HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-26 Public Comment - H. Happel - Public CommentFrom:Henry Happel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment
Date:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 2:39:34 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.
Dear City Study Commissioners:
I am writing to provide comments on some of the matters under consideration by you. I served on the Bozeman
Community Development Board from 2016 until the end of last year, most of that time as Chairman of that Board.
Bozeman is a very popular place to live. This reflects a number of factors. One is that the City is and has been well
governed. In my time on the Community Development Board I have interacted with a number of city employees.
They are intelligent and hard-working individuals, dedicated to the betterment of the City. They could be making
more money in the private sector but prefer the challenges and rewards of their current jobs. We are lucky to have
them. The success of City government is reflected in how few complaints there are about the things that City
government touches (other than dealing with growth issues and the related cost of housing- matters where the
impacts are big but the powers of the City are small). I don’t think the average citizen recognizes how fortunate we
are.
Fundamental alterations to City government should not be made just for the sake of change. There needs to be a
reasonable expectation that improvements would result. I don’t find this to be the case with regard to changes to the
form of City government, the number of City Commissioners, or the manner in which they are elected. I believe that
it’s likely that changes like these may be appropriate in the future, but at present they would have more negative
than positive consequences.
Form of Government: I see only disadvantages to altering the current Commissioner- City Manager model for
Bozeman. Managing operations in a city the size of Bozeman is a full-time job best left to someone experienced in
the role. A mayor elected to run the City could be capable, but just as likely could be “politically” popular but
inexperienced and ineffective as a manager. Wannabe city executives could be lobbying for one mayoral candidate
or another hoping to get appointed based on their fealty rather than their competence. The mayoral position would
have to be a full-time job, but there are advantages in having a mayor and the other commissioners with obligations
and experiences in the community outside of their official roles.
Election of Commissioners: If Bozeman continues to grow, someday it may make sense for the City to create
geographic voting wards and elect commissioners in whole or in part by ward. However, we are a long way from
that now. There are three fundamental problems with the voting-by-ward proposals. The first is that there is virtually
no evidence now that different parts of the City are being favored or disfavored by City government. (Kudos to the
professionalism of City governments past and present.) The second is that the City does not break down into a few
“neighborhoods" with common social, economic, or cultural factors that might make their concerns fundamentally
different from other “neighborhoods". If the City were to create wards, they would each contain portions more like
other parts of the City than other parts of their own district. The third problem is that ward voting incentivizes
neighborhoods and neighbors to be pitted against one another for City resources. And it incentivizes commissioners
elected by wards to favor their own ward over the best interests of the City as a whole. The current system of
electing commissioners at-large is much the preferable way to go for now and in the foreseeable future.
Number of Commissioners: Unlike the two matters addressed above, I don’t think there is a compelling reason to
keep the number of commissioners at five, rather than going to seven for example. On balance, however, I think that
five is the better number for two reasons. The first is that each additional commissioner will lead to even longer City
Commission meetings, and they are too long already! The second is that each commissioner costs the City money
and the City shouldn’t be spending taxpayers’ money unless they get something tangible in return. I don’t think they
would.
Our current system is working well— please don’t fiddle with something that is not anywhere near broken.
Thank you for your service
Henry Happel