A police officer is sitting at a four way stop waiting their turn to go through the intersection. All of a sudden a car comes up and runs through the intersection without stopping. In the initial discussion that took place after the officer pulled the car over, the driver contends that the officer shouldn’t write him a ticket because the mayor said that the city’s ordinance pertaining to stopping for stop signs didn’t apply to him.
The officer, in a professional and courteous manner, writes the ticket, and gives it to the driver who continues on their way. “But Seagull, that’s exactly what the officer should have done?” Absolutely, even if the mayor did say what the driver alleged, the mayor can’t arbitrarily exempt someone from complying with the requirements of a city ordinance.
Yet, it appears, at the Feb. 12 Public Comment Meeting of the city of Branson’s board of aldermen, the mayor continued a pattern of letting certain highly paid nonelected city officials violate the Branson Municipal Code. Section 2-55 of that code sets forth the requirements for speaking during the Public Comment portion of the board of alderman’s meeting. It is easy to read and understand and is designed so that the public knows exactly what they have to do to speak at the meeting and what they can expect.
Subsection 2-55(2) specifically 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 personally sign the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the public comment meeting. No person shall be allowed to speak who did not personally sign the sheet requesting the opportunity to speak.”
The ordinance is very clear on who may speak, someone who has signed the speaker sign-up sheet, and who may not speak, any person who did not personally sign the sign-up sheet. The sign in sheet for the Feb. 12 meeting indicates that Branson City Attorney, Paul Link had not signed up to speak at the meeting. Yet, the mayor permitted him to speak, in violation of the very ordinance that Link likes to use as his “poster child” for illustrating that he has a duty to make sure the board is in compliance with all ordinances.
Ironically, this came after the Ole Seagull, who had signed the speaker sign-up sheet and followed the rules, had to stop his presentation on Link and city administrator Terry Dody’s apparent violations of this same section at an earlier meeting. Like everything else in the ordinance, its ten minute time allocation is very specific and the Ole Seagull’s time ran out.
“Come on Seagull, it’s only a meeting ordinance.” No, it’s what it represents that’s important, the application of the law fairly, to all, without regard to social, economic, or political status, or position within the city of Branson’s pecking order. It’s almost scary that Link and Dody, the very people who professes to have the responsibility to make sure that the board of aldermen complies with all applicable ordinances, appear to lack the common sense or desire to set an example of compliance that the public can emulate.
Is it reasonable to believe that their actions, and the actions of the mayor and current board of aldermen regarding those actions, will be any different behind of the closed doors of executive session? Isn’t that where the “devil” is added to the details of the decisions that affect the very character and future of the city of Branson? Fishing is permitted where on the board walk at Branson Landing?
