Month: February 2007

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.”