The comments of Branson Alderman Jack Purvis to the contrary, the downtown merchants, as well as the other citizens and businesses of Branson, have every reason to rely on the credibility the current Mayor and board of aldermen. The sad thing is that without the April election, where a new mayor and three new aldermen were elected, Purvis would have been 100 percent right but now, in terms of the current board of aldermen, he is only half right but still wrong.
Purvis’s comments came while the board was in the process of discussing the proposed Parking Garage Management Agreement between the city of Branson and the Hilton Hotels Corporation. As part of that discussion, Deana Acton, President of the Downtown Branson Main Street Association, spoke on behalf of the association about their concern with language in the agreement that appeared to limit the number of monthly parking spaces to 20. At no time during her presentation did she speak about the credibility of the board, the trust that the downtown merchants had in the board or request anything in writing from the board.
Alderman Stan Barker had just commented regarding the fact that what was being discussed was the contract with Hilton, it should contain nothing that would tie the hands of the board in dealing with needs of the downtown merchants for parking in the facility, and expressed his belief that the board was committed to meeting the parking needs of the downtown merchants. Then, from out of left field, Purvis blesses all those in attendance, with his wisdom regarding what was being discussed at the time.
Purvis said, “I’m afraid that I don’t agree with my friend and neighbor Mr. Barker and our credibility is, on a scale of one to ten, with the downtown merchants right now, I think, about a minus 10.” First, what is his basis for making that inane statement? It certainly wasn’t based on anything that Acton or anyone else at the meeting said.
The second and more onerous issue is his use of the word “our” in what appears to be an attempt to revise history and stigmatize the newly elected board members with the type of credibility and fairness that a number of people in the community attached to the previous administration. Surely Purvis remembers.
It’s the one he was a member of. The administration which lost its choke hold on the community as a result of the overwhelming results in the April election when a new mayor and three new aldermen were elected to, as newly elected Alderman Bob McDowell said, “Earn back the benefit of the doubt position from the community.”
Purvis then goes on to point out that the downtown business owners taxed themselves to pay for half the cost of a public garage and said, “We took the top level away from them” and “Our word has not been all that great Mr. Barker.” He continued, “I don’t think that we have been fair with them over the last year and a half and I don’t see why they should trust us to be fair with them again…”
What is this “we,” “our” and “us” stuff? Did the current board create the credibility, fairness, and other issues that Purvis is referring to? Most reasonable people would agree that the answer is “No” and that, if Purvis is correct, they were created by the previous board, of which Purvis and two other members of the current board, who did not have to run for reelection in April, Alderman Stan Barker and Alderman Dick Gass were members.
“But Seagull, if Purvis, Barker, and Gass compose half of the new board doesn’t that make Purvis half right?” The Ole Seagull knows that you asked first but, “Is a person who makes it half way across Highway 65 before getting hit by a dump truck traveling at 60 miles per hours “half right” or a hood ornament?
It is one thing for the new board to do what must be done to “Earn back the benefit of the doubt position from the community” that the previous board squandered away. It is entirely another thing however, to even imply that the new board was in any way responsible for creating the situation. The ironic part about Purvis’s grandstanding and comments is that they illustrate the very credibility problem of which he speaks.
