HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-26 Public Comment - K. Adams, Gallatin Valley Sentinel - Public CommentFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment
Date:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 10:04:17 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.
Hello Study Commissioners,
Please review our recent article below for our response to your January 28 meeting and inputon the decisions that have been continued to February 5.
Additionally, as you consider the pay and work requirements (part-time vs. full-time or leaveopen-ended as it is now) for the mayor and commissioners, also consider the impacts of the
recent changes to the development review process brought about through the Montana LandUse and Planning Act (MLUPA) and the City's adoption of the new Unified Development
Code. These two actions remove a significant amount of development-level decision-makingfrom the City Commission, which has the effect of significantly reducing the amount of time
Commissioners and the Mayor must spend preparing for meetings, as well as the actual time inmeetings deliberating, receiving staff presentations, and hearing public comment. Because
these policies just went into effect February 1, 2026, if you move the roles of either or both themayor and commissioners to full-time, you may be codifying the need to justify work hours
that wouldn't otherwise be needed.
We support the Study Commission’s current direction on the following decisions and believe
this is affirmed by our own survey data, which is much more broad and representative ofcommunity input:
Elimination of the Deputy Mayor position: We agree this is an unnecessary “waitingroom” that adds redundancy without value to our city structure.Maintenance of Non-Partisan Elections: Our local government needs to be focused onthings like public safety, potholes, and parks, not on party politics, personal agendas,
and ideologies.Rejection of Additional Elected Positions: We agree that positions such as the City
Attorney, City Clerk, and Police Chief should remain professional appointments.Keeping these roles merit-based, rather than political, ensures the continuity and
expertise our city requires.
The Study Commission’s direction in these three areas happens to coincide with the public’s
input and preferences, but their telegraphed positions on how to fill commission vacancies andincreasing elected officials’ pay represent a significant deviation from community feedback.
We fundamentally disagree with the direction the study commission is leaning toward on howto fill vacancies and pay elected officials and do not think that this is what is best for our city.
It is the very structure and form of our government and how people are elected that allowindividuals who do not represent the priorities of the broader community to lead it in a
direction that most residents do not want. One could reasonably conclude that this is whyresidents voted to conduct a Local Government Study in the first place.
It is our belief that the data and the public’s stated preferences support holding a special
election in the case of a commission and / or mayoral vacancy. We outlined our reasons whyin our previous article (https://www.thegvsentinel.com/your-silence-is-about-to-be-used-
against-you-what-you-should-do-before-january-28/), but it is critical to understand just howimportant this is: In the past 10 years, there have been five commission appointments,
including now-elected Commissioner Emma Bode and newly-elected Deputy Mayor DouglasFischer. Four of five of these appointees subsequently ran for election, and all four won as
incumbents, not because they had overwhelming public support, but rather because they hadan advantage as an incumbent and because they were supported by an orchestrated voting
bloc. The city lacks broad representation, and there are far too many outside and specialinterests dominating the discussion and subsequent ordinances and outcomes. We believe that
the data and the public’s stated preferences support moving to ward-based representation andhaving special elections to fill vacancies.
The Study Commission has indicated that they favor retaining the current system ofappointing commissioners to fill vacancies, rather than to fill vacancies through a special
elections process, which deviates from the public’s expressed will. The one change they havesuggested to the process is to extend the deadline to appoint a new commissioner from 30 days
to 60 days.
This 60-day “solution” fails to address the fundamental issues. Here are our refutations to the
Study Commission’s primary objections and our solution, which is one piece in the puzzle thatwill lead to the most representative and accountable form of government for Bozeman.
On the “High Cost” of Special Elections
According to Bozeman’s City Clerk, the most recent city-wide municipal election cost
the City of Bozeman $105,000.Study Commission’s Position: Study Commissioner Jan Strout said that the costs of a
special election are a poor use of city resources, especially given historically low voterturnout.Our Refutation: The $105,000 price tag is a symptom of the at-large election system,not an inherent cost of democracy. By moving to ward-based representation, the city
would only mail ballots to a fraction of the electorate, which effectively slashes the costof a special election to less than $20,000. However, the argument to move to special
elections to fill vacancies does not hinge on moving to wards. For a city with a $500M+biennial budget, $105,000 is 0.02% (two hundredths of one percent) of spending. The
city has recently allocated similar or even larger sums of money to things like porta-potties and cleanup from urban campers, a new Belonging in Bozeman DEI coordinator
position, and tenant right to counsel. If these are “core services,” then the right to votefor our representatives must be considered a core service as well.
On Voter Turnout and Apathy
Study Commission’s Position: Low voter turnout in other special elections suggests
the effort isn’t justified.Our Refutation: You cannot use a failing trait of the current system as a reason not to
fix it. Turnout is low because the current system makes voters feel their input isirrelevant. By making elections ward-based and local, you increase the relevance of the
vote, which is a proven way to drive engagement. Voting becomes personal whenpeople feel represented. This is an opportunity that the public was hoping for when they
chose to vote for and subsequently fund the Local Government Study. The most recent
school elections in May 2025 had a 27% voter turnout county-wide, compared to themost recent municipal elections in November 2025, which had a 34% voter turnout
county-wide. This 7-point differential is not significant enough to conclude thatsomehow special elections would have low voter turnout, and any amount of voter
turnout would be better than justifying an appointment process that has 0% publicturnout.
On “Elected Trust” and the 60-Day Extension
Study Commission’s Position: As an elected body, the City Commission should be
trusted to appoint replacements. They argue that extending the appointment windowfrom 30 to 60 days allows for more “public engagement” and better vetting.Our Refutation: This logic is a circular trap that confuses bureaucratic delay withdemocratic improvement. Adding 30 days to the process is meaningless if the
Commission continues to ignore public sentiment that doesn’t align with their pre-determined strategy. We have repeatedly seen public engagement used as a formality
while the Commission dismisses dissenting views. Look no further than theCommission’s decisions on urban camping and The Guthrie to see that public input is
not listened to. Further, if the Study Commission values the “trust” of the voters, theywould return power to the electorate at every opportunity. Using a past election to
justify bypassing a future one is an entrenchment of power, not “trust.” Extra time willnot be used to listen; it will be used to solidify a “done deal” rather than meaningful
incorporation of public input. Lastly, if Bozeman’s elections move to a ward-basedsystem, if you keep the appointment process, you would have Commissioners from
every ward but the ward in question choose who would represent it. That is not truerepresentation.
On “It Won’t Happen Often”
Study Commission’s Position: Study Commissioner Carson Taylor said that the
process for filling vacancies won’t matter much going forward because it’s unlikely tohappen as frequently in the future as it has in recent years.Our Refutation: This argument misses the point: rules for filling vacancies existprecisely for the moments when things don’t go as planned, and dismissing the issue
because it “won’t happen often” is an admission that the current system only workswhen tested least. Good governance that comes from a well-written City Charter is
defined by how things are handled in fringe cases, not by hoping that those cases neverarise.
Our Solution
Here is what we propose:
If a vacancy arises and there are fewer than 12 months remaining in a commissioner ormayor’s term, then the commission would be able to appoint someone to fill the vacancy
within 60 days. In this case, the appointee may not run for election in the next race, removingthe incumbent advantage, and the appointee must meet the same residence and other
requirements outlined by the Charter as someone running for election. If there are 12 or moremonths remaining in a term, then the vacancy would be filled by a special election.
Other Items Up for Discussion This Thursday, February 5
In addition to deciding how to fill vacancies, the Study Commission will also be deciding on a
process to appoint a mayor “pro tem” (temporary mayor), which would replace the role ofdeputy mayor that is slated for elimination, the number and duties of the commissioners, and
whether the roles of commissioner and mayor should be part-time or full-time and paidaccordingly.
We support the City Commission appointing a mayor “pro tem” to fill in for the mayorin the case of their absence. We do not support this method for filling a vacancy in the
mayoral seat.We support having a commission of seven ward-based seats. Five seats are not enough.
The purpose of the City Charter is to be forward-thinking and plan for the future, whichmeans the commission should be expanded.
The duties of the mayor and commissioners should be outlined by resolution, notembedded into the City Charter. This allows them to remain flexible and responsive to
the city’s changing needs over time.The roles of commissioner and mayor should not be defined as either part-time or full-
time. Both roles should continue to receive a modest stipend, not turn the roles into acareer path. One common argument against this position is that the current “low” pay
(which factually is not low; it is the highest in the state), excludes those who are notindependently wealthy from seeking office. However, this ignores a greater structural
reality: defining the roles of Commissioner and Mayor as full-time employment isinherently exclusionary. By requiring full-time service, the city would effectively bar
any resident who is unwilling or unable to abandon their established career orprofessional trajectory for a temporary political term. Public service should not be a
career path, and the roles should not be rigidly defined as part-time or full-time. Thesepositions should continue to receive a modest stipend, which, at its current level, is
already the highest in the state, rather than being converted into a salaried professionthat limits the pool of candidates to those willing to make politics their sole occupation.
The current stipend has proven that not only the independently wealthy serve ourcommunity. See the currently elected.
Our Vision for a Citizen-Led Government
Our core objective through the Local Government Study is to return Bozeman to a citizen
government model that prioritizes neighborhood accountability and fiscal restraint overpolitical professionalization and a career path for activists with agendas that do not represent
the community at-large. To achieve this, we advocate for a seven-member City Commissionelected through a strict ward-based system, ensuring that representation is rooted in local
neighborhoods, rather than centralized, at-large voting blocs. By establishing a two-term limitand reducing commission pay to a modest stipend rather than full-time salaries with benefits,
we ensure that public service remains a season of civic contribution rather than a lucrativecareer path. This structure simplifies the role of the commission to focus on the essential
basics of governance: public safety, infrastructure, and fiscal responsibility. We must resist theurge to complicate city roles to justify higher pay; instead, we must create a system where
regular, working residents can lead, be heard, and hold the line on the city’s burgeoning $500million biennial budget.
Sincerely,
Katie Adams
Bozeman Resident
The Gallatin Valley Sentinel