HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-26 Public Comment - The Gallatin Valley Sentinel - April 2 Public CommentFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]April 2 Public Comment
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 12:57:38 AM
Attachments:Resolution 5323 - High Performing Boards.pdf
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 Bozeman Study Commissioners,
Please read our latest article below, as it addresses the specific problems the public is countingon you to solve, along with solutions for each problem. Together, these solutions would lead
to a far more accountable, representative, and efficient local government than we currentlyhave.
We would also like to bring your attention to the attached copy of the City Commission's
Resolution 5323. In our public engagement, this resolution has often been pointed to as one ofthe reasons why the current advisory boards, less the Community Development Board, feel
like they do not really do not have an opportunity for meaningful input that is considered inany serious fashion by the City Commission.
Sincerely,
Katie AdamsBozeman Resident
How to Move a Giant: Why This Is the Problem the Local
Government Study Was Elected To Solve
What are the problems with our local government, and how are we going to solve them? Read
on to learn more.
When the Bozeman Study Commission convenes on April 2, they will hold an important
learning session regarding advisory boards and the Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC). Thismarks a crucial transition point: On April 15, the Study Commission will begin making official
recommendations regarding wards, advisory boards, and the future role of the INC.
Read on to learn about the specific structural problems the Study Commission must address,
why the current “at-large” system is part of that problem, and our proposal for leveragingthis unique opportunity to build a government that is truly structured for the people of
Bozeman.
Moving a giant requires more than just trying to push on it; it requires a structural lever
capable of overcoming immense inertia. In Bozeman, that “Giant” is a centralized, at-largegovernment that has become an immovable mass of bureaucracy and groupthink, and the
Bozeman Local Government Study Commission now has to choose: Will they continue toserve the Giant, or will they provide the levers that Bozeman’s residents voted for to change
it?
To move the Giant, we must first understand what keeps it anchored and which levers, like
wards, expanded advisory boards, and radical transparency, can actually shift the behemothback into the service of its citizens.
The Anchors: Why the Giant is Immovable with the Current Structure
For the past several years, Bozeman residents have battered their foreheads against a
monolithic City Hall that is more like a concrete wall than a responsive local government. Nomatter how much public comment they receive, how disgruntled citizens become, or how clear
it is that residents do not like the direction Bozeman is headed, the City of Bozeman apparatusis a train that refuses to get off the tracks.
This is why 67% of Bozeman voters opted for the Local Government Study, a mandate farhigher than any individual candidate (at both the local and national levels) has received in at
least the last 20 years, making it the most unified the city has been on any political choice in ageneration. In the eyes of the voters, the current government is “unresponsive,” “ineffective,”
“non-representative,” and “disconnected.”[1]
So then what are the anchors that are making Bozeman’s government such an unmovable
force? There are many layers to that monolithic onion.
Let’s Start From the Top
Some might say that Bozeman’s government structure isn’t the problem, that it’s the peoplewho are elected. But, the critical question isn’t the who, it’s the how. How did they get
elected? Our current mayor was elected with fewer than 4,000 votes in a city withapproximately 57,000 residents at the time. Bozeman’s voter turnout in municipal elections is
abysmally low, hovering at a mere 26% when current mayor, Joey Morrison, was elected in2023.
When so few people determine the leadership of so many, the result isn’t a mandate; it’s aglitch in the system. This low-turnout environment allows a small, concentrated group of
voters to act as the sole gatekeepers for the entire city. Most of the current and recent CityCommissioners live in the Southeast corner of town, a geographic monopoly that does not
represent the entirety of Bozeman. This explains why the “Giant” feels so disconnected fromthe other 53,000 residents: it wasn’t built by them, it doesn’t live near them, and it doesn’t feel
accountable to them.
A point that is often overlooked is that the City Commission is the legislative head of the city.
If the Commission is the head, the City Manager is the central nervous system, and the staffare the muscles that carry out the movement. In our current Commission-Manager structure,
the City Commission is at the top of the food chain. They are the sole body responsible forsetting the vision, passing the laws, and hiring and managing (and potentially firing) the City
Manager. When the Commission sets a direction, the City Manager translates that into a planfor the department directors, who then mobilize the city staff to execute it.
The Giant moves exactly where the head tells it to go.
The Professional Scapegoat
Despite being the head of the food chain, the City Commission often pretends it is powerless.This leads to the first major anchor: The Professional Scapegoat. By treating city staff and city
attorney as the “true” authority, the City Commission abdicates its legislative duty. They pointto “expert” staff opinions as if they were gospel, ignoring the fact that the staff is simply
following the GPS coordinates provided by the Commission. It is a closed loop ofaccountability designed to protect the head from the consequences of its own directions. The
Commission gives the City Manager a legislative direction. The City Manager oversees thestaff, who then creates a “professional opinion” that the Commission then uses to justify their
own predetermined decisions.
When residents point out a flaw in a plan or an alternative way of thinking, the City
Commission shrugs and points to the experts. The Giant is never forced to consider the livedexperience of its citizens because “the data” (curated by the staff that is hired to carry out the
commission’s legislative direction) says otherwise.
A perfect example of this is the most recent episode of City of Bozeman’s new podcast, The
Bozeman Beat, which Morrison started after becoming mayor. In it, he speaks with a memberof city staff, who just so happens to echo Morrison’s views on everything from affordable
housing and density to building a future Bozeman that doesn’t rely on cars.[2] This is thevision set by the Commission, and mirrored by the staff hired to support them.
The “One Body, One Voice” Doctrine
To keep the loop closed, the Giant relies on its next major anchor: The “One Body, One
Voice” doctrine, created by Resolution 5323, passed in 2021.[3] It isn’t enough for staff toecho the Commission; the Commission has codified a system where advisory boards are
muzzled to prevent any dissenting data from ever reaching the public record. This is where themonolithic” nature of City Hall becomes a prerequisite to serving on a city advisory board.
Under this resolution, the City Commission mandated that all appointed board members speakin a single, unified voice that aligns with the Commission’s predetermined path. This is
referred to as the “One Body, One Voice” principle. The Giant ensures this uniformity starts atthe very beginning: during the recruitment process, applicants are specifically interviewed on
their willingness to comply with the “concept of acting as a body with one voice.” If you are acitizen with a dissenting perspective or a unique neighborhood concern, you are effectively
screened out before you even get a seat at the table.
The resolution further anchors the Giant by placing “expertise” above civic debate. Board
members are explicitly told to be “mindful of arguing or debating the merits of staff’sprofessional judgment.” If a member actually disagrees with a staff recommendation, they are
instructed to direct that disagreement to the City Manager in private, rather than airing it in thepublic record.
This creates an environment where boards are technically invited to participate, but only ifthey agree with the current direction. The City Commission maintains control by appointing
the advisory board members and mandates that every board’s work plan “must align with theCommission’s adopted Strategic Plan.” The advisory boards can’t even create their own work
plans or agendas for their own meetings. Those tasks are delegated to city staff.
So, by the time a recommendation reaches the public, it has been filtered through a staff-led
agenda and a “One Voice” filter. Resolution 5323 ensures that the Giant stays on the tracks bymaking sure no one is allowed on the train who has a different perspective.
Furthermore, there are serious questions about the ethical nature of the City Commissionappointing members to advisory boards who directly benefit from the Commission’s
decisions. Whether it is a city contract being awarded to an advisory board member’semployer, another board member’s employer being a direct recipient of grant money awarded
by the City Commission, or yet another member whose employer stands to benefit from thecity’s plans for the Fowler Housing Project, these appointments create a “pay-to-play”
atmosphere. When the “One Voice” at the table belongs to someone whose employer benefitsfrom the Giant’s continued direction, the concept of “citizen advice” becomes a conflict of
interest.
Even more necessary with MLUPA. Have someone at the table in your ward to represent your
neighborhood’s interests at the growth planning phase.
The INC Paper Tiger
Under the current City Charter, the city uses the paper tiger known as the Inter-NeighborhoodCouncil (INC) as a body that exists to give the appearance of neighborhood power and a seat
at the table without granting it a single ounce of actual authority. It is a procedural decoy, aplace where neighborhood leaders are invited to roar, only to find that their input is made of
paper the moment it leaves their mouths.
The most glaring evidence of this is the City’s selective amnesia regarding its own
Neighborhood Recognition Ordinance.[4] Under this ordinance, the City is structurallyobligated to formally notify and engage with recognized neighborhood associations on
developments that impact their residents. Instead, the City has effectively gutted the ordinanceby replacing meaningful, targeted outreach with “mass notifications.”
When members of the Inter-Neighborhood Council questioned this practice in recent years,they were met with an indignant attitude from its Commission liaison and the reasoning that
they count a generic development notice email sent to a city-wide listserv as the required“neighborhood notification.” If you aren’t tech-savvy enough to find the right signup link or if
the email lands in your spam folder, the Giant considers its legal duty fulfilled. By treatingneighborhood associations as just another set of “subscribers” rather than sovereign
stakeholders, the city ensures that by the time a neighborhood even realizes a project ishappening, the “train” is already ten miles down the tracks. The INC isn’t a seat at the table
under the current structure; it has been transformed into another way the Commission givesthe guise of community input while covering their eyes and ears to what they’re being told.
The Appointment Trap
When a rare crack appears in the monolithic structure, usually through a resignation, the Giant
quickly seals it with the appointment trap. Rather than holding a special election to let thevoters decide, the sitting Commission hand picks a successor who is a known quantity. This
allows an ideological monopoly to reproduce itself indefinitely. It is an undemocratic guardrailthat ensures that even when the people vote for a Study Commission to change the system, the
people in the system are busy picking the next generation of the status quo.
The person that the Commission appoints enters the next election with the incumbent
advantage, which is highly influential in Bozeman’s low-turnout, low-information municipalelections.
Stealth Lobbying
One of the heaviest hidden anchors is the influence of what we like to call “stealth lobbyists.”
During the public hearings for The Guthrie project, the Giant didn’t just ignore residents; itlistened to a chorus of “supporters” who were actually paid employees and affiliates of the
developer, none of whom disclosed their financial stake before speaking. The same happenswith groups like Forward Montana and Bozeman Tenants United, who influence city policy
like the Unified Development Code and tenant right to counsel under the guise of “communityadvocacy” without clear disclosure of their affiliation, funding, or principals. In contrast, when
the Giant hears from ordinary concerned citizens who aren’t being paid to be there, their threeminutes at the podium becomes a hollow ritual.
The Giant’s defenders often claim that if people cared, they would be more engaged. But thereality is that most Bozemanites are busy working, raising families, and living their lives. We
shouldn’t need a government that requires a second full-time job just to be heard. The LocalGovernment Study should be solving for a government that represents people even when they
aren’t in the room. We shouldn’t need a crisis or a four-hour Tuesday night meeting to ensurethat our neighborhoods are protected. We need a structure that builds representation into the
very DNA of the city, so the Giant is held in check by design, not just by whoever has themost free time to complain. When the structure itself is fair, it will naturally bring out the
people who currently stay home because they think their voice doesn’t matter.
The Study Commission Anchor
Perhaps the most ironic anchor is the Study Commission itself. They were not elected toaffirm “what is.” They were elected to be architects of what should be. Yet, in their meetings,
there is a palpable sense of hesitation, a desire to protect and enhance the status quo ratherthan represent the residents who sent them there. By failing to aggressively educate the public
on the structural alternatives like wards and different options for mayor, they are effectivelyrunning out the clock. The 67% mandate for this study wasn’t a request for a “tune-up;” it was
an order for a complete overhaul. In fact, more people agreed that our local governmentneeded a total review than agreed on who should be President of the United States. When a
local study outpolls a presidential election in recent Bozeman history, the Study Commission’sduty is to lead the change, not act as a defensive shield for the Giant.
This internal inertia is reinforced by the role of the City Clerk Mike Maas with the StudyCommission. Though serving as an ex officio member, Maas appears positioned as the staff
support for the status quo.
Whether it is highlighting what he interprets as proof to support the status quo, such as
insistence on the role of mayor being a full-time position, his influence carries the weight of avote without the accountability of one. Our organization still has not received the Study
Commission’s survey data that was formally submitted as a public records request on January1, and Maas will soon be working with Study Commissioner and former Bozeman Mayor
Carson Taylor to filter out the firms that apply to the Study Commission for the job of “balloteducation.”
Furthermore, some Study Commissioners rely on “data” from cities that simply aren’t likeBozeman to justify their reasons for not making changes. We see this in an example brought to
the Study Commission from Bend, Oregon, that argues that wards were voted down due toconcerns over “parochial interests” harming the city as a whole. This logic ignores our current
reality: when a tiny, geographically-concentrated sliver of the city already holds all the power,“parochialism” is already the law of the land. When the Study Commission lacks “data” from
other cities, they rely on their feelings to justify their decisions. For example, when asuggestion was made to make appointed commissioners ineligible to run as a candidate in the
next municipal election, many of the Study Commissioners “felt” that it soundedunconstitutional.
It begs the question: How can it get any worse than it is now? By failing to aggressivelyeducate the public on the structural alternatives like wards or a mayor as presiding officer, the
Study Commission is cramming all of the major decisions they should have been spending thepast 15 months on into just a few meetings.
The Levers That Will Move the Giant
Now that the problems have been clearly defined, it is time to consider the solutions.
Throughout this process, the Study Commission has often asked if any single, isolated change,is the “root” of the problem. However, the problems in Bozeman’s current structure cannot be
solved by a single, isolated decision. The issues are interconnected failures of representation,transparency, and accountability. To move the Giant, the Study Commission must stop
looking for a silver bullet and instead employ the full set of levers at their disposal.
The Ward-Based Representation Lever
Wards will create the best chance for true representation and will dissolve the influence ofoutside money and national politics that currently drown out local voices. While defenders of
the at-large system fear wards will be “divisive,” the reality is that the current system is whathas divided us. Wards protect the “un-engaged” resident by ensuring their neighborhood
interests are represented by design, not by chance. It weaves representation into the DNA ofhow the city is run.
Wards are about geographic sovereignty. Dividing the city into seven wards would ensure that
a resident West of 19th or on the North Side has a representative who actually lives in their
neighborhood and feels their specific pain. Wards dissolve identity politics and ushers in adiversity of ideas. It is a hypocrisy to conflate wards with anything other than expanding the
representative voice of Bozeman’s residents.
With the recent changes to Bozeman’s Unified Development Code as a result of the Montana
Land Use and Planning Act (SB 382), wards will become even more important when as thecity reviews and updates its Growth Policy. It is at this stage that neighborhood voices will
matter most, and the current at-large representation simply will not cut it as this legislationcompletely changes the development review process.
Opponents argue that wards breed parochial interests, but in a city where the Southeast sidecurrently holds a geographic monopoly on the City Commission, we already have
parochialism. Seven wards would not create division; it would simply end the era wherepeople from one corner of town gets to decide what is best for the other six.
By moving to wards, we also lower the barrier to entry for leadership. A regular citizenshouldn’t have to raise tens of thousands of dollars and run a city-wide campaign just to
represent their neighbors. Wards allow a resident with a modest budget to challenge the statusquo, effectively breaking the appointment trap and the influence of outside money and
manufactured support from non-profit organizations.
The Leadership Lever
The math of the “4,000-vote Mayor” proves that our current system has a leadership glitch. Tofix this, we must move to a Mayor as Presiding Officer model. We cannot afford a “full-time”
professional politician as Mayor when we are already paying a significant salary to the CityManager to handle the day-to-day administration of the city.
The Mayor should be a presiding officer, selected by their peers on the City Commission, whobrings consensus-building to the Commission, not an additional layer of expensive, redundant
bureaucracy. In a city where we rely on grants to fund basic services like police and fire, andwhere residents are forced to pay for a share of their own street repairs, we cannot afford to
fund a “full-time” ego. Someone who wants to lead this city should be willing to makesacrifices for the role, not use it as a career-track position funded by a struggling taxpayer
base.
The role of Mayor is only as complicated and time-consuming as the person in office chooses
for it to be. Is a podcast the highest and best use of the mayor’s time? Is this really a necessarycomponent of good local governance? There are many ways the role of mayor can become
more efficient and effective, and the model of Mayor as Presiding Officer allows the mayor tobe a commissioner amongst equals, not someone who carries the energy of city-wide support
with a whopping 3,900 votes.
The Representation Lever: Empowering Advisory Boards and the Inter-Neighborhood Council
To dissolve the “One Body, One Voice” muzzle, the Study Commission must recommend theCity Commission repeal Resolution 5323 and replace it with a Charter-mandated framework
for independent citizen advisory boards. We must end the practice of screening applicants for“uniformity” and instead strive for ward representation on every advisory board.
Advisory boards should be empowered to create their own agendas and work plans and tochallenge city staff’s “professional judgment” in the public record without fear of retaliation
or private reprimands. By mandating that boards are geographically diverse and structurallyindependent, we ensure the “Head” of the city is actually receiving unfiltered advice from the
community, rather than a curated echo of its own vision.
Under the Montana Land Use and Planning Act, the public’s “bite at the apple” happens
almost entirely at the front-end planning stage. If our advisory boards remain muzzled by the“One Voice” doctrine during this phase, the public will be structurally locked out of the future
of their own neighborhoods.
Further, no one should be allowed to serve on an advisory board if they or their employer will
benefit in any way by decisions the City Commission will eventually make. One might thinkthis would be obvious, but it has been proven that language that prohibits this type of behavior
is necessary in the City Charter.
The Inter-Neighborhood Council should be tied to wards, but it does not replace wards.
Neighborhoods should be allowed to form organically, where if a neighborhood wants formalorganization and has the volunteers willing to lead it, it can, but wards are the only way to
ensure representation.
The Transparency Lever: Mandatory Lobbyist Registration
To break the effects of stealth lobbyists, the Study Commission must do more than justsuggest transparency; they must codify it in the City Charter. We cannot continue to have a
system where paid professionals, whether they are developers’ affiliates or activists fromgroups like Forward Montana, can influence policy under the guise of “concerned citizens.”
The Charter should require mandatory lobbyist registration with the city clerk. Any individualgiving public comment on behalf of an entity, whether paid or un-paid, should be required to
register before they are allowed to give public comment. This should be a publicly-accessibleregistry, a digital, searchable database.
The Talent Lever: Succession Planning
Finally, we must end the practice of bringing in “temporary talent” for critical roles like the
City Manager. By codifying local succession planning into the Charter, we create a pipelinefor candidates who actually understand Bozeman’s unique landscape and community values,
ensuring our city is run by people with a long-term stake in its success rather than transientslooking for their next resume builder.
Conclusion
In a city where we are often told we are “divided,” the majority of us have found common
ground in the belief that the current government structure is failing us. If that doesn’t convincethe study commission that more needs to change, then nothing will.
What is best for Bozeman is unique to Bozeman. We can think outside of the Giant box andbring in fresh ideas. We don’t need examples from other cities. We can set the example for
what good, representative governance can look like. We can create a local government with astructure that requires it to be responsive and representative of the community, no matter who
ultimately gets elected into office.
We can overhaul the status quo and re-engergize an entire segment of the population who has
disengaged from city politics because they know their voices currently don’t matter. Thosepeople will be moved to vote, to create neighborhoods, to serve on an advisory board, and
maybe even run for office.
The only limits are what the Study Commission places on itself. If a 67% vote for change, a
consensus higher than any candidate in a generation, cannot move the Study Commission toaction, then the “Giant” hasn’t just become immovable; it has become a monument to the
failure of local democracy.
It’s time to move the Giant. It’s time for the Study Commission to use the levers.
[1] Bozeman Local Government Study Commission Final Survey Results – March 2026
[2] https://youtu.be/mAd7mIQV5qw?si=AP20DzAwNrLBGySU
[3] https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=239981&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN
[4] https://library.municode.com/mt/bozeman/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH2AD_ART5BOCO_DIV7NEAS_S2.05.1220RECI
Version April 2020
Resolution 5323 Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION 5323
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE RECRUITMENT AND
SELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR
COMMUNICATION, AND ESTABLISHING EXPECTATIONS, DUTIES, AND NORMS
OF BEHAVIOR FOR ALL APPOINTED CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AGENCIES,
AND COMMITTEES.
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4.07 of the Bozeman Charter permits the City
Commission to create boards, commissions, or committees as determined necessary; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2018, the Bozeman City Commission formally adopted the
Bozeman Strategic Plan via Resolution 4852; and
WHEREAS, the Strategic Plan Section 1.2 Community Engagement encourages the City
of Bozeman to “[b]roaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government,
innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders” by “restructure[ing]
or combin[ing] City boards and committees to more effectively advise the City and engage the
public”; and
WHEREAS, City Staff prepared a Memorandum and Proposed Plan for board
restructuring, made the plan available on May 20, 2021 for public review, and provided public
notice to inform the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission held public work sessions on February 23, May 25,
and June 22, 2021 during which it received and reviewed all public, written and oral testimony on
the restructuring of City boards; and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, and in consideration of such testimony, the City
Commission confirmed direction for City Staff to move forward with restructuring the City’s
advisory boards; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
Version April 2020
Resolution 5323 Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, Strategic Plan Section 7 High Performance Organization states, “[w]e
operate as an ethical high performance organization, anticipating future needs, utilizing best
practices, and striving for continuous improvement.”
WHEREAS, the Commission intends by this Resolution to establish standards for the
recruitment and appointment of board members, establish standards for how board members will
communicate with the Commission and individual members of the Commission and City staff
(“High Performing Boards”)to increase efficiency and efficacy of advisory board input; and
WHEREAS, High Performing Boards aim to formalize and streamline communications
between the City Commission, advisory boards, the City Manager, and the public; and
WHEREAS, High Performing Boards aim to achieve policy driven decision-making; and
WHEREAS, High Performing Boards aim to create consistency, predictability, and
stability by clearly defining duties, norms, and expectations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, to wit:
SECTION 1: Membership, Recruitment, & Appointment
1) Membership: Membership is established in the resolutions, ordinances, or statutes
establishing each Board’s structure, including any mandatory member qualification.
Additional membership requirements include:
a) Board Members may only serve in one City appointed position at a time;
b) The balance of an unexpired term served by an appointee shall be considered a “term” if
such unexpired term exceeds 50% of the full term;
c) Upon completion of a gap in service equal to a position’s full term, a former member may
be eligible for re-appointment; and
d) Appointments should be made during a regular meeting in January.
2) Recruitment: Commissioners, Board Members, and the City Manager are encouraged to
actively recruit qualified members to apply. During the recruitment process, the City will focus
on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and will actively work to achieve membership that reflects,
at the least, the demographics of our community – as outlined in, but not limited to the gaps
analysis and equity indictors report and available census data – across all board membership.
Formal recruitment will occur by three methods:
a) Vacancies will be posted in the lobby of City Hall and on the City’s website;
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
Version April 2020
Resolution 5323 Page 3 of 6
b) Biannual active solicitation period, as prescribed in Section 4.07 of the City Charter; and
c) As necessitated by vacancies.
3) Review: The review of applicants shall occur by a panel consisting of the assigned
Commission Liaison, Board Chair, and the City Manager’s assigned staff liaison:
a) Interview questions must ensure applicants receive a fair comparison with other candidates
and will focus on potential conflicts of interest, compliance with norms of conduct,
including but not limited to decorum, communications, and the concept of acting as a body
with one voice; and
b) Evaluation criteria must consider the City’s goals related to diversity, equity, and inclusion,
the duties and purpose of the individual board, and any membership requirements in
enabling legislation or law.
4) Appointment: All Board appointments will be made by the City Commission except for
appointments authorized by law to be made by the Mayor. Board Officers (Chair & Vice-
Chair) shall be appointed by the City Commission
SECTION 2: COMMUNICATIONS
1) The Boards shall receive direction from the City Commission via pursuant to the
Commission’s bi-annual goal setting, requested assigned work priorities, or other specific
direction as the Commission may provide;
2) A board’s annual work plan must align with the Commission’s adopted Strategic Plan
3) The Board should communicate with the Commission only through approved minutes, work
plans, progress reports, or formal recommendations/resolutions voted on by the Board;
4) Board chairs shall communicate with the Staff Liaison on matters related to the Board’s
operations and the board’s agenda;
5) Board Chairs should direct policy related questions to both the Commission Liaison and Staff
Liaison;
6) Board Members shall adhere to the “One Body, One Voice” principle in communications to
the City Commission on matters under the Board’s purview, or may become under the purview
of the Board.
7) City Staff will develop minutes that the Board will review and approve; minutes shall be
provided to the City Commission and made available to the public.
SECTION 3: EXPECTATIONS, DUTIES, AND NORMS OF BEHAVIOR
Norms for Board Members are modeled upon the City Commission’s Norms Policy as presented
in Resolution 5124, and the Rules of Procedure are modeled upon Chapter 2, Article 2, BMC (See
Exhibit A), and are incorporated herein.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
Version April 2020
Resolution 5323 Page 4 of 6
1) Training of Board Members: Board Members must participate in an onboarding program
established by the City Manager.
a) The training will include, but is not limited to:
i) General onboarding: Boards procedures, open meetings, public records, process, and
requirements, and expectations;
ii) Purposes and focus areas of the Board to be presented by the Staff Liaison;
iii) “Effective Meetings” – a training to assist Board Members in conducting an efficient
and effective meeting;
iv) Ethics: Initial ethics training upon appointment and annual ethics training as required
by the Charter; and
v) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Training focusing on various DEI topics including,
but not limited to, implicit and unconscious bias, anti-harassment and anti-
discrimination; accessibility; and DEI in institutions, workforces, and local
government.
b) Board Members must complete onboarding and training within six months of the
appointment of any member; and
c) Board Members must participate in a six-month check-in with the Staff Liaison and
Commission Liaison.
2) Duties:
a) Commission Liaison has the following duties:
i) Lead the interview of applicants;
ii) Serve as the primary contact with the Board for the City Commission;
iii) Assist with resolving questions regarding the role of the City Commission, City
Manager, Staff Liaison, and the Board;
iv) Serve as contact rather than an advocate, unless assigned as a voting member;
v) Review the Board’s work plan and make recommendations to the City Commission
regarding the Board’s work plan;
vi) Support efficient Board operations; and
vii) Assist training of new board members.
b) The Presiding Officer has the following duties:
i) Act as meeting facilitator;
ii) Maintain a tone of civility during debate;
iii) Ensure the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate, and that meetings
operate fairly and impartially; and
iv) Ensure the Board’s questions and discussion are germane to the issues presented.
c) Board Members have the following duties:
i) To ensure the Board has a quorum at all meetings, and commit sufficient time to
ensure regular and punctual attendance;
ii) Be prepared, attentive, and participate;
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
Version April 2020
Resolution 5323 Page 5 of 6
iii) Abide by Rules of Procedure, Norms of Behavior, and the City and State Codes of
Ethics;
iv) Notify the Staff Liaison as soon as they learn they will not be able to attend a meeting
and of any changes to contact information.
d) Staff Liaison and/or their designee(s) will prepare the agenda with collaboration from the
Board Chair.
3) Norms of behavior:
a) Board Members are encouraged to share their experience and knowledge with new
members;
b) Board Members should treat all city employees with respect, and in doing so recognize
staff in performing their work strive to always serve the public to the best of their
abilities;
c) Board Members should be mindful of arguing or debating the merits of staff's
professional judgment; rather, should Board Members disagree with staff’s professional
judgment, they should direct such disagreement to the Staff Liaison; in the event that the
Staff Liaison is subject to the disagreement, Board Members should direct their concerns
to the City Manager;
d) Board Members must seek to ensure staff recognizes the Board Member's questions are
for purposes of inquiry only and should in no way be taken as an order, a request to take
action, or a directive;
e) Board Members should not use language or communication methods that a reasonable
person would find humiliating, intimidating, hostile, or offensive;
f) A Board Member may not take any action that could be construed as a directive or order
to staff;
g) A Board Member must not attempt to pressure or influence discussions,
recommendations, workloads, schedules, or department priorities absent the approval of
the City Manager and only then upon an action of the majority of the City Commission;
h) Board interaction with staff during board meetings:
i) Criticism of staff by a Board Member should be made in private to the City Manager.
Board Members are encouraged to provide commendation to staff in public;
ii) Board Members may not direct or issue orders to staff;
iii) Board Members may direct questions regarding the factual basis for an item or a
question soliciting staff expertise to the City employee presenting the item; questions
other than those directly related to the factual basis of an agenda item should be
directed to the Staff Liaison who may request the assistance of other city employees
in answering the question.
i) Specific provisions for Board Member's attendance at meetings other than board
meetings:
i) Board Members may not attend staff meetings unless requested by the City Manager;
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
Version April 2020
Resolution 5323 Page 6 of 6
ii) Board Members’ conduct at public meetings or other events should be informed by
this Resolution and the Code of Ethics. Board Member attendance at public meetings
called by staff or City Manager should not occur unless requested by the City
Manager.
j) All appointed members of City boards or committees should be mindful of the
prohibition regarding interference with administration.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 10th day of August, 2021.
___________________________________
CYNTHIA L. ANDRUS
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
MIKE MAAS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
Appendix A
Rules of Procedure
Section 1
Applicability
A. These rules shall govern the conduct of all City of Bozeman boards, commissions,
agencies, and committees (hereinafter "boards") where a majority of members are
appointed by the City Commission and shall supplement other governing rules of the
board.
B. These rules are supplementary to the provision of Title 7, Chpt. 1, Part 41, MCA, Title 7,
Chpt. 5, Parts 41 and 42, MCA, and Title 2, Chpts. 2 and 3, MCA as they relate to
procedures for conducting meets and public hearings before City boards.
Section 2
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson – Powers and Duties
A. The City Commission will appoint the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the year
within one month of the start of new members’ terms.
B. The recording secretary shall be any staff member assigned by the Staff Liaison.
C. The Chairperson shall be the Presiding Officer of the board.
D. During the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson shall discharge the duties
and exercise the powers and authority of the chairperson.
E. The Presiding Officer shall preserve strict order and decorum at all meetings and confine
members in debates to the question under consideration.
F. The Presiding Officer may move or second any item of business then before the board.
G. The Presiding Officer shall state, or cause to be stated, every motion coming before the
board, announce the time for a roll-call vote to be announced by the recording secretary,
announce the decision of the board on all subjects, and decide all questions of order,
subject, however to an appeal to the board, in which event a majority vote of the board
members present shall govern and conclusively determine such question of order.
H. The Presiding Officer shall vote on all questions.
Section 3
Parliamentary Authority
A. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein or by ordinance or statute, all meetings and
hearings of the boards shall be conducted in accordance with these rules.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
B. In all cases not covered by these rules, the controlling parliamentary authority shall be the
latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised.
Section 4
Meeting Agendas
A. The Staff Liaison, or their designee, shall arrange a list of matters to be brought before
the Board according to the order of business specified herein, and furnish each member
and the public through the City's website with a copy of the agenda and all supporting
information no later than 48 hours immediately preceding the meeting for which that item
has been scheduled. All material to be presented to the board for consideration with an
agenda item shall be made available to the public within the above time frame. Copies of
the agenda shall be available from the City Clerk and one copy shall be posted at the
designated posting board in the City Hall for public viewing and made available on the
City's website. Pursuant to Section 7-1-4135, MCA, the City Commission designates as
the official posting place for all boards the posting board in the lobby of City Hall located
at 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
B. The Staff Liaison shall prepare the meeting agenda and may consult with the
Commission Liaison or the Board Chairperson in preparing the agenda. The Chairperson
or a majority of board members may remove an item from the agenda. The agenda shall
be in substantially the following form:
a. Call to Order
b. Disclosures
c. Changes to the Agenda
d. Public Service Announcements
e. Approval of Minutes
f. Consent Items
g. Public Comments
h. Special Presentations
i. Action Items
j. FYI/Discussion
k. Adjournment
Order of the above may be adjusted by the Presiding Officer.
Section 5
Meetings
All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public unless authorized by law. Prior to closing
any meeting of the Board, the Chairperson and Staff Liaison shall consult with the City Attorney.
A. Regular Meetings
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
a. Boards shall hold a regular meeting once a month or no less than quarterly as
directed in their establishing documents.
b. Any meeting of the Board may be adjourned to a later date and time, provided
that no adjournment shall be for a longer period than until the next regular or
specially scheduled meeting.
c. The Staff Liaison, Presiding Officer, or majority of the Board may cancel a
regular meeting if no business is scheduled for that meeting.
B. Public Hearings
a. Public Hearings are meetings required of some citizen advisory boards to be held
as a public hearing pursuant to law. The provisions of Section 5.A apply to Public
Hearings.
b. Unless prohibited by law, a public hearing may be rescheduled or adjourned to a
specific later date and time.
C. Executive Sessions
a. Executive Sessions are meetings of the Board with the purpose to discuss
litigation strategy, a matter of individual privacy, or other matters wherein a
meeting may be closed pursuant to law and will be scheduled as needed.
b. Although each Executive Session will commence as an open public meeting,
Executive Sessions may be closed to the public pursuant to authority and
limitations in Title 2, Chpt. 3, Part 2, MCA.
c. An Executive Session may be called at any time during any meeting if authorized
by law.
D. Special Meetings
a. The Staff Liaison, Presiding Officer, or a majority of the board may call Special
Meetings of the board, upon at least forty-eight (48) hours’ notice to each member
personally served on each member through email or left at the member’s usual
place of residence.
b. Notice shall also be made to the public by, at a minimum, posting the agenda on
the City’s website and posting board at least 48 hours prior.
E. Subcommittees
a. Subcommittees shall only be formed with the express authorization of the City
Commission.
b. Subcommittees shall be limited to a period of time not to exceed six (6) months or
until the completion of an assigned specified task.
Section 6
Order of Presentation/Public Participation
A. The order of presentation in which items are presented to the board shall generally be as
follows:
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
a. The Staff Liaison, or their designee, shall present the agenda item to the Board, if
appropriate.
b. If applicable, the Staff Liaison may present a background report on the matter for
discussion. Upon conclusion of a staff presentation, board members may ask
questions of staff for the purposes of understanding and clarification. If the
agenda item is a public hearing, the Presiding Officer will open the public hearing
prior to staff presentation.
c. If applicable, comments from the applicant, or the applicant's agent, shall be
heard. The applicant's presentation/testimony is limited, subject to the discretion
of the presiding officer, to ten (10) minutes.
d. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, a board member may direct
questions to the staff or applicant.
e. Members of the audience or their agent may be invited to present testimony or
evidence. To be recognized, each person desiring to give testimony or evidence
shall step forward and, after being recognized, give their name and place of
residence for the record. The Presiding Officer may establish a timeframe for each
public comment, typically three (3) minutes per speaker and each speaker will be
afforded the same allotment of time. The Presiding Officer may lengthen or
shorten the time allotted for public testimony.
f. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, a board member may direct
questions to any person so testifying for purposes of clarification,
g. Following public comment, the Staff Liaison shall be given the opportunity to
comment on any testimony or other evidence.
h. Following staff comment and if a public hearing, the applicant will be given the
opportunity to rebut or comment on any testimony or other evidence. The
applicant's comments and rebuttal is limited, subject to the discretion of the
presiding officer, to five (5) minutes.
i. If a public hearing, following applicant rebuttal and any further questions, the
Presiding Officer will close the hearing and bring the agenda item forward for
discussion, motion and vote.
j. If a public hearing, after being recognized by the Presiding Officer, a board
member may direct questions limited to the rebuttal testimony and evidence.
k. The recording secretary shall enter into the record all correspondence that has
been received but was not yet provided.
l. Unless required to act by a certain date pursuant to law, the Board may continue
the discussion to a date certain, close discussion and vote on the matter, or close
the discussion and continue the vote to a date certain.
B. All testimony and evidence shall be directed to the Presiding Officer. No person, other
than a board member and the person recognized as having the floor shall be permitted to
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
enter into the discussion. No questions shall be asked of a board member except through
the presiding officer.
C. The Board may ask the Staff Liaison for their recommendation.
D. If a public hearing, in the event the applicant does not appear at the scheduled time and
place, unless the applicant has waived his or her appearance in writing, and which waiver
has been accepted, or unless the matter is submitted as a consent item, the matter shall be
continued to the next available regular meeting, public hearing date, or other date certain.
E. For all public hearings involving land use and annexation decisions, the Board will wait a
minimum of one week before making a decision whenever requested by a member unless
a decision is required due to a statute, ordinance or other law. Agreement with staff’s
written findings is an acceptable method of presenting findings.
F. Witnesses may be required to testify under oath.
G. The Board shall not be bound by the strict Rules of Evidence and may exclude irrelevant,
immaterial, incompetent or unduly repetitious testimony or evidence.
H. The Presiding Officer shall rule on all questions relating to the admissibility of evidence
with advice from the City Attorney, which ruling may be overruled by a majority vote of
the Board.
I. A public hearing which has been formally closed for all public input may not be reopened
and no additional evidence or testimony from the public shall be received or considered
except as provided herein. If additional information is required from the public before a
decision can be made, the Board upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, may call
for an additional public hearing which hearing shall be noticed as required by law,
specifying date, time place and subject matter of hearing. This paragraph does not
preclude the Board, after the public hearing, from asking questions of staff, receiving
additional evidence from staff or, after a hearing held on a preliminary plat, pursuant to
Title 76, Chpt. 3, MCA, from consulting the subdivider about conditions or other
mitigation required of the subdivider. Upon decision by the Presiding Officer, or upon a
duly adopted motion of the board to reopen the public hearing prior to close of the agenda
item in which the hearing was held, the requirement to provide public notice does not
apply; the public hearing may be reopened and the additional input provided prior to a
final decision on the item.
Section 7
Quorum and Voting
A. Unless otherwise provided by law, a quorum shall consist of a majority of all board
members. If a quorum is not present, those in attendance shall be named and the board
shall adjourn to a later time.
B. The recording secretary shall reduce motions to writing and, upon request, shall read a
motion prior to the vote.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
C. All votes shall be made by roll-call.
D. Upon every vote, the outcome shall be stated and recorded.
E. A board member has an obligation to vote unless there is a conflict of interest.
F. Email, telephonic, or proxy voting shall be prohibited.
Section 8
Rules of Debate/Reconsideration/Conflict of Interest
A. Every board member desiring to speak shall address the Presiding Officer and upon
recognition by the Presiding Officer, shall confine discussion to the question under
debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language.
B. A board member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless the
member is to be called to order, or as herein otherwise provided. If a board member,
while speaking is called to order, they shall cease speaking until the question of order be
determined, and, if in order shall be permitted to proceed.
C. Order of rotation in matters of debate or discussion shall be at the discretion of the
Presiding Officer.
D. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Board must be made on the day such
action was taken. It must be made either immediately during the same session, or at a
recessed and reconvened session thereof. Such motion shall be made by one of the
prevailing side, but may be seconded by any member, and may be made at any time and
have precedence over all other motions or while a board member has the floor. It shall be
debatable — nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any board member from
making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of the board,
but the matter must be duly scheduled as- an agenda item.
E. Pursuant to the City' s Code of Ethics, a board member may seek the advice of the City
Attorney as to whether the member has a conflict of interest pursuant to law. If the board
member is advised there is a conflict of interest, the member shall recuse themselves, step
away from the meeting table, and refrain from discussion and vote on the matter.
F. After a motion, duly made and seconded, by the board, no person shall address the board
without first securing the permission of the Presiding Officer.
Section 9
Open Meetings and Email
A. Except for properly called executive sessions as permitted by state law, all meetings of
the board shall be open to the public and media, freely subject to recording by radio,
television and photography at any time, provided that such arrangements do not interfere
with the orderly conduct of the meetings.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
B. A majority of the Board shall not conduct synchronized email discussions involving a
matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.
Synchronized email discussions are email exchanges among a majority of board members
within minutes of each other that create the quality of simultaneity similar to instant
messaging or chat room discussions. Such discussions are characterized as an active
exchange of information rather than the passive receipt of information. An example of
synchronized email discussion would be a majority of board members sitting at their
computers and instantly exchanging emails concerning board business, whereas a passive
receipt of information is where a board member receives an email and responds in the
normal course of time similar to responding by letter received in the mail. The Board
shall not view emails or other electronic communication mechanisms concerning any
matter on the agenda during a board meeting unless the submission is part of a
specifically approved and adopted electronic public testimony program. Electronic
communication mechanisms include text messaging or any other emerging technology
that violates the spirit of open meeting laws. This does not preclude viewing emails or
electronic communication mechanisms that were received prior to the board meeting.
Emails received by board members concerning an agenda item shall be forwarded to the
staff liaison or board secretary and retained in accordance with the City's retention policy.
Section 10
Decorum
A. While the Board is in a session, board members must preserve order and decorum, and a
member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or
the peace of the Board nor disturb any member while speaking or refuse to obey the
orders of the board or its Presiding Officer.
B. Any person making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks or who shall become
boisterous while addressing the board may be denied farther audience with the board by
the presiding officer, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority vote of the
board.
C. The Board shall not debate, in a heated or argumentative manner, with a member of the
public presenting testimony during a meeting.
D. Speakers shall only address the agenda item before the Board. Any person speaking on an
agenda item not before the Board may be called out of order.
Section 11
Recording of Meetings and Minutes
A. The recording secretary shall prepare a summary of all meetings to be known as the
“Minutes” and to be approved by the Board. It shall not be necessary to formally read out
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
loud the Minutes prior to approval. The Staff Liaison or Board Secretary may revise such
Minutes to correct spelling, numbering, and other technical defects. Prior to approval, any
board member may request the privilege of amending or correcting the Minutes to
accurately reflect the substance of the prior meeting. If objection is made by any board
member to such amendment or correction, a majority vote of the board shall be necessary
for adoption of the correction or amendment. The approved minutes shall be forwarded to
the City Clerk's office for posting within a month of the meeting in which they were
approved.
B. Executive Session Minutes. Executive Session Minutes shall be taken and prepared by
the Board Secretary. The Board shall approve the minutes of an executive session in open
meeting; provided, however that any discussion concerning the contents of the minutes,
prior to approval, shall be conducted in executive session. The Staff Liaison or Board
Secretary will distribute the draft executive session minutes to the members in a manner
that ensures and retains confidentiality. The Board shall follow the provision 2. 02. 130,
BMC related to dissemination of executive session minutes.
C. At the discretion of the Board and City Clerk's office, meetings shall be televised,
broadcast, and/or a video or audio recording made. Audio or video recordings shall be
made available to the public unless required to be kept confidential by law.
Section 12
Attendance at Meetings/Removal by City Commission/Terms
A. All board members are expected to contribute the time necessary to fulfill their fiduciary
obligations to the Board. All board members are required if they are to be absent from a
meeting to contact the Presiding Officer and the Staff Liaison prior to the meeting. If
prior contact is made, the absence will be determined excused. If a board member fails to
contact the Presiding Officer or Staff Liaison prior to the meeting, the absence will be
considered unexcused. The City Commission and City Manager will be notified by the
Staff Liaison of any board member with more than one unexcused absence in any
calendar year. The Board, via motion and vote, may forward to the City Commission the
name of any board member having three or more excused absences, or a combination of
excused and unexcused absences. As provided by law, the City Commission may remove
a board member for excessive absences.
B. A board member’s term may be extended for up to 30 days after term expiration on a
case by case basis by the City Clerk’s Office if the board member has reapplied for a
subsequent term but the application process has not yet been heard by the City
Commission.
C. All terms shall expire on December 31 of their given year.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766
Section 13
Compliance with the City Code of Ethics
A. All board members are required to follow State ethics laws regarding appointed officials
and the City of Bozeman Code of Ethics.
B. New board members will receive the City of Bozeman ethics handbook and must sign a
form acknowledging receipt of the handbook and affirm they will uphold the state and
city ethics codes.
C. Board members are also required to attend City sponsored Ethics Training. Non-
compliance with the City Code of Ethics and training requirements may result in removal
of a board member. See the City Code of Ethics for more details.
Section 14
Compliance with the City Purchasing Policy
A. All boards are subject to the City purchasing policy (Administrative Order 2009-06), as
revised, unless specified by law.
B. City Staff Liaisons shall handle financial transactions unless specific arrangements have
been made in writing through the City Controller.
C. Boards shall not appropriate money unless specifically authorized by statute.
Section 15
Compliance with State Records Retention Policy
A. All City boards are subject to the State of Montana records retention policy.
B. The City Clerk’s Office will handle retention of all agendas, minutes, and board
resolutions once they have been forwarded to the Clerk’s Office.
C. E-mails, websites and social networking sites are subject to adopted records retention
schedules. For social media and websites, please refer to the current Information
Technology Social Media Use Policy for further guidelines.
D. Individual members are responsible for preserving communications that are potentially
subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s State Constitution (Art. II, Section
9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code
Annotated. As such, these emails, its senders and receivers, and the contents may be
available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention
policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to
individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766