HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-30-25 Public Comment - S. Christensen - Concerning the July 16 city commission meetingFrom:Sara Christensen
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Concerning the July 16 city commission meeting
Date:Wednesday, July 30, 2025 10:23:24 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.
To my fellow citizens and members of the Bozeman City Council (Mayor Terry Cunningham,
Deputy Major Joey Morrison, Commissioner Jennifer Madgic, Commissioner Douglas Fischer,
and Commissioner Emma Bode) , City Manager Chuck Winn, and City Attorney Greg Sullivan,
I am a decades-long Bozeman resident and a life-long Montana resident. I was in attendance
in person at what turned out to be a marathon meeting on the evening of July 16, 2025 and
have been digesting the meeting since then as I am sure you have, especially as you traverse
through the social landscape. I appreciate that there were compelling arguments on both
“sides” of the flag issue, but therein lies a problem all on its own in this case. There were…and
remain… deep cut sides. Overarchingly, it was argued by both council members and the
public that a flag representative of the city is meant to unify the members of the city and
should inherently represent all peoples of the city. The fact that there were sides coming into
the meeting and sides leaving the meeting means that unification under this flag is likely not in
store. Many felt that a pride flag would accomplish this goal and many did not. Commissioner
Fischer highlighted that city council brought this fight to Bozeman (and, really, to Gallatin
Valley and beyond) and drove a wedge into the city. I think this is an accurate portrayal and the
wedge is deeper than where it started on Tuesday, July 16 regardless of the fact that people
left peacefully and were able to speak in an orderly and respectful manner. The issue is now
bigger and more prominent.
Let me interject that arguments were heard about the flag flying quietly before state law forced
its removal so there should be no problem now. However, because there is a law now, the
pride flag flying as representative of the city does get attention. The people know, and it is not
a quiet matter any longer. I challenge that many were unaware there was a city flag to begin
with. Many who are now entering this conversation were probably even unaware that the pride
flag was flown prior to its pull down date. New questions are begged about the pride flag: 1)
How was the flag raised before? 2) Was there a vote? 3) Who made the vote? 4) If there was
no vote before, who made the decision to raise the flag? 5) What are the personal and public
interests of the person/people who chose to raise the flag?
The pride flag and whether it is flown over the city or not as representative of the local people
is a social issue, not a governmental issue. It is a social rhetoric that surrounds the display of
the flag at whatever place, much like the rhetoric that surrounded the rainbow sidewalks in
Bozeman just a few years ago. It only becomes a governmental issue because of the governing
body who votes upon such matters, such as adopting a city flag or streets and their markings
as two examples. I understand that sometimes the lanes between government and social
issues intersect, but this, for many, places and will place distrust in our city government and
raises huge questions about where time and tax dollars are being spent, whether or not the full
body of people is being heard and represented, and for some will raise safety concerns as they
seemingly become the minority class and have their voice diminished. This, in my shared
opinion, is the wrong fight for our city government to involve themselves in. I understand that
there was a concerted effort to get this issue on the docket. Commissioners, and one in
particular, listened and accepted the fight. I believe there could have been a gracious and firm
“bowing out” with explanation that government needs to stick to government issues and can
only play an external role at best. I am not sure that desire existed amongst the commission
members. The experience in the room felt like some wanted the fight.
Noted is the fact that decisions were made at a state level that then impacted smaller
governmental bodies. City Hall was, indeed, informed that only certain flags could be flown. I
believe those decisions were made to keep the government lane the government lane and the
social lane the social lane, to narrow the focus of government and place decision making in
the correct arenas. At the beginning of this section of the city council meeting for this
particular action item, Commissioner Madgic made mention of retaliation. Attorney Sullivan
eventually questioned that word, but I would say that it is possible that a retaliatory mentality
was present in the room. Mayor Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Morrison, and Commissioner
Madgic all spoke in closing comments of the disagreement with state and federal levels of
government and the restriction in decision making they felt. Could this not be perceived and
argued as retaliatory? It seems to me and felt that night as though the vote was already
decided coming into this meeting and no one could move the needle during public comment
sessions, though public comment was diplomatically received with an encouragement for all
to listen to all and carefully weigh their comments. I challenge that the final vote was cast
from more of a personal and emotional and potentially biased level than a practical and non-
biased level.
Early on in public comments someone mentioned an array of different flags and a wondering
about what happens in our community if the pride flag, which represents a limited group of
people, were to go up as representing all people. Someone else conjectured that the pride flag
represents diversity and therefore all people. This will not play out as true. One speaker
highlighted that, though he is gay, he does not want public attention brought to his orientation
and does not believe the pride flag represents all people groups. Someone pointed out the
flags that are allowed to be flown, including the POW/MIA flag. At the very end of the meeting,
after the votes were cast, I believe it was City Manager Chuck Winn who chose to comment on
this. He said that the council flies the POW/MIA flag because they are required to by state
law. Had someone challenged the council and pressed them to answer about this early on in
this action item, I wonder if the meeting would have gone on for an additional 4 hours when the
action item was introduced. POW/MIA made a way to keep the stars and stripes (a flag
representing all U.S. citizens) alive and for U.S. citizens to be autonomous and live peacefully
with one another as much as possible. That is why it is flown, not simply because state law
mandates it. This reasoning also basically “shoots the commissioners” in the foot based on
some of their own reasoning for their votes and the fact that they were in disagreement with
higher level government bodies, challenging that the new law may even be a “bad” law. That
is, perhaps, part of the wedge in the city.
It has not gone unnoticed that, while Mayor Cunningham in particular, stated that the pride
flag would be an additional flag to our already adopted city flag, the already existing flag was
actually taken down and the pride flag raised for full visibility the next day. Mayor Cunningham
said it would in no way diminish the city flag with wheat and book, that it would not replace it.
The fact that there are photos on record for the public of the pride flag raised and the already
existing city flag gone only reinforces points made earlier about trust issues that will arise for, I
daresay many, in our local city government and does nothing to extract a wedge and perhaps
creates a new one.
I urge you to re-raise the original city flag and take down the pride flag in realization that it is
not representative of the whole of the people of Bozeman. It does not accomplish what the
U.S. flag accomplishes. Leaving it up serves to create new issues or further negatively
augment existing issues amongst the people here and has an impact on other communities,
as evidenced by the fact that people called in from other towns to participate in the public
comments.
Respectfully,
Concerned citizen S. Christensen
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer