Branson Courier

The character trait for November for the FirstPLACE character education program, taking place in the schools of Branson and Taney County, for the month of November is “Citizenship – being loyal to your country.” What exactly does it mean to be “loyal?”

In general terms, a loyal person is one who is faithful to a person, a cause, obligation, duty, or has a steadfast allegiance to their country. How exactly does one show their loyalty to their country?

In reflecting on that question, the Ole Seagull is reminded of the verse of scripture saying, “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” In terms of citizenship, the Ole Seagull would suggest that “Citizenship without works is meaningless, being but a word.”

The works of citizenship are generally performed out of a sense of duty to ones country.

Duty, in general is “an act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion.” Loyalty to anything, friend, family, God or country, entails duty and, without the performance of that duty, is basically meaningless.

Of what value would the Declaration of Independence be today if after saying “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” and signing it, its signers had sent it to England and done nothing else? From the “shot heard around the world, fired April 19, 1775 from Lexington Square, to the next patrol in Iraq, where would our nation be without the sacrifices of those who do their duty on her behalf?

Some of the duties of citizenship are not as dramatic or demanding. They are the simple things like respecting our flag, our laws, each other, our history, and those in authority. Things like taking the responsibility to pay taxes, follow laws, participate in government and its processes, keeping abreast of local and national issues, and, perhaps as important as anything, voting based on your knowledge of the issues and what would be best for ones “country” rather than just themselves.

“Citizenship – loyalty to ones country” is not simply a national thing. It starts with individuals, families and homes and spreads into local, state, and national governments. A nation’s citizenship is but a reflection of that nation’s individual, family, and local citizenship.

As the final curtain was falling on one of the most distinguished military careers in the history of our nation, General Douglas MacArthur spoke to a joint session of the congress on April 19, 1951. To an Ole Seagull, the last nineteen words of that speech embody the very essence of what citizenship is when he described himself as “An old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.”

An Ole Seagull’s prayer would be that our great nation would be served, starting in our homes and going into the halls of government, at all levels, by those doing their duty as God has given them the light to see that duty.”

The Branson Daily Independent, and obviously the Ole Seagull, recommends a “Yes” vote for tourism on Nov. 8. We fully support and endorse the one percent sales tax to be used for the purpose of promoting tourism within the Branson Lakes Area Tourism Community Enhancement District

Tourism is an extremely competitive business with many destinations and opportunities competing for tourists and their dollars. Combine that with the fact that Branson’s competitors have coordinated marketing budgets that are three to five times that of Branson and it is easy to understand why Branson’s overall visitor total is at best anemic and its rate of first time visitors has fallen to critical levels.

Some say that the answer is new things, shopping, shows, stars etc. Since it’s earliest entertainment days Branson’s entertainment product has evolved and changed to meet the needs of its visitors and provide them with an experience that will bring them back again. The current Branson entertainment product is the result of an on going process of adaptation, innovation, improvement and the blending the best of the new with Branson’s rich heritage of family entertainment.

Recent independent research indicates that the majority of the people coming to Branson like what they experience and return. That’s not a hard thing for an Ole Seagull to believe because he came to Branson, liked what he experienced and has been living in the Branson area for the last 20 years. Come to think of it there are probably a lot of people reading this column that have had a similar experience.

In any event, whether it is the unproven new, the tried and proven, or a constantly changing blend of both, in terms of Branson, or any other travel destination, the concept of “build it and they will come” only happens in the movies. Without effective marketing, what will make people want to come and experience Branson?

There are those who say that it is the job of the attractions, shows, restaurants, lodging establishments, etc. to pay for the marketing of Branson. Yet, this very week a lot of people are going to look at store ad inserts in newspapers. The purpose of the ad is to bring customers into the store with the intent that, once they are inside, those customers will purchase the goods that the store is selling.

“Branson Promise,” is a specialty coffee which is on the shelf with 20 other coffees in a local grocery store. How much of the 21 brands of coffee in the store, including “Branson Promise,” will be sold if the store’s marketing does not bring customers into the store? On the other hand, assuming that the store’s marketing is generating traffic, it is up to the makers of “Branson Promise” to market it so that when the stores customers make a coffee selection at the store it is “Branson Promise” rather than one of the other 20 brands of coffee that is being sold.

Branson and other tourist destinations are the “stores” who compete with each other to get visitors. The individual attractions, shows, restaurants, lodging establishments, etc. are the 21 brands of coffee that must market and differentiate themselves from their competitors. The challenge is the same in both instances. If the store, Branson, fails to generate enough visitors, then both the store and those whose products are being sold within the store lose.

Branson desperately needs more funding to competitively market what it has to offer. The proposed tax is as fair a way as there is to provide that funding. As a lovely lady that I know and respect recently said, “This is designed to not only help the economy but insure that it does not hurt the resident” which is why the vast majority of the total tax collected will be paid by the very tourists that the tax is going to market to and the tax itself does not apply to items such as groceries, prescription drugs, medical supplies, gasoline, and other items exempted by Missouri law.

In a community of independent entrepreneurs, diverse attitudes, priorities and backgrounds it’s an amazing feat to have an important initiative of this scope so widely supported. By all of us investing a little, we can, in the words of that same lady, “Stay competitive, stay in the forefront, and maintain our quality of life as we know it — and love it!” We encourage you to vote YES for tourism and our future on Nov. 8.

What happens to the body when the heart does not receive a “constant supply of fresh oxygen enriched blood?” The Ole Seagull isn’t a doctor so he can’t give a medical answer but he feels safe in saying, “The same things that happen to a tourist destination, like Branson, whose marketing does not generate a constant supply of new first time visitors, very little that is good and a lot that could be really really bad.”

Marketing is to Branson what the heart is to the body and funding for marketing is what blood is to the heart. It’s kind of a “catch 22,” even as the heart needs blood to continue pumping the blood so necessary for a healthy body so too does marketing need funding to generate the new first time visitors that Branson needs to maintain and grow its vital tourism industry.

Interestingly enough, one pint of blood going into the heart is one pint of blood coming out of the heart or basically a one for one exchange. On the other hand, the best current estimates are that when the City of Branson, through the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce & CVB, its current marketing contractor, spends one dollar on marketing the result is one dollar going in and $24 being generated because of the one dollar marketing expenditure; that’s about a 24 to one exchange.

At this point some might say, “If it’s such a great deal why don’t Branson’s businesses pony up the money, why ask the taxpayers to pay for their marketing?” Now the Ole Seagull knows you asked first but let him ask a question before he answers. What happens to the body if the heart does not get enough blood for one reason or another due to injury, clogged arteries, etc? Won’t the blood flow out of the heart be reduced with its attendant negative effects on the body?

The same thing happens with marketing. If the marketing program does not get the funding it needs to do what it has to do its efficiency is reduced along with the rate of new visitors and return visitors. Quite simply, the answer to the question is that no major tourist destination, including Branson, can get enough marketing funding from its businesses alone so that those businesses can survive and there will be enough funding for an effective marketing program.

The challenge is to market in a manner that will maintain the health and vitality of the very businesses that provide the reason for tourists to come. The very businesses that provide employment and are the primary economic lynchpin for most of the income generated in the Branson area. That’s why every major tourist destination uses taxes, paid primarily by the tourists upon whom their very economic livelihoods are based, to help fund their marketing efforts.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, in the Ole Seagull’s opinion, Branson has never had enough money to effectively market what Branson has to offer. If Branson’s marketing was a heart it would be on life support simply because there was not enough blood, funding, coming into it to permit it to work effectively.

The good news is that the vast majority of those that Branson’s limited marketing reaches, and influences to come to Branson, like Branson and will return. The bad news is that competing destinations like Wisconsin Dells and Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge spend $7 and $11 million respectively compared to Branson’s $2.9 million. Given that they are competing for basically the same type of visitor as Branson doesn’t it make sense for Branson’s marketing to have the funding necessary to market itself competitively and effectively?

On Nov. 8 voters within the Tourism Enhancement District will decide whether or not to provide Branson’s “tourism heart,” its marketing program, with the funding necessary to effectively market what Branson has to offer. If they vote “Yes” then, for the very first time, Branson will have enough funding to competitively and effectively market Branson.

The easy thing to do is to fluff it off by saying something like, “No way I’m voting for any new tax” or “let them fund their own marketing.” The harder and more responsible thing to do is to look at the reality of the situation and how important tourism is to not only the economic well being of our community but the quality of life that all living in the Branson area enjoys.

“Ah Seagull, you don’t even live in the district. Why do you have a ‘Vote Yes for Tourism’ sticker on your car and sign on your front lawn.” Please tell me that’s a rhetorical question.

On Aug. 29, 2004, in broad daylight, a person or persons unknown cut down a Bradford Pear tree located in front of Jimmy Jets Grill in historic downtown Branson. At the time no one, including, evidently, the police officer who drove by as the tree was being cut down, was aware that a crime was being committed. What small business trying to operate and survive in Branson would dare to intentionally violate an edict of Branson city government? Can anyone, even the police officer who drove by the scene of the alleged crime as it was happening, honestly testify that the chain saw wielding fiend that cut the tree down was the Ole Seagull1?

Come to think of it, there’s probably more evidence as to who it was that cut down dozens of beautiful Oak and other trees on the Taneycomo Lake front because they stood in the way of what the city wanted to do. Even the beloved “Liberty Tree” was not immune to either the price of progress or the lack of respect that the city showed those citizens and businesses that were concerned about preserving the tree. In spite of intense public interest in the tree, or perhaps because of the intense public interest in the tree, it was taken down without any public warning or discussion by the city.

It was that same lack of concern, and compassion on the part of the city that lead up to the demise of the tree in front of Jimmy Jets on Aug. 29, 2004 and the subsequent charging of the now infamous “Olson Sisters Chainsaw Gang,” with the heinous crime of causing its demise. Three columns by the Ole Seagull chronicle the efforts of the Olson sisters to get advice and counsel from the city, the runaround given to them by the city, and the pathetic attempt by the city to cover up its ineptitude and lack of concern regarding the situation after the demise of the tree and the filing of charges against the sisters by the city.

Those columns, in order of suggested reading, are entitled, “Score: Birds and Trees, 10 – City of Branson, DBMA, and Downtown Restaurants, 0,” “In Cold Sap – a story of better actions government through communications,” and “Nixon had Watergate – is this Branson’s Treegate.” They are available on line at www.bransoncourier.com. Just enter the word “Sap”, with an upper case “S”, in the “Search Articles” box at the top of the page and press the “Search” button.

After the charges were filed in the Branson Municipal Court, the sisters requested, for obvious reasons, a change of venue into the Taney County Court system. The request was granted and the city took no further action to pursue the case until the sisters recently filed a motion to have the case dismissed.What an excellent opportunity for the city of Branson to demonstrate compassion and concern along with treating those they serve the way they would like to be treated.

How did the city respond after a year of inactivity on the case? Is it possible that the city attorney suggested to the sisters that each of the three sisters pay a fine “so that we can replant the trees?” Surely not in light of the fact that it has been over a year since the demise of the tree and everyone knows that the Bradford Pear Trees downtown are coming down as part of the down town’s “Cityscape Project.”

Does the city of Branson really want to pass up this opportunity to treat others as it would like to be treated? Is this not perhaps an appropriate time to remember the admonition, “Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” Why not take this opportunity to right a wrong rather than step on the tail of a sleeping tiger?

Ok, let’s get to the nubbin of it, eastern and western Taney County live in two different worlds. An outsider watching what has been transpiring recently would sense the same thing that the Ole Seagull sensed when he moved to Taney County just about twenty years ago. That eastern Taney County and the Taney County Commissioners treat the economic generator of the vast majority of Taney County’s tax revenues, the immediate Branson area and its tourism based industry, as an arrant child and a tolerated pain.

Well brothers and sisters let’s relieve the pain. Section 47-310 of the Missouri Revised Statutes says that “The question of dividing any county or of striking from any county any portion thereof, whether for the purpose of forming a new county or of adding to any other county” may be initiated on the petition of not less than one hundred voters of such county. Let’s, just for a moment, imagine, what could happen if just 100 people from Taney County petitioned for the western district of Taney County be struck from Taney County for the purposes of establishing a new county.

Oh, there’s more involved but wouldn’t it be worth the effort. Just think, instead of the Taney County Commission and eastern Taney County concerning themselves with what Branson is doing, or not doing, and the character of its leadership they can concentrate all their efforts on running the new slimmed down Taney County. Branson and Hollister will be located in the new county, which, for the purposes of this column only, the Ole Seagull will call Freeus County.

In the past, the Taney County Commissioners have expressed concern about Branson Landing. With Branson Landing being located in the new Freeus County they would no longer have to concern themselves with issues involving Branson Landing.

Well maybe all but one. The comparison that some people make to the expenditure of over $1 million in fees wasted trying to put the new jail in locations other than the one ultimately chosen and the alleged $5 million the Australians received from the City of Branson on the Branson Landing Project. One thing is for sure, the $1 million is going to contribute as much to the actual building of the new jail as whatever it was the Australians got from the city of Branson contributed to the building of Branson Landing. But, on a more positive note, will Taney County even need a new jail if Freeus County is formed?

With the establishment of Freeus County, current Taney County Commissioner Ron Herschend won’t have to take time from his busy day to disrespect all those involved in the FirstPLACE county wide character education program by using the program as a political tool to publicly lecture the Branson Board of Aldermen on character traits. Hum, come to think of it he will be out of a job so that will give him lots of time to stand in front of the mirror and repeat “Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor” over and over until it becomes his own.

Taney County Commissioners and the citizens of Taney County wouldn’t have to be concerned about taxes to promote tourism because most of the tourism, and the tax revenues it provides, would be in Freeus County. The good news is that they will have plenty of time to figure out how much they will have to raise personal property and real estate taxes or cut services on themselves to make up the loss of Branson’s tourism related tax revenues.

Bee Creek Sewer Project problems such as whether it will cost $16 million or $23 million, where the extra $7 million will come from if its $23 million, and the monthly interest payments on the $16 million dollars that was borrowed for its construction last January will become moot as to Taney County. Those and other problems such as the logic for not extending the project down the very lake shore it is designed to protect will become Freeus problems to solve and finance.

Oh, it would take some effort but won’t it be worth it? Isn’t it a “win-win” situation?” Don’t the impassioned words of Dr. Martin Luther King describe how a lot of people in both the new Freeus County and Taney County would feel if it happened, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

In terms of just the four laning of Highway 65, from a pure efficiency point of view, there is little doubt that the project could have been done quicker and cheaper if Highway 65 could have been closed to traffic while the construction was taking place. The reality of the situation was that the Missouri Department of Transportation knew that wasn’t an option and, along with budget and other considerations, had to plan to keep Highway 65 open while the project was under construction.

Does that mean that the project was not constructed efficiently? No, it means that, as is the case with a lot of situations in life, that it was constructed as efficiently as the reality of the situation permitted.

Were the efforts effective, did they have the intended or expected effect of making the highway travel between Branson and Springfield safer and quicker? Most people, who have driven on Highway 65 north of Branson before the four laning project was complete, would probably ask, “That’s a rhetorical question, right?”

What does the building of a highway have to do with whether or not the marketing of Branson is either “efficient” or “effective?” Well, let’s see if there are any parallels.

The remarkable thing about the marketing of Branson is that while trying to attract the new visitors necessary to keep Branson’s tourism industry healthy in the long term it has maintained the level of repeat visitations that it has from its loyal customers. Particularly with the rate of new visitors dropping to a dismal 20 percent, it doesn’t take a Solomon to figure out what would have happened to Branson’s tourism industry if its marketing efforts had ignored the needs of its loyal customers.

In terms of increasing the number of new visitors to Branson, from a pure efficiency point of view, there is little doubt that the rate of decline of the new visitors, necessary for Branson’s long term success, over the last ten years could have been reduced if the need to maintain Branson’s current level of repeat visitors was ignored. The reality of the situation is that those responsible for marketing Branson knew that wasn’t an option and along with budget and other considerations, had to plan to keep marketing to those who had visited Branson before while trying to increase the number of new visitors to Branson.

Does that mean that the marketing of Branson under the control of the City of Branson’s marketing contractor, the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB has not been conducted efficiently? No, it means that, as is the case of the four laning of Highway 65, it was conducted as efficiently as the reality of the situation permitted.

Have the marketing efforts to attract the new visitors necessary for Branson’s long term success been effective? Most people who have been watching the decline of Branson’s first time visitor rates over the last ten years to its current dismal rate of about 20 percent would probably ask, “That’s a rhetorical question, right?”

The Highway 65 project had a sufficient budget to keep the road open and to effectively complete the project. Branson’s limited marketing budget does not, and has never had, the funding to effectively maintain the levels of repeat visitors necessary for Branson’s current survival as a viable tourist destination while simultaneously generating the additional new visitors necessary for it’s future success. Just once in his lifetime an Ole Seagull would like to see what would happen to the new visitor rate over a period of five years if there was enough funding to market Branson effectively, just once.

In 1937 Winston Churchill said, “There’s no such thing as a good tax.” Well Sir Winston might just change his mind if he was familiar with the “retail sales tax” that is collected on most retail purchases, made in Branson and the immediate surrounding area.

Why? For two good reasons, the vast majority of the retail sales taxes paid is not paid by those living in Branson and the surrounding area and a large part of the operating budgets for both the city of Branson and Taney County comes from those tax proceeds.

The Ole Seagull is not much on statistics but, based on his understanding, he doesn’t believe that he would be too far off to say that for every dollar of retail sales tax paid by those living in the Branson area at least three dollars is paid by visitors to the area. Now even Sir Winston might smile at that return on an investment.

In public meetings the Taney County Commissioners have estimated that 75 percent or more of Taney County’s operating budget comes from the retail sales tax that is collected in Branson and the immediate surrounding area. That budget includes the salaries, and benefits paid for all Taney County employees, including the Sheriff’s Department, County Commissioners, and administrative personnel as well as funding for county roads and bridges, sewers, and other needed infrastructure such as jails and court houses, etc.

Some might ask the question “Doesn’t our real estate taxes pay for the operational expenses of operating Taney County government?” The answer to that question is as close as the last real estate tax bill that Taney County property owners paid. How much of it went for those purposes? If yours is the same as the Ole Seagulls, the answer will be “zero.”

Is there any reason to believe that the situation is vastly different within the city of Branson itself? Can any reasonable person actually believe that the majority of revenues required to run the city of Branson and service its infrastructure debt come from real estate or other taxes paid by the residents of Branson?

The next logical question is, “If the bulk of the revenue necessary to run local government does not come from the real estate tax and other taxes paid by those living in Branson and the surrounding area where does it come from?” The answer is that it comes from the retail sales tax, the vast majority of which is paid by visitors to our area.

Does the tourism industry have anything to do with visitors coming to our area? That’s really a rhetorical question, of course it does. What happens if visitors, for whatever reason, terrorist attack, gas prices or shortages, hurricanes, competition from other travel destinations, or lack of effective marketing don’t come to the Branson area in the numbers necessary to generate enough revenue from the retail sales tax for local governments to “pay the bills?”

From an Ole Seagulls perspective, he would expect that the local governments would respond by cutting their budgets as much as possible. Then they would have to raise revenues from sources other than the retail sales tax to cover the “short fall.”

At this point some are probably expecting a list of the revenue sources that might be used. However, for two reasons that will not be the case. The revenue sources are limited and obvious and, regardless of the name attached to the source, the actual revenue would come from those living in Branson and the surrounding area.

In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, one of the best and most efficient ways to avoid having to deal with this type of situation is to make sure that Branson’s tourism industry stays healthy. That will require not only maintaining current visitor levels but moving the rate of new visitors from its current anemic rate of around 20 percent up to at least 30 percent. Although it seems trite, six words cover what is necessary for this to happen, “effective marketing,” “effective marketing,” and “effective marketing.”

Recently the Ole Seagull sat in a meeting where the actual plans for the four laning of Highway 65 to the Arkansas State Line were displayed and discussed. That meeting in conjunction with other publicly available information convinces him that that project is in fact underway and will continue as a priority.

Said another way, what should have been the priority in the mid ninety’s has finally become the priority. Oh, that we could go back in time and change some of the decisions that were made but we can’t, either as individuals or as a community. The reality of the situation is what it is.

And the reality is that as of Sep. 11, 2005, Highway 65 is in the process of being four laned, south, to Arkansas State Line and over $60 million has been spent on the Ozarks Mountain Highroad, State Highway 465, to have it dead end at State Highway 76. It doesn’t for one iota change what should have been done in the mid ninety’s or, more appropriately, what shouldn’t have been done, but it is today’s reality.

And what a beautiful scenic reality it is, a four lane highway that, as currently constructed, would be of more value to Branson as a hiking and bike trail or a permanent home for the Branson Area Festival of Lights, than as a traffic relief artery. It currently has exits only at Highways 248 and 76. Both exits are miles away from Branson’s core of activity and its alternate traffic relief routes.

Those taking the Highroad to Highway 248 and exiting back into Branson will be traveling on a dangerous twisty two lane road. Even more ridiculous is the fact that when they have done all that, they will be at the same point they could have gotten to quicker and more safely if they had simply gone to the Highway 248 exit in Branson and headed west, access to Branson’s excellent system of alternate routes at James Epps Road, Gretna Road, or the Shepherd of the Hills Expressway.

Currently, those that don’t exit on Highway 248 are forced to exit it at Highway 76 west of Branson’s strip. They then travel back into Branson on a two lane road that was designed and built decades ago to handle the traffic of that era.

If the Highroad was extended to the junction of Highways 165 and 265 it would enable our community, and the taxpayers of Missouri, to at least gain some benefit from the $60 million plus dollars that have been spent on it thus far. The two additional exits would give Branson’s visitors convenient and efficient entry to, and exit from, Branson through its west side while providing almost immediate access to the west end of Branson’s Yellow and Red alternate traffic relief routes.

On just about any Sunday, during the season, Highway 76 is backed up for miles with people leaving Branson via Highway 65. A Highroad interchange at Highway 376, and to a lesser extent, the junction of Highways 165 and 265, just north of Table Rock Dam, would relieve this congestion by providing an alternate to Highway 76 for the extremely large percentage of Branson’s visitors leaving Branson via Highway 65 to the north.

In view of the fact that at least part of an interchange has been stubbed out at the junction of Highways 165 and 265 it would seem to make sense to extend the Highroad that far. This would provide a direct route to the Dam area of Table Rock Lake, a loop back into Branson via Highway 165 and provide easy access to the Highroad for this relatively densely populated area.

For some time there has been a move to extend the Highroad to its junction with State Highway 376. Given the current reality of the situation, particularly the priority that the state is giving to the four laning of Highway 65 to the Arkansas State Line, the Ole Seagull thinks that it makes sense for the community to support the extension of the Highroad not only to Highway 376 but to the junction of Highway 165 and 265 just north of Table Rock Dam.

The Character Trait for September is” Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor”

For the school year 2005-2006 those people and businesses who care about the future of the children in Branson and Taney County should be in First PLACE, not second place or some other place but First PLACE. For at least one school year, as a community, let’s show our children the courtesy and honor, of demonstrating and reinforcing the character traits they are being taught in school so that they have a better chance to become a permanent part of their lives.

“First PLACE!” stands for “Partners Linking Arms for Character Education.” The First PLACE , program was covered in a column entitled, “Character takes First PLACE within our community,” that was published Aug. 21 in this paper and which can be found on the internet at https://bransoncourier.com/ under “Editorials.”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, it is the respect that our community and it’s families show our children regarding their efforts to learn these traits that will determine whether or not they become theirs to use for a lifetime. Will we give our children the courtesy and honor necessary to reinforce the traits being taught in school, overcome the negative influences and pressures that are counterproductive to good character, and encourage them?

Some might ask, “What does treating our children with courtesy and honor have to do with whether these characteristics become a tool that they can use for the rest of their lives?” In terms of what they are being taught, it shows “respect” for their efforts. It also shows that we value and honor the character traits being taught and their efforts to learn them.

One of the definitions of “courtesy” is the “Willingness or generosity in providing something needed.” Especially considering the limited time that our children are in school, it is obvious that our community, in addition to efforts within the home, must be willing to provide the encouragement and reinforcement needed for the learning process to grow to fruition.

That aspect of First PLACE is handled by businesses, churches, and civic organizations that become a “partner” by agreeing to do ONE thing each month that corresponds to the Character Trait of the Month. There are many partners doing just that and then some. There is however, one thing every business can do; they can prominently and publicly display the Character Trait of the Month in and about their businesses. Or can they?

On Sep. 1, the Ole Seagull went into five different businesses where he was conducting business. Only one, “Jersey Mike’s Subs” displayed a sign or other form of public encouragement and support regarding the Character Trait of the month. Jersey Mike’s had the nine Taney County Character Traits displayed on an eight by ten inch sign taped on their window and the same size sign saying “Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor” prominently displayed by the cash register.

As the Ole Seagull drove out Highway 76 he was reminded of a line from “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” which says, “Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink.” Oh, there were “Marquees, marquees everywhere, nor any word of respect.” Well almost. From downtown to Highway 165, the only encouragement or support of our children’s efforts the Ole Seagull observed on a marquee was the marquee for the Branson Methodist Church.

Just think of the positive message of encouragement and support that could be sent. Sent to not only our children but to their parents and those working so hard to make the character traits being taught a part of each child’s life, if the majority of our community’s businesses, churches, and organizations showed them the courtesy and honor of prominently displaying the Character Trait of the Month. What message does displaying nothing send?

For assistance in getting free signs or CDs from which you can print your own signs or to become a “partner” call 417-334-6401, ext. 4242, visit the First Place website at www.keetercenter.edu/firstplace. If all fails call the Ole Seagull at 417-294.0404 and leave a message. He will get back to you. The important thing is to do something that will publicly encourage and support our children as they study the character traits which will, one way or the other, shape their futures.

Sure, it will take a little effort but aren’t our children worthy of the courtesy and honor it would show them?

As he napped, the Ole Seagull surely must have smiled as he began to dream and heard the instrumental version of the “Howdy Doody Theme” drifting through the spaces of dream land. It was reminiscent of a simpler, nicer time and place. A time and place where millions of America’s kids spent many an afternoon in “Doodyville” with Howdy Doody, Flub-a-dub, Clarabell Hornblower and its other inhabitants while being entertained and seeing examples of positive character traits such as respect, citizenship, compassion, and cooperation.

!Character can be defined as “moral or ethical strength” or “the combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another.” It is not a matter of whether or not a person, group or thing is going to have character, they are; it’s just a matter of what type of character they are going to have good, bad, or indifferent.

Very few, if any, people are born “good” or “bad.” From an individual perspective, character is acquired. It is learned and developed on a daily basis based on environmental factors and the choices that individuals make about how they live their lives and what they fill their minds with.

Proverbs said it first, “For as he thinks within himself, so he is.” In an Ole Seagulls life this basic truth has evolved into a simple irrefutable master guide line, “We will become what we think we are and that is controlled by what we have placed in our minds.”

That’s why the Ole Seagull took note as Sue Head from College of the Ozarks and Cindy Raines from White River Electric explained the First PLACE, “Partners, Linking Arms for Character Education,” program at the Jul. 11 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen. The simple program uses a combination of our areas schools, the community, and family to fill the minds of our children with positive character traits that can forever change their lives.

The program is elegant in its operational simplicity. Each month of the school year, the schools will emphasis and intentionally teach one character trait. That trait will be constantly reinforced during the month not only at school but throughout the community as “partners,” and family reinforce the trait by committing to demonstrate one visible action each month that ties into the trait.

Our areas schools and teachers have been preparing for this program and are committed to it. Our community and families must also do their part so that the traits being taught in school are reinforced throughout the month. The only thing those outside the school have to do is commit to demonstrating one visible action each month that ties into the character trait of the month.

As an example, the trait of the month for September is, “Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor.” What an impact it could have if that trait was specifically mentioned during Sunday school, in sermons, in newspaper stories or columns, on radio shows, or appeared on various marquees around town. How about banks and utility companies “stuffing” something in the envelopes with the monthly bills about the trait of the month that customers could share with their children or grandchildren? Just think of the impact that a simple hand painted sign or poster or 8 x 11 inch piece of paper with the trait of the month displayed in retail businesses and offices throughout our community could have!

The neat thing is that the possibilities are endless and require so little, just the commitment to demonstrate one visible action each month that ties into the character trait of the month. Aren’t our community’s children and grandchildren worth the effort?

From a family perspective it could be as simple as writing the character trait of the month on a piece of paper and putting it on the door of the refrigerator or simply asking the children in the family what the character trait of the month is and what it means to them. Again, simple is good and the possibilities are endless.

The character traits for each month are as follows: September – Respect – treating others with courtesy and honor; October – Responsibility – taking ownership of what you say and do; November – Citizenship – being loyal to your country; December – Compassion/Kindness – caring for others; January – Commitment – being true to your word; February – Honesty – being truthful in what you say and do; March – Cooperation – working together toward a common goal; April – Perserverance – demonstrating persistent determination; May – Self-discipline – training and control of yourself.

The Ole Seagulls favorite verse of scripture is, “Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, of excellence, or worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” As a community and as individuals, the First Place program provides the opportunity to not only “dwell on these things” but make them a vital part of the lives of our children and grandchildren, ourselves, and the very community that we call home.

Should Branson change the name Ozark Mountain Christmas to Ozark Mountain Holidays?

In the Branson area, one of the busiest times of the year is Ozark Mountain Hanukah. Most can remember a time, not too long ago, when the majority of our businesses ended their season at the end of October. Then along came Ozark Mountain Kwanzaa and the season was extended until the middle of December. Not only was the season extended, but the period between the first of November and the middle of December, known as Ozark Mountain Holidays, became, in terms of economic success, the most important part of the year for a lot of Branson’s, shows, attractions, restaurants, and retail establishments.

Some might say, “Seagull, you’ve got it confused. It’s not Ozark Mountain Kwanzaa, Hanukah, or Holidays, its Ozark Mountain Christmas.” Is it? From a business and commercial sense, except for the Christmas portion of some shows, where is the evidence that Branson, “America as it should be,” is celebrating Christmas as opposed to some contrived politically correct version of something called “Holidays.”

As visitors to Branson drive up and down our streets are they more than likely to see the welcome “Merry Christmas” on a business or the words “Happy Holidays” or one of the other politically correct sayings that leaves “Christmas” out. As our visitors interface with the personnel working in Branson’s entertainment, retail, lodging, and food service areas, are they more likely to hear someone say to them “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays?”

As an example, the Dec. 24, 2004 edition of this paper contained a letter from a lady who, while eating in a local restaurant with her husband, received the greeting of “Happy Holidays,” from their server. When her husband said, “I think you mean ‘Merry Christmas'” she quickly responded, “Oh, we can’t say that unless the customer does.” The person writing the letter ended it by saying, “How sad.”

To an Ole Seagull it’s sad because it represents the trend in a lot of our area’s businesses and organizations to take the word “Christmas” out of Christmas. If Branson and its businesses are more concerned about being politically correct and not offending anyone by using the word “Christmas” that’s fine, let’s change the name of “Ozarks Mountain Christmas” to “Ozarks Mountain Holidays” and be done with it.

On the other hand, the Ole Seagull believes that if there was one place in the country that ought to be “Merry Christmas USA” it should be Branson, Missouri. Is not the celebration of the traditional Christmas a part of Americana that is an inherent part of Branson’s history and heritage? Among other things, doesn’t the origin of Branson’s Adoration Day Parade, now going into its 57^th year, testify to that fact?

History and heritage aside, from an economic point of view, doesn’t it make sense for Branson to promote the traditional “Christmas” rather than the politically correct “Happy Holidays?” People can go anywhere for the politically correct “Happy Holidays” but where can they go where “Christmas” is Christmas? From an economic perspective, it’s puzzling how a town like Branson, that markets traditional family values, in terms of its entertainment, could so quickly succumb to the politically correct “Happy Holidays” version of Christmas rather than seize the opportunity to promote the traditional “Merry Christmas” version.

The good news is that, in January of this year, the Board of Directors of the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution establishing a policy of trying to keep “Christmas” in “Christmas.” The policy encourages the use of the term “Merry Christmas” in lieu of “Happy Holidays” in connection with the Chambers involvement with “Ozark Mountain Christmas” and in other situations where it is the intent of the Chamber to specifically express “Christmas” wishes or greetings to those celebrating the holiday of “Christmas.”

It’s a first step that, if followed by the City of Branson and other businesses, could put the “Christmas” back into Ozarks Mountain Christmas. One can only wonder what would happen if Branson’s simple message was, “We celebrate the holiday of Christmas, its promise and spirit and would love to have you come, visit, and share them with us?”

“Isn’t Branson Landing just another Branson shopping mall that is located on the shores of Lake Taneycomo?”

In a recent column the Ole Seagull referred to Branson Landing, Branson’s new $420 million master-planned shopping entertainment development, being built on the shores of beautiful Lake Taneycomo in historic downtown Branson. He ventured his opinion that it will “provide Branson with a tourist shopping, dining, and entertainment experience that is fresh, new, exciting and unique.”

For obvious reasons no one has questioned the “new” aspects of the comment. Some, however, have had a problem with the use of the words “fresh,” “exciting” and “unique.” Why some have actually asked,

“Isn’t Branson Landing just another Branson shopping mall that is located on the shores of Lake Taneycomo?”

Yeah sure, and some might consider a 15 pound Rainbow Trout as just another trout, hearing their granddaughter sing a solo as just another voice, and the Shoji Tabuchi Show as just another show. How many shopping malls in Branson have the blend of national brand retail stores, shops, galleries, restaurants, and ambiance that Branson Landing will have?

May an Ole Seagull suggest that the answer is “none?” In Branson today, to get anywhere near the shopping choices that will be available at Branson Landing, guests park their cars, shop until it’s time to eat, and then get in their cars to go somewhere else to eat. In terms of what Branson currently has to offer, just the combination of the pure shopping experience that Branson Landing will provide and the convenient availability of a variety of restaurants for just about every taste and budget makes Branson Landing fresh, exciting and unique.

Branson aside, do many shopping malls anywhere have an easily accessible and useable 1.5 mile waterfront boardwalk running its entire length that is integrated into its overall theme? How many are built on over a mile and a half of panoramic water front under the natural backdrop similar to Branson’s beautiful Ozark bluffs?

An active marina or an integrated waterfront “town square” big enough to accommodate 5,000 people for community and other special events, festivals, shows, etc. is an integrated part of how many shopping malls? How many have the choice of waterfront dining that Branson Landing will have?

A nightly, synchronized sound, light, fire, and water attraction costing $7.5 million is standard fare at how many shopping malls in the United States? More importantly, is there another shopping mall in all of America, offering all this, plus the depth, variety, and quality of the family entertainment that is “Branson?”

Like most attractions, shows, shops, etc. that have come to Branson since the Lynch family started operating Marble Cave as a sightseeing attraction in 1894 and the publishing of Harold Bell Wright’s book, “The Shepherd of the Hills,” in 1907, the reason that the Branson Landing is being built in Branson is because of what is already here. Just as those coming before did, Branson Landing will add to what Branson already is as it becomes part of that ever changing entertainment experience that is Branson.

Branson Landing is a lot of things but one of them isn’t “just another Branson shopping mall that is located on the shores of Lake Taneycomo.” It is a unique shopping entertainment destination, within Branson, that will provide an experience not currently available in Branson or anywhere else, and give people yet another reason to visit Branson for the first time or to come back again and more often.

The purpose of the Public Comment Meeting, authorized by Section 105.025 of the Branson City Code, “is to accommodate citizens and guests who have comments regarding city business to bring before the board of Aldermen for informational purposes.” It is written in simple easy to understand English so that those wanting to bring something before the aldermen can do so simply by reading it and complying with its simple straight forward conditions.

Subsection B. 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 sign the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.” Its application appears to be a simple matter of reading comprehension rather than a Solomon like legal interpretation.

It says that “any person” wishing to speak at the meeting shall do what? “Sign the speaker sign up sheet located at the front door of the Council Chambers.” When must they sign the sheet? The speaker sign up sheet must be signed “Prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.”

Both Alderman Stan Barker and Branson City Administrator Terry are “persons.” They spoke at the Public Comment Meeting about comments they wanted to present at the meeting without complying with the law and signing the speaker sheet prior to the opening of the Public Comment Meeting.

As would be expected, Section 105.025 does have exceptions to provide the flexibility for aldermen and the city administrator to respond to issues raised by the public at Public Comment Meetings. The only exception for aldermen is that “they may address any issues raised by any speaker at any point during the meeting.” In Alderman Barkers case there was no speaker at the meeting to raise a “point during the meeting.” He was the only speaker.

The only exception applicable to the city administrator says, “Items raised under public comment may be referred to the City Administrator.” The tapes for the Jul. 25 Public Comment Meeting indicate that Dody spoke first before any other speaker and that his stated purpose was to make sure that the Branson Board of Aldermen understood that they had the “the ability to talk during this Public Comment Meeting” and that there were “no restrictions as Mr. Groman has alluded to.”

The “allusions” referred to were published in a Jul. 24 column, entitled, “Who was that masked alderman? – Hi-Yo Blunder Away!” which can be found on line under Editorials at www.bransoncourier.com. Obviously, it could not possibly have been “raised under public comment” before the Jul. 25 meeting and could not have been referred to him at that meeting because he was the first speaker.

It’s really pretty simple. From an Ole Seagulls perspective, absent a specific exception stating that aldermen and city administrators don’t have to comply with the law like everyone else, both Dody and Barker should not only have followed the law but, because of their positions, should have set an example for the rest of us to follow.

What about the City Attorney’s legal opinion, issued during the Public Comment Meeting on Jul. 25 after he had carefully reviewed Section 105.025? Is that where he said, “There is no restriction, no limitation, no prohibitions of any kind on the mayor, any member of the board, or any member of the staff speaking or making comments in the Public Comment Section.” That’s the one.

Two quotes come to an Ole Seagull’s mind as he reads the opinion. One is “Houston we have a problem” and the other is a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

The Jul. 8 edition of the Branson Daily Independent contained a letter to the editor signed “Stan Barker, Ward 1 Branson Aldermen.” The letter was faxed as an attachment to an official City of Branson fax coversheet containing a written request for publication by Jerry Adams, the city’s communications director. It was in response to a Jul. 1 letter to the editor from John Logan.

“Seagull, do those facts make Barker’s letter an official communiqué from the city?”

“Official means whatever the city wants it to mean but one thing is for sure, it came from the city.”

The letter was signed under the “color” of Barker’s position and its publication was requested, in writing, by the city’s communications director. In addition, city resources were used, fax, materials,” phone lines, etc.”

Among other things, the letter said, “But worst of all by far is Logan’s self-serving attempt to use the mention of our young men and women serving in Iraq for his own personal gain. Spinning the truth to sell his cartoons is bad enough, but using the mention of our young men and women serving in Iraq is a blatant emotional ploy to muddy the waters for the sole purpose of selling his cartoons, is a completely reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act.”

Logan’s letter contained only one reference to the service of our troops in Iraq. That reference said, “Young men and women are fighting and serving in Iraq for an oppressed people.. yet our city leaders dare not raise a ‘nay’ finger to vote against the newly implemented pre-editing of public documents.”

“Gosh Seagull, how could any reasonable, truthful, or logical person get from that to the act that Barker and the city alleges?”

“You’re assuming that reason, logic, and especially truth, had something to do with it.”

To an Ole Seagull it’s not what the city did; legitimately respond to something it felt it had a need to, that is of concern. The concern is caused by the insidious way that they went beyond the issue and used the “color” of a city response to publicly accuse a specific individual of a “reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act,” without presenting one scintilla of evidence to back it up.

In a letter to the editor published in the Jul.10 edition of the Branson Daily Independent, as relates to this issue, Logan responded by stating that he was “extremely proud to mention our military in Iraq” and that he believed “they would be proud to be remembered.” As to his motivation for the cartoons, Logan simply said, “What personal gain can I achieve? Not a sixpence!”

At this point a reasonable and prudent person would probably have said, “Enough is enough, our city and area have more important issues to be dealt with, let’s move on.” But no wait, does the Ole Seagull hear the “thundering hoof beats of the great horse” Blunder, galloping into Branson. Is a masked alderman about to shoot the credibility of both himself and Branson’s governmental leadership in the foot with a “whoops” bullet just before he rides off into the sunset shouting, “Hi-Yo Blunder Away?”

During the “Public Comment Meeting” held on Jul.11, in complete violation of, and disrespect for, the requirements of Section 105.025 of the Branson City Code, governing who may speak during that meeting, Alderman Barker choose to respond to Logan’s Jul. 10 letter. During that response Barker did not present one scintilla of evidence substantiating the “reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act” that he alleged in his letter to the editor.

Instead, the tapes for that meeting indicate that Barker said, “Logan didn’t like my comment in regards to that I felt like that some of the things that he says are merely to help promote his cartoons. Well, he says here, that he has nothing to gain from that. Mr. Logan, how do you make your living?”

The Ole Seagull’s first instinct was to jump up, go to the podium, point out how arrogant, ludicrous, and irrelevant his question was and ask Barker just one question, “Where is the evidence backing up your allegations relative to the alleged reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act?” Well, OK, he would have asked two questions. The second would have been, “What do you call someone who publicly accuses another of committing ‘a reprehensible, deplorable and unforgivable act,’ without evidence substantiating the accusation?”

Of course the Ole Seagull didn’t dare go up to the podium least he be accused, by Barker, of some shameful action disrespecting the mayor, board, and citizens of Branson for not following the rules of the meeting. Come to think of it however, the risk was minimal. How intelligent would it have been for someone, who was themselves in violation of those rules, to accuse someone else of disrespect for not following those same rules?

“Who was that masked alderman?”

“Hi-Yo Blunder Away.”

At the Jun. 13 meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen John Logan made comments in opposition to a resolution. The official city tape recordings of the meeting indicate that at the end of his comments Logan made a request to have his concerns and objections made part of the actual minutes of the meeting in addition to being included on the tape recording of the meeting.

Those same tapes show that almost immediately, Terry Dody, the City Administrator, without being asked for advice, or seeking permission to speak, from the mayor, the boards presiding officer, said, “Mr. Mayor just for clarification, John’s request will not be honored on the minutes. That’s not the intent of the minutes or the purpose of the minutes.”

“Whoa Seagull, doesn’t state law say that the City Administrator performs their duties “subject to the direction and supervision of the mayor?”

“That’s what it says,”

“Wouldn’t it have shown more respect to the office of the mayor and the board, the people he works for, if Dody had at least made it appear that he was giving them advice rather than telling them what would be done?”

“From a perception point of view, probably so.”

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, absent a specific request for his advice from the mayor, the best thing Dody could have done, at that moment and that place, was to have remained silent. This would have shown a positive example of complying with Section 105.020 of the Branson Municipal Code and eliminated even the perception of disrespect.

More importantly, it would have avoided the situation of creating an “us” vs. “him” type of situation and the meeting would have moved on to the next item. In subsequent days, as the minutes of the meeting proceeded through their normal generation and approval cycle, the city clerk and the leaders of Branson’s city government would have had the opportunity to consider and evaluate the request more fully without the bias created by Dody’s gratuitous statement.

As an example, they might have considered that within the legal and practical aspects of preparing a meeting’s minutes there is a lot of flexibility. Someone might have pointed out that the minutes of the May 31 meeting, approved by the board earlier in that same meeting, contained a perfect illustration of just how much flexibility is available.

The very first item under the “Regular Agenda” in those minutes pertains to the Convention Center Management Agreement. As to the comments made by Chris Lucchi regarding the agreement, those minutes state, “Chris Lucchi of the Branson Lodging Association reviewed the three concerns they had with 1) definition of revenues 2) booking policies and procedures and 3) the mechanism to edit and adjust the agreement.”

“Ok Seagull, I’m starting to get it. The same legal and practical considerations that enabled the gist of some of Lucchi’s comments to be put into the minutes provided the flexibility to display positive and caring leadership in Logan’s case.”

“Exactly, but instead the minutes, as to Logan’s involvement with the issue, merely said, ‘John Logan, 2277 Lakeshore Dr., Branson, addressed the Board.’ How much extra effort would it have taken to add five words so that it read, ‘John Logan, 2277 Lakeshore Dr., Branson, addressed the Board regarding his concerns and objections?'”

“Not much, but Seagull, this is about John Logan, the city’s perceived nemesis.”

“No, actually it’s about how people, regardless of their views, are treated, basic fairness, and the exercise of positive and caring leadership.”

On March 3, 1836, Colonel William Barret Travis, the Commander of the Alamo, wrote to Texas Governor Smith, “…victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse for him than defeat.” In the early predawn hours of Sunday, March 6, 1836, after 12 days of almost constant bombardment and siege, the soldiers of General Santa Anna, numbering in the thousands, made their final assault on the Alamo, overwhelming its 189 defenders. The immediate cost to the Mexican Army was over 600 killed and countless wounded. The cost to the defenders of the Alamo was the life of each and every one, 189 souls.

The prophetic words of Colonel Travis, the spirit of the Alamo, and the actual cost of the Mexican “victory” at the Alamo manifested themselves, only 46 days after its fall, at the Battle of San Jacinto. The Mexican army, under General Santa Anna, outnumbered the Texas army, under the command of General Sam Houston, by over a two to one margin. In spite of these odds, the Texas Army, inspired by the sacrifice of the Alamo defenders and shouting the battle cry, “Remember the Alamo,” defeated Santa Anna’s army. The short brutal battle lasted only 18 minutes, resulted in the deaths of over 630 Mexican soldiers, the capture of General Santa Anna, and won the independence of Texas.

What is it about the Alamo that so inspired the Texas army at the Battle of San Jacinto and has touched the hearts and souls of generations since? What are we to remember? Was it their courage or that they spent their lives for a noble cause? Was it the fact that so few stood against so many for so long or a combination of these factors? Or, was it the fact that the defenders of the Alamo could have elected not to give their lives in a battle they knew they could not win?

History records that on the first day of the Siege of the Alamo, Santa Anna had the scarlet flag of “no quarter” run up on San Fernando Cathedral within the sight of the Alamo defenders. It was answered with cannon fire from the Alamo and the siege began.

After receiving messages that no further help would be coming, Colonel Travis, explained the hopelessness of their situation. He gave the Alamo’s defenders a choice of escaping, surrendering and perhaps living, or fighting on and the certainty of death. The chances of escape were pretty good as people had been going through the Mexican lines all during the siege.

All but one elected to fight on and face certain death. Unknown to them at the time however was the special place in history where there choice would be forever enshrined. That place where the spirit of honor, dedication to purpose, valor, and willingness to sacrifice all, for a noble cause believed in, is preserved.

Why, as James Bowie said, would they “…rather die in these ditches than give them up to the enemy?”Their individual reasons probably varied the nobleness of the cause, loyalty to each other and their country, honor, duty, freedom from tyranny, and, for some, like Bowie, the defense of their homes.They were however, bound together by the common threads of their courage, their belief that it was right and necessary to fight the army of Santa Anna at that time, in that place, no matter what the price, and in their commitment to pay that price.

The spirit of “Remember the Alamo” represents that which is courageous, honorable, and worthy of commitment in the hearts of individuals and nations. It was born from the hearts of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as, on July 4, 1776, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on behalf of a new nation. From July 4, 1776 to July 4, 2005, America’s greatness and very existence has depended on it and those willing to commit their all for it.

It is the “American Spirit,” the very lifeblood of our nation.May that Nation “Under God,” be eternally blessed with that spirit, for without it, She would not have been born and would not long endure.Happy Birthday America, Happy Birthday!

Why would the folks at Branson’s Silver Dollar City spend $10 million on one new ride? Does anyone believe that they woke up one morning and said, “We’ve got nothing else to do today so let’s see if we can lose money by spending $10 million to build a new type of air launch coaster?

“Is that the new ride they call ‘Powder Keg?’ The one that shoots riders 110 feet into the air after going from 0 to 53 miles per hour in just 2.8 seconds?”

“That’s the one.”

“If that’s the case, then my answer to your first question is ‘to make money’ and the answer to the second question is ‘of course not!’

“What if that wasn’t the case?”

“The answer would still be the same.”

Anyone that was not part of the process involved with the decision to build Powder Keg doesn’t know the details and the rationale that was used. But, in general terms, most people would have little problem agreeing with answers given to the two questions simply because one of the primary purposes of a business is to make money and most businesses do not deliberately spend $10 million dollars on something that they believe will lose them money.

To an Ole Seagull, the financial success and viability of Silver Dollar City is dependent on its ability to attract a constant supply of visitors. To do that there must be “something” that attracts visitors initially and “something” that keeps them coming back.

That “something” is no one thing, it is a delicate ever changing combination of people, factors, and things that has been providing “amazing family adventures” and experiences worth remembering to Silver Dollar City’s visitors for decades. Powder Keg is part of that wonderful “something” that keeps Silver Dollar City new and exciting and gives people yet another reason to visit for the first time or to visit again.

Silver Dollar City’s success is not based on Power Keg or any one “something.” It’s based on its ability to market its solid foundation of core features, traditions, values, and relationships into which, periodically, just the right amount of “something” is blended to keep it fresh, new, and exciting.

“But Seagull, what does that have to do with Branson Landing?”

“Everything, Branson Landing is a “something” for Branson.”

Branson, as a major tourist destination, is in the same position as Silver Dollar City. To be financially successful and viable it must attract a constant supply of visitors. To do that there must be “something” that attracts visitors initially and “something” that keeps them coming back.

Will Branson Landing in and of itself guarantee that Branson will continue to attract the supply of visitors that it needs? Absolutely not! It is but another “something” that is added to the efforts of people like Gary and Pat Snadon, the Hall’s, Herschend’s, Glenn Robinson, Ron Layher, Dorothy and Shoji Tabuchi, Joe Sullivan, Andy Williams, Jim Thomas, the Pressley’s, the Mabe’s, Jim and Ann Stafford and many others.

What it will do is provide Branson with a tourist shopping, dining, and entertainment experience that is fresh, new, exciting and unique. It is another “something,” that when blended into and marketed with Branson’s solid foundation of family entertainment, traditions and values gives people yet another reason to visit Branson whether for the first time or as a repeat visitor.

Yet, at the end of the day, to an Ole Seagull, the “something” that matters the most is his belief that God has made Branson “something” special. In the final analysis Branson just might be that “something” that provides some of its visitors with an eternity changing experience.

Isn’t it “something” the way it all comes together?

At its basic level a business is kind of like living life. If there is no life left at the end of the day tomorrow, at least in terms of this earth, is no consequence. Or, as Ole Forrest Seagull once said, “Life’s like a pineapple cream pie, when it’s gone it’s gone.”

Can someone help an Ole Seagull understand exactly how the movement for reparation, payment of some sort, to today’s black Americans by the rest of today’s Americans because of slavery in America’s past, does anything but help divide our nation? Is the term “African American” a term of unification or division? Does it not remind all Americans “of the vestige of slavery?”

Recently a bill passed the state legislature that made major changes to the law that set up the board of directors for the “tourism community enhancement district.” This is the board that will make the determination “if” and “when” a one percent retail tax, to be used solely for the marketing of Branson, will be submitted to the voters of the district for their approval. If the tax is approved, it is also the body that will control how the tax will be used to do that marketing.

One of the problems that caused the need to change the original legislation was the fact that, under its provisions, the board was not appointed by elected public officials, city board of aldermen, county commission, etc. Indeed a majority of the five person board, three, was appointed by the Indian Point and Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce.

It is a testament to the changes that have taken place at The Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce over the past few years that it was instrumental in getting these changes through the legislature.

“Ah Seagull, just what was the ‘testament?'”

“Flexibility, trust, openness, the willingness to get in there and work for the changes even though they knew that they could work against their own economic interests.”

“Oh come on Seagull, everyone knows that if the tax is passed the Chamber is the one that is going to get the contract.”

“Then ‘everyone,’ although not too hard to do, knows more than the Ole Seagull because he simply doesn’t believe it.”

“Well the Chamber got the city contract for marketing didn’t they?”

“That they did and, in an Ole Seagulls opinion, they did it ‘the old fashioned way, they earned it.'”

In the final analysis, an Ole Seagull believes that the districts board will do the same thing that the Branson Board of Aldermen did, try to select the best organization that they can to market Branson. That is assuming that the tax passes and for that to happen, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion two things could be done to increase the chances of that happening.

First, immediately after placing the tax on the ballot all those members of the tourism community enhancement district’s board who were appointed by either the Branson Lakes Area or Indian Point Chamber of Commerce should resign. This will enable the provisions of the new law relating to elected governmental bodies appointing the board to become fully effective prior to the voters voting on the tax. The end result will be a seven person board that is totally appointed by such officials consisting of three members appointed by the City of Branson, two by the Village of Indian Point, and one each by Taney and Stone County.

Under the transitional provisions of the new law, without the above action, the three board members who were appointed by either the Branson Lakes Area or Indian Point Chamber of Commerce would remain on the board until their existing terms expire. In most cases their terms would not expire until after the tax election and the award of the initial marketing contract. In terms of the rationale for having the board composition changed it’s kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. The proposed suggestion eliminates that problem.

Second, and, in the opinion of an Ole Seagull, of even more importance, the tourism community enhancement district’s board and the City of Branson should enter into an agreement, well prior to the election, providing that the they will work together to insure that the taxes collected to market and promote tourism from the district’s tax and the city’s tax are combined to market Branson under one cohesive plan. Currently the city could take the $2 million plus that they raise to market and promote tourism and use it for those purposes in what ever manner it determines.

“Could they use it to market Branson Landing and the Convention Center?”

“Sure they could.”

“Do you think that they would actually do that?”

“Not for a minute but there might be just enough voters out there who would believe it to make eliminating the problem worth considering.”

The purpose of the original Memorial Day was to honor those who died in the Civil War. Its purpose today has evolved into remembering and honoring all who have died in the service of our country. What better way is there to honor and remember them than to honor and remember their living comrades, those men and women who have and are currently honorably serving in America’s Armed Forces.

Someone a lot wiser than an Ole Seagull said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Since the earliest days of our history America’s Armed Forces and their families have paid the price for the freedoms and privileges that we, as a Nation, all enjoy and sometimes take for granted. Memorial Day gives us a unique opportunity to not only honor the dead but to pause, honor and say “Thank You,” to those who have and are currently serving and their comrades who are Missing In Action.

The very act of going into the Armed Forces puts one’s life at risk. Immediately upon being “sworn in,” members of the Armed Forces have given control of their lives to their military and governmental leaders. It is a control that is absolute and, from an honor point of view, irrevocable.

It could be exercised through an order “to take that hill,” in the face of withering machine gun or mortar fire, to patrol a neighborhood in Baghdad, or the assaulting of a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. Or, it could be an order to serve in a supply depot, training facility, or hospital thousands of miles away from the battle. Regardless of where or how one serves, the risk to their life is an inherent part of serving and is omnipresent.

History records that it is the politicians, and those in power, who start wars and that it is the men and women of their Armed Forces who pay the price of those wars. It is a price paid in separation, stress, blood, suffering, anguish, and, sometimes, death by those, who have and are currently, serving in our country’s Armed Forces and their families.

Theirs is not the job of judging whether or not the politicians and those in power are risking their lives in a noble or just cause. Their job is to do their duty. Some have served in conflicts that were “popular” such as World Wars I and II and Dessert Storm. Others served in conflicts that were not as publicly popular, such as Korea, Vietnam, and, if current polls are any indication, in Iraq. Through it all however, the men and women of Americas Armed Forces and their families have done their duty, sacrificed, and given unstintingly of themselves.

The eloquent words of William James remind us that “No matter what a man’s frailties otherwise may be, if he be willing to risk death, in the service he has chosen, that fact consecrates him forever.” Since the beginning of our Republic the members of our country’s Armed Forces and their families have assumed that risk, done their duty, and ensured that a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” For that we owe those who have and are currently, serving in the Armed Forces our undying gratitude, honor, respect, and support, not only on Memorial Day but, every day we as a Nation enjoy the fruits of their efforts, sacrifices, and service.

Can any reasonable person look at all Branson has to offer, from its outdoor activities, festivals, shows, restaurants, to its shopping, museums, golf courses, natural beauty, renowned hospitality and say that if a person wants to be entertained they can’t do it in Branson? An Ole Seagull is tired of hearing that people want “something” that Branson doesn’t offer. The fact of the matter is that when people come to Branson for the first time they like what they experience and a majority of them return again.

“But Seagull, our first time visitor numbers are down and have been decreasing for years doesn’t that mean we need “new” stars, shows, or things to attract new visitors?”

“It positively absolutely does not!”

What boggles an Ole Seagull’s mind is the concept some people have that the “silver bullet” needed to increase the number of Branson’s first time visitors is someone or something “new.” We should thank God, every day, for the depth and breadth of the entertainment that we have in Branson. It is a huge part of the experience that brings first time visitors back again and some, many times again.

Instead what does one hear, “Branson needs new stars, shows, and things to attract the “new demographics” that is allegedly so vital to her success. Can someone tell an Ole Seagull exactly what “new” star, show, or thing it was that drove Branson’s first time visitor rate to its highest levels ever during the Branson Boom of the early 90s? In the real world of Branson, as it exists today, exactly what “new” star, show, or thing(s) would increase Branson’s first time visitor rate up back to those lofty levels?”

Wait, does the Ole Seagull hear the “thundering hoof beats of the great horse Silver,” galloping into Branson to the strains of the “William Tell Overture?” Is a masked man about to present Branson with a silver bullet of “new” stars, shows, and things that will lift Branson to the next level, what ever that is, before he rides off into the sunset shouting, “Hi-Yo Silver Away?”

That’s about as likely to happen tomorrow as it was today and yesterday. Fortunately for Branson, people like the Hall’s, Herschend’s, Glenn Robinson, Ron Layher, Dorothy and Shoji Tabuchi, Joe Sullivan, Andy Williams, Jim Thomas, Jim Stafford, Rick Huffman, and many others, have added, and continue to add, more than enough “new” to Branson’s rich family entertainment environment to give Branson more entertainment options and excitement for its guests than just about any other city of its size anywhere.

“Oh, come on Seagull, what kind of excitement? Las Vegas is so exciting that it proudly advertises, ‘What happens here stays here.'”

“Sounds like a guilty, lonely and selfish type of excitement. Branson’s excitement comes from just the opposite reason, ‘What happens here goes with you forever and is meant to be shared with those you love.'”

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion there was no new star, show, or thing that drove Branson’s first time visitor rate to its highest levels ever during the Branson Boom of the early 90s. Rather, it was the expanded awareness of Branson and what it had to offer that the exposure on “60 minutes” provided that drove the first time visitor rates to new levels. For whatever reason they came and when they came, they were entertained by what Branson had to offer, enjoyed what they experienced, and a lot of them came back.

Now, here we are some 15 years later with some looking for a “silver bullet” that will bring new visitors to town. Oh, there’s a “silver bullet” out there but it’s not new stars, shows, or things. Today, as was the case before “60 minutes” in the very early 90’s, and has been the case throughout Branson’s rich family entertainment history, Branson’s entertainment industry is providing a product that meets or exceeds the expectations of the majority of those who come to experience what Branson has to offer.

That makes it pretty simple for an Ole Seagull. History and current research shows that if people come to Branson and experience it they like it and a majority of them will come back. Branson’s “silver bullet” is the same now as it was before the Branson Boom of the early 90s, expand the awareness of the entertainment product that Branson has to offer “today.” Obviously the date of “today” will change but, if history is any indication, the ability and adaptability of Branson’s entertainment industry to meet the entertainment needs of Branson’s guests “today” will not change.

“Who was that masked Seagull?”

Special Note: Each year, toward the end of the school year, this piece is respectfully published and dedicated to our areas teachers as a “thank you” and a reminder to us all of how valuable teachers are to our community and the future of our nation. This year we would dedicate its publication to Branson Band Director Eric Matzat as he makes a career change. His dedication, character, leadership, and professionalism manifested itself not only in the performance of the bands that he directed but, more importantly, in the hearts and minds of the thousands of young men and women who marched in those bands. It epitomizes the very “nobleness” of which this piece speaks.

In terms of a “profession” America’s future does not lie in the hands of Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. Her future lies in the hands of the profession that will be teaching those who will become the Presidents, politicians, lawyers, doctors, or accountants, America’s Teachers.

A “teacher” is “one who teaches,” a professional who has accepted the awesome challenge and responsibility of helping to prepare our children and grandchildren to fully realize their individual potential, create the desire to fulfill it, and equip them with the skills necessary to achieve it. It can truly be said that America’s destiny and future depends upon the realization and fulfillment of that potential.

Oh sure, there are those, professing to be teachers, who do the minimum and simply go through the motions. They could be characterized as those who perform the mechanical function of providing instruction from prepared lesson plans without a personal commitment to their students or accepting the responsibility and accountability for their results.They are teachers in title only.

The true “Teacher” has a personal commitment to their students. A commitment to not only teaching the necessary information and skills that their students will need but to make learning an experience they will want to continue for the rest of their lives.They fully realize and appreciate that “how” they do what they do is as important as “what” they do and dedicate their professional lives to equipping, helping, and motivating their students to recognize and reach their full potential.

To a large extent true “Teaching” is an art form. It requires the same type of dedication, commitment, and skill that a painter would use on a great canvas, a music composer would use on an opus, a lawyer on a jury, or an entertainer on an audience. What makes the successful musician, singer, comedian, painter, or author? Is it the mere application of “the mechanics” of what they are doing or their ability to communicate and relate what they are doing to their audience?

Even as the success of an artist is directly linked to their ability to relate what they are doing to their audience so too is the success of a Teacher, only more so. Although the professional entertainer wants and desires to reach every member of their audience, they can still be very successful if they reach a substantial majority of their audience.

A Teacher however, does not have that luxury. For them, success and failure is measured in the eyes, minds, and hearts of each individual student. The Master Teacher said it best. “If any man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?” He was not willing to lose even one.

The Teachers heart and spirit transcends mere “mechanics and basics” and goes to the concern and commitment of dedicating themselves to their students and their individual ability to effectively apply what is being taught. It is a task that, in a lot of cases, is made more difficult by influences outside of the Teachers direct control such as the physical or mental challenges of individual students, school funding issues, child abuse, and dysfunctional families to mention a few.Fortunately, for America and Her children, in spite of these additional challenges, there are those who feel a calling to become, in the truest sense of the word, “Teachers.”

Where then is the nobleness of Teaching? It is obvious that it is not based on factors such wealth, title, or power and yet, it is nobleness in the truest sense of the word.Nobleness based on the character, honor, generosity, dedication and commitment of those who are true Teachers and the quest they have chosen, preparing our children for the rest of their tomorrows.There’s not much that is nobler or more important than that, not much at all.

Recently the Ole Seagull received an email from a veteran, Ronald, of Sand Springs, OK. It succinctly stated what a number of people have been wondering about “Branson’s Welcome Home…Americas’s Tribute to Vietnam Veterans.” Ronald said, “In reference to this summer’s Vietnam Vet Reunion, Operation Homecoming. Why are all the other [Branson] reunions free to the groups that had homecomings but, ‘the homecoming we never had’ costs us $79.95. Proof of military service should be the ONLY requirement.” To that an Ole Seagull would humbly add, “Amen.”

Why a community that has successfully run “A Veterans Homecoming,” an event honoring all our nation’s veterans, for years without charging “registration fees” would suddenly change that proven model boggles an Ole Seagull’s mind. What a curious way to give someone the homecoming they never received?

“But Seagull, once you pay it everything else is free?”

“Not really. According to the Schedule of Events there is a $50 fee for the Fishing Tournament and a $50 fee for the Golf Tournament. Besides, if a person pays $79.95 how ‘free’ is any of it?”

It seems that the major item included “free” with the $79.95 “Registration Fee” is color coded dog tags that serve as the admission to Saturdays Grand Finale Concert. According to the web site, the Grand Finale Tribute, “Starts at 11:00 am and goes until after dark at an outdoor venue at Saddlebrooke” and is for “registered attendees only.”

To some it will be a grand show but in a town full of great entertainment, that has honored veterans of all wars, including Vietnam, for decades it is but another show or is it? What if it rains? The website states that, “No rain date or refunds given due to weather or acts of God.”

The T.V. ads, promotional pieces, and web site all stress that “registration” for the event is $79.95 per person. As but one example, if one clicked on the “Registration and Reservations” link off of the main page of the event site, http://www.operationhomecomingusa.com/index2.html, they would be told, under a caption entitled “Registration Fee” that the “Cost of registration for Welcome Home is $79.95 for each adult; $39.95 each for children 13 – 17; children 12 and under free.”

“Whoa now Seagull, aren’t the vast majority of the activities during the week free like they are for the “A Veterans Homecoming” event that has been run in Branson for years?”

“Yes, there are basically only three activities that have a charge, the golf tournament, the fishing tournament, and the “registration” for $79.95.”

And that’s the sad part, the impression that a lot of Vietnam Veterans like Ronald get about the registration fee, that they are being charged a fee for an event that is supposed to honor them. An impression that is in large part caused and reinforced by, the very advertising used to promote the event.

One can only wonder how many Vietnam veterans have been turned off to the event and possibly even Branson because of the registration fee. How many paid it thinking it was a requirement to attend the event? What reactions will they have when they discover that there was no requirement to pay a registration fee unless they wanted to go to the Grand Finale Concert, the cost of which, unlike the golf and fishing tournaments, was buried in the “registration fee package?”

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, the good news is that Branson, as a community, and the vast majority those that are involved with the management and sponsorship of “Branson’s Welcome Home…America’s Tribute to Vietnam Veterans” are, in fact, truly dedicated to honoring the Vietnam veteran. Too, there is still time to correct the erroneous impressions and misunderstandings that have been created.

In an Ole Seagull’s opinion, a major promotional effort should be immediately initiated to publicize that, as is the case with “Branson’s A Veterans Homecoming,” there is no registration fee required to attend “Branson’s Welcome Home…America’s Tribute to Vietnam Veterans.” Further, every veteran that has “registered” should be notified that if they not want to attend the Grand Finale Concert that they can get their money back with no deduction of a $20 processing fee.

The year was 2000 and it was a gentler time. The Taney County Commission, the county, the City of Branson, the city, and the Taney County Regional Sewer District, the district entered into a “Sewer Services and Exclusive Territorial Agreement” on Feb. 28. Surely there was excitement, love, and joy throughout the land.

The agreement stated the city’s concern about “the safe and adequate disposal of waste water and sewage, within close proximity of Branson” and protecting “the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Branson.” It went on to state that the county, the city, and the district “desire to create a plan to provide sanitary sewage services to the Table Rock Acres subdivision, the Bee Creek Watershed, and the Emory Creek Watershed.”

“Look Seagull, the love and joy stuff aside, that’s about as exciting as having a root canal performed with a teaspoon.”

“It gets better, be patient.”

To an Ole Seagull, a sanitary sewer system has to perform two main functions if it is to be efficient. It has to collect sewage at its source and transport it to a treatment facility through sewers. The treatment facility must then treat the sewage so that it is no longer an environmental or health hazard.

The agreement provides that “the county will fund and the city will design and construct sewers in the Table Rock Acres subdivision, and in the Bee Creek and Emory Creek watersheds, to be owned operated and maintained by the City as part of its sanitary sewer system”

“Did the agreement provide for the building of any treatment plants to process the sewage?”

“No, but it did provide for the treatment of the sewage that was collected.”

It said, “The county and the district believe that Branson is the entity most qualified to act as regional provider of sewer services and that it is appropriate that Branson should be the sole provider of wastewater treatment in the Bee Creek and Emory Creek watersheds.”

“Sounds like a plan to me, especially since neither the county nor district operated municipal treatment facilities and Branson had, and was operating, state of the art facilities.”

And so the agreement was signed “for the mutual benefit of the parties” and everyone lived happily ever after. Well maybe not.

In 2005, more than five years after the Agreement was signed and became effective, the county and district suddenly had an epiphany. They decided, for whatever reason, that they didn’t like the agreement and wanted it changed whether or not the city did. In an Ole Seagulls opinion those changes, for all intents and purposes, would remove one of the strongest reasons for entering into the agreement, having the sewage treated on a regional basis by “the entity most qualified” to do so.

What is the rational for these changes? As near as an Ole Seagull can discern, trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, there are two main reasons. One is that the county wants let people have the option of having their sewage treated by another provider if it is cheaper. The other is the allegation that the county and district were forced to sign the agreement because the city allegedly said that they would oppose the extension of the one half percent county wide sewer tax if they didn’t.

“Are you saying that the reason the agreement was signed by the county and district was because the city allegedly said that they would oppose the extension of the one half percent county wide sewer tax if they didn’t?”

“No, one of the members of the Taney County Regional Sewer Board said it at a public meeting held on May 5.”

“Seagull, do you believe that the city really did that?”

“It makes no difference what an Ole Seagull believes, what’s important, in his opinion, is the potential stench from the lack of professionalism and integrity involved in what the county and district did if they made their decision to sign the agreement, in any part, because they believed it was true.”

“But Seagull, if the city actually did what they allege isn’t there plenty of stench to go around?”

“Where’s a rose when you need one?”