How did the city of Branson decide to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on a commemorative plaque honoring, among others, the aldermen involved with the Branson Landing project and intentionally leave one alderman off? The city of Branson is spending $680 thousand dollars for equipment and how much in prorated construction costs building a commercial laundry as part of its convention center, apparently for the benefit of the private hotels involved with the Branson Landing project, why?
The city spent how many millions of dollars building a public fountain in a private development and is spending how many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to maintain that fountain why? Could the answers to these questions, and others, lie in the fact that they were handled the same way that the city sold city property, Point Royale Drive, by controlling access to the information necessary to permit the public to effectively participate in the decision making process and limiting its input and participation as much as possible to those having a vested interest in the outcome?
“But Seagull, isn’t Missouri’s Sunshine Law designed to insure that the processes of government are open and accessible to the governed?” Yes, it is a tool designed to do just that but, like any tool, its effectiveness is determined by how it is used.
A flashlight is only as effective as the person who controls it. If the person controlling the flashlight doesn’t turn it on what good is it? Even when it’s turned on, the person controlling the light determines what areas will be illuminated and which will remain dark. In a similar manner, in the city of Branson, the effectiveness of Missouri’s Sunshine Law and the open and accessible access to government that its light is meant to shine on is determined by those who control that light, its elected officials and city administrator.
It’s simply a matter of philosophy. Does the city look for the way to include the public in the process or to exclude them from the process? Actually it’s more than that. Missouri’s Sunshine law makes it clear that inclusion is the policy and that any exception to that policy shall be liberally and strictly construed to promote that policy. Section 610.022 of the Sunshine Law states that just because there is an exception authorized does not mean that it shall be construed “as to require a public governmental body to hold a closed meeting, record or vote to discuss or act upon” that exception.
In the ole Seagull’s opinion, the leadership in this area of the man that the Ole Seagull considers to be the Darth Vader of Missouri’s Sunshine Law in the city of Branson, its current administrator, Terry Dody, has been one of exclusion rather than inclusion. Forget the actual occurrence of a specific event that is an authorized Sunshine Law exception, where even then, in most cases, it encourages that the public still be included. Just the potential of such an occurrence appears to be enough for Dody to try to have the public excluded from effectively participating in the process.
At a public Board of Alderman Work Session, held on Apr. 18, when the topic of the use of the term “Branson” came up it was pointed out by either Dody or Paul Link, the city’s attorney, that the matter was scheduled to be discussed in executive, closed session, because of potential litigation. To Monsieur’s Dody and Link an Ole Seagull would simply say, “Give us a break! The Darth Vader days of Missouri’s Sunshine Laws in Branson, Missouri are, hopefully, over.”
To our newly elected Mayor and board members, he would respectfully and humbly suggest that this is a pivotal moment in defining the Sunshine Law philosophy of your administration. In your hearts and hands is the determination on whether or not the flashlight of Missouri’s Sunshine Law will be turned on and where, how, and when, within the city of Branson’s government, its light will be permitted to shine. Please let it shine brightly proclaiming the true spirit of that law within the city of Branson’s government.