HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-25 Public Comment - B. Schumacher - Public Comment – Recommendation for Communication StrategistFrom:Becky Schumacher
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment – Recommendation for Communication Strategist
Date:Friday, July 25, 2025 2:45:29 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.
Dear Members of the Bozeman Local Government Study Commission,
Over the past few years, I have slowly disengaged from our community as I have observedtime and time again the leaders of our city ignore the pleas from its constituents to manage
growth differently and to protect our neighborhoods better, just to name a few. I chose to listenback to this past Wednesday's Study Commission meeting, finding myself wanting to get
involved again but not wanting to put my efforts toward submitting comments on things thatjust either go nowhere or are actually condemned by the city commission, so I have chosen to
focus my efforts on the go-forward, which is the Study Commission, with the hopes that youall really do mean when you say that you want to listen to the public and consider changes that
will make our local government more responsive to the needs of its residents.
For this reason, I have decided to share my opinion on the candidates for the Communication
Strategist role that you are contracting for, since you asked for feedback from the public, and Ihope that there are others doing the same. In my circle of friends, we have talked about how
this study commission really feels like the last hope for the future of our city, which Irecognize puts a lot of weight on the decisions that you all make.
I strongly recommend that the Study Commission select Andrew Thomas for the position ofCommunication Strategist. After reviewing the qualifications of both finalists, comparing it to
the RFP and the other plans you've established, it is clear that Andrew is the most prepared,most capable, and most locally attuned candidate for the role. Below are the key reasons for
my recommendation:
1. Andrew lives in Helena and has firsthand, lived experience with the issues that matter most
to Montanans and Bozeman residents alike. In contrast, the other finalist is based in Nebraskaand has no previous experience in Montana or our unique system of local governance. I liked
what Andrew had to say when he said that he was "intimately" familiar with Montana'sgovernance and also attuned to the needs of its residents - on a personal level. I like that we
share this common experience and grounding.
2. He brings legal, educational, and public policy experience with him to the table. I read
Andrew's resume that he included with his proposal, and saw that he is a professor. Thismeans that he is a good communicator, which he demonstrated in his presentation, and he is
attuned to people's different learning styles and will be able to explain things on a level thatthe average citizen can understand. This is important because as I have seen with the UDC
process, residents have had to basically learn the code to be able to understand how tocontribute meaningfully, and I have confidence that because of his experience as an educator,
Andrew will be able to communicate what residents need to know and inform them in a waythat is meaningful. Also, I heard comments, or perhaps I read them, about how it's important
to balance education and advocacy, so Andrew's experience with the law will serve well inthat capacity because he will know how to tow that line. Also, because he is an attorney, I
would think that he can also help to draft language for the new city charter, if there is to beone. The other candidate said that they would need to consult with MSU's local government
center to understand the basics. This clearly sets Andrew apart as the leading candidate in thatregard, as someone who already understands Montana's systems, not someone who has to play
catch-up to learn the trade.
3. Andrew's approach to public engagement seems thoughtful, open-minded, and inclusive of
all residents. I liked how he said he would basically meet people where they're at and is goingto make himself available through a variety of means. The other candidate seems to have a
very canned approach, and I have seen how this really does not sit well with residents. Wewant someone who is different from the same types of consultants the city always seems to
hire, and I think this would be a really huge good-faith effort on behalf of the studycommission to the community and would actually lead to more people desiring to get
involved. A lot of these people have been sitting on the sidelines because they see publicengagement as being all the same. I think this would motivate people to get off the sidelines
and give their input again. It also sounds like Andrew has a lot of experience both with surveydesign and the analysis of the results, which is a huge opportunity. Because of his research
background, he will be methodical in his approach and make sure that we ask the rightquestions, interpret the data properly, and present meaningful insights, which given his other
experience as an attorney will also give him an edge to be able to talk about the pros and consand any unintended consequences of potential decisions. I also liked his answer to Jan's
question about how many people would need to be surveyed to feel like we have arepresentative sample. The other group provided some answer like 2,000 or something like
that, which really just seemed like a random number with no real explanation.
4. Andrew seems very committed, is accessible, available, and very hands on. I know one of
the weaknesses of Andrew's proposal was that it lacked a price tag, which I think he hasprobably resolved by providing a not to exceed or something like that. I much prefer that
approach because what he is willing to offer is highly customizable based on our needs,compared to some random assignment of "three trips to Bozeman" like the other group, and
then anything extra would probably come in the form of an added on cost that exceeds whatyou initially approved. I also really, really liked how Andrew said he would train residents to
host focus groups. The city offered the UDC chats, but they offered no training, so everyone Iknew who was interested in holding one chose not to because it seemed like too big of a lift to
know what to do. This was also a major stand out to me.
For all of these reasons, I think Andrew Thomas is the best candidate, and I really hope you
choose him. I think a lot of people probably feel the same way. I know a lot of people havebeen watching and paying attention to the study commission, and I think you'll find a lot more
people start to engage now that you've addressed a lot of your more organizationalcomponents. This is a really important decision, and again believe Andrew is the right choice.
Sincerely,
Becky Schumacher
Bozeman Resident