Is “Branson Legal” the same as moral or ethical?

In terms of comparative history, the week of Apr. 10 2006, will probably do as much for the integrity of Branson’s unelected and elected leadership as the deceitful attack on Pearl Harbor did for the chances of the Japanese winning World War II. A lie can be either by commission or omission. Deceitful acts can be overt or covert and both lies and deceitful acts can be either legal or illegal.

In true “New Branson” style both the City of Branson’s elected leadership, the mayor and board of aldermen, and the head of its unelected leadership, City Administrator Terry Dody, seem to glory in their perception that they have met the strict legal definition of “blight” and the other legal requirements for the Branson Hills TIF. Slavery was once the law of the land and legal. Did that make it either ethical or moral? There are legal loop holes in laws that people find, exploit and abuse every day but that doesn’t make it moral or ethical, just legal.

The comments of Dody at the Apr. 10 meeting of the board of aldermen and the publication of an ad in local newspapers “Paid for by the Mayor and Branson Board of Aldermen” later that same week appear to be a continuation of a Branson Hills Development TIF strategy consisting of a mixture of truth spun in with a little deceit, the use of smoke and mirrors as needed, and apparent legality. The legality of the Branson Hills TIF might eventually be decided by a judge but the morality, ethics, and common sense involved with the City of Branson’s handling of the TIF, as applies to the entire Branson area, not just the City of Branson, is within the ability of each person living within the area to determine.

As an example, at the Apr. 10 meeting the Ole Seagull read a portion of a letter written by Branson’s primary unelected leader, City Administrator Terry Dody. It was part of a presentation to the board about, what he believes, was deceitfulness in the process that the City of Branson is using to take millions of dollars in tax revenues that the voters approved in Nov. of 2005 to market Branson and, instead, use it to expand the Branson Hills TIF.

The Ole Seagull made a simple request of the board regarding the marketing tax that the voters had approved. He asked the board to “take whatever action was necessary to insure that the proceeds of the Tourism Enhancement District retail tax that the voters approved in Nov. of 2005, AFTER both the Branson Hills and Branson Landing TIF Plans had been approved, goes 100 percent toward the marketing of Branson and not to pay off TIFs in Branson Landing and Branson Hills.”

The tapes of the meeting indicate that as the board and mayor sat mute Dody sprang into action. He said, among other things, “What Mr. Groman is referring to is that after the TIF law was put onto the agenda or onto the ballot before it was passed at the same time concurrently happening with that was a relocation of the foot print for the Wal-Mart Store.” Dody appears to use a combination of smoke and mirrors, truth, and deceit to arrive at a statement of fact that simply is not true. How could the Ole Seagull, or anyone else for that matter, refer to a TIF law that was never put on the ballot?

A few seconds later Dody says, “It just so happened that the TIF vote was put on the ballot at the same time that Wal-Mart was redesigning its foot print up there.” Even after this second reference to a TIF vote that never happened did even one member of the Branson Board of Aldermen question this obvious departure from truth and reality? No, not one!

Dody goes on to stress that “There was nothing done under the table there was nothing done deceitful” that “everything was done out in the open” and “fully disclosed.” A few seconds later Dody again states that “nothing was done under the table, nothing was misstated except your comments…” Oh really, it’s pretty simple, prior to the Nov. 2005 election by the voters to approve tax increases, to be used to market Branson and build a new Taney County judicial facility, the City of Branson was either actively negotiating to divert millions of those dollars to other uses or it wasn’t.

Those other uses either included the expansion of the Branson Hills TIF project or they did not. Most important of all, in terms of integrity or deceit, those discussions were either discussed “out in the open” or “fully disclosed” or they were not. That happened at what public meeting prior to the Nov. 2005 vote to increase taxes to pay for the marketing of Branson and build a new Taney County judicial facility?

Dody’s use of the words “under the table,” twice during his spontaneous response, was an interesting choice of words that was his and his alone. Branon’s prayer should be that this isn’t the Freudian slip of the century.