Month: December 2006

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.