Particularly in these initial stages of the city of Branson’s new administration, there has to be a way of separating the actions of the new mayor and current board of aldermen from the actions of the old mayor and old board of aldermen. Even as “AD” for “Anno Domini” and “BC” for “Before Christ” provides a clear distinction for dates, the Ole Seagull hopes that the term “AE”.” for “After Election and “BE” for “Before Election” will provide a simple means of differentiating between the two administrations and their actions.
At the May 29 meeting of the AE board of aldermen they voted unanimously to rescind the current program which the BE board initiated in the Fall of 2006 to try to give the city of Branson rights to the name “Branson” that it did not have. “But Seagull, how could it have been unanimous, aren’t three of the BE aldermen still on the board?” Yes, aldermen Purvis, Gass, and Barker, from the BE board, did not have to stand for reelection in the April election and are on the AE board.
During the meeting, BE Alderman Jack Purvis said, “As of the last meeting I can no longer take a stand on this name issue concerning Branson because the attorney who was supposedly a well informed person on this specific issue basically waffled, rolled over on us, and told us that really we didn’t have a stand on this issue.” The meeting Purvis is referring to was a closed executive session meeting held, after the recent April election and prior to the May 29 meeting.
AE Alderman Marshall pointed out that during that meeting the statement, “It appears as though you are giving different counsel during this particular meeting,” was made to the same attorney that Purvis was talking about. Marshall pointed out that the attorney’s response was “No I am giving you the same advice but there are different ears listening.”
What an indictment that appears to be. The BE Board was told that they “didn’t have a stand on this issue” and yet voted to spend tens of thousands of tax payer dollars, probably hundreds of thousands before it was all over, pursuing the issue.
BE Alderman Gass then responded by saying, “I will tell you this, when we met with that attorney he told us that this is what you do. It wasn’t what do you think. He said, ‘This is what you do, this is the law and you are going to prevail in this thing.’ He was pretty adamant about it and that’s the way we were directed and that’s the way we went right, wrong, or indifferent.”
And, therein lays the reason why the people of Branson wanted and got, by a huge percentage of the vote, a change in their elected government. In this issue, as it appeared to do in a lot of other issues, the BE administration was in fact “directed,” by certain nonelected forces to the conclusions that, for whatever reason, “they” wanted.
Does an Ole Seagull believe the statements of Purvis and Gass relative to the legal advice they were given? Absolutely. Does he believe that they were given the same legal advice in the original meeting prior to the election that they were given at the most recent meeting after the election? Absolutely not!
Although he might disagree with some of what they say, do, or fail to say or do he has never had reason to doubt their integrity, honor, or commitment to Branson. Unfortunately for them, in this case, they got a taste of their own medicine and the frustration that some in the community have felt regarding their actions or failure to act. “Ah Seagull, can you say the same for city administrator Terry Dody or attorney Paul Link?” Surely that’s a rhetorical question but just in case its not, absolutely not!
For what it matters, an Ole Seagull sincerely believes that this same thing would not have happened under the AE administration. Why? Simply put, because they are “directing” rather than being “directed,” do not blindly accept what they are told by city administrator Terry Dody and city attorney Paul Link, and will hold all, including themselves, accountable for their actions. What a positive and refreshing change.
