Yester Year’s Echoes: The Branson does not own the name ‘Branson’ Election

This column was written in 2007, right after an election resulting in a new mayor and three new aldermen replacing the sitting mayor and three sitting alderman #1. Although there was a lot that should have gotten the public aroused earlier, what did it, leading to this result was the claim by the sitting administration and its elected officials that the city of Branson owned the name “Branson” and that anyone using that name had to have approval of the city to use it. To the best of an Ole Seagull’s knowledge, it was the first time a sitting mayor and three sitting aldermen fell in defeat. The three remaining sitting aldermen were no longer aldermen by the end of the 2008 election. In two elections, voters replaced the city administrator and all elected officials.

(For perspective, this is all taking place in 2007, 18 years ago.)

Particularly in these initial stages of the city of Branson’s new administration, there has to be a way of separating the actions of the new mayor and current board of aldermen from those of the old mayor and the old board of aldermen. Even as “AD” for “Anno Domini” and “BC” for “Before Christ” provides a clear distinction for dates, the Ole Seagull hopes that the term “AE” for “After Election” and “BE” for “Before Election” will provide a simple means of differentiating between the two administrations and their actions.

At the May 29 meeting of the AE Board of Aldermen, they voted unanimously to rescind the current program, which the BE Board initiated in the Fall of 2006 to try to give the city of Branson rights to the name “Branson” that it did not have. “But Seagull, how could it have been unanimous? Aren’t three of the BE Aldermen still on the board?” “Yes, three aldermen, from the BE Board, did not have to stand for reelection in the April election and are still on the AE Board.”

During the meeting, BE Alderman Jack Purvis said, “As of the last meeting, I can no longer take a stand on this name issue concerning Branson because the attorney who was supposedly a well informed person on this specific issue basically waffled, rolled over on us, and told us that really we didn’t have a stand on this issue.” The meeting Purvis refers to was a closed executive session held after the recent April election and before the May 29 meeting.

AE Alderman Marshall pointed out that during that meeting, the statement, “It appears as though you are giving different counsel during this meeting,” was made to the same attorney that Purvis was talking about. Marshall pointed out that the attorney responded, “No, I am giving you the same advice, but there are different ears listening.”

What an indictment that appears to be. The BE Board was told that they “didn’t have a stand on this issue” and voted to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars pursuing the issue before it was over.

BE Alderman Gass responded by saying, “I will tell you this when we met with that attorney, he told us that this is what you do. It wasn’t, what do you think. He said, ‘This is what you do, this is the law and you are going to prevail in this thing.’ He was pretty adamant about it, and that’s the way we were directed and that’s the way we went right, wrong, or indifferent.”

And therein is the reason why the people of Branson wanted and got a change in their elected government by a huge percentage of the vote. In this issue, as it appeared to do in many other issues, the BE administration was, in fact, “directed” by certain non-elected forces to the conclusions that, for whatever reason, “they” wanted.

Does an Ole Seagull believe the statements of Purvis and Gass relative to the legal advice they got? Absolutely. Does he think they were given the same legal advice in the original meeting before the election that they got at the most recent meeting after it? Absolutely not!

Although he might disagree with a lot of what they say, do, or fail to say or do, he has never had reason to doubt their integrity, honor, or commitment to Branson. Unfortunately for them, in this case, they got a taste of their own medicine and the frustration that some in the community have felt regarding their actions or failure to act. “Ah, Seagull, can you say the same for city administrator Terry Dody or attorney Paul Link?” “Surely that’s a rhetorical question, but just in case it’s not, ‘Absolutely not!”

For what matters, an Ole Seagull sincerely believes that this same thing would not have happened under the AE administration. Simply put, they will hold everyone, including themselves, accountable for their actions. What a positive and refreshing change!

#1 The three remaining aldermen were gone by the end of the 2007 election.