HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-25 Public Comment - J. Pollock - Testimony in support of tenant RTC programFrom:John Pollock (jpollock@publicjustice.org)
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Testimony in support of tenant RTC program
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 4:14:13 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.
On behalf of my organization, the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel (NCCRC), I am
pleased to submit this testimony in support of the proposed ordinance to adopt a tenant right to
counsel (TRTC), with a few suggestions on the proposed language that may help it to achieve its
purpose.
The NCCRC is a coalition of over 1,000 participants and partners from 47 states (including
Montana) that seeks to advance the recognition of a right to counsel in civil cases involving basic
human needs. We have supported all 26 jurisdictions that to date have enacted a law providing a
TRTC, and have provided technical assistance to a variety of stakeholders, including
policymakers at the city, county, and state level. We have provided training to stakeholder teams
from 38 jurisdictions on how to enact and effectively implement a TRTC, and provide the
preeminent national repository on TRTC impact data, policy arguments, and other resources.
Should Bozeman enact this ordinance, it would be not just the first jurisdiction in Montana to do
so, but the first in the Rocky Mountain West, a historic step. The ordinance also would make
history by being the first in the nation to extend the tenant right to counsel to pre-filing mediation, a
critically important piece that can help tenants avoid the “Scarlet E” of an eviction filing while
saving resources for landlords and courts. By keeping eligibility broad while prioritizing families
with children, the elderly, and multigenerational households, the ordinance provides the potential
for maximum coverage while ensuring that the most vulnerable tenants will receive services. And
we applaud the City for extending the program to tenants receiving housing choice vouchers, as
the loss of such vouchers nearly always leads to eviction and housing displacement.
TRTC ordinances arrive in the context of a highly imbalanced eviction process: our national data
shows that only 4% of tenants on average have access to representation, compared to 84% of
landlords. In the wake of this imbalance, eviction proceedings have become extremely fast (in
some jurisdictions, lasting less than 2 minutes) proceedings that nearly always result in the
tenant’s displacement regardless of the facts or law. Yet housing is one of the most vital basic
human needs, and the loss of housing in eviction frequently leads to a cascade of other
consequences: homelessness, serious physical and mental health crises, unemployment, and
loss of child custody are just some examples. Conversely, the jurisdictions that have enacted
TRTC laws have seen dramatic results: for instance, in Maryland 88% of represented tenants who
wanted to stay in their homes were able to do so, while in Louisville the RTC program prevented
more than 1,500 children from becoming homeless. And numerous studies have found that TRTC
programs save jurisdictions much more money than they cost. For these reasons, Bozeman’s
proposed ordinance stands to provide substantial benefits to families, communities, and the City
itself.
Based on our experience working with other jurisdictions, we have a few suggestions for
amendments to the ordinance that we believe will help fulfill the City’s intentions in protecting
tenants and improving the eviction process:
1. Section 2.09.110(B) states that “Nothing in this division creates a procedural or substantive
right to the benefit of an individual….” We imagine that this language may be motivated bythe City’s desire to limit its liability or exposure, but if so we believe this aim is already
accomplished via many other provisions in the ordinance:
a. The language in 2.09.110(A) that the City Attorney’s Office is not responsible for
providing the representation itself;
b. The language in 2.09.110(B) that states courts are not obligated by the ordinance;
c. The language in 2.09.110((C) stating the ordinance does not bind future funding
appropriations;
d. The language in 2.09.130(A) stating that the program must only be implemented “to
the extent funding is appropriated or received”.
Furthermore, the “nothing … creates a right” language is in conflict with the title of the
program as stated in Division 1: “Tenant Right to Counsel”.
We therefore would propose that 2.09.110(B) be amended to read, “Nothing in this
division creates a procedural or substantive right to the benefit of an individual and
nothing in this division may be interpretated to obligate, interfere, or direct a
court.”
2. Section 2.09.130(E) specifies that legal services “may include, but are not limited to, full
representation of a tenant in a covered proceeding or limited scope representation of a
tenant when appropriate and agreed to by the attorney and client.” To date, the enacted
tenant RTC ordinances have not included limited scope representation as a service for
eligible tenants (although some have offered limited-scope assistance to tenants who are
ineligible) because the available data supports full representation as the effective type of
service.. For instance, a California study found that fully represented tenants stayed in their
units three times as often as those receiving limited legal assistance, while in
Massachusetts fully represented tenants did twice as well as those receiving limited
services. While it is true that 2.09.130(E) only authorizes the use of limited-scope
representation where the tenant “agrees”, pro se tenants are not equipped to meaningfully
evaluate whether limited-scope representation will be sufficient for their case and are
therefore not in a position to provide informed consent. This situation is similar to why the
Supreme Court has required criminal defendants’ waiver of their right to counsel to be
“knowing, voluntary, and intelligent”. It is worth noting that even in a “full representation”
model, some cases will still receive more resources because the nature of the case
requires it, but the inclusion of a formal limited-scope component can lead to cases being
triaged into limited scope due to resource constraints as opposed to judgments regarding
the most effective tactics for the case. To address this, we recommend 2.09.130(E) be
amended to read, “Legal services may shall include, but are not limited to, full
representation of a tenant in a covered proceeding or limited scope representation of
a tenant when appropriate and agreed to by the attorney and client.”
3. Section 2.09.120(A)(1) defines “Tenant” as “a person residing within the city who is entitled
under a written rental agreement … and who is a signatory on the rental agreement”, while
Section 2.09.130(B) limits the program to tenants “with a written agreement with a landlord
for the tenant’s use of the landlord’s property.” Some tenancies that begin with a written
agreement may continue without one (i.e. become an at-will tenancy as per the
understanding between tenant and landlord) and would seemingly be excluded from this
RTC ordinance. Moreover, tenants who are subletters may be excluded from coverage of
the ordinance since they may not be signatories to the rental agreement. We therefore
suggest that 2.09.120(A)(1) be amended to read, “’Tenant’ means a person residing
within the city who is entitled under an written agreement to occupy a residential
dwelling unit or occupy a space or land rented for a mobile home to the exclusion of
others, who has no ownership interest in the property, and who is a signatory on the
rental agreement”, while 2.09.130(B) be struck in its entirety (or if not, changed as
suggested in #6 below), since its purpose is already covered by 2.09.120(A)(1).
4. The Resolution accompanying the ordinance states the intent to prioritize families with
children, the elderly, and multigenerational households. These preferences, however, do
not appear in the Ordinance. Rather, Section 2.09.150 authorizes the City Manager to
implement a prioritization for covered proceedings, and does not provide guidance, nor
does it require the City Manager to seek community input for such changes or for additional
eligibility requirements. We therefore recommend that Section 2.09.150 be amended to
read, “The city manager, based on budgetary and resource availability, may
implement additional eligibility requirements or implement a prioritization for
covered proceedings and mediation services to ensure program effectiveness, or to
comply with funding requirements. In doing so, the City Manager shall seek to first
prioritize families with children, the elderly, and multigenerational households as
specified in the City’s Resolution, and shall offer an opportunity for public comment
on changes ot any eligibility requirements.”
5. Section 2.09.130(B) specifies that “a tenant … is eligible for civil legal services for covered
proceedings.” “Eligible” is terminology typically used by pre-TRTC pilot programs to
distinguish between tenants who are wholly excluded from the program versus those who
may receive services. To give some examples from TRTC jurisdictions,
a. St. Louis’s TRTC ordinance provides that “covered individuals shall receive legal
representation from their assigned Designated Organization…”
b. Detroit’s TRTC ordinance specifies that “All covered individuals shall receive full
representation in accordance with this article …”
c. Kansas City’s TRTC ordinance states that “The requirements of the program are: (1)
To provide high-quality legal representation to covered individuals involved in all
covered proceedings …”
As mentioned below, we recommend that 2.09.130(B) be struck in its entirety, but if
not, that it be amended to read, ““a tenant … is eligible for shall receive access to
civil legal services for covered proceedings.”
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you have. We are excited at the prospect of Bozeman joining the ranks of jursidictions
extending this proven protection to its tenants that will help provide fairness, balance, and
accurate decisionmaking to the eviction process, and commend the City in its leadership in the
Rocky Mountain West.
Sincerely,
John Pollock
Pronouns: he/him
Coordinator, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel
c/o Public Justice Center
201 N Charles Street, Suite 1200
Baltimore, MD 21201
(410) 400-6954 [voice]
(410) 625-9423 [fax]
jpollock@publicjustice.org
http://www.publicjustice.org
http://www.civilrighttocounsel.org
My working hours may not be your working hours. Please don't feel obligated to reply outside of your normal work schedule.
This message is sent by an attorney and is intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
entity that is the named addressee. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the named addressee, you are not authorized
to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this
message in error, please accept my apology, notify me immediately by e-mail, discard any paper
copies and delete all electronic files of the message. Thank you.