HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-26 Public Comment - L. Semones - City Boards EfficacyFrom:Linda Semones
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]City Boards Efficacy
Date:Thursday, March 19, 2026 10:00:20 AM
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.
March 19, 2026
Dear City Government Study Commission,
I am writing to you as a former vice-chair of the Historic
Preservation Board, as according to your agenda you are to
review the functions of the various citizen boards of the City of
Bozeman. I have spoken with City Manager Chuck Winn about
several of the points below and he expressed interest and even
enthusiasm for working on improving city board efficacy. I
thank him very much for his ear and for his time. Since then,
with further thought, I have added several points. I also would
like to direct my comments to your Commission.
First of all, I highly recommend speaking with more than one
Bozeman City Board member. You have indicated that you will
speak with a member of the Community Development Board
(CDB). This particular city board is very different from all the
other city boards. It is the funnel through which all zoning
questions reach the commission. All other boards are
prohibited from even discussing any topic related to zoning.
The NCOD update and the Landmark Program will go through
this board before reaching the commission. Development
projects also pass through this CDB before reaching the City
Commission, although this may change due to the new State of
Montana requirements. The CDB meets bi-weekly and
regularly shares its views with the City Commission. It
interacts often with the commissioners. The other City of
Bozeman Boards meet once a month and interact with the City
Commission with less frequency. I would hope that you would
invite the comments of representatives of all the city boards,
not just the one with the biggest City Commission interface.
The experiences of the other board members will more fully
inform your decisions.
The purpose of a city board should be to inform the City
Commission and Staff of the needs of residents and to help
residents work with the city to achieve mutual goals. A city
board should convey city concerns to the citizens, as well as to
transmit resident concerns to the city commission through
public comment and engagement. To achieve these priorities, I
suggest the following:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]--> City Boards should be able to
elect their own officers.
The City Commission liaison, a staff liaison and the
Board Chair review the public
applications for board seats. Currently, the
commission liaison and staff liaison
select the Board Chair and Vice-Chair. Why should the
board not elect its own
officers? This would help counteract the appearance
of city control of board
functions, as well as give the board some autonomy.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->The minutes of the city boards
should be written, not just linked to a video.
If I, as a citizen, wish to review board actions, currently I
have to use a video link to find the actions I need to
educate myself. Video links are only as good as the
technology supporting them. They can be inaccessible
due to technology failures.
They are not easy to search as there is no query function.
The city minutes should be written out as in the past and
stored on line with a query function. This would allow
citizens to access past actions and search for specific
agenda items and decisions in a timely and appropriate
way. The discussion before votes and the votes
themselves should be recorded in writing and indexed.
Video links are very useful, but a written record should not
be eliminated. With the re-establishment of a board
secretary position, a concise written record could be
archived and indexed.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->City Board two-year work plans
should not just be approved. They should be returned to
each board with comments from the commission liaison,
commissioners and staff attached to provide interaction
and to assure that they have been read. Any process
required to initiate a board project should be made clear
at the time of work plan approval. During my time on a city
board, we initiated action on a project that was included in
our two-year plan. We assumed that the plan had been
read and approved by the commissioners. We received
notification from a city commissioner that this initiation of
a project was inappropriate, that the commissioners felt
“blindsided.” Evidently the city commissioners needed to
approve the project first, through a presentation to the
city. The initiation process should have been made clear
when the two-year work plan was approved by the city
commissioners to avoid this embarrassing situation.
Also, the city commission should not feel “blindsided” by
an action item on an approved work plan.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->City Boards should be enabled to
complete their projects in a timely manner.
I spent 4 years on a city board after the high achieving
boards were instituted. During that time, we did not
complete the following:
The Fred Willson multi-property historic district, the
Heritage Tree Project (joint with the Urban Forestry
Board), a repurpose and reuse seminar with speakers
from the State of Montana Historical Preservation Board.
It is true that during this time, staff was consumed by the
revision of the UDC. We were told often and strongly that
staff were too busy to take on a further load. However,
board members should have been given some autonomy
to design and carry out work without totally being
dependent on staff. This is in no way intended to
undervalue the hard work that staff performs. It is, rather,
to allow high achieving boards to manage their goals with
the trust and guidance of staff.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->City Boards should be able to
express dissent and have that dissent noted and valued.
I was specifically told by a previous City Manager, that
once a city board votes on an issue, there should be no
further discussion by that board, either in public discourse
or from the board podium. All dissent should be put aside
and the board should act as one. This philosophy of the
“one board, one voice” silences opposing opinions. Our
own Supreme Court allows the dissenting judges their
own expression in a written dissenting opinion. If I, as a
board member, have a dissenting opinion, I should be able
to express that opinion even after a vote, in civil discourse.
The minority opinion is often an aid to policy correction
and should not be silenced.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]-->City Boards should be able to
have joint communications and interactions on topics of
mutual concern. All barriers to working together with
other boards should come down. For example, the
Historic Preservation Board and the Urban Forestry Board
should be able to jointly support the Heritage Tree project.
I am hopeful that this will happen soon.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]-->City Resolutionn 5323 (2018)
should be reviewed and revised. This resolution
eliminated many city boards and restricted board dissent
after taking a board vote. It is time to re-evaluate the
ordinance. The goal of high performing boards is a good
one. It is time to create an ordinance that gives boards the
autonomy to perform highly.
I submit my experiences and concerns as a dedicated resident,
ex-board member, and as someone who values working with
the the highly professional staff of the City of Bozeman. My
only intention is to make suggestions to improve board
achievements.
Sincerely,
Linda Semones. 404 S Church Ave. Bozeman