Two aldermen's feathers ruffled; attempt to ground pesky ‘Ole Seagull’

The October 14, 2025, board meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen made history when it considered not reappointing an appointee to the TIF Commission. Two aldermen, Lucas and Schulz, did not like some of the things the Ole Seagull said about their antics while they were conducting the city’s business from the dais. When his name was set forth, Schulz made a motion, seconded by Lucas, that the Ole Seagull’s name be removed from consideration because of alleged problems they had with his comments during the Public Comment portion of their meetings.

Paragraph 2-70 (c) of the Branson of the Municipal Code governs what is commonly known as the “Public Comment” portion of the meeting. It permits members of the public, who have signed up prior to the meeting, up to five minutes to make comments “regarding city business that the board has jurisdiction or authority to take action on.” It also states, “The mayor or board may address any issues raised by any speaker at any point during the meeting without counting against the speaker’s time limit. There may be additional time added for comments and questions from the mayor, Board or city staff directed to the speaker for the speaker’s response.”

At the August 12, 2025, meeting, the Ole Seagull’s Public Comments were made to their face. They were “regarding city business that the Board has jurisdiction or authority to take action on.” Specifically, regarding comments they made from the dais during their official Board meetings. As noted above, the Branson Municipal Code governing the Public Comment portion of the meeting also allows aldermen to stop, rebut, or correct any innuendos, erroneous accusations or perverseness at any time during the speaker’s five minutes or to question the speaker or add additional comments afterward.

Neither Schulz nor Lucas made any comment, Point of Order, or any other objection during Ole Seagull’s five-minute comment period. Immediately after the comments by the Ole Seagull, as authorized by the Branson Municipal Code, Schulz commented, pointing out the many hours he devotes to city business, that many times behind the scenes he has corrected hundreds of mistakes, and espousing his concept of embracing the “pain of discipline over the pain of regret,” whatever that means.

However, he gave no reason why he didn’t handle this obviously petty change the same way he allegedly dealt with the hundreds of other corrections he said he had made. Further, he did not have the honor or decency to mention any innuendos, accusations, name-calling, or the Ole Seagull “trying to essentially influence in a very perverse way his desired outcome from his board activity” while the Ole Seagull was standing right in front of him. Instead, he waited until October 14, 2025.

Of all the two Schulz’s allegations at the October 14, 2025, meeting, Alderman Schulz’s deceitful comment trying to create the perception that the Ole Seagull used his position as the Chairman of the Planning Commission to try to influence the Board on an issue that came from the Planning Commission is as untrue as it is despicable and lacking in honor. Schulz said, “We saw one of these examples recently coming from the planning commission where this commissioner appeared before the alderman and made innuendos, made accusations, called people names on the very issue that came from that commission. The issue is his behavior in front of the alderman trying to essentially influence in a very perverse way his desired outcome from his board activity.”

The “very issue” he talks about didn’t come from the Planning Commission, of which the Ole Seagull is currently Chairman; it arose because of Schulz’s pettiness. The video of the Ole Seagull’s presentation that night clearly shows that his comments did not ask the Board to do anything, let alone change an ordinance that had come to them from the Planning Commission for action. His comments were about the pettiness of Schulz’s correction, the manner in which it was made, and the potential impact such pettiness could have on employees and appointees.

At the time of his Public Comment, there was nothing for the Ole Seagull to influence, perversely or otherwise. The ordinance, which Schultz refers to, had already been approved for its first reading by the Board without any comment from the Ole Seagull and was scheduled for its second reading as part of the Consent Agenda. Typically, items on the Consent Agenda are passed with a single vote. Simply put, there was nothing to influence, it was a done deal, and, at the time of his Public Comments on the pettiness of Schulz would become final as part of the Board’s approval of the Consent Agenda.

In the vast majority of cases, whenever the Ole Seagull gives an opinion or conclusion, whether in a column, article, or during Public Comment, he gives a basis for that conclusion. One might disagree with the conclusion or the basis, but there is at least a basis for evaluation. Shouldn’t a citizen, even him, be entitled to the same consideration, especially in a case like this where Schulz used his office to question his integrity and honor?