HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-25 Public Comment - O. Sohn - Proposed Changes to Tenant Right to Counsel OrdinanceFrom:Olive Nakano Sohn
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Joey Morrison; Emma Bode; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Terry Cunningham
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Proposed Changes to Tenant Right to Counsel Ordinance
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 3:27:18 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.
I submit this public comment on behalf of Bozeman Tenants United, Bozeman’s city-wide
tenant union fighting for safe, dignified, and affordable housing. Bozeman Tenants United
represents 500 members across Bozeman's city-wide tenant union and affiliated chapterunions across the state.
Our union launched our campaign for Tenant Right to Counsel in May 2024, because we
were clear then, as we are now, that the evictions occurring in the Gallatin Valley
Courthouse are anything but an expression of justice. Tenants are losing our eviction cases
before we’ve even set foot in the courtroom because we cannot afford lawyers in a legal
system that is designed to be navigated by them.
We’re sick and tired of being bullied and controlled by Landlords who know that we can
barely afford the rent and certainly cannot afford a lawyer in court; of not submitting
maintenance requests or organizing with our neighbors for fear of retaliatory evictions; of
watching our friends, family and children endure years on the streets because they did not
have legal representation.
Every week, I speak with desperate tenants facing eviction threats from their Landlords. I’m
excited for the day when I can tell those tenants that the City has stepped up and is fighting
for them to keep their homes. The Bozeman that I know values fairness and having each
other’s backs. Tenant Right to Counsel is an expression of what we stand for as a
community.
Our union deeply appreciates the work that the City Commission and staff have done in
consulting with the Tenant Union and other key stakeholders in our community. It’s clear to
us from the ordinance drafted that the City has valued and observed community input
throughout this process. We view this as an important step toward building trust between
tenants in Bozeman and our local government.
We applaud the city for prioritizing keeping evictions off our records, guaranteeing that
tenants will receive full legal representation when an eviction is filed, and extending the
program to tenants receiving housing choice vouchers and facing extrajudicial eviction.
Overall, we view this ordinance as a huge success and appreciate the careful thought and
consideration that went into drafting something that will serve our community best.
We have a few suggested edits outlined below. We value getting this ordinance right the
first time and hope these amendments can sharpen and clarify the city’s intended purpose
of the ordinance. We’ve worked with lawyers Amy Hall from the Montana Legal Services
and John Pollock from the National Coalition for Civil Right to Counsel on these suggested
line item edits.
1.
Our tenant union strongly feels that the city should strengthen the language
around tenants receiving counsel in the following ways. This clarifies the city’s
intention to follow through and provide counsel for all tenants deemed eligible.
Section 2.09.110(B) states that “Nothing in this division creates a procedural or substantive
right to the benefit of an individual….” We understand this language may be motivated by
the City’s desire to limit its liability or exposure, but we believe this aim is already
accomplished via many other provisions in the ordinance:
1.
The language in 2.09.110(A) that the City Attorney’s Office is not responsible for
providing the representation itself;
2.
The language in 2.09.110(B) that states courts are not obligated by the ordinance;
3.
The language in 2.09.110((C) stating the ordinance does not bind future funding
appropriations;
4.
The language in 2.09.130(A) stating that the program must only be implemented “to
the extent funding is appropriated or received”.
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 interpreted to obligate, interfere, or direct a court.”
This would help the City accomplish the aim of the title of the program as stated in Division
1: “Tenant Right to Counsel”.
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-right to counsel pilot programs
to distinguish between tenants who are wholly excluded from the program versus those
who may receive services. For instance, Akron recently enacted a 3-year pilot program to
“advance eligible residents’ access to legal counsel”, whereas:
1.
St. Louis’s ordinance provides that “covered individuals shall receive legal
representation from their assigned Designated Organization…”
2.
Detroit’s ordinance specifies that “All covered individuals shall receive full
representation in accordance with this article …”
3.
Kansas City’s ordinance states that “The requirements of the program are: (1) To
provide high-quality legal representation to covered individuals involved in all covered
proceedings …”
We suggest that 2.09.130(B) be amended to read, ““a tenant … is eligible for shall
receive access to civil legal services for covered proceedings.”
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 programs have not included limited scope representation as a service for
eligible tenants (some programs offer limited-scope assistance to tenants who are ineligible
under the ordinance) 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 limited-scope representation
where the tenant “agrees”, pro se tenants are not in a position to 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”. 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.”
2. We applaud the city for writing an expansive definition of “tenants” that include
mobile home park owners and having covered proceedings including any and all
cases in which a tenant is at risk of losing their home. We are proposing one more
change that we think will strengthen this and ensure that no one is excluded. In
conversations with Amy Hall from Montana Legal Services, we believe that oral
leases are defensible in court and should not be excluded in the ordinance.
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 need the same protection of this
RTC ordinance. We therefore suggest that 2.09.130(B) be amended to read, “A tenant
with an written agreement with a landlord for the tenant’s use of the landlord’s
property … ”
3. Our union is clear that tenants with children should be prioritized in this program
if the funding were to run out and additional eligibility requirements were imposed.
We believe that eligibility requirements are a matter of policy and should not be left
out of the ordinance.
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, and
shall offer an opportunity for public comment on changes to any eligibility
requirements.”
Olive Nakano Sohn--
Campaigns Director Bozeman Tenants United