Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFollow Up Responses, A. Thomas, 7.23.2025Andrew Thomas ARThomas@carroll.edu 509-592-0720 Bozeman Study Commission Follow-up responses to July 23rd, 2025, Presentation With regards to the study Commission meeting that occurred on July 23rd, 2025, I would like to include the following follow up statements regarding issues that were raised by the study Commission. 1. In response to the Commission member’s question about how I intend to ensure that underrepresented or marginalized groups are represented in the study Commission, there are a variety of methods that can be utilized to ensure that the sampling of the population is representative. In terms of participant selection and recruitment targeted advertising can be developed to ensure that under representative groups are given notice of public meetings and or surveys. This can be done through social media as well as strategic placement of public notices describing the study as well as noting the time and place for which meetings and or surveys will occur. Additionally, recruitment materials can be multi-lingual if need be. Also, recruitment materials can specifically mention that the Commission is interested in hearing from people of all different backgrounds. As I had mentioned during my response, another critical feature of ensuring that marginalized groups are represented in the Commission's work is to ensure that meetings are accessible to people from a variety of backgrounds. This would likely include scheduling meetings that occur at different times of the day or week so that they are convenient for different types of individuals and can accommodate their schedules. Also, public meetings should also be held online so that people can access the meetings and contribute remotely. Additionally, I am more than willing to meet with small groups of individuals or community members individually to discuss their concerns when scheduling permits. One other feature of ensuring that the work of the Commission is adequately inclusive, is to ensure from a methodological perspective that surveys as well as focus groups are representative of the population. What this entails is adjusting responses to surveys so that participants’ responses proportionately reflect the population of Bozeman rather than simply a proportion of survey or focus group participants. Issues of representative sampling are very common in this type of work and there is an extensive literature in social science methodology that deals with these issues and how to account for any type of variation between the sampled population and the population as a whole. Additionally, it may be desirable for me to engage a polling company to do random statistically valid surveys of Bozeman residents to ensure that representative samples of participants are collected 2. To respond to the Commissioner's questions regarding both the timeline and budget of my RFP, based upon the information provided in the Commission documents regarding this position, I would reasonably estimate the following: Proposed Timeline: August -Mid- September 2025 Initial assessment and planning. Mid-September 2025- Late October 2025 Preliminary public engagement (Discussion groups/surveys) November 2025 Analysis and planning of study focus areas December 2025-Late February 2026 Focused public engagement March 2026 Analysis and discussion of Commission Policies April -May 2026 Public engagement of Commission proposed policies and community feedback May-October 2026 Public education and communication of commission recommendations Estimated Budget: Surveys: Quantity Online/Via text $3,000-5,000, depends on sample size 0-4 Telephone $7,000-$10,000 depends on sample size 0-4 Survey Software $5,000 1 Canvassers/focus group facilitators $5,000-$10,000 0-1 Marketing, social media $7,000-$10,000 1 Marketing, Traditional media $5,000 1 Website Development $3,000-$5,000 1 Consulting fee $25,000 1 Graphic Design for Communications $5,000-$7,000 0-1 Total estimated cost $50,000-$107,000 Please note that there is a large degree of variability both in terms of scheduling of my work for the Commission as well as potential costs. If needed the schedule can be adjusted to meet a timeline that the Commission deems appropriate or desirable given the circumstances. Additionally, with regards to the cost estimates, the range provided assumes a basic amount of compensation for my time but then contemplates different approaches the Commission can approve depending upon resources available as well as other considerations. It is very important to keep in mind that with survey research there is a wide degree of variability in terms of the cost of conducting a survey. On the low and it is only necessary to be able to have a subscription to an online survey platform and a printer for paper copies of the survey, on the high end it is possible to spend tens of thousands of dollars hiring a professional survey company to conduct extensive and validated surveys from representative populations. Overall, my approach to both scheduling and cost is to be flexible and responsive to whatever the Commission deems appropriate in terms of a course of action. Also, I am sensitive to the fact that I am using taxpayers’ money to conduct this work, and I will defer to the Commission in terms of what they deem appropriate in terms of specific activities with regards to this study. 3. To further elaborate upon the commissioner's question regarding communicating the work of the study Commission in terms of highlighting the difference between addressing issues of government structure and policy, it is useful to consider the following as an example of the interplay between the two issues and why it is important to gain both an appreciation of the structure of government but also other contextual factors that influence government structure. A good example of the interplay between government structure and policy is land use policy. If, for example, we have a community where 90% of the land is populated by 10% of the population and 90% of the population lives on 10% of the land we are confronted with a situation that involves both policy issues and government structure issues. Given this dynamic we must question how much influence or role either 10% or 90% of the population should have in terms of making land use decisions both for the land they own, their neighborhood and the community at large. If we go simply by a majoritarian democratic logic that the majority rules the people who live on 10% of the land would likely dictate outcomes for 100% of the community. Although this majoritarian logic works well in a lot of policy areas you can obviously see the conflicts that would arise by having a minority be perpetually controlled by a majority of individuals who do not even own the property they are attempting to control. Another example that I would refer the Commission to is the blog post, A Modest Proposal, that I submitted with my presentation. As I note in A Modest Proposal, the structure and associated challenges of American government has always been defined by an interplay of social, economic, and political issues. Thus, when we contemplate issues of government structure, we have to understand some of the underlying policy dynamics as well as other social economic or political issues that are motivating people to favor one form of government or the other. Although it is the task of the Commission to make representations about the ideal form of government structure in Bozeman, it is also wise to broadly consider what is motivating people to have the political orientation that they have in terms of their policy goals or issues relating to their background or other relevant factors. The real challenge in my opinion of the Commission is to be able to ask people broadly about issues that are important to them, and then in a directed fashion help people formulate structures in Bozeman government that are responsive to their perceived needs as well as the perceived needs of the rest of the community.