Branson Courier

Month: July 2005

  • In Branson, don’t mayors, aldermen, city administrators, and seagulls have to follow the law like everyone else does?

    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 big question in the Ole Seagulls mind is what changed on or prior to Jul. 11 that has created the need for the aldermen and city staff to encroach into the Public Comment meeting, a meeting that has been virtually free of such encroachment since its inception over a decade ago?

  • Who was that masked Branson alderman? – Hi-Yo Blunder Away!

    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.”

  • Eminent domain, blight – a lethal combination for a communities character?

    Eminent domain. Many of us have heard the term, but few know exactly what it means. Eminent domain is the right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, with compensation to the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is the basis for eminent domain, stating, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”



    The government routinely buys land to construct roads and government buildings such as post offices, which is a legitimate use of eminent domain. However, in recent years, some have said that the government has been abusing the powers given to it by eminent domain. For them, downtown Ozark is a case in point.



    Downtown Ozark looks pretty much like the downtown of any small town. There are small shops, houses, government buildings and a trailer park. It’s not an especially nice area, but then, few downtowns are. The difference between downtown Ozark and similar areas in other towns? Much of the area has been declared a public nuisance.



    An area of 47 acres in downtown Ozark was declared “blighted” by city voters early last year. Property can be declared blighted for any number of reasons, including fire hazard, lack of electricity or utilities, or failure to abide by city codes. When property is declared blighted, the government is allowed to buy it (eminent domain) and sell it for redevelopment. On Thursday, July 14, the Ozark Land Clearance Redevelopment Activity (LCRA) Board met to listen to proposals from five development companies. The plans varied, although all proposed to demolish many of the buildings currently on the site. Some proposed replacements for the current buildings are stores, theaters, restaurants, condominiums, and apartments above stores.



    Local leaders hail the redevelopment. Ozark City Planner Steve Childers said, “This could be one of the most unique redevelopment projects in the region in many years.” Ozark Mayor Donna McQuay called the redevelopment “exciting.” Some residents share her sentiments. Stephen Ray, who owns a bookstore near the blighted area, says, “I’m excited. I like to see growth.”



    However, some residents have quite a different opinion. Shirley Jensen, who has lived in the area for 42 years, was not excited at all. “Leave me alone,” she said. “Let me die in peace in my home.” Rhonda Jones, whose house is inside the blighted area, told the LCRA board, “It doesn’t seem like the people who live there have much of a voice ­ it’s an older community, and they’re building something for people who don’t even live there now.” After the meeting, she summarized what the plan sounded like to her: “Buy up the 47 acres, move ’em out and build a new community.”



    Is the government abusing its power by buying land and selling it to private contractors? I think so. Originally, the “public property” mentioned in the Fifth Amendment referred to property that would be beneficial to everyone ­ usually government buildings! The Constitution does not give the government the right to force people to leave their homes and then use the land their homes stood on to build a shopping mall, even if the homes are not in perfect condition. However, this is happening more and more often.



    Some examples: a woman in her 80s was removed from her home in Washington, DC(where she had lived for 55 years). The land was to be used for expanding a sewer plant, but the city gave the land to an auto dealership. Kansas took 150 homes ­ and replaced them with a racetrack. A Cypress, California church was replaced with a grocery store. As you can see, the government is not the one using the land, and truly blighted areas are not the only things being condemned. (In fact, I question whether downtown Ozark is truly blighted.) As one scholar says, “blight is in the eye of the bureaucrat.” The government is taking perfectly good private property and selling it to whatever development company needs some land to build on. Developers no longer need to find open land to buy ­ they can just have the government use eminent domain to get them the land they want! Although this is not happening in Ozark, it has happened in many places throughout the US.



    In a free country like the United States, property should not be taken from ordinary citizens at the whim of politicians or developers. Action needs to be taken to stop this rampant abuse of power, whether it be a law, Supreme Court decision (a 1954 Supreme Court decision paved the way for this abuse of power in the first place), or even a constitutional amendment. Most government officials have been turning a blind eye to the abuse of eminent domain. It’s time that they open their eyes ­ and do something about it.


    Katie, Walnut Shade, MO

  • Terminology Used in Gary’s Journal


    Gary‘s Big Four – Click here.



    Normal Terminal End –



    Spinning Rod:The terminal end consists of a 3 1/8th inch Thill Mini Shy Bite 4 BB float, with the necessary shot to cock it, on a six foot leader made up of 2 feet of 4x, 1/2 foot of 5x, and 3 1/2 feet of 6x Orvis Mirage fluorocarbon tippet. The float and the shot necessary to “cock” it are placed on the 4x portion of the leader and set at the appropriate depth. My typical starting depth in the waters I fish is about four feet. That depth will vary up to five feet and down to three feet using the 3 1/8 float and down to 18 inches using the 2 ½ inch Thill Mini Shy Bite Bite 2 BB float. Depth adjustments are made by moving the indicator up or down the 4x, cutting off some 6x, or a combination thereof, as conditions dictate.



    Fly Rod:The terminal end consists of a small peg on strike indicator on a six foot leader made up of 2 feet of 4x, 1/2 foot of 5x, and 3 1/2 feet of 6x Orvis Mirage fluorocarbon tippet. The smallest indicator necessary to support the fly or jig is “pegged,” using a tooth pick, to the 4x portion of the leader and set at the appropriate depth. My typical starting depth in the waters I fish is about four feet. That depth will vary up to five feet and down to six inches. Depth adjustments are made by moving the indicator up or down the 4x, cutting off some 6x, or a combination thereof, as conditions dictate.



    Seagull’sNote:The typical depth normally I fish, from the 21 to the 20 mile marker on Lake Taneycomo is about 4 to 4 ½ feet except for the gravel bars and midge fishing where one foot depths, or less, are sometimes required. About 90 percent of my fishing is with midges, size 16 and 18 or flies and jigs from Gary’s Big Four under water off conditions.


  • Will Branson’s next idol come from the Branson Mall?

    Those trying to break into the Branson entertainment scene just might want to go to the mall, the Branson Mall that is. Branson Mall, the “do it all” mall and the only all indoor, climate controlled mall in Branson, will be hosting the Branson Mallstar Talent Competition starting on Saturday July 16, 2005 beginning at 2 p.m. on its Center Stage.

    Mallstar will provide contestants an opportunity to be seen on stage in Branson while competing for a Grand Prize of $2,500. In addition other prizes will be awarded at each competition such as radio and stage appearances and prize packages from various mall merchants.

    Except for September, the twice monthly progressive competition will be held through Dec.17 when the Grand Prize of $2,500 will be awarded. Future dates for Mallstar competitions are July 23, Aug. 20 and 27, Oct. 22 and 29 and Nov. 19 and 26.

    “Performers of all ages and types, groups and solos, are encouraged to participate using either their own CD background music and/or instruments such as guitar, fiddle and keyboard (no drums). Enrollment is being accepted by fax and in the mall. Forms may be picked up at Radio Shack or Bath Junkie. For complete entry information call 417-337-8964.

    Dr. Dale Smith, founder of the non-profit American Kids Inc., will host the competition that has been developed by officials with American Kids and the Branson Mall as a benefit for the group’s scholarship program. American Kids Inc. is the nation’s only little league of entertainers with a two-decade history of successful talent competitions across the country.”

    Originally Published In the Branson Courier on July 7, 2005.

  • Branson’s “Minutes” of positive and caring leadership

    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.”

  • Branson’s Baldknobbers- “the show that started it all”

    From Cirque to Elvis, a Shepherd to Broadway, music to drama, indoors to outdoors, Three Dog Night to Shoji Tabuchi, from country to pop, and just about every genre of music in between, Branson has a live show for just about every entertainment taste. Yet, in 1959, in historic downtown Branson, it all began with one small country music show held in a in a rented fifty seat room in the old city hall only on Friday and Saturday nights. That show was the “Baldknobbers.”



    Called “the show that started it all” and the Baldknobbers was started by the Mabe brothers, Bob, Bill, Jim. and Lyle along with the help of Delbert Howard and Chick Allen, to provide night time fun and entertainment for tourists visiting the Branson area. The shows format was simple yet entertaining, popular country music blended with unique comedy routines.



    The unique comedy came primarily from characters and material developed by two of the Mabe brothers, Lyle and Jim. Lyle created George Aggernite and Jim, Droopy Drawers and their blend of down home, corn spun, and Ozark humor rounded out the show. Coupled with a presentation by a talented and enthusiastic cast that had fun interacting with their audience it was a formula that has been bringing audiences back, not only to the Baldknobbers but to Branson, since 1959.



    From an historical perspective, although the building that they started in is long gone and, as of this date, Jul. 12, 2005, there is no marker where it stood, its location is readily accessible. The building was located in what is now a parking lot located on the south east corner of Business 65 and Pacific Street. From a historical interest and entertainment synergy point of view it is interesting to note that it is located right behind what some consider Branson’s first theatre, the rustic “Owens Theater.”



    The office the Downtown Branson Main Street Association, which has maps and other information about Branson, its early history, and a self guided walking tour of historic downtown Branson, is located on the north side of Pacific Street directly across from the location.

  • “Remember the Alamo” – The Spirit of America

    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!