Search for next Branson City Administrator continues on

By GARY J. GROMAN, Independent Journalist

At the regularly scheduled Board of Aldermen’s (BOA) meeting on July 12, 2022, Art Davis from Baker Tilly presented their proposed “national search agreement” to help recruit Branson’s next City Administrator. Under the timelines in the proposal, a new City Administrator would be selected by September 30.

During the discussion of the presentation, comments by the mayor and some of the aldermen made it apparent that through the application process thus far, a highly qualified unnamed candidate had emerged. After a discussion on how to get an additional few candidates to compare to that candidate to, and the pros and cons of doing so, the matter was “Tabled” with no vote.

After that meeting, a Special Board Meeting was scheduled for the purpose of “Adjourning into a Closed Executive Session pursuant to 610.021.3 for Personnel.” On the evening of July 18, a confidential source said that the purpose of the meeting was to select Cathy Stepp as Branson’s next City Administrator without going through the search procedure they had previously endorsed. This was confirmed by three additional confidential sources.

A motion to do so has to pass to adjourn into Executive Session. The motion was made and seconded with Aldermen Denham, Howden, and LeBanc voting for the Executive Session and Aldermen Cooper, Fenton, and Rodriguez voting against. Mayor Milton said he did not want to proceed on such an important issue with a divided board and “Abstained.”

Under the Branson Municipal Code, “if a member of the board abstains from voting on an item, then that abstention shall be recast as a no vote for counting and recording of the individual votes on the item.” With the failure of the motion for the Executive Session, the board was back in regular session, during which they discussed the merits of fast-tracking the process to avoid the possibility of losing what some believe is a “WOW” candidate.

Alderwoman Denham shared her belief that it had been done when the board hired its new city attorney and that not doing so, in this case, was discriminatory. Alderman Fenton pointed out that there were different municipal code sections, with a different one applying to each situation. He then read the provision on the selection of the City Administrator. It said, “The city administrator shall be appointed by the Mayor and board for an indefinite term. He shall be at least 25 years of age, should have a master’s degree in business or public administration or a related field, and shall be chosen solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications, with special reference to his actual experience in, or his knowledge of, accepted practice in respect to the duties of the office set forth in this section. Appointment of any city administrator shall be based solely upon qualifications, without regard to his political beliefs or affiliations. At the time of his appointment, he need not be a resident of the city, but during his tenure in office he shall reside in the city and devote his full-time to the performance of the duties of his office.”

Although the meeting was not “taped,” and no vote was taken, the consensus was that the original process and search for a new City Administrator will continue as previously approved by the board.