The purpose of the Public Comment Meeting, authorized by Section 105.025 of the Branson City Code, “is to accommodate citizens and guests who have comments regarding city business to bring before the board of Aldermen for informational purposes.” It is written in simple easy to understand English so that those wanting to bring something before the aldermen can do so simply by reading it and complying with its simple straight forward conditions.
Subsection B. states, “Any person wishing to appear and speak at the Public Comment Meeting shall sign the speaker sign up sheet located at the front door of the Council Chambers. Each person wishing to speak at the Public Comment Meeting must sign the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.” Its application appears to be a simple matter of reading comprehension rather than a Solomon like legal interpretation.
It says that “any person” wishing to speak at the meeting shall do what? “Sign the speaker sign up sheet located at the front door of the Council Chambers.” When must they sign the sheet? The speaker sign up sheet must be signed “Prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.”
Both Alderman Stan Barker and Branson City Administrator Terry are “persons.” They spoke at the Public Comment Meeting about comments they wanted to present at the meeting without complying with the law and signing the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.
As would be expected, Section 105.025 does have exceptions to provide the flexibility for aldermen and the city administrator to respond to issues raised by the public at Public Comment Meetings. The only exception for aldermen is that “they may address any issues raised by any speaker at any point during the meeting.” In Alderman Barkers case there was no speaker at the meeting to raise a “point during the meeting.” He was the only speaker.
The only exception applicable to the city administrator says, “Items raised under public comment may be referred to the City Administrator.” The tapes for the Jul. 25 Public Comment Meeting indicate that Dody spoke first before any other speaker and that his stated purpose was to make sure that the Branson Board of Aldermen understood that they had the “the ability to talk during this Public Comment Meeting” and that there were “no restrictions as Mr. Groman has alluded to.”
The “allusions” referred to were published in a Jul. 24 column, entitled, “Who was that masked alderman? – Hi-Yo Blunder Away!” which can be found on line under Editorials at www.bransoncourier.com. Obviously, it could not possibly have been “raised under public comment” before the Jul. 25 meeting and could not have been referred to him at that meeting because he was the first speaker.
It’s really pretty simple. From an Ole Seagulls perspective, absent a specific exception stating that aldermen and city administrators don’t have to comply with the law like everyone else, both Dody and Barker should not only have followed the law but, because of their positions, should have set an example for the rest of us to follow.
What about the City Attorney’s legal opinion, issued during the Public Comment Meeting on Jul. 25 after he had carefully reviewed Section 105.025? Is that where he said, “There is no restriction, no limitation, no prohibitions of any kind on the mayor, any member of the board, or any member of the staff speaking or making comments in the Public Comment Section.” That’s the one.
Two quotes come to an Ole Seagull’s mind as he reads the opinion. One is “
The big question in the Ole Seagulls mind is what changed on or prior to Jul. 11 that has created the need for the aldermen and city staff to encroach into the Public Comment meeting, a meeting that has been virtually free of such encroachment since its inception over a decade ago?
