Branson discovers new form of government: Rule by dynamic duo?

At the August 26, 2025, meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board), the last item on the agenda was a proposed ordinance extending the Historic Downtown Branson Community Improvement District (CID). The staff report for the ordinance states the ordinance was requested “by Alderman Schulz and Alderman Lucas.”

Alderwoman Ruth Denham says that in a June 10, 2025, Executive Session, the Board gave direction to Administration “to move forward in discussions with the CID and provide the board of aldermen with updates.” As of the August 26, 2025, Board meeting, administration had not finished those “discussions” and had not reported to the Board.

Alderwoman Denham continues saying, “So much to my surprise. I saw this ordinance amendment on the agenda before us tonight, and I contacted the city. There had been no meeting to resolve the extended term as directed by the board of aldermen. I was informed that Aldermen Schultz and Lucas took it upon themselves to draft this amendment against the Board’s initial directive and met with our City Attorney last Friday for four and a half hours. It’s extremely inappropriate and unprofessional to request staff to take direction from two aldermen versus the Board, especially ignoring what was originally discussed previously at the June 10, 2025, Executive Session.”

Alderman Lucas responded, “Ruth, I have not put together any amendments of any type, so I don’t know where your information came from… I did meet with Solon [the City Attorney] and Glenn. For how long was I there, hour and a half maybe at most?” City Attorney Solon says, “Alderman Lucas left early.”

“Ah, Seagull, that brings two questions to mind. The first is a rhetorical question. What is the truth? The staff report for the proposed amendment, which says, ‘This item was requested to be put on the August 26, 2025, agenda by Alderman Schulz and Alderman Lucas,’ or Alderman Lucas’ response to Alderwoman Denham’s comments on the origin of the proposed ordinance, when Lucas says, ‘Ruth, I have not put together any amendments of any type, so I don’t know where your information came from…’”

The Ole Seagull hopes the truth was in the staff report, because under paragraph 2-62(b) of the Branson Municipal Code, it requires two aldermen to originate an ordinance request for an agenda item. If Alderman Lucas did not “put together any amendments of any type,” let alone this specific ordinance, how did it get on the agenda? That, too, is a rhetorical question.

“Well, Seagull, the second question, not rhetorical, is whether Aldermen Schulz and Lucas were in violation or abuse of one or more provisions of the Branson Municipal Code, specifically paragraphs 2-136(f) and 2-156(c)(1).” “In the Ole Seagull’s opinion, the answer is a resounding ‘Yes.’ Paragraph 2-136(f) entitled ‘Dealings with employees by board or mayor’ says, among other things, ‘Neither the board nor any of the members nor the mayor shall give orders to any city employee except the city administrator, either publicly or privately.’ The record is clear that Alderman Lucas and Schultz used the color of their office to violate that provision when they spent 1.5 hours, in the case of Alderman Lucas, and over four hours in the case of Alderman Schultz, to develop the proposed ordinance.”

For what matters, during the Public Comment portion of the Board’s September 23, 2025, meeting, the Ole Seagull made a request for appropriate action by the Board to determine if, in fact, they did. If so, that they take appropriate action to document that fact and ensure that city employees receive protection from such actions and abuse in the future.

“But Seagull, doesn’t the Branson Municipal Code require the City Attorney to draft ordinances for the Board?” “Absolutely, sub paragraph 2-156(c)(1) of the Code says, ‘The City Attorney shall draft and prepare for approval of the Board all ordinances and resolutions of the city as directed by the Board.’ It doesn’t take a legal Solomon to see that the actions of Lucas and Shultz were independent actions taken arbitrarily by themselves and not ‘directed by the Board.’”

“But couldn’t the City Attorney have just said ‘No?’” “But considering that the board of aldermen hires and fires the City Attorney, that response would have been easier if he had a new job offer or was independently wealthy. In the opinion of Ole Seagull, no city employee should ever have to make a similar decision, whether or not the Board hires or fires them directly.