Who was that masked Branson alderman? – Hi-Yo Blunder Away!

The Jul. 8 edition of the Branson Daily Independent contained a letter to the editor signed “Stan Barker, Ward 1 Branson Aldermen.” The letter was faxed as an attachment to an official City of Branson fax coversheet containing a written request for publication by Jerry Adams, the city’s communications director. It was in response to a Jul. 1 letter to the editor from John Logan.

“Seagull, do those facts make Barker’s letter an official communiqué from the city?”

“Official means whatever the city wants it to mean but one thing is for sure, it came from the city.”

The letter was signed under the “color” of Barker’s position and its publication was requested, in writing, by the city’s communications director. In addition, city resources were used, fax, materials,” phone lines, etc.”

Among other things, the letter said, “But worst of all by far is Logan’s self-serving attempt to use the mention of our young men and women serving in Iraq for his own personal gain. Spinning the truth to sell his cartoons is bad enough, but using the mention of our young men and women serving in Iraq is a blatant emotional ploy to muddy the waters for the sole purpose of selling his cartoons, is a completely reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act.”

Logan’s letter contained only one reference to the service of our troops in Iraq. That reference said, “Young men and women are fighting and serving in Iraq for an oppressed people.. yet our city leaders dare not raise a ‘nay’ finger to vote against the newly implemented pre-editing of public documents.”

“Gosh Seagull, how could any reasonable, truthful, or logical person get from that to the act that Barker and the city alleges?”

“You’re assuming that reason, logic, and especially truth, had something to do with it.”

To an Ole Seagull it’s not what the city did; legitimately respond to something it felt it had a need to, that is of concern. The concern is caused by the insidious way that they went beyond the issue and used the “color” of a city response to publicly accuse a specific individual of a “reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act,” without presenting one scintilla of evidence to back it up.

In a letter to the editor published in the Jul.10 edition of the Branson Daily Independent, as relates to this issue, Logan responded by stating that he was “extremely proud to mention our military in Iraq” and that he believed “they would be proud to be remembered.” As to his motivation for the cartoons, Logan simply said, “What personal gain can I achieve? Not a sixpence!”

At this point a reasonable and prudent person would probably have said, “Enough is enough, our city and area have more important issues to be dealt with, let’s move on.” But no wait, does the Ole Seagull hear the “thundering hoof beats of the great horse” Blunder, galloping into Branson. Is a masked alderman about to shoot the credibility of both himself and Branson’s governmental leadership in the foot with a “whoops” bullet just before he rides off into the sunset shouting, “Hi-Yo Blunder Away?”

During the “Public Comment Meeting” held on Jul.11, in complete violation of, and disrespect for, the requirements of Section 105.025 of the Branson City Code, governing who may speak during that meeting, Alderman Barker choose to respond to Logan’s Jul. 10 letter. During that response Barker did not present one scintilla of evidence substantiating the “reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act” that he alleged in his letter to the editor.

Instead, the tapes for that meeting indicate that Barker said, “Logan didn’t like my comment in regards to that I felt like that some of the things that he says are merely to help promote his cartoons. Well, he says here, that he has nothing to gain from that. Mr. Logan, how do you make your living?”

The Ole Seagull’s first instinct was to jump up, go to the podium, point out how arrogant, ludicrous, and irrelevant his question was and ask Barker just one question, “Where is the evidence backing up your allegations relative to the alleged reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act?” Well, OK, he would have asked two questions. The second would have been, “What do you call someone who publicly accuses another of committing ‘a reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act,’ without evidence substantiating the accusation?”

Of course the Ole Seagull didn’t dare go up to the podium least he be accused, by Barker, of some shameful action disrespecting the mayor, board, and citizens of Branson for not following the rules of the meeting. Come to think of it however, the risk was minimal. How intelligent would it have been for someone, who was themselves in violation of those rules, to accuse someone else of disrespect for not following those same rules?

“Who was that masked alderman?”

“Hi-Yo Blunder Away.”