The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-09-21 Public Comment - R. Zimmer - Board ConsolidationFrom:Ralph Zimmer To:Cyndy Andrus; Terry Cunningham; Jeff Mihelich; Greg Sullivan Cc:Melody Mileur; delmue; Marilee Brown; Mike Maas; Jesse DiTommaso Subject:Concerns about the PROCESS of Board Consolidation Date:Friday, July 9, 2021 5:13:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Friday, July 9, 2021 Mayor Cyndy Andrus Deputy Mayor Terry Cunningham City Manager Jeff Mihelic City Attorney Greg Sullivan I want to remind you of my June 22 written comments to the entire City Commission (see below). I hope you are seriously considering each and every one of them. However, at this point, I want to lift up two issues that might be particularly relevant atthis very point in time. The first of those two issues is actually #6 on the list in my June 22 email. If you truly treasure citizen input, I would think you would be particularly interested in the comments ofnot only those individual citizens serving on advisory boards but also the collective opinion of those boards. I am referring to their collective opinion on issues such as tenure, choice ofchairpersons, etc. If you do treasure those opinions, I would strongly urge you to release the draft resolutions and ordinances to all the advisory committees at least a full month before theCommission considers them so the boards would have the opportunity to discuss them and consider making public input from the board. The second of those two issues pertains to the implementation of whatever resolutionsand ordinances might be adopted. The transition period will present challenges that will subsequently disappear. In this regard, I will mention just two of those things.. The first ofthose is tenure restrictions. In this email, I am referring to just a portion of the questions I raised in #5 in my June 22 email (below). It needs to be clear from the get-go whether serviceon one of the predecessor boards counts (or is ignored) towards the tenure restrictions associated with the new consolidated boards. Let me use Jason Delmue, current BABABchairperson, as an example. According to my records, he apparently has been a member of BABAB for over a decade. Would he be eligible to serve on the new Transportation superboard? The other transition issue I am lifting up is maintaining the continuity of knowledge from the existing boards into the new super boards. Let me use my own board, PTS, as anexample. If the Commission consolidates PTS into a Transportation super board, will it choose any current members of PTS for membership on the new super board? Would I beexcluded because of tenure and would Marilee Brown be excluded because of residing outside the current city limits? The other two current PTS members who might provide somemeasure of continuity, Douglas Fischer and Doug Kellie, are both School District appointees and I doubt would want to serve on a purely City advisory board. None of the other current PTS voting members (including the only PTS membersappointed by the City Commission) have served on PTS for longer than about a year at the very longest and would not provide much id any continuity. So how will the neededcontinuity be achieved for PTS (and perhaps some other existing boards)? In my opinion, this continuity issue needs to be THOROUGHLY thought through in the preparation of theresolutions and ordinances the Commission will be considering. While I do believe the above concerns are the most immediately pressing concerns, I do want you to very seriously consider all the points I raised in my below June 22 email. Thankyou!!! I'm sorry but I cannot refrain from commenting on what I observed happening at the June 22 Commission meeting. I heard City Manager Mihelic say that part of board consolidationwould be to not allow any citizen to serve on two boards. I did not hear any of the five Commissioners object to that proposed policy. At the end of the meeting, I heard Mark Eggereappointed to the Parking Commission. Mark has frequently made public comment at Commission meetings and stated that he is a member of both the Planning Board and theParking Commission. Given the Commissioners didn't complain to Manager Mihelic's statement, why hid they perpetuate Mark's membership on two advisory boards? (I am notthe only one who noticed this apparent contradiction. Others have mentioned it to me.) Ralph Ralph W. Zimmer cc: Melody Mileur Jason Delmue Marilee Brown Mike Maas Jesse DiTommaso ############################################################22/2021, RalphZimmer wrote: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 Mayor Andrus Deputy Mayor Terry Cunningham Commissioner I-Ho Pomeroy Commissioner Jennifer Madgic Commissioner Christopher Coburn From my perspective, there are two components to the proposed board consolidation: (1) the decision on which boards to combine and how manymembers the resulting boards should have and (2) nitty-gritty logistical details on such things as the process of selecting members, tenure restrictions, etc. In thisemail I am going to address those nitty-gritty logistical details. I have broached these details to the Bozeman (Area) Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee(PTS or PTSC), but the following comments are basically my own comments derived from many years serving on many committees (before I retired, I was routinely on over thirty committees at a time and often chaired six or more ofthem) plus my own personal thoughts as a citizen. What I am about to write is very similar to some statements I sent you about a month ago but I am expanding on what I said then. 1. Membership should be open freely and equally to individuals residingwithin and outside of the city limits. City employees live inside and outsidethe city limits. some people own property inside the City but live outside. Some people live say five miles outside the city limits but work inside thecity. All of this should be irrelevant. There should be no language thatexceptions could be made. Depending on their knowledge and interests, everyone should be equally eligible for membership regardless of where they live,work, or own property. 2. The chairperson of each Super Board and joint boards should beelected by the voting membership of the respective board. (There could be a"backup" provision if the elected members do not elect their ownchairperson for any reason.) 3. To insure true citizen input, agendas should be developed by the boardchairpersons in consultation with the staff liaison, not the other way around. 4. City staff should prepare DRAFT meeting minutes for approval by theboards. voting members 5. For ALL advisory boards, tenure restrictions should be no less thanthose of our State legislators (i.e., eight years, not four years). This wouldfoster institutional memory and promote development of informed citizeninput. It should be made clear if service on a direct predecessor group counts or does not count towards fulfilling the tenure restriction (e.g., serviceon the Parking Commission county towards tenure restrictions onTransportation Super Board?)\. The tenure policy must make it clear howgaps in service are counted (e.g., someone who "tenures out" after eightyears of service is able to start another eight years of service id they sat outfor say two years).. 6. Any ordinances and resolutions developed to implement the boardconsolidation should be given to the existing boards at least one full monthbefore they are presented to the City Commission. That will enable therespective boards to consider the nitty-gritty details at a monthly boardmeeting before the City Commission considers their adoption. You may well ask how do these points affect citizen input. I will admit thateach individual point probably has little effect. However, collectively they give the staff the opportunity to shape the boards into they type of group giving thetype of input that matches the staff's thoughts and desires. That means they are tending to give staff input, not citizen input. Let me mention just three things. First would be the staff selecting boardchairpersons rather than the boards selecting their own chairpersons. Second would be the proposal gives the PRIMARY responsibility for preparing agendasto the staff rather than to the chairperson. Third would be the proposed very strict (i.e., short) tenure limits. That prevents a board member from developinginstitutional memory and from staying on the board long enough to develop the skills and knowledge needed to be a truly effective board member. Let me take a step backward look at the big picture. The proposedconsolidation will decrease, not increase, the number of citizens serving on advisory boards. As I recall, the proposed consolidation would cut the totalnumber of citizens serving on the City's advisory boards by APPROXIMATELY half. Granted there would be a larger turnover in some of those slots when peoplelike Ralph Zimmer are tenured out but looking out over an extended period of time there still would be fewer citizens serving on boards. However, it is not just a question of how many slots there are It is also aquestion of what those slots are. Some citizens who have special interest or expertise in one particular area may be more reluctant to volunteer for a board inwhich their particular interests are just a subset of the time and effort they will have to contribute. ' Ralph W Zimmer, Chairperson Bozeman (Area) Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee cc: Jeff Mihela ] Greg Sullivan Melody Mileur Mike Maas Jesse DiTommaso Marilee Brown