During the Dec. 11, 2006 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, the city of Branson’s highest paid employee, city administrator Terry Dody, took issue with the media’s general coverage of the pitiful display of professionalism and decorum that he and city attorney, Paul Link displayed at the Oct. 23, 2006 meeting of the board. Among other things, Dody was apparently concerned about the Ole Seagull’s column of Dec. 10, entitled, “Is Dody right, should the record reflect that the board is taking no action in violation of our city ordinance?” which is available on line at www.bransoncourier.com under “Editorials.”
The reason the word “apparently” is used is because Dody never used the word “column” in his comments but instead refers to the very column he is addressing as “an opinion letter to the Branson Daily Independent.” The question could be asked, “Doesn’t Dody know the difference between a “letter,” opinion or otherwise, and a “column” as they normally appear in a newspaper?
One could get the impression that Dody is no more versed on the difference between an “opinion letter” and a “column” appearing in a newspaper than he is with the “Decorum” provisions contained in sub section 2-54(o) of the Branson Municipal Code. In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, that would be an erroneous impression and Dody’s very carefully chosen choice of words provides an interesting and revealing insight as to his version of reality and truth as compared to the way that most other people would view them under similar circumstances.
Dody said that he thinks “that there needs to be some clarification” and was going to have “our city attorney make some comments regarding the facts and the comments that were made in that letter.” Those words jumped out at the Ole Seagull because to him, when Dody uses the “C” word, “clarification,” it’s a warning to compare very closely what he is saying to the reality and truth of the situation as most people would understand it given similar circumstances.
He further states that he wants that clarification “for the public.” The public that read the column read it in this news paper which is distributed free. What better way to provide clarification to that public, and the public in general, than through a written press release to all the media or, at the very least, a letter to the editor of the very paper that published what it was that allegedly needed clarification?
“Ah Seagull, if he had done that wouldn’t the public have had convenient documented access to exactly what he said from the “horses mouth,” been able to evaluate it, and comment on it?” Of course they would, but how many people who said and acted like Dody did at the Oct. 23, 2006 board of aldermen meeting would really want that to happen?
Dody, then asked city attorney Paul Link “to make some comments regarding the facts and the comments that were made in that letter regarding that there was no reason that person should have been called out of order…” May an Ole Seagull suggest that, the column, which as indicated above, is on line for all to read, contained no “facts” or “comments” stating there “was no reason that person should have been called out of order” or “was not out of order.”
“But Seagull, Dody says it does.” Well, although that doesn’t, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, make it so, it does provide yet another opportunity to the public for a clarifying, interesting, and revealing insight as to his version of reality and truth as compared to the way that most other people would view them under similar circumstances.
