Highly paid, highly prioritized: Citizens bumped to bottom of the agenda?

The answer to that question depends on your perspective, but for the Ole Seagull, the answer is: absolutely!

Although there is no legal obligation to do so; the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board) has, for more than 30 years, allowed people to speak to the Board at the outset of each of its twice-monthly business meetings during a Public Comment period. Those comments had to pertain to business over which the Board had some authority and control and were limited to three or five minutes, depending on how many speakers there were.

“If it’s worked well for thirty years, Seagull, and it’s not broken, why fix it?” Because the new Board wants it that way.

"Seagull, what do you mean?" Alderman Glenn Schulz sums up the justification for the proposed changes by saying that city meetings often call for the presence of architects, engineers, or attorneys to put the interests of a business or development before the Board. These are highly paid people. If you have them sitting through hours of citizen complaints at the top of the hour, their clients are on the hook for some steep hourly rates.

“Wow, Seagull, how many meetings over the last 30 years has one of these ‘highly paid people’ had to sit through ‘hours of citizens’ complaints?" Based on his experience, maybe ten (10) out of approximately 660 meetings held over the last 30 years and that was with people abusing the privilege and speaking about items on the agenda before they actually came up on the agenda. With the new rules in effect in the very ordinance that they're using to move Public Comment to the end of the meeting, would reduce a number to about as close to zero (0) as one can get.”

Schulz continues, saying “Public Comments can be disruptive because people will make arguments about items that won’t come up for some time. The Board and the room are left to hear it all out of order.”

“But Seagull doesn’t the same ordinance that moves Public Comment to the end of the meeting also have other provisions, such as limiting the people who can speak during the Public Comment period to Stone and Taney County residents and businesses and their employees? Doesn’t it also prohibit Public Comment on items that will be covered on the Regular Agenda later in the meeting.” Yes, it does.

“Then where is the justification for moving the Public comment period from the beginning of the meeting to the end of the meeting?” To an Ole Seagull that’s a rhetorical question and one that should be addressed to Aldermen Harkness, Lucas, Schulz and Williams who voted to move Public Comment to the end of the meeting.”

Aldermen Cooper and Denham, voted against the change and along with the mayor, spoke against it. Their comments were consistent with the view that the move stifles the voice of the public in favor of the “highly paid people.”

The ordinance passed and will become law upon its second reading at the Board’s next meeting on June 23, 2026, unless it is taken down from the Consent Agenda and changed.  

“Do you think there’s a chance of that happening?” It's almost guaranteed that it will come down from the Consent Agenda, but what will happen beyond that, who knows?

For what it matters, an Ole Seagull would recommend that those opposed to moving the Public Comment period to the end of the meeting either contact their aldermen before the meeting to let them know their position, or show up at the meeting and express that position when the item comes up during the Board’s discussion of the Regular Agenda Items on the Regular Agenda. Obviously, the same applies to those in favor.