It’s “Final Jeopardy” in the game of “Jeopardy,” city of Branson style. The Final Jeopardy question is “The person who found it remarkable that accusations accusing the city of Branson’s attorney, Paul Link, of discrimination, coercion, twisted untruths, bullying, harassment, breaking the law, blackmail, lies, and violating the lawyers code of ethics was not mentioned in the Ole Seagull’s Dec. 10 column entitled, “Is Dody right, should the record reflect that the board is taking no action in violation of our city ordinance.” Unremarkably, all three contestants, write the correct response, “Who is Paul Link?”
Link made the statement as he and Branson’s city administrator Terry Dody took exception, at the Dec. 11 meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen, with not only the columns coverage of their antics at the Oct. 23 meeting of the board but the general media’s coverage of their actions at that same meeting. The column, available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials,” documents, what the Ole Seagull believes is, the unprofessional, bullying, and interruptive behavior, of Link and, particularly, Dody, that took place at the Oct. 23 meeting. The behavior occurred as a member of the community had the floor and was trying to make a presentation that, among other things, questioned the professionalism of some of Links actions.
Link, in referring to his actions at the Oct. 23 meeting said he “was accused of discrimination, coercion, twisted untruths, bullying, harassment, breaking the law, blackmail, lies, and violating the lawyer’s code of ethics.” He went on to say that it was remarkable to him that the column, “did not state any of these remarks or find any of these issues a violation of a decorum ruling but found the statements made by Mr. Dody and myself to stop these disparaging remarks were a violation of decorum.”
The Ole Seagull can readily understand Links concerns. If he had sent the initial letter to Pamela Dapprich, dated Sep. 15, and some of the other letters that Link has sent out, he too would be sensitive about the accusations that Link mentioned in his statement, “discrimination, coercion, twisted untruths, bullying, harassment, breaking the law, blackmail, lies, and violating the lawyers code of ethics.” The reason they were not mentioned in the column is pretty simple, the column was about what the Ole Seagull believes was the unprofessional actions of Link, and, particularly, Dody at the Oct. 23 board meeting, not about anything else.
Even if the speaker was in violation of the city’s decorum ordinance at the time Link and Dody interrupted the meeting, how could that possibly excuse Dody’s behavior? How nice it would be if, without “smoke and mirrors” and spin, the city would simply furnish the specific legal authority that authorized Terry Dody to do what he did at that meeting? How hard should that be if such an authority actually exists?
Link, as a person with basic reading skills, let alone an attorney, should not have found it remarkable that the column “did not state any of these remarks or find any of these issues a violation of a decorum ruling.” Did not that same Paul Link, at the Nov. 27 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, quoting from the city’s decorum ordinance, say, “Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the board or who interferes with the order of business before the board AND who fails upon request of the presiding officer to cease such activity (caps and underline added) shall be barred from further audience before the board.”
Does it take more than basic reading skills to read that and determine that it’s not the remarks themselves that are a violation of the ordinance? It is a combination of the remarks and the failure of the person making the remarks to cease such remarks when requested to do so by the presiding officer, the mayor, that constitutes the violation of the ordinance. The official recording of the Oct. 23 meeting clearly indicate that, prior to the interruption of the person speaking by Link and Dody, that the presiding officer had not requested the person speaking to cease any activity. Even had that happened and the person ceased such activity there would have been no violation.
Although an examination of the official recordings of the Oct. 23 board meeting will establish that there was absolutely no violation of the city of Branson’s decorum ordinance by the speaker can the same be said for Link and Dody? Could a reasonable person listen to the recordings of the meeting and determine that the actions of Dody and Link violated the city’s decorum ordinance by conversation that delayed or interrupted the proceedings and disturbed the person trying to speak?
To paraphrase Paul Link, “I guess I should not assume that someone having a responsibility to enforce the law would actually know the law but Paul Link is entitled to his opinion and the board of aldermen are free to let him do whatever they want him to do but is anyone charged with enforcing the law entitled to make their own law?”
