In February of 2002 the voters defeated a measure to impose a one percent retail sales tax to be used for the marketing of Branson and other non related community enhancement purposes. The tax failed for a lot of reasons but, in an Ole Seagulls mind, the main reason was that the legislation authorizing the tax was deficient in terms of accountability, efficiency, and, most of all fairness. It was unfair enough as to what organization could receive the tax proceeds to market Branson that a lot of folks, including the Ole Seagull, dubbed it the “Chamber Tax.”
Recently, at a series of public meetings held by the board of directors of the Tourism Community Enhancement District, the community worked together to come up with recommended changes to the legislation that would correct most of its deficiencies. What’s notable is that the lead organization and driving force behind modifying the legislation was the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB.
“Whoa now Seagull, are you saying that the same chamber that was instrumental in getting the original Chamber Tax, legislation passed, is now working to get it changed?”
“No, there’s no same to it.”
The Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce that exists today is a much different organization in terms of senior staff, accountability, receptiveness to new ideas, access, etc. than it was three years ago. Back then, within a day after the tax failed at the polls, the arrogant defiant response of a high ranking senior staff member of the chamber was words to the effect that “we’ll have the tax back on the ballot as early as August.” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, that would not happen today.
It was the chamber staff, most visibly, Ross Summers and Wylie Barnes, and the chamber’s board of directors that provided the impetus and assistance so that the necessary changes to the legislation could be developed and submitted to the legislature. Without that impetus and assistance, if past history is any indication, the Tourism Community Enhancement District’s board of directors would be no closer to getting the necessary legislative changes developed and to the legislature than it has been over the last three years.
The neat thing is that the chamber did this knowing full well that they would lose the advantages that the current legislation gave them. These advantages include but are not limited to the appointment of board members and being just about the only organization that could be selected to receive the tax proceeds to market Branson. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, they have taken action, against their own self interest, in an attempt to right a wrong, with the hopes that the resultant legislation will, someday in the not too distant future, enable the tax to be resubmitted to the voters for their consideration based strictly on the merits of the tax itself and its potential benefits to our community.
In a May 2003 column, written in conjunction with the departure of some senior chamber staff members, the Ole Seagull asked the question as to whether or not the chamber’s board was “going to take the necessary steps to regain the trust of their members and the community they serve or will there just be a repeat of the past?” Included was a set of indicators such as faithfulness to process, openness, and a commitment by the Board to “dechamberize” the Chamber Tax.
For what it matters, an Ole Seagull truly believes that the chambers leadership in working to change things by making it more open and responsive, as illustrated in its active and constructive participation in the “dechamberizing” of the “Chamber Tax,” indicates just how much things have changed over the past three years. That is good for the chamber, its members, and the community that we serve.
