Month: August 2003

The “Odyspin Virus” – Part 1 – Silence the public

In the perfect illustration of “much ado about nothing,” the Branson Board of Aldermen passed the “Purvis Ain’t No Alcohol Here Resolution,” at their August 25^, 2003, meeting. Its formal title, “A Resolution Stating the Commitment of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Branson to Support and Protect Branson’s Reputation as a Family Vacation Destination,” is much longer in verbiage and promise than its contents are in substance.

Repeatedly, as speakers tried to voice their concerns, either in support or non support of the Resolution they were attacked by the infamous “Odyspin Virus.”In its primary stage, the virus manifests itself primarily through the actions of the City Attorney, Daniel Wichmer as he continually interrupts citizens trying to express themselves to their elected leaders at public meetings.

The tape of the meeting will show that the Mayor stated words to the effect, “Does anyone in our audience have any comments?”There were no conditions placed on the offer to speak either in the Mayors invitation or in the Agenda.Yet, not too far into his presentation the Ole Seagull, like those who had gone before him, was interrupted by Wichmer, who had not either been given the “floor” or been recognized by the Mayor prior to his interruption. As the Ole Seagull was trying to point out that he was in fact on topic he asked Wichmer, “Why don’t you just let the people speak uninterrupted?”

At that point the “Odyspin Virus” went into its potent secondary phase, after which it is named, the ever present “Odyspin.” City Administrator Terry Dody, who like Wichmer before him, had not been given the floor or been recognized by the Mayor, interrupted the proceedings.Dodys “spin” was that it was not an issue of not wanting people to speak but rather the City Attorney doing his job and enforcing the rules of the City Council which they could change if they wanted to.

The “Branson Spinmiester” falls short on this one however.The tape of the proceeding will show that the Ole Seagull, who is not exactly “the vestal virgin” when it comes to dealing with the “Odyspin Virus,” was well within the City Councils rules when Wichmer had interrupted him, as were a number of other people that he interrupted throughout the evening.

Also, it was kind of neat the way Dody passed the buck to the Aldermen.One can only wonder if it’s a precursor of things to come if the Convention Center fails.Even more important and telling however, is the fact that Wichmer didn’t enforce the same “rules of order” on Dody that he attempted to enforce on everyone else.

Now there’s a man that knows who “butters his bread.” It evidently isn’t the Mayor or the Board of Aldermen.Has the “Odyspin Virus” so infected our City Council and Mayor that they will sit there like “See Nothing, Hear Nothing, and Do Nothing” while those they serve are treated in such a manner?Don’t they want the public to feel free to stand up and speak to them?To an Ole Seagull the answer seems clear and it’s not a pretty picture, but the picture really turns ugly if the “Odyspin Virus” is infecting other aspects of City government.

Next Week”The “Odyspin Virus” – Part 2 – Liquor regulation in Branson is what “Odyspin” dictates regardless of what the law says it is.

Compliance with the “Sunshine Law?-The State Auditor says “thank God” as an Ole Seagull says “God help us!”

At State Auditor Claire McCaskill’s Audit Report presentation, on July 30, 2003, when referring to “Finding Number 9” of the report, entitled, “Board Meetings, Minutes, and Records,” covering the City’s compliance with the Sunshine Law she said, “If there was one finding I wanted them [Branson Board of Aldermen] to agree with it was this one and thank God they did.”As she made that statement and expounded on how important compliance with the Sunshine Law was an Ole Seagull’s reaction was not “thank God” but “God help us!”

The City’s exact and total response to Finding Number 9 was, “The Board will review the auditor’s comments and continue to rely upon the City’s legal counsel’s advice to ensure compliance with state law.”Could someone enlighten an Ole Seagull, exactly what did the City “agree with?”Why is the State Auditor thanking God that the “Board will review the auditor’s comments?”Her report is filled with responses from the City for just about every Finding.Does she really believe they, including this one, were prepared and submitted without a review of the “auditor’s comments?”

Why would the City’s statement that they would “continue to rely upon the City’s legal counsel’s advice to ensure compliance with state law” give either her, or anyone else, any comfort?Isn’t this the same legal advice that the City followed during the audit and led her to say, “I can’t think of an audit where the auditee [City of Branson] has been more uncooperative?

Like many in the community, the Ole Seagull had concerns about the number of “closed” or “executive session” meetings being held by the Branson Board of Aldermen, whether or not the topics discussed in those “closed meetings” were excepted from the “public meeting” requirement of the Sunshine Law, and whether or not the “notices” of such meetings were in compliance with the Sunshine Law.If the Audit Report is the last word, evidently there has been no reason for these concerns.

Item A. in Finding 9 of the Auditors Report states that, among other things, “The regular board minutes and the meeting agendas do not document the specific reasons for going into a closed session. The minutes and the agendas normally quote Section 610.021 RSMo., subsections 1, 2, and 3 which are three general reasons for going into closed session….”

Section 610.022 of the Sunshine Law requires the City to state the reason for holding the closed session “by reference to the specific exception allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 610.021?”Doesn’t the very verbiage quoted above in the Audit Report itself establish that is exactly what the City did?

Finding 9 further states, “It is unclear how some items discussed by the Board of Aldermen during closed meetings are allowed under the provisions of the Sunshine law.” It then goes on to cite several examples of alleged “unclearness.”

What’s this “unclear” stuff?If the State Auditor, with the resources of the State of Missouri at her disposal, can’t make a simple determination as to whether or not the City was in compliance with the Sunshine Law then, “God help us.”What’s next?Speeding tickets being issued because it is “unclear” whether or not someone is speeding?

“Now simmer down Seagull, doesn’t Section 610.027 of the Sunshine Law contain a provision stating that, among others, Missouri’s Attorney General, may seek judicial enforcement of the Sunshine Law?”Yes it does.”If the State Auditors Findings regarding Branson’s Sunshine Law truly indicate non compliance with the Sunshine Law regarding closed meetings, why doesn’t the Attorney General take some action?”

Now how would an Ole Seagull know the answer to that?Has anyone, including the State Auditor, even asked the Attorney General to take action?”If they did do you think he would accept the case?” No.”Why?”Well, to paraphrase the words of the State Auditor herself, because of “several weaknesses in Finding 9 of the Audit Report.”