes Area or Indian Point Chamber of Commerce should resign. This will enable the provisions of the new law relating to elected governmental bodies appointing the board to become fully effective prior to the voters voting on the tax. The end result will be a seven person board that is totally appointed by such officials consisting of three members appointed by the City of Branson, two by the Village of Indian Point, and one each by Taney and Stone County.

Under the transitional provisions of the new law, without the above action, the three board members who were appointed by either the Branson Lakes Area or Indian Point Chamber of Commerce would remain on the board until their existing terms expire. In most cases their terms would not expire until after the tax election and the award of the initial marketing contract. In terms of the rationale for having the board composition changed it’s kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. The proposed suggestion eliminates that problem.

Second, and, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, of even more importance, the tourism community enhancement district’s board and the City of Branson should enter into an agreement, well prior to the election, providing that the they will work together to insure that the taxes collected to market and promote tourism from the district’s tax and the city’s tax are combined to market Branson under one cohesive plan. Currently the city could take the $2 million plus that they raise to market and promote tourism and use it for those purposes in what ever manner it determines.

“Could they use it to market Branson Landing and the Convention Center?”

“Sure they could.”

“Do you think that they would actually do that?”

“Not for a minute but there might be just enough voters out there who would believe it to make eliminating the problem worth considering.”

The purpose of the original Memorial Day was to honor those who died in the Civil War. Its purpose today has evolved into remembering and honoring all who have died in the service of our country. What better way is there to honor and remember them than to honor and remember their living comrades, those men and women who have and are currently honorably serving in America’s Armed Forces.

Someone a lot wiser than an Ole Seagull said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Since the earliest days of our history America’s Armed Forces and their families have paid the price for the freedoms and privileges that we, as a Nation, all enjoy and sometimes take for granted. Memorial Day gives us a unique opportunity to not only honor the dead but to pause, honor and say “Thank You,” to those who have and are currently serving and their comrades who are Missing In Action.

The very act of going into the Armed Forces puts one’s life at risk. Immediately upon being “sworn in,” members of the Armed Forces have given control of their lives to their military and governmental leaders. It is a control that is absolute and, from an honor point of view, irrevocable.

It could be exercised through an order “to take that hill,” in the face of withering machine gun or mortar fire, to patrol a neighborhood in Baghdad, or the assaulting of a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. Or, it could be an order to serve in a supply depot, training facility, or hospital thousands of miles away from the battle. Regardless of where or how one serves, the risk to their life is an inherent part of serving and is omnipresent.

History records that it is the politicians, and those in power, who start wars and that it is the men and women of their Armed Forces who pay the price of those wars. It is a price paid in separation, stress, blood, suffering, anguish, and, sometimes, death by those, who have and are currently, serving in our country’s Armed Forces and their families.

Theirs is not the job of judging whether or not the politicians and those in power are risking their lives in a noble or just cause. Their job is to do their duty. Some have served in conflicts that were “popular” such as World Wars I and II and Dessert Storm. Others served in conflicts that were not as publicly popular, such as Korea, Vietnam, and, if current polls are any indication, in Iraq. Through it all however, the men and women of Americas Armed Forces and their families have done their duty, sacrificed, and given unstintingly of themselves.

The eloquent words of William James remind us that “No matter what a man’s frailties otherwise may be, if he be willing to risk death, in the service he has chosen, that fact consecrates him forever.” Since the beginning of our Republic the members of our country’s Armed Forces and their families have assumed that risk, done their duty, and ensured that a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” For that we owe those who have and are currently, serving in the Armed Forces our undying gratitude, honor, respect, and support, not only on Memorial Day but, every day we as a Nation enjoy the fruits of their efforts, sacrifices, and service.

Can any reasonable person look at all Branson has to offer, from its outdoor activities, festivals, shows, restaurants, to its shopping, museums, golf courses, natural beauty, renowned hospitality and say that if a person wants to be entertained they can’t do it in Branson? An Ole Seagull is tired of hearing that people want “something” that Branson doesn’t offer. The fact of the matter is that when people come to Branson for the first time they like what they experience and a majority of them return again.

“But Seagull, our first time visitor numbers are down and have been decreasing for years doesn’t that mean we need “new” stars, shows, or things to attract new visitors?”

“It positively absolutely does not!”

What boggles an Ole Seagull’s mind is the concept some people have that the “silver bullet” needed to increase the number of Branson’s first time visitors is someone or something “new.” We should thank God, every day, for the depth and breadth of the entertainment that we have in Branson. It is a huge part of the experience that brings first time visitors back again and some, many times again.

Instead what does one hear, “Branson needs new stars, shows, and things to attract the “new demographics” that is allegedly so vital to her success. Can someone tell an Ole Seagull exactly what “new” star, show, or thing it was that drove Branson’s first time visitor rate to its highest levels ever during the Branson Boom of the early 90s? In the real world of Branson, as it exists today, exactly what “new” star, show, or thing(s) would increase Branson’s first time visitor rate up back to those lofty levels?”

Wait, does the Ole Seagull hear the “thundering hoof beats of the great horse Silver,” galloping into Branson to the strains of the “William Tell Overture?” Is a masked man about to present Branson with a silver bullet of “new” stars, shows, and things that will lift Branson to the next level, what ever that is, before he rides off into the sunset shouting, “Hi-Yo Silver Away?”

That’s about as likely to happen tomorrow as it was today and yesterday. Fortunately for Branson, people like the Hall’s, Herschend’s, Glenn Robinson, Ron Layher, Dorothy and Shoji Tabuchi, Joe Sullivan, Andy Williams, Jim Thomas, Jim Stafford, Rick Huffman, and many others, have added, and continue to add, more than enough “new” to Branson’s rich family entertainment environment to give Branson more entertainment options and excitement for its guests than just about any other city of its size anywhere.

“Oh, come on Seagull, what kind of excitement? Las Vegas is so exciting that it proudly advertises, ‘What happens here stays here.’”

“Sounds like a guilty, lonely and selfish type of excitement. Branson’s excitement comes from just the opposite reason, ‘What happens here goes with you forever and is meant to be shared with those you love.’”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion there was no new star, show, or thing that drove Branson’s first time visitor rate to its highest levels ever during the Branson Boom of the early 90s. Rather, it was the expanded awareness of Branson and what it had to offer that the exposure on “60 minutes” provided that drove the first time visitor rates to new levels. For whatever reason they came and when they came, they were entertained by what Branson had to offer, enjoyed what they experienced, and a lot of them came back.

Now, here we are some 15 years later with some looking for a “silver bullet” that will bring new visitors to town. Oh, there’s a “silver bullet” out there but it’s not new stars, shows, or things. Today, as was the case before “60 minutes” in the very early 90’s, and has been the case throughout Branson’s rich family entertainment history, Branson’s entertainment industry is providing a product that meets or exceeds the expectations of the majority of those who come to experience what Branson has to offer.

That makes it pretty simple for an Ole Seagull. History and current research shows that if people come to Branson and experience it they like it and a majority of them will come back. Branson’s “silver bullet” is the same now as it was before the Branson Boom of the early 90s, expand the awareness of the entertainment product that Branson has to offer “today.” Obviously the date of “today” will change but, if history is any indication, the ability and adaptability of Branson’s entertainment industry to meet the entertainment needs of Branson’s guests “today” will not change.

“Who was that masked Seagull?”

Special Note: Each year, toward the end of the school year, this piece is respectfully published and dedicated to our areas teachers as a “thank you” and a reminder to us all of how valuable teachers are to our community and the future of our nation. This year we would dedicate its publication to Branson Band Director Eric Matzat as he makes a career change. His dedication, character, leadership, and professionalism manifested itself not only in the performance of the bands that he directed but, more importantly, in the hearts and minds of the thousands of young men and women who marched in those bands. It epitomizes the very “nobleness” of which this piece speaks.

In terms of a “profession” America’s future does not lie in the hands of Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. Her future lies in the hands of the profession that will be teaching those who will become the Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, or accountants, America’s Teachers.

A “teacher” is “one who teaches,” a professional who has accepted the awesome challenge and responsibility of helping to prepare our children and grandchildren to fully realize their individual potential, create the desire to fulfill it, and equip them with the skills necessary to achieve it. It can truly be said that America’s destiny and future depends upon the realization and fulfillment of that potential.

Oh sure, there are those, professing to be teachers, who do the minimum and simply go through the motions. They could be characterized as those who perform the mechanical function of providing instruction from prepared lesson plans without a personal commitment to their students or accepting the responsibility and accountability for their results.They are teachers in title only.

The true “Teacher” has a personal commitment to their students. A commitment to not only teaching the necessary information and skills that their students will need but to make learning an experience they will want to continue for the rest of their lives.They fully realize and appreciate that “how” they do what they do is as important as “what” they do and dedicate their professional lives to equipping, helping, and motivating their students to recognize and reach their full potential.

To a large extent true “Teaching” is an art form. It requires the same type of dedication, commitment, and skill that a painter would use on a great canvas, a music composer would use on an opus, a lawyer on a jury, or an entertainer on an audience. What makes the successful musician, singer, comedian, painter, or author? Is it the mere application of “the mechanics” of what they are doing or their ability to communicate and relate what they are doing to their audience?

Even as the success of an artist is directly linked to their ability to relate what they are doing to their audience so too is the success of a Teacher, only more so. Although the professional entertainer wants and desires to reach every member of their audience, they can still be very successful if they reach a substantial majority of their audience.

A Teacher however, does not have that luxury. For them, success and failure is measured in the eyes, minds, and hearts of each individual student. The Master Teacher said it best. “If any man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?” He was not willing to lose even one.

The Teachers heart and spirit transcends mere “mechanics and basics” and goes to the concern and commitment of dedicating themselves to their students and their individual ability to effectively apply what is being taught. It is a task that, in a lot of cases, is made more difficult by influences outside of the Teachers direct control such as the physical or mental challenges of individual students, school funding issues, child abuse, and dysfunctional families to mention a few.Fortunately, for America and Her children, in spite of these additional challenges, there are those who feel a calling to become, in the truest sense of the word, “Teachers.”

Where then is the nobleness of Teaching? It is obvious that it is not based on factors such wealth, title, or power and yet, it is nobleness in the truest sense of the word.Nobleness based on the character, honor, generosity, dedication and commitment of those who are true Teachers and the quest they have chosen, preparing our children for the rest of their tomorrows.There’s not much that is nobler or more important than that, not much at all.

Recently the Ole Seagull received an email from a veteran, Ronald, of Sand Springs, OK. It succinctly stated what a number of people have been wondering about “Branson’s Welcome Home…Americas’s Tribute to Vietnam Veterans.” Ronald said, “In reference to this summer’s Vietnam Vet Reunion, Operation Homecoming. Why are all the other [Branson] reunions free to the groups that had homecomings but, ‘the homecoming we never had’ costs us $79.95. Proof of military service should be the ONLY requirement.” To that an Ole Seagull would humbly add, “Amen.”

Why a community that has successfully run “A Veterans Homecoming,” an event honoring all our nation’s veterans, for years without charging “registration fees” would suddenly change that proven model boggles an Ole Seagull’s mind. What a curious way to give someone the homecoming they never received?

“But Seagull, once you pay it everything else is free?”

“Not really. According to the Schedule of Events there is a $50 fee for the Fishing Tournament and a $50 fee for the Golf Tournament. Besides, if a person pays $79.95 how ‘free’ is any of it?”

It seems that the major item included “free” with the $79.95 “Registration Fee” is color coded dog tags that serve as the admission to Saturdays Grand Finale Concert. According to the web site, the Grand Finale Tribute, “Starts at 11:00 am and goes until after dark at an outdoor venue at Saddlebrooke” and is for “registered attendees only.”

To some it will be a grand show but in a town full of great entertainment, that has honored veterans of all wars, including Vietnam, for decades it is but another show or is it? What if it rains? The website states that, “No rain date or refunds given due to weather or acts of God.”

The T.V. ads, promotional pieces, and web site all stress that “registration” for the event is $79.95 per person. As but one example, if one clicked on the “Registration and Reservations” link off of the main page of the event site, http://www.operationhomecomingusa.com/index2.html, they would be told, under a caption entitled “Registration Fee” that the “Cost of registration for Welcome Home is $79.95 for each adult; $39.95 each for children 13 – 17; children 12 and under free.”

“Whoa now Seagull, aren’t the vast majority of the activities during the week free like they are for the “A Veterans Homecoming” event that has been run in Branson for years?”

“Yes, there are basically only three activities that have a charge, the golf tournament, the fishing tournament, and the “registration” for $79.95.”

And that’s the sad part, the impression that a lot of Vietnam Veterans like Ronald get about the registration fee, that they are being charged a fee for an event that is supposed to honor them. An impression that is in large part caused and reinforced by, the very advertising used to promote the event.

One can only wonder how many Vietnam veterans have been turned off to the event and possibly even Branson because of the registration fee. How many paid it thinking it was a requirement to attend the event? What reactions will they have when they discover that there was no requirement to pay a registration fee unless they wanted to go to the Grand Finale Concert, the cost of which, unlike the golf and fishing tournaments, was buried in the “registration fee package?”

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, the good news is that Branson, as a community, and the vast majority those that are involved with the management and sponsorship of “Branson’s Welcome Home…America’s Tribute to Vietnam Veterans” are, in fact, truly dedicated to honoring the Vietnam veteran. Too, there is still time to correct the erroneous impressions and misunderstandings that have been created.

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, a major promotional effort should be immediately initiated to publicize that, as is the case with “Branson’s A Veterans Homecoming,” there is no registration fee required to attend “Branson’s Welcome Home…America’s Tribute to Vietnam Veterans.” Further, every veteran that has “registered” should be notified that if they not want to attend the Grand Finale Concert that they can get their money back with no deduction of a $20 processing fee.

The year was 2000 and it was a gentler time. The Taney County Commission, the county, the City of Branson, the city, and the Taney County Regional Sewer District, the district entered into a “Sewer Services and Exclusive Territorial Agreement” on Feb. 28. Surely there was excitement, love, and joy throughout the land.

The agreement stated the city’s concern about “the safe and adequate disposal of waste water and sewage, within close proximity of Branson” and protecting “the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Branson.” It went on to state that the county, the city, and the district “desire to create a plan to provide sanitary sewage services to the Table Rock Acres subdivision, the Bee Creek Watershed, and the Emory Creek Watershed.”

“Look Seagull, the love and joy stuff aside, that’s about as exciting as having a root canal performed with a teaspoon.”

“It gets better, be patient.”

To an Ole Seagull, a sanitary sewer system has to perform two main functions if it is to be efficient. It has to collect sewage at its source and transport it to a treatment facility through sewers. The treatment facility must then treat the sewage so that it is no longer an environmental or health hazard.

The agreement provides that “the county will fund and the city will design and construct sewers in the Table Rock Acres subdivision, and in the Bee Creek and Emory Creek watersheds, to be owned operated and maintained by the City as part of its sanitary sewer system”

“Did the agreement provide for the building of any treatment plants to process the sewage?”

“No, but it did provide for the treatment of the sewage that was collected.”

It said, “The county and the district believe that Branson is the entity most qualified to act as regional provider of sewer services and that it is appropriate that Branson should be the sole provider of wastewater treatment in the Bee Creek and Emory Creek watersheds.”

“Sounds like a plan to me, especially since neither the county nor district operated municipal treatment facilities and Branson had, and was operating, state of the art facilities.”

And so the agreement was signed “for the mutual benefit of the parties” and everyone lived happily ever after. Well maybe not.

In 2005, more than five years after the Agreement was signed and became effective, the county and district suddenly had an epiphany. They decided, for whatever reason, that they didn’t like the agreement and wanted it changed whether or not the city did. In an Ole Seagulls opinion those changes, for all intents and purposes, would remove one of the strongest reasons for entering into the agreement, having the sewage treated on a regional basis by “the entity most qualified” to do so.

What is the rational for these changes? As near as an Ole Seagull can discern, trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, there are two main reasons. One is that the county wants let people have the option of having their sewage treated by another provider if it is cheaper. The other is the allegation that the county and district were forced to sign the agreement because the city allegedly said that they would oppose the extension of the one half percent county wide sewer tax if they didn’t.

“Are you saying that the reason the agreement was signed by the county and district was because the city allegedly said that they would oppose the extension of the one half percent county wide sewer tax if they didn’t?”

“No, one of the members of the Taney County Regional Sewer Board said it at a public meeting held on May 5.”

“Seagull, do you believe that the city really did that?”

“It makes no difference what an Ole Seagull believes, what’s important, in his opinion, is the potential stench from the lack of professionalism and integrity involved in what the county and district did if they made their decision to sign the agreement, in any part, because they believed it was true.”

“But Seagull, if the city actually did what they allege isn’t there plenty of stench to go around?”

“Where’s a rose when you need one?”