Last weeks column, was entitled, “Can it be, the ‘Dodink Magic and Variety Show’ appearing in Branson city hall.” It suggested that three of the agenda items scheduled for the Nov. 27 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen “could provide enough excitement, drama, slight of hand, and maybe even a little bit of song and dance” to be an imaginary show called by that name. The column is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials.”
Things got off to a slow start as one of the city of Branson’s higher paid senior level management employees, city attorney Paul Link, gave a power point presentation on the decorum rules applicable to all board of aldermen meetings. In general, it was about as exciting and dramatic as having a root canal performed with a teaspoon.
To an Ole Seagull, taken in total, the presentation appeared to be an arrogant attempt at justifying the unjustifiable, the actions of both he and the city of Branson’s highest senior level management employee, city administrator Terry Dody, during the public comment portion of the board of aldermen meetings. But, the song and dance routine was a presentation highlight. Sung and danced in terms of the legal mumbo jumbo shuffle, it tried to substantiate their actions on the basis that they have a legal responsibility to make sure that what the aldermen did at their meetings was in compliance with applicable ordinances.
The presentations slight of hand, although not quite as good as the song and dance routine, was worthy of one of Branson’s best illusionists. While diverting attention by attempting to justify their actions as necessary to make sure that the city’s elected board of aldermen, and everyone else at the meetings, followed the city’s ordinances, the presentation remained mute on the apparent failure of the very same senior level management employees to comply with those same ordinances on more than one occasion.
For the sake of argument only, let’s say that there is some credibility to the presentations legal responsibility argument. How is that justification for either of the senior level management employees, or anyone else for that matter, to speak on other issues without signing the sign up sheet? Is there one ordinance applicable to them and one to the rest of us? Of course we might never know because the presentation was approved without allowing those in attendance the opportunity to speak or ask questions.
Interestingly, that same concept played a key roll in the most magical moment of the evening. How special was it when, right before their eyes, the audience “saw” a 12 story building resurrected into a 25 story sky scraper.
One can only wonder why those having the responsibility to make sure that what the aldermen do at their meetings is in compliance with applicable ordinances didn’t do that at the Sep. 25 meeting when the board voted unanimously to reduce the sky scraper from 25 to 12 stories. It would seem that pointing out that an ordinance they were about to approve was legally insufficient to do what they wanted to do would be a very important part of that responsibility.
How much effort would it have taken to suggest that instead of using stories as the basis of the amendment that they use the number of feet as was used in the height section of the ordinance they were approving. How hard would it have been to suggest that the number “300” be changed to read “150” wherever it appeared in the ordinance? Now some might ask, “But Seagull, if they had spoken up and corrected the situation that night, when it was obvious that most of the aldermen were leaning toward the 12 story compromise then what would have been the legal basis for bringing it back up again at the Nov. 27 meeting.” For what it matters, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, not much, not much at all.
