At their last meeting, the Branson Board of Aldermen rejected a proposed amendment to the city code. The proposed amendment is related to a life safety issue involving the use of power strips in hotels and other commercial businesses. Based on the information presented, if the ordinance had been approved, it would have violated the International Fire Code (IFC) and be the opposite of similar regulations followed by other popular tourist destinations.
It was a life safety issue impacting just about all of Branson’s hotels and commercial businesses, yet, unlike other issues, many of which did not involve life safety issues, it was put on the agenda for a vote without any “Study Session” or opportunity for public input before doing so.
“But Seagull, how can that happen?” “The Branson Municipal Code permits two or more aldermen to request an item be placed on the agenda, providing they notify the City Administrator in writing six (6) days prior to the meeting.” “Wow, that doesn’t leave a lot of time, particularly in a situation like this where there is a life safety issue, I can understand your concern.” That’s certainly a significant concern but, from an Ole Seagull’s perspective, as this situation ran its course, another more potentially ominous situation arose.
Out of concern about the way the ordinance had suddenly been put on the agenda with no staff recommendation or supporting documentation and the impact its passage could have on Branson in the event of an accident caused by reducing the city’s fire safety standards for hotels below those recommended by the International Fire Code and the opposite of similar regulations followed by other popular tourist destinations, the Ole Seagull spoke on the proposed ordinance during the meeting. Because of the fact there was no staff recommendation or supporting documentation, he said, “I beg you do not approve this ordinance permitting the use of power strips unless [Chief] Ted Martin stands up here and says that he is fully behind this change. None of this ‘garblygook’ about it’s a good compromise. Since when did we start compromising on life safety issues for what appears to be to the economic benefit of the few.”
During the ordinance discussion, Alderman Clay Cooper asked Chief Martin, “My second question is, ‘Mr. Groman, in his comments, said that he wanted to hear you stand up here and say you fully support this code change.’ Do you?” After a delay during which Martin did not answer, City Administrator Cathy Stepp said, “Alderman Cooper, what I have asked our team to do is to do research on similar municipalities and to look and see how they are enforcing this particular line of code in the IFC and to see if other municipalities have made such an adjustment of decreasing protections along that particular line and we could not find any. I would rather not have to put a director on the spot about how they feel personally about something but more the professional information that they gathered and then given non-opinionized.”
Alderman Cooper responds, “I appreciate that, but I’ve heard for years people saying, “Staff fully supports this, and I didn’t hear that.” Administrator Stepp replies, “You didn’t hear it, and you also didn’t see it on the bill. It was initiated by an alderman, and we do our research, and then we bring it to you all to discuss and decide.” Clay responds, “My question is answered without directly being answered.”
“Well, Seagull, it all worked out, what’s the problem?” “Simply stated, an alderman asked a question of the head of a city department, as to whether they supported an ordinance before the board, involving life safety issues for millions of Branson visitors, about a subject the department has the responsibility for, will become part of the Branson Municipal Code, and which was not originated by that department. In this case, Alderman Cooper was satisfied because of the city administrator without it being directly answered. And therein lies the problem.”
What if, instead of the complete answer the City Administrator gave, she only said, “You didn’t hear it, and you also didn’t see it on the bill. It was initiated by an alderman, and we do our research, and then we bring it to you all to discuss and decide.”
In an Ole Seagull’s mind, if an alderman asks a question of a city director or head of a city “department” as to whether they “Recommend Approval” of an ordinance before the board concerning a subject their department has responsibility for and will become part of the Branson Municipal Code, they should get a direct answer from that director or head of department. It makes no difference who originated the ordinance.
“But Seagull, in the real world is there a possibility of political repercussions if the director or head of department did respond and the alderman proposing the ordinance doesn’t appreciate the response.” “Sure, that’s more probable with some city administrators and boards than others, but then there is that possibility regardless of who originates the ordinance. The bottom line is that an elected official being asked to vote on an issue should be able to get an answer from the director or head of department whose area of responsibility covers that issue as to whether or not they support it.”
Comments