HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-26 Public Comment - E. Talago - Study Commission Public CommentFrom:Emily Talago
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Study Commission Public Comment
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:56:45 PM
Attachments:Study Commission Public Comment.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.
Hello, Please send the attached comment to all members of the Bozeman Study Commission.
With gratitude, Emily Talago
Members of the Bozeman Study Commission,
Thank you for your ongoing work reviewing and deliberating potential amendments to the city
charter. I’m writing in reflection on your recent discussion regarding citizen advisory boards, the
Inter-Neighborhood Council, and the question of wards.
At the highest level, I would encourage the Commission to focus on a core issue: agency and
accountability within our system of governance.
We often hear that volunteerism is declining. One way to reverse that trend is to ensure that
participation is meaningful. People step forward when their contributions matter—when their
time and expertise have a tangible impact on outcomes. Conversely, when advisory bodies are
perceived as symbolic or procedural rather than consequential, engagement erodes. That said,
we must also guard against the opposite risk: seats being occupied to advance narrow private
interests or ideologies rather than the public good. The structure must strike that balance.
The current system reflects a significant concentration of authority among administrative staff
and the City Commission, with limited structural checks. There is no meaningful mechanism to
challenge or veto decisions once they reach a certain stage. While ideas may originate from
many places, the process has shifted away from a deliberative model—where proposals are
shaped through iterative review across boards, staff, and elected officials in collaborative public
settings—and toward one that prioritizes efficiency over balance. That has been a consequential
trade-off.
If the goal is to strengthen governance, I would suggest the following considerations:
Clarify and rebalance authority: The charter should explicitly define where authority resides
and how it is checked, with the goal of avoiding a single point of failure. Consider whether
certain bodies—such as the Inter-Neighborhood Council or a coalition of advisory board
chairs—should have limited veto or supermajority review authority on specific categories of
decisions. For example, certain commission actions could require ratification by relevant
advisory bodies prior to final adoption. Without some form of counterbalance, participation risks
becoming performative—advisory in name only.
Formalize a “cabinet and committee” model: Advisory board chairs and commission liaisons
could function collectively in a role similar to a cabinet—elevating cross-cutting concerns and
advising at a higher level—while boards themselves operate as empowered committees
responsible for detailed policy synthesis. This reinforces a bottom-up approach to governance,
where ideas are refined through substantive work before reaching decision-makers.
Build accountability beyond elections: Elections alone are a blunt and infrequent tool. Recall
provisions are an even more extreme and impractical remedy. Litigation is another form of
accountability, but it is also blunt and reactive, typically accessible only after harm has occurred.
The charter should support mechanisms that exist in between—structured opportunities for
review, response, and course correction before issues escalate to that level.
Acknowledge uneven governance realities: Not all areas of the city are governed equally.
Some areas benefit from additional layers of organization—HOAs, business improvement
districts, or commercial associations—that function as quasi-governmental structures with real
influence. Others do not. Any conversation about representation or participation should account
for this imbalance and ensure that residents without these structures are not systematically
disadvantaged.
Evaluate representation through lived experience, not abstraction: I speak as someone
living at the intersection of a Title I school, a HUD Qualified Census Tract, and an urban renewal
district the city labeled “blighted.” Despite decades of thoughtful, grassroots neighborhood
revitalization—and the vibrancy and diversity of this area—representation is not experienced
equally, nor are resources distributed evenly. Whether through wards or other mechanisms, the
Commission should grapple honestly with that reality. Governance systems should also be
attentive to those with sustained, long-term investment in the community. Structural changes
should be evaluated based on whether they improve representation for those who, despite that
investment, have historically been underrepresented.
Address how impacts are distributed: For example, in discussions of density and sprawl, it is
often older core neighborhoods that absorb the pressures of change, while newer
subdivisions—frequently governed by private covenants—remain insulated. This results in an
uneven allocation of both benefits and burdens. The charter should at least acknowledge this
dynamic and consider how governance structures might better align decision-making with
shared responsibility.
Serving on and chairing the Inter-Neighborhood Council has been one of the great honors of my
life. It has also made clear how much time, effort, and care residents are willing to give—when
they believe their participation matters.
I encourage you to consider a simple principle: those who shape policy should be
meaningfully connected to its impacts. It is far easier to impose decisions when their
consequences are abstract or borne elsewhere. A system that allows for real feedback,
challenge, and course correction is not inefficient—it is accountable.
In closing, if we want civic participation to grow, it must be paired with real agency. If we want
trust in government to increase, authority must be transparent, balanced, and answerable—not
just at the ballot box, but throughout the life of a decision.
Please reach out if you would like to discuss any of these points further. Thank you for your
time, consideration, and service.
Sincerely,
Emily Talago