Seagull Musings Column for May 9, 2004
At the close of a public meeting on April 29, 2004 Terry Dody, Branson’s City Administrator, was reported to have said words to the effect that “Senator Childers and Representative Wood didn’t ask the council their opinion regarding the legislation [SB 787] on countywide voting for gambling.” According to the report, he went on to point out that “Instead they worked with the Chamber and a few other businesses.”
In addition, the report indicates that Dody made it very clear in the meeting that “the city council and the city administrator are against this legislation.” It continued, “One hotel owner suggested that the city should have contacted those state leaders when they learned of the legislation that was being drafted. Terry said it was too late by then because the legislation had already been introduced for consideration to the House and Senate.”
“Hey Seagull, didn’t something like this happen in the past?” It sure did. It seems that the more things change the more they remain the same.
Back in 2001, the “Chamber” and “a few other businesses,” which the Ole Seagull called the “Secret Handshake Clique,” drafted a piece of legislation to impose a one percent general retail sales tax to be used for the marketing of Branson. ” The legislation was developed, snuck out of our community, and slipped through the legislature by the Secret Handshake Clique and selected chamber allies before most chamber or community members knew what was happening. That coupled with the obvious chamber bias of the legislation is why, to this day, some people within our community refer to the tax as “The Chamber Tax.”
“Doesn’t Branson need more marketing funds? In an Ole Seagulls opinion, it did then and it does now. “Then what’s the problem?” To paraphrase what Clara used to say in an old Wendy’s Ad, “Where’s the additional marketing funds?” Here it is over two and a half years after the “Chamber Tax” legislation was passed and not one additional dollar of marketing funds has been raised by that legislation to market our community.
The sad thing is that because of the Chamber Tax legislation itself, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, the voters have not really been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to authorize the marketing tax. “Whoa now Seagull, didn’t the voters vote on the issue in February of 2002?” They sure did and it was turned down but the question is why was it turned down?
Was it turned down because the community did not support increased marketing funds to market Branson or because of other “chamber” related problems, perceptions, and issues caused in large part by the legislation itself? Is it possible that many of the voters couldn’t get past the obvious “chamber bias” of the legislation? Or, for whatever reason, lacked faith in the chamber and or its ability to effectively market Branson? Could some have had a problem with a non elected chamber controlled board of directors, managing upwards of ten million dollars of tax payer money with no accountability to any elected government entity, etc.
“Well, when it failed in February of 2002 why didn’t the community work together to develop new legislation correcting the problems and work to get it through the legislature. In an Ole Seagulls opinion the answer is pretty simple.It didn’t happen because the “Secret Handshake Clique,” “They,” “Them,” those who really wield the power in Branson, didn’t want it to.
“Why wouldn’t they want to?” Could it be because those who built the “chamber bias” into the legislation, were unwilling to give up the control that it provided and were willing, as ironic as it sounds, to “gamble” on a “shock and awe” campaign, at their time and choosing, to get both the tax passed and the control of its proceeds?
“Couldn’t something be done to force the issue?” Sure, if the County Commission rescinded their order establishing the Tourism Enhancement District things would get interesting very quickly. “Couldn’t the districts board of directors initiate action to dissolve the district?” They could but they won’t.
“Why?” They appear to be content to sit in their “little chamber controlled cocoon” playing with their bylaws, RFPs, contracts etc. while they wait for some “mystical omnipotent entity” to give them resources and direction. “Does that ‘mystical omnipotent entity’ have a name?” Surely that’s a rhetorical question? Isn’t it?
Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.
