Flip-flop folly: Alderman Lucas' no vote on pettiness

At the August 12, 2025, meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board), the Ole Seagull spoke during the Public Comment period about what he considers the pettiest act he had ever seen an alderman do during a Board meeting He gave the basis of his opinion, expressed his belief that the alderman would seek to remove the item from the Consent Agenda and present an amendment to the Board that would, if approved, confirm and condone one of the pettiest acts he has ever seen an alderman attempt.

Alderman Schulz had the item, which passed its First Reading with a 5 to 0 vote on August 12, removed from the Consent Agenda. He made the motion for consideration of the amended ordinance, and Alderman Lucas seconded it. The amended ordinance said the same thing the original said, incorporating the petty changes that Alderman Schulz wanted.

“Seagull, how petty were the changes?” “Petty enough where the Board voted 4 to 2 not to amend the ordinance!” “Were the two who voted for it, Aldermen Schulz and Lucas?” “Yes.”

After the amendment’s rejection, the Board voted on the ordinance’s Second Reading, which was identical to the First Reading, which the Board had approved, and would have approved as part of the Consent Agenda if they hadn’t removed it. The vote was 5 to 1 approving the ordinance as originally submitted, with only Alderman Lucas voting against it.

“Now hold on Seagull, are you saying that Alderman Lucas cast a ‘Yes’ vote for the ordinance at its First Reading, a ‘Yes’ vote for the suggested amended ordinance which said the same thing as the original, but was the only alderman voting “No” on the “same” ordinance he had previously voted ‘Yes,’ on twice?” “No, merely pointing out what the official records of the meetings show about how Alderman Lucas voted on the issue.

“At the beginning of the meeting, after your Public Comment on the issue, didn’t Alderman Lucas say, ‘Gary, I’m not the smartest man in the room either, but I don’t feel that I’m so stupid as to have to have something sent to me in a letter then put into an editorial and read before the entire Board. I think that’s kind of a waste, too?’” “Yes, he did.”

“What did that show to you?” “That Alderman Lucas had access to all the information the Ole Seagull had about the issue and thought it was a ‘waste.’”

Could you tell me why you think Alderman Lucas reversed his two previous ‘Yes’ votes regarding the issue when even Alderman Schulz voted ‘Yes’ for the adoption of the ordinance as read during its First Reading?” “Obviously, no one knows what a person’s motivation is unless they state it. But were an Ole Seagull a betting man he would bet that Schultz voted ‘Yes’ because he is a professional, could fully express his position during the process, knows that during the legislative process you don’t always win, and did what he believed best for the city.”

“What do you think of the ‘No’ vote of Alderman Lucas?” “His ‘No’ vote in this case, with these circumstances, speaks volumes about how ‘wise’ he is in doing what is best for the city. Too, it raises the bar for the pettiest act the Ole Seagull has ever seen an alderman do during a Board meeting.”