Nixon and “Watergate” – is this Branson’s “Treegate?”
As the Ole Seagull read the letter of Branson City Administrator Terry Dody, appearing in the September 29 edition of the Branson Daily Independent, he was reminded of what Abraham Lincoln once said, “If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.” An Ole Seagull would paraphrase Mr. Lincoln, in terms of Dody’s letter and public comments, by saying “If hundreds of public columns don’t testify as to the integrity of the opinions they contain, responding to Dody’s personal attacks on that integrity would make no difference.”
It appears that Dody takes issue with two recent “columns regarding the cutting down of a tree in front of a restaurant in downtown Branson.” The first was entitled, “Score: Birds and Trees, 10 – City of Branson, DBMA, and Downtown Restaurants, 0” and the second, “In Cold Sap – a story of better government through communications?” Both can be found, on the internet, at https://bransoncourier.com/ under “Editorials.”
The Ole Seagull believes that a review of those columns will indicate that the first column was written before the tree was cut down and that the core issue, of both columns, wasn’t the “cutting down of a tree.” Rather, it was the unresponsive, dismissive, and unprofessional response of Don D. Stephens, director of planning and development, for the City of Branson, in his August 24 letter of response to the letter of Jo Anne Lund of Jimmy Jet’s Grill, dated August 11. Unfortunately, for all of us, Stephens’ letter was, in the Ole Seagulls opinion, the primary causal factor of the trees demise and all the “sap” flowing from it.
Dody, as only he can do, graciously shares his opinion that “Mr. Groman unfortunately tries to sensationalize the issue and to state his opinion and one-sided knowledge of the issue as fact.” To the “charge” of stating his “opinion” an Ole Seagull would simply say, “Isn’t that exactly what columnists are supposed to do?” One could not help but notice that, although his letter “spins” on and on, Dody doesn’t cite one occurrence of where he alleges that any of the factual information presented, one sided or otherwise, was inaccurate, unfair, or failed to substantiate the conclusions contained in the columns.
Instead, he appears to use the standard bureaucratic tactics of spin and diversion in an apparent effort to shift the focus to a peripheral issue, “the cutting down of a tree.” This appears to be an attempt to cover up the real issue which caused the trees demise, the documented unresponsive, dismissive, and unprofessional manner in which the City’s director of planning and development, responded to a legitimate request for assistance and guidance from a Branson business. Dody delivers a paragraph long apologetic in an attempt to explain what Stephens was conveying in his August 24 response to Ms. Lund’s letter. If it takes the City Administrator to explain what Stephens meant in his letter, 30 days after he sent it, imagine how confused Ms. Lund was when she got it on August 25.
After receipt of Stephens’ letter, in light of the continued confusion it caused, and prior to the tree being cut down, Ms. Lund contacted the city forester on August 25. According to Dody’s letter, during that conversation, “She was again informed that the tree belonged to the city.” Put in its kindest light, and to paraphrase Dody’s letter, “readers should be aware of the distinct possibility that not all information provided by Dody is correct.”
The following excerpt, from a transcript of a tape of the August 25 conversation between Lund and the city forester, indicates that Dody appears to “be a fountain bubbling over with misinformation” regarding what Ms. Lund was told by the city forester on that date. Does the excerpt indicate that Ms. Lund was “again informed that the tree belonged to the city,” as Dody said, or just the opposite?
Excerpt:
Lund: Well how can it if I don’t own the tree? That’s what I’m trying to get to-
City Forester: DBBA [Downtown Branson Main Street Association] does. And since they own the tree, you’re not allowed at, anybody, I mean, just because you don’t own the tree, doesn’t mean – that’s the ordinance that it falls under -and you’re asking to cut it down yet you don’t own it. Um-
Could it have been a Freudian slip when Dody wrote about taking “potshots with incorrect or incomplete information and presenting them as facts to an unsuspecting readership?” It’s becoming very clear who “may want to minimize this issue by distorting and obscuring the real issue,” the city’s unprofessional handling of this matter, even as “the fact remains that someone knowingly, willfully,” and unprofessionally is attempting to cover it up. Anyone want to guess who? All together now, can we say “Treegate?”
