HomeMy WebLinkAboutWritten Statement for Record 1.15.261
Statement for the Record on Survey Results
City of Bozeman
City Study Commission
Written Statement for the Record
Clarification of Community Survey Findings and Executive Summary Interpretation
Submitted by: Deanna Campbell, Study Commission Member
Meeting Date: January 15, 2026
Agenda Item: Community Survey Results / Executive Summary
Date Submitted: January 12, 2026
Purpose of This Statement
The purpose of this written statement is to clarify what conclusions the Community
Survey on local government structure does—and does not—support, and to ensure
that the official record accurately distinguishes between survey findings, interpretive
framing, and policy direction.
This statement is submitted in the interest of transparency, analytical rigor, and
appropriate restraint in the use of public input to guide potential charter deliberations.
Survey Findings Supported by the Data
1. Respondents Feel Informed but Less Confident in Governance Structure
Respondents generally report that they stay informed about local government issues.
Confidence in the current structure of city government is noticeably lower. Older
respondents (65+) express lower confidence than working-age respondents. This
pattern indicates dissatisfaction with how government functions, rather than a clear
directive to change the form of government itself.
2. Leadership Priorities Emphasize Behavior, Not Structure
When asked to identify top leadership priorities, respondents most frequently selected
accountable leadership, transparent leadership, responsive administration, fiscally
responsible government, and democratic representation. These are expectations
regarding conduct and performance, not endorsements of a particular governance
model or redistribution of authority.
3. Strong Support for Retaining a Professional City Manager
Survey results show clear majority support for maintaining professional administration.
50.5% support retaining a City Manager with reduced powers, 34.6% support
retaining a City Manager with full executive authority, and only 11.7% favor eliminating
2
Statement for the Record on Survey Results
the City Manager in favor of full mayoral executive authority. Taken together,
approximately 85% of respondents favor retaining a professional City Manager in
some form.
4. Advisory Boards Should Remain Advisory
Across multiple questions regarding boards and neighborhood councils, respondents
most frequently favored advisory or shared influence roles, with consistent resistance
to granting binding, veto, or final decision-making authority to unelected bodies.
5. Geographic Representation Shows Mixed and Modest Support
Agreement with prioritizing geographic district-based representation averaged
approximately 3.4 out of 5. Support varies by quadrant and does not rise to strong
agreement. On commission expansion, 41.7% oppose expanding the City
Commission, 33.7% support expansion, and 24.6% are unsure. These results indicate
openness to discussion, not a mandate for restructuring or expansion.
Areas Where the Executive Summary Exceeds the Survey Evidence
1. “Hybrid” Governance Is Treated as Consensus Without Supporting Evidence
Respondents were presented with multiple, materially different definitions of “hybrid.”
The largest single category—Hybrid Executive—received 33.8%, followed by
Legislative Leader at 31.3%, Executive Leader at 18.5%, and Hybrid Legislative at
13.7%. Aggregating these responses under a single label converts fragmentation into
apparent agreement, which the data does not support.
2. “Distributed Powers Between Mayor and City Manager” Is a Policy
Prescription
The survey shows strong support for retaining a City Manager and a desire for clearer
accountability and oversight, but does not show consensus that executive authority
should be redistributed or specify which powers should shift.
3. Exploratory Input Is Treated as Directional Authorization
Substantial portions of respondents selected “unsure” or “need more information.” For
example, 25.3% were unsure about electing additional city officials and 24.6% were
unsure about commission expansion. Treating this uncertainty as momentum toward
drafting charter language overstates the survey’s function.
4. Certain “Key Takeaways” Lack Strong Survey Signal
3
Statement for the Record on Survey Results
Some items highlighted in the Executive Summary, such as altered Deputy Mayor
policy, do not emerge as prominent or recurring themes in the survey data and appear
to reflect internal or stakeholder discussions rather than broad public input.
Process Considerations
The survey is a diagnostic tool. It identifies where residents feel frustrated, unheard,
or uncertain. It does not prescribe structural solutions or establish a mandate for
charter amendment. Movement toward drafted charter language should be contingent
on demonstrated public consensus.
Closing Statement
In summary, the survey supports careful examination of accountability, transparency,
communication, and clarity of roles, but it does not provide a clear mandate for
restructuring Bozeman’s form of government or redistributing executive authority.
Respectfully submitted,
Deanna Campbell
Member, Bozeman City Study Commission