Agendas, courtesy, and processes are for others, not the aristocratic ‘New Wave’

A long-standing tradition has guided Branson Board of Aldermen meetings for decades. It is a simple, unwritten rule of etiquette: the general Public Comment period at the beginning of each meeting is reserved for topics that are not already listed on that night’s Regular Agenda to be discussed later in the meeting.

If a citizen wants to discuss a specific item scheduled for later in the meeting, the standard practice is to wait until that item is formally presented by the Board. It ensures the public hears the full staff presentation, the legal context and the factual details before offering input. Further, it enables the Board to more effectively consider that input as it relates to the decisions on the item they are currently discussing, rather than trying to recall what someone said about it earlier in the meeting.

At the February 10, 2026, meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen, the council chamber was filled with over 100 people waiting their turn to talk about items on the Regular Agenda. Despite that fact and the mayor’s request that he wait until the agenda item came up for discussion on the Regular Agenda, local businessman Bob Huels disrespected the people waiting their turn to speak, the mayor, and the Board, saying, “I am not going to wait until the end. I’m going to give my speech.”

Among other things, in his speech, he said, “A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote for tyranny, oppression and arbitrary control. It appears staff or the administration can put virtually anything on the agenda…”

“But Seagull, how does Huels get ‘tyranny, oppression and arbitrary control’ out of the proposed amendment?” Don’t know, you’ll have to ask him, but Section 2-62 of the Branson Municipal Code, as it has for years, says the city administrator is “responsible for listing the matters to be addressed at the meeting in an agenda” and that “The city administrator, city attorney, or department directors shall be able to submit agenda items.”

“What about his statement that ‘It appears staff or the administration can put virtually anything on the agenda?’” As noted above the Branson Municipal Code, for years and obvious reasons, requires and authorizes that. The proposed amendment didn’t change that.

Huels went on to say, “This time because a supposed member of the public mentioned in a ridiculous and petty pontification, we have not only discussions but an amendment that was a member of the public and now you want to make three aldermen have to decide whether we can put something on the agenda or even talk about it in this city.”

“Seagull, to whom was he referring, and how did that person ‘pontificate?” To paraphrase a line from the musical Camelot, ‘C’est moi, c’est moi, ‘tis’ the Ole Seagull who, until those words came out of his mouth, didn’t have the foggiest idea what ‘pontificate’ meant.

“Don’t you think he knew that you were a citizen?” Of course, he did. But this is the type of dismissive, arrogant and aristocratic behavior that Branson can expect from his “New Wave.”

“Seagull, what is this ‘New Wave’?” It’s what Huels declared when he warned the Board, “the tide of single issue politicians is coming to an end” and that a “New Wave of intelligent alder persons is coming.”

An old Seagull’s bet is that this “New Wave” of Huels is primarily the “Old Wave” of certain realtors, developers, businesspeople and others trying to regain the control over Branson they had until the “Current Wave” replaced them. Want to know what to expect from this alleged new wave? Just watch the meeting video and see Huels do what he wants, the way he wants, regardless of the impact on others. Some might even find the way he expresses his opinion “annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.”

“But isn’t that a perfect example of ‘pontificating?” It's a poster boy example of it!