Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAll Communication Strategist Decision Recommendations CompiledCommunication Strategist Recommendations Compiled 7/28/25 from emails received from Study Commissioners Carson Taylor: To: Becky Franks and Deanna Campbell July 26, 2025 I have read all of the public comment, including an e-mail from Patti Steinmuller that was sent to my Study Group e-mail address last night, after the cut-off time. I have sent it to the govreview place, since it appears that I was the only recipient. As I understand the position we are seeking, it is someone or someones who can help us with communication to the public, help us with surveys of the public and others (City employees e.g.) and help us communicate and run public meetings using a variety of formats with the goal of maximizing informed public input and reaching the entire community of Bozeman residents. Based on the Responses to RFP’s, the Interviews, and the post-interview submissions, I think that the contract should be made with Working Ventures. I was impressed with both of the interviewed entities, but I think that having three people with different skills will better serve us than one person. As important, is that the Working Ventures has significantly more experience working with communication between entities and the public. I found them to be personable and good communicators. I also think that the Working Ventures Group has thought out the budget more carefully, so we are less likely to end up with a cost overrun. The breadth of Mr. Thomas low and high makes the final cost a lot less predictable. I note that virtually all of the public comment (exception Patti Steinmuller) favored Mr. Thomas. I feel that it is important to explain why I am not following the advice of so many people who took their time to weigh in on this subject. First, I do not think that being a Montanan, particularly one that does not live in Bozeman, is either an advantage or a disadvantage. It is true he can get to Bozeman more easily, but beyond that I see no advantage. The structure of our government and communicating with our residents is both uniquely Bozeman, and at the same time common in many cities across the country. I believe that communication with our residents does require significant local knowledge, and we will have to provide that. I do not believe that our growth issues are more comparable to Helena’s than other cities across the country. Finally, if being a Montanan were a criteria, it should have been in the RFP. Many comments expressed the idea that Mr. Thomas being a lawyer was significant. I do not see that connection---viewed as a category “lawyer” does not necessarily make him more likely to be better at this job, than others. I myself was a lawyer for more than 50 years, but I do not think that that qualification translates, necessarily to Communication Strategist. Becky Franks: After reviewing the RFP, interview presentations and public comment, I recommend Working Ventures for our Communication Strategist. There were two candidates, Andrew Thomas and Working Ventures. The RFP criteria were stated and posted as follows: SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Assist in the delivery of the following three goals: a. Educate ourselves and the community to develop a comprehensive understanding of the City of Bozeman’s current structure, Charter form, and the processes of local government. b. Conduct a transparent and inclusive study process that engages the community in evaluating our current structures and identifying any necessary changes. c. Engage the community in the local government study process using a variety of methods to gather information regarding what’s working, what’s not working, and ideas to explore to improve the City’s governance. 2. The strategy for community engagement are highlighted in the Communication Plan and the Engagement Plan as posted on Plans & Report, Bozeman Study Commission 3. Must demonstrate expertise and competence to develop and implement community surveys. My decision is based on the following: • Working Ventures has a vast amount of experience in municipal governance, community engagement and strategic development. o They have a full team who has experience and training to engage the community, reconcile the voices and pull actionable information from the depth of gathered voices o They spoke of their understanding of municipal laws, and the need to work within the public eye in a transparent manner o The team has the experience and capacity to develop educational materials that includes graphic design. This will help the different adult learners understand our work. o One of their members specializes in developing, implementing and reconciling surveys, turning the data into actionable information. o They will utilize our current assets and work in partnership – mentioning: our website, Communication Plan, Engagement Plan, Study Plan and MSU Government Center. o They provided a clear budget, which includes 4-5 visits to Bozeman, and a clear timeline in which to complete the work. • Andrew Thomas is well educated and experienced in policy, surveys and research. However: o His skills were limited in community engagement, municipal level governance o He did not present a clear budget and no timeline. o He was not aware of our current website, Communication Plan, Study Plan or Engagement Plan. I carefully read the public comment where I saw a lot of support for Andrew Thomas, however, it was primarily based on his academic training as an attorney and that he lived in Montana. Neither of these things were listed as criteria in the RFP, and his other skills were not adequate for the position. Deanna Campbell: After reviewing the proposals submitted for the communications strategist position, I strongly recommend Andrew R. Thomas for the role. His qualifications not only meet but clearly exceed the requirements outlined in the RFP, the Communication Plan and the Engagement Plan, particularly in comparison to Working Ventures. Andrew offers a rare and valuable combination: Montana-based experience, legal expertise, direct involvement in state policy, and deep skills in community-based research. These are precisely the capabilities needed for a role that demands public trust, legal compliance, and meaningful local engagement. How Andrew Aligns with Key RFP Parameters, The Engagement Plan and the Communication Plan: 1. Community Engagement & Public Participation “Facilitate meaningful community engagement and encourage public participation throughout the charter review process.” Effective public engagement requires more than communication skills—it demands cultural and political fluency. Andrew understands Bozeman’s civic climate and has a proven record of working with Montana communities. Working Ventures, based out of state, does not. 2. Developing Outreach That Reflects Local Values RFP: “Design and implement a public communication strategy that informs, educates, and engages the community in a way that reflects the values and needs of Bozeman residents.” Only someone who knows Bozeman’s values, priorities, and local debates can design outreach that resonates. Andrew’s Montana background gives him that insight. Working Ventures lacks this local context. 3. Building Public Trust Through Transparency “Build public trust in the process through clear, transparent, and accessible communications.” Public trust is earned through credibility—and in Bozeman today, that credibility depends on understanding the community. The public has repeatedly voiced frustration with outside consultants and top-down messaging. Andrew brings a grounded, locally-informed approach that connects authentically. 1. Legal and Political Context of the Charter “Support the Study Commission in translating public input into meaningful recommendations for the charter.” This requires both legal literacy and good judgment. Andrew holds a J.D. from Gonzaga and is a licensed attorney. He understands the legal framework—including the Montana Constitution and the MCA—that governs our work. Working Ventures has no legal credentials and would likely need to outsource such review. Comparison: Andrew Thomas vs. Working Ventures • Montana Knowledge Andrew lives in Helena, has worked on land use policy in Lewis and Clark County, drafted legislation for the Montana Legislature, and led community engagement projects statewide. Working Ventures is out of state with no demonstrated ties to Montana or knowledge of our legal or cultural environment. • Public Engagement Experience Andrew brings over 20 years of hands-on experience conducting surveys, interviews, and focus groups to assess community sentiment and guide policy. Working Ventures offers general messaging services but lacks comparable depth in original community research. • Legal and Policy Expertise Andrew is a practicing attorney with direct experience drafting legislation and navigating legal frameworks. Working Ventures has no in-house legal background, which introduces added cost and risk. • Charter and Government Structure Knowledge Andrew holds a Ph.D. in public policy and a Doctorate in Business Administration with a focus on governance and organizational behavior. Working Ventures demonstrates no experience with city charters or government restructuring. • Data-Driven Strategy Andrew builds communication strategies based on local data—grounded in measurable input, not generic messaging. Working Ventures emphasizes branding and storytelling, without documented capacity for empirical research. Public Input Matters The community has already spoken. Forty-three public comments were submitted in support of Andrew Thomas. None supported Working Ventures. This is not a small signal—it is a clear and overwhelming message from the public. People are tired of outside firms steering local processes. Ignoring that input would only deepen public mistrust in the Study Commission and compromise the legitimacy of its work. Conclusion This Commission has one chance to get this right. The people of Bozeman deserve a communications process rooted in Montana values, informed by real public input, and grounded in legal and structural understanding. Andrew Thomas offers all of that—and more. He is the most qualified candidate by every relevant measure. Barb Cestero: I’ve reviewed the RFP, submitted proposals, interviews, and all public comments. I recommend that we contract with Working Ventures as our Communications Strategist. Based on the scope of services in our RFP, Working Ventures has the breadth of experience and diverse skill sets needed to support us in implementing our Communications, Engagement and Study plans My recommendation regarding Working Ventures is based on the materials I reviewed and the criteria used to evaluate the two candidates. Specifically: • The Working Ventures proposal is rooted in the goals we have established for this study as well as our communications, engagement and study plans. They see their role as partnering with us as the elected officials to achieve these goals. • WV has demonstrated that they are able to effectively communicate complex topics in ways that are easily understood, and included development of educational materials to ensure the community has good information from which to engage in this process. • While they have not worked in Montana before, they have extensive experience working with municipal and state governments. In their interview, they demonstrated fundamental knowledge of the purpose, structure, and options of the Bozeman local government study process as well as an understanding of legal requirements for transparency, project records, and maintaining the line between education and advocacy. • They provided a clear timeline and specific cost proposal rooted in our timeline and plans. Their cost proposal included their hourly compensation rate and anticipated travel expenses. They followed up with clarifying information regarding costs related to printing, supplies and other engagement tools. As a result, I have confidence in this cost proposal within our overall Study Commission budget. • Among their principals, Working Ventures has the necessary survey, data and analysis experience to support the quantitative public engagement tools we identified in our community engagement plan. They also have facilitation experience which will support our town hall style meetings, workshops, and specific stakeholder outreach. Our second candidate - Andrew Thomas - is clearly experienced in survey development/design and data analysis. He has a strong academic background in public policy. However, his proposal did not seem grounded in our existing communications, engagement, and study plans. From his proposal and interview, I am unclear on his ability to facilitate town hall style public meetings and his experience implementing effective communications strategies to promote our events, surveys and other activities.. Finally, I found his proposal to be missing a specific timeline and a clear cost proposal. Even the cost proposal provided in his follow up materials was only a broad range and didn’t include his specific compensation or other line item expenses. Public comments in support of hiring Andrew Thomas all referenced the fact that he lives in Helena and is a lawyer. These two qualifications were not among the required criteria stated in the RFP. As the elected study commissioners, I believe it is our role to communicate with our community about this study, to engage the full spectrum of Bozeman residents, and to provide the local knowledge the study needs to be grounded in, not the consultant. Thank you for all the hard work leading this process. I appreciate the time and thought that went into it. Let me know if you have any questions. Jan Strout I have carefully read and reviewed the Communications Strategist RFP criteria as well as studied the 2 RFP submissions from Applicants Working Ventures and Andrew Thomas. Plus engaged with the interview presentations. As a result, I recommend the one clear choice for our SC Communications Specialist - Working Ventures Team. This is based on the RPF criteria that was developed by the 2 Study Commissioners who lead the hiring process. Becky and Deanna used this clear criteria throughout to evaluate all of the 4 submissions, rank them, and ensure the questions we were allowed to ask of the 2 Finalists only reflected their criteria. Working Ventures has my vote because: • WV brings a multifaceted Professional Team with extensive, direct and relevant experience in Project Management - combined over 30 years with a solid range of Municipalities, State governments and non-profit organizations - using forward thinking, community-driven methods. • Shared their expertise and examples in action-based Survey research, problem solving, and facilitating stakeholders to find common ground to move forward complex issues facing our City and community. • Presented concrete, in-depth plans and examples of their work with media and other strategic communications, creative and inclusive community engagement activities as well as survey design and interpretation experience more than meeting the required RFP criteria. • Modeled an exceptionally well-prepared interview presentation in a thoughtful, engaging, respectful way to: 1) anticipate needs and questions we may have; 2) examples of how they partner together with a variety of large and smaller workforce, healthcare and economic development Projects, strategic planning, outreach to cross-sector stakeholders and communities, and 3) multiple ways to include members of our community who are sometimes invisible or under-represented. • Crafted a strong RFP Proposal with plans for a specific, detailed Timeline and Budget. They engaged with our Engagement and Communications Plans, as well as our Study Plan and website and did due diligence that I expect in a substantive firm we would contract to assist the Study Commission in our critical work. • WV also guaranteed they would not go over Budget and come in on Deadlines with reference evidence from other professional examples they shared. Andrew Thomas, despite a number of other attributes, did not meet most of the Communications Strategist criteria required by our RFP: • I gained from his RFP Proposal and interview that Mr. Thomas is an Attorney, and currently an Assistant Professor who has been working in mostly academic settings. His teaching background in seated and online classrooms also demonstrates a number of academic presentations plus some varied Survey research engaging Real Estate professionals as well as Social Services and Criminal justice areas. • I could not discover many direct, experiences with communications and media strategies, community engagement activities, nor overall project administration experience with Municipal governments or other related work. • Mr. Thomas' RPF proposal did not include a Timeline, nor a detailed Budget or awareness of our Communication and Engagement Plans or our Study Commission website. His additional information still needed more specificity in these key areas of project management. • The RFP criteria didn't require an Attorney nor someone who resides in Montana Thanks for all the dedication and hard work to reach this place of hiring a Communications Strategist.