HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-25 Public Comment - G. Gilpin - Comments for Dec 2 City Commission meetingFrom:Greg and Renée Gilpin
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comments for Dec 2 City Commission meeting
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 3:33:33 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.
Unfortunately, I have to work and cannot attend this City Commission meeting. I do, however,
want to share several comments:
1. Delay major decisions until the newly elected commissioners are seated.
An election has just occurred, and divisive or impactful policy changes should be postponeduntil the newly elected commissioners—those who reflect the voice and will of Bozeman
voters—are sworn in. This is especially important because so many current commissioners areappointed rather than elected. Please delay votes on MSU ex officio representation, the tenant
right-to-counsel assistance program, and UDC changes until our elected representatives canparticipate.
2. I oppose adding MSU students as ex officio members to every citizen advisory board.
MSU already provides extensive student representation—hundreds of positions exist
across MSU boards, committees, and councils.
Students already have the same civic rights as everyone else: they may run for office or
apply to serve on any city board.
Many MSU students are not Bozeman residents. If residency is not required, this raises
serious concerns about whether non-residents should help shape decisions meant forBozeman citizens.
Creating designated appointments for one specific group appears inequitable. Whyshould one demographic receive exceptional carved-out representation over others?
3. I oppose the proposed “Bozeman’s Right to Counsel” program.
The U.S. Constitution already ensures the right to counsel. This proposal goes far
beyond that right by creating a taxpayer-funded benefit for a select group. HardworkingBozeman residents should not be obligated to finance legal representation that is not
similarly available to everyone.
This program risks deepening divisions between tenants and landlords. Many landlords
quietly perform acts of goodwill that never make the news; policies like this could erodetrust and encourage strict legalism rather than cooperation.
If this program is so essential, why not put it to a public vote? We vote on fire, police,jails, judges, and other taxpayer-funded initiatives—why should free legal services be
exempt from voter approval?
4. Let the newly elected commissioners vote on UDC matters.
I voted for commissioners who were knowledgeable and passionate about the UDC. They
should be the ones making these decisions—not outgoing or appointed commissioners.
Sincerely,Greg Gilpin3229 Caterpillar St.
Bozeman, MT