Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-30-26 Study Commission Agenda and Packet Materials AmendedA. Call to Order with Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence - 4:00 PM, Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse B. Changes to the Agenda C. Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission THE STUDY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA SC AGENDA Thursday, April 30, 2026 How to Participate: If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to govreview@bozeman.net prior to 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. At the direction of the Study Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to the Study Commission. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference during the appropriate agenda items but you may only comment once per item. As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Meeting Videos and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Ex Officio, Mike Maas, 406.582.2321, or visit bozemanstudy.com. This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 669 900 9128 Access code: 951 6442 0347 This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Bozeman Study Commission. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Study Commission cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Study Commission shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your 1 D. Consent Agenda D.1 Approval of Study Commission Minutes(Heinen) D.2 Study Commission Claims Review and Approval(Heinen) E. Correspondence or Study Commission Update F. Unfinished Business F.1 Review and discussion on proposed changes to the Bozeman Charter Article IV and VII(Franks/Cestero ) G. New Business G.1 Review proposed language for Bozeman Municipal Courts(Maas ) G.2 Discussion on Wards and Districts(Franks) H. Future Agenda Items H.1 Discussion for May 13 I. Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission J. Announcements K. Adjournment comments to three minutes. Written comments can be located in the Public Comment Repository. Consider the Motion: I move to approve the Study Commission meeting minutes from April 24, 2026. Reference Materials Study Commission Bylaws Study Commission Resources Study Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact the City of Bozeman's ADA Coordinator, David Arnado, at 406.582.3232. Study Commission meetings are televised live on cable channel 190 and streamed live on our Meeting Videos Page. 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Approval of Study Commission Minutes MEETING DATE:April 30, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: I move to approve the Study Commission meeting minutes from April 24, 2026. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:Attached are the written minute summaries from the previous two meetings. Future meeting minutes ought to be approved at the next schedule Study Commission meeting. All past meeting recordings are available for review on the City's Meeting Videos page. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 04-24-26 Study Commission Meeting Minutes.pdf Report compiled on: April 24, 2026 3 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 24, 2026 Page 1 of 5 THE CITY COMMMISSION MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES April 24, 2026 A) 00:04:15 Call to Order with Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence - 11:00 AM, Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Present: Carson Taylor, Becky Franks, Barb Cestero, Deanna Campbell, Jan Strout, Mike Maas Absent: None Excused: None B) 00:05:28 Changes to the Agenda C) 00:05:37 Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission 00:06:16 Pam Bodhi gave public comment 00:07:17 Abby Jones gave public comment 00:11:02 Mary Bateson gave public comment 00:14:24 Daniel Carty gave public comment 00:16:51 Jane Jalinsky gave public comment 00:20:15 Allison Sweeney gave public comment 00:24:17 Jim Webster gave public comment 00:25:25 Zehra Osman gave public comment 00:27:20 Lorre Jay gave public comment D) 00:28:56 Consent Agenda D.1 Approval of Study Commission Minutes 4 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 24, 2026 Page 2 of 5 04-15-26 Study Commission Meeting Minutes.pdf 00:29:08 Motion to approve I move to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Becky Franks: Motion Deanna Campbell: 2nd 00:29:22 Vote on the Motion to approve I move to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. The Motion carried 5 - 0. Approve: Carson Taylor Becky Franks Barb Cestero Deanna Campbell Jan Strout Disapprove: None E) Correspondence or Study Commission Update F) 00:29:29 New Business F.1 00:29:34 Decision on Gallatin Valley Sentinel?s Request for Public Information Gallatin Valley Sentinel’s Request for Public Information 00:30:07 City Clerk Mike Maas discussed the Gallatin Valley Sentinel's Request for Public Information and what the process has been 00:36:53 Questions from Study Commissioners for Mike Maas 00:38:51 City Attorney Greg Sullivan clarified the response required from the Study Commission if the request is denied or altered 00:39:45 Further questions from Study Commissioners for Mike Maas 00:48:45 City Attorney Greg Sullivan introduced motion language, its requirements and specificities provided by himself and City Clerk Mike Maas 00:50:49 Discussion on the motion provided 00:51:21 Motion to approve I move to authorize the City Clerk’s Office to fulfill the records request submitted by the Gallatin Valley Sentinel and in doing so find that to balance the privacy interests of those who responded with the requestor’s right to know, the raw survey data only be released in a format that shows every response to each question rather than all responses provided by each 5 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 24, 2026 Page 3 of 5 respondent. In addition, the City Clerk’s Office is authorized to redact any privacy related information that may be contained in a written response to the surveys and to work with the Study Commission to fulfill all other aspects of the request. Barb Cestero: Motion Becky Franks: 2nd 00:52:33 Daniel Carty gave public comment 00:54:19 Discussion on the motion 01:06:49 Vote on the Motion to approve I move to authorize the City Clerk’s Office to fulfill the records request submitted by the Gallatin Valley Sentinel and in doing so find that to balance the privacy interests of those who responded with the requestor’s right to know, the raw survey data only be released in a format that shows every response to each question rather than all responses provided by each respondent. In addition, the City Clerk’s Office is authorized to redact any privacy related information that may be contained in a written response to the surveys and to work with the Study Commission to fulfill all other aspects of the request. The Motion carried 4 - 1. Approve: Carson Taylor Becky Franks Barb Cestero Jan Strout Disapprove: Deanna Campbell G) 01:07:03 Unfinished Business G.1 01:07:03 Decisions on Neighborhood Associations Recommended INC Charter Language.pdf Suggestions for Strengthening Inter 4.2.26.pdf Side By Side Comparison of Bozeman 4.2.26.pdf Neighborhood Associations 3.9.26.pdf FY 2024 Montana County Elected Official (EO) Salary Survey Results.pdf American Review of Pubic Admin 2019 Effec Neighborhood Assoc.pdf CO Law Review 2008.pdf Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems.pdf Neighborhood Organizations in Civic Governance.pdf Missoula Neighborhood Councils Assessment Plan.pdf G.3 01:07:31 Review draft Charter language for articles IV and VII. Article IV DRAFT Suggested Edits.docx.pdf Article VII DRAFT Suggested Edits.docx.pdf 01:07:34 Chair Taylor outlined the recommended Charter language by Cmrs. Franks and Cestero 01:08:23 Cmr. Franks introduced the proposed Charter language changes 6 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 24, 2026 Page 4 of 5 01:09:23 Cmr. Cestero laid out the changes that were made and the decisions behind them 01:13:46 Cmr. Franks started the discussion on the proposed language changes in relation to the Neighborhood Association program 01:25:00 Discussion on the changed Charter language 01:59:48 Meeting went into Recess 01:59:49 Meeting reconvened 01:59:50 Further discussion on the changed Charter language 02:15:47 Chair Taylor opened it up to public comment 02:15:58 Jim Webster gave public comment 02:20:40 Beth Boyson gave public comment 02:23:56 Henry Happel gave public comment 02:28:38 Zehra Osman gave public comment 02:31:44 Study Commissioners discussed next steps for this decision-making process G.2 Decisions on Advisory Boards Old Board Report.pdf City of Bozeman Resolution 5323.pdf G.4 Discussions on Wards/Districts At-large VS Wards 3.12.26.pdf Wards Documents for Bozeman 2026.pdf 1. district-based-elections-and-class-based-representation-evidence-from-the-california- voting-rights-act (1).pdf 2. pacificresearch.org-Free Cities Center Analysis City representation Single-member districts versus at large (1) (1).pdf 3. MIT At Large Elections and Minority Representation in Local Government.pdf 4. Primer_DistrictvsAt-LargeElections_Digital-1.pdf 5. Trade-Offs between at-large and single member districts-UofHouston.pdf 6. Wards at-large in Canadian Cities Candian Journal of Poli Sci.pdf 7. Wards vs At large on Diversity.pdf 8. At-Large versus Ward -Implications for Public Infrastructure.pdf 9. Hybrid City Council Election Systems.pdf Comparison City Chart (with Voter Turnout).pdf Voter Turnout in At Large vs. Wards.pdf Correlates of Voter Turnout Political Behavior.pdf Seattle Districting Commission.pdf San Diego Charter Redistricting.pdf 7 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 24, 2026 Page 5 of 5 H) 02:32:50 Future Agenda Items H.1 Discussion for April 30 02:32:50 Discussion on agenda items for April 30 02:34:14 Agenda items for April 30: 1. Finish conversation on Neighborhood Associations 2. Begin conversation on Advisory Boards 3. Begin conversation on Wards and Districts time permitting 02:34:34 Set to discuss the Municipal Courts in Bozeman Charter for the first 30 min of April 30 02:37:38 Study Commissioners resumed conversation on the Neighborhood Associations Present: Carson Taylor, Becky Franks, Barb Cestero, Deanna Campbell, Mike Maas Absent: None Excused: Jan Strout 02:58:14 Study Commissioners discussed the needs and plan for next meeting, April 30 I) 03:00:10 Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission 03:00:22 Mary Bateson gave public comment 03:01:22 Zehra Osman gave public comment J) Announcements K) 03:04:16 Adjournment 8 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Study Commission Claims Review and Approval MEETING DATE:April 30, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Finance RECOMMENDATION:TBD STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean and efficient manner. BACKGROUND:Study Commission claims for approval prior to payment by Ex Officio from the approved Study Commission Budget. Budget Tracking UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:The Study Commission could decide not to approve these claims or a portion of the claims presented. This alternative is not recommended as it may result in unbudgeted late fees assessed. FISCAL EFFECTS:$399.92 Attachments: 2026-03-22T15-53 Transaction.pdf 2026-03-28T00-29 Transaction.pdf Report compiled on: April 27, 2026 9 Receipt for Takami Clark Account ID: 622295689560316 Invoice/Payment Date Mar 22, 2026, 3:53 PM Payment method Visa ···· 9295 Reference Number: YT9AQJ5EE2 Transaction ID 26379035568449582-26379035638449575 Product Type Meta ads Paid $307.00 You're being billed because you reached your $307.00 payment threshold. Campaigns [3/10/2026] Promoting https://www.bozemanstudy.com/ From Mar 10, 2026, 12:00 AM to Mar 22, 2026, 3:53 PM $307.00 [3/10/2026] Promoting https://www.bozemanstudy.com/44,457 Impressions $307.00 Meta Platforms, Inc. 1 Meta Way Menlo Park, CA 94025 United States United States Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 10 Receipt for Takami Clark Account ID: 622295689560316 Invoice/Payment Date Mar 28, 2026, 12:29 AM Payment method Visa ···· 9295 Reference Number: 3JTU2LZDE2 Transaction ID 26422740527412420-26490435007309635 Product Type Meta ads Paid $92.92 Ads spend since Mar 22, 2026. Campaigns [3/10/2026] Promoting https://www.bozemanstudy.com/ From Mar 22, 2026, 12:00 AM to Mar 26, 2026, 11:59 PM $92.92 [3/10/2026] Promoting https://www.bozemanstudy.com/12,736 Impressions $92.92 Meta Platforms, Inc. 1 Meta Way Menlo Park, CA 94025 United States United States Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 11 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio Barb Cestero, Study Commissioner Becky Franks, Study Commission Vice Chair SUBJECT:Review and discussion on proposed changes to the Bozeman Charter Article IV and VII MEETING DATE:April 30, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: As per the Bozeman City Study Commission STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:This is part of an ongoing goal to update the Bozeman Charter on Public Engagement. After the April 24 meeting, the Study Commissioners discussed the proposed changes to the Bozeman Charter by Commissioners Franks and Cestero. There will be more time to review the changes and discuss these articles. Blue text indicates new language since the April 24 meeting. The Study Commissioners will be making edits throughout this process. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None identified Attachments: Article IV DRAFT Suggested Edits.pdf Article VII DRAFT Suggested Edits.pdf Report compiled on: April 24, 2026 12 Article IV Edits: Suggested Edits following direction of the majority vote for the Bozeman Study Commission ARTICLE IV DEPARTMENTS, OFFICES AND AGENCIES Section 4.01. General Provisions. (a) Creation of Departments. The city commission may establish city departments, offices, or agencies in addition to those created by this charter and may prescribe the functions of all departments, offices, and agencies. No function assigned by this charter to a particular department, office, or agency may be discontinued or, unless this charter specifically so provides, assigned to any other. (b) Direction by city manager. All departments, offices, and agencies under the direction and supervision of the city manager shall be administered by an officer appointed by and subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager. With the consent of commission, the city manager may serve as the head of one or more such departments, offices, or agencies or may appoint one person as the head of two or more of them. Section 4.02. Personnel System. (a) Merit Principle. All appointments and promotions of city officers and employees shall be made solely on the basis of merit and fitness demonstrated by a valid and reliable examination or other evidence of competence. (b) Merit System. Consistent with all applicable federal and state laws the city commission shall provide by ordinance for the establishment, regulation, and maintenance of a merit system governing personnel policies necessary to effective administration of the employees of the city's departments, offices, and agencies including, but not limited to, classification and pay plans, examinations, force reduction, removals, working conditions, provisional and exempt appointments, in- service training, grievances, and relationships with employee organizations. Section 4.03. Legal Officer. (a) Appointment. There shall be a legal officer of the city appointed by the city manager subject to confirmation by the city commission. 13 (b) Role. The legal officer shall serve as chief legal adviser to the commission, the manager and all city departments, offices and agencies, shall represent the city in all legal proceedings, and shall perform any other duties prescribed by state law, by this charter, or by ordinance. Section 4.04. Land Use, Development, and Environmental Planning. Consistent with all applicable federal and state laws with respect to land use, development, and environmental planning, the city commission shall: (a) Designate an agency or agencies to carry out the planning function and such decision-making responsibilities as may be specified by ordinance; (b) Adopt a comprehensive plan and determine to what extent zoning and other land use control ordinances must be consistent with the plan; (c) Determine to what extent the comprehensive plan and zoning and other land use ordinances must be consistent with regional plan(s); and (d) Adopt development regulations, to be specified by ordinance, to implement the plan. The designated agency, the city manager, and the mayor and commission shall seek to act in cooperation with affected neighborhood associations, other jurisdictions and organizations in their region to promote integrated approaches to regional issues. Section 4.05. Municipal Court There shall be a municipal court as prescribed by state law. Pursuant to the Montana Constitution and the laws of Montana, the Court shall exercise judicial authority on behalf of the City. The Court shall operate independently and separately from legislative and executive branches of city government. **Neighborhood Associations and Advisory Boards have been moved to Article VII: Role of Public Engagement in Local Governance 14 Article VII Creation (taken from Article IV) ARTICLE VII ROLE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE Section 7.01. Public engagement as an essential part of civic infrastructure. The active, informed, inclusive, and equitable engagement of community members, both individually and collectively, is an essential element of healthy civic life and a thriving local democracy. The city shall treat public engagement as an integral part of effective and trusted governance, not just as an occasional process or activity. The city shall treat engagement as a “multi-channel” endeavor that includes face-to-face meetings, virtual interactions, and other online communications. Public engagement should facilitate two-way communication between the city and the community. The departments of city government shall encourage collaboration in public engagement efforts with other government jurisdictions and authorities, anchor institutions, neighborhood associations, advisory boards, community-based organizations, civic groups, and individual residents. Section 7.02. Institutional structures to support and coordinate engagement. The City of Bozeman formally recognizes Neighborhood Associations, the Inter Neighborhood Council and advisory boards as essential partners in the municipal decision-making process. The city shall adapt existing structures and/or establish new institutional structures to oversee, support, coordinate, track, and measure engagement on an ongoing basis. These structures can include: (1) Neighborhood Associations (2) City advisory boards, commissions and committees (3) Departments or administrative positions (4) Participatory budgeting processes and commissions Section 7.03 Neighborhood Associations (a) Purpose. The citizens City of Bozeman values the contribution neighborhoods make to the governance of the city. The City seeks to strengthen neighborhood participation where it exists by supporting neighborhood associations as inclusive, deliberative, and advisory bodies that promote two-way communication, early public involvement in planning and policy, neighborhood leadership development, and enhance transparency and trust. Neighborhood Associations will champion the needs of their neighborhoods to ensure informed decisionmaking. and to encourage and support neighborhood participation where it does not yet exist. 15 (b) Recognition of Neighborhood Associations. There shall be a City program that supports the creation and maintenance of resident-led Neighborhood Associations. The city commission shall establish by ordinance minimum recognition requirements for neighborhood associations that support inclusive participation, democratic deliberation, and effective communication with residents and the city. These requirements shall include, but not be limited to: (1) clear geographic boundaries; (2) establish a procedure for defining a resident for neighborhood association membership the definition of membership eligibility includes all residents, property owners, business owners, and non- profit organizations located within a given neighborhood association’s boundaries; (3) adherence to established minimum by-laws that ensure democratic, deliberative voting procedures, continuity of governance, and provide voting capabilities by a Neighborhood Association’s selected Inter-Neighborhood Council representative; (4) periodic meetings, including an annual meeting; (5) copy of the by-laws and all amendments filed with the city; (6) inclusion of all residents in the neighborhood association; (7) demonstrating that it has a means of regular, accessible, and two- way communication with all residents in the neighborhood association. (8) procedures to encourage leadership development, representative participation, and continuity of governance; (9)(8) capacity to develop and transmit reasoned, consensus- based advisory input on neighborhood and citywide issues. (c) Inter-Neighborhood Council. There is hereby established an Inter- Neighborhood Council (INC) to be composed of representatives selected by each formally recognized neighborhood association. (1) Purpose and Role. The Inter-Neighborhood Council shall provide a forum for Neighborhood Association representatives to come together, deliberate, share information, and develop reasoned make recommendations to the City Commission, City Manager staff, and the Mayor on neighborhood level and/or city-wide issues. This does not preclude a neighborhood association from taking its concerns directly to the City Manager, Mayor or the City Commission. (2) The Inter-Neighborhood Council shall adopt by-laws governing the conduct of business emphasizing deliberation, transparency and 16 inclusive participation. Such by-laws shall be approved by the city commission, or as designated by ordinance. (3) A vacancy on the Inter-Neighborhood Council shall be filled only by the affected neighborhood association. The city may should appoint a city commissioner as a non-voting liaison member of the Inter-Neighborhood Council. (4) The Inter-Neighborhood Council shall meet on a regular basis to address city-wide concerns and foster dialogue between neighborhoods and city leadership. (5) When practicable, the INC shall be consulted during the formative stages of citywide planning efforts, major policy initiatives, and budget priority discussions. (5)(6) When INC develops formal recommendations on an issue of importance, there will be an opportunity to present these recommendations during a City Commission meeting. (6)(7) The City Commission and/or designated city staff shall publicly provide timely responses to formal recommendations submitted by the Inter-Neighborhood Council, including an explanation of how such input was considered or the reasons for any divergence. (d) City Liaison. The City shall designate at minimum a full-time staff member to serve as partner and liaison to the Inter-Neighborhood Council and neighborhood associations. The staff liaison shall support coordination, leadership development, training, and two-way communication, and may assist in facilitating participatory planning, budgeting, and policy engagement processes. (e) Minimum Standards Composition and Responsibilities. 1) A neighborhood association must meet and continue to maintain conformity with the minimum standards established by ordinance in order to be recognized by the city and to be eligible to elect members to the Inter-Neighborhood Council. Neighborhood associations existing on the date of the enactment of this charter shall have one year after the enactment of said city ordinance to come into compliance. 2) The entire city shall be divided into no more than 20 neighborhoods, and Neighborhood Associations and shall be formed to represent the residents of each neighborhood. 3) The City of Bozeman Neighborhood Liaison staff member shall work with the Inter-Neighborhood Council to grow participation develop boundaries to include all Bozeman residents in a Neighborhood Association without any neighborhood having more of a voice than any other. 17 4) The City of Bozeman shall be responsible for providing information on city and neighborhood issues to all Neighborhood Associations and INC regularly and early in the decision-making process. 5) The Neighborhood Associations and INC shall be responsible for reporting to the City Commission regarding concerns and interests of the residents of the neighborhoods and of the city on a regular basis and in a timely manner. Section 7.04. City Boards, Commissions and Committees. The City Commission may create boards, commissions, agencies or committees as are required by state law or as desired by the City Commission. (a) Purpose. Advisory boards assist the City of Bozeman by providing expert guidance, representing community perspectives, increasing transparency, and reviewing policies or proposals before decisions are made. Advisory boards serve as valuable platforms for broad, early public engagement on important issues and decisions. By providing opportunities for resident engagement, city advisory boards strengthen decision-making and public trust. (b) Powers. Boards, commissions, or committees of city government shall be advisory only. They shall have no administrative authority unless specifically required by federal or state law, or interlocal agreement. Except for boards and commissions established by statute, the commission may create boards, commissions, or committees as determined necessary. a. Advisory boards should adopt a charter for the board, annual priorities, and public engagement processes in advance of formal deliberation and decision-making efforts. b. Advisory boards that address specific policy arenas should actively engage residents in a variety of ways, and this responsibility should be reflected in the charter of the advisory board. (c) Appointments, Compensation, Terms and Qualifications. a. All city boards, commissions, or committees will be established by the city commission and members will be appointed by the commission and the mayor, when required by law, following public solicitation through media channels the newspaper advertised not less than twice annually. b. To ensure city boards, commissions and committees are inclusive, open and accessible to all members of the public, city officials should conduct continual public outreach to bring in new voices to serve on these advisory boards. c. Appointments may be made to fill unexpected vacancies or vacancies not filled through the last round of advertisements from those applications on file as of the date of appointment. 18 d. Subcommittees of existing boards, commissions, or committees may be appointed by the city commission without the necessity of public solicitation. e. The commission may authorize the city manager to establish special ad hoc commissions for specific purposes without public advertisement. f. Except where prohibited by law, the terms on all boards shall be staggered and shall be limited to two (2) consecutive terms. g. Board, commission or committee members shall serve without compensation. h. Each city board shall have an identified commission liaison and staff liaison who are expected to attend meetings. Section 7.05. Principles of public engagement. To ensure public engagement centers on the needs and goals of community members, the city shall uphold the following principles: a) Inclusion. Design engagement to be open, representative, and inclusive. Actively recruit beyond usual participants, use clear communication, and co-create processes with Bozeman’s diverse communities. Be proactive in outreach to bring in new voices, partner groups, and ideas. b) Transparency. Communicate clearly and in ways residents can understand to ensure community members can engage effectively. Share complete results and explain how public input affects decisions. c) Accountability. Provide meaningful ways for residents to influence decisions. Be clear about the purpose, scope, and how input will be used, while allowing flexibility as conditions change. d) Accessibility. Make participation easy—convenient times, reachable locations, welcoming spaces, and inclusive online options that account for technology and access barriers. e) Collaboration. Build ongoing relationships with residents, community groups, and partners to support shared learning and long-term engagement. Recommendations: (a) City Resolution 5323 was mentioned in public comment regarding city advisory boards. Because it is a resolution of the City Commission, the Study Commission cannot revise the resolution. However, the resolution should be reviewed and revised to address the following issues: a. The perception that the resolution weakens the effectiveness of the advisory boards by placing excessive limits on how boards communicate with city officials, including the “One Body, One Voice” principle, which places restraints on the flow of information to the City Commission, including sharing of dissenting opinions among board members; b. Ways to improve better collaboration and communication between city staff and advisory board members that encourages a respectful, free flow of ideas and information. 19 c. Improved ways to enable high achieving boards to manage their goals, workplans, and functions with greater autonomy with the trust and guidance of staff. (b) The City should create a budgetary line with sufficient resources to support the activities and meetings of the Neighborhood Associations. (c) The City should work collaboratively with INC to grow participation in Neighborhood Associations so that by 2036 at least 50% of city residents are included in a Neighborhood Association. 20 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Review proposed language for Bozeman Municipal Courts MEETING DATE:April 30, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Review proposed language for Bozeman Municipal Courts provided by Colleen Herrington. The Study Commissioners may then discuss and make decisions on this language. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:The Study Commissioners have previously received Public Comment and materials by Judge Colleen Herrington. The Study Commissioners may weigh the material to decide the proposed recommended language. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None identified Attachments: proposed court language.docx 3-1-111. Powers respecting conduct of business, MCA.pdf Chapter 22.BMO.Municipal Court.pdf Chief Justice Roberts 2024 Report.pdf Separation of Powers.pdf Report compiled on: April 24, 2026 21 The proposed language would add a sentence to the Powers of the City Article I and Article IV – Judicial Branch as follows: Article I – Powers of the City of Bozeman Section 1.01. The City of Bozeman shall have all powers possible for a city with self-governing powers to have under the constitution and law of the State of Montana as fully and completely as though they were specifically enumerated in this charter. The City of Bozeman shall exercise legislative, executive and judicial powers. Article IV - Judicial Branch Section 4.01. Pursuant to the Montana Constitution and the laws of Montana, the Court shall exercise judicial authority on behalf of the City. The Court shall operate independently and separately from legislative and executive branches of city government. 22 MCA Contents / TITLE 3 / CHAPTER 1 / Part 1 / 3-1-111 Powers respect… Montana Code Annotated 2025 TITLE 3. JUDICIARY, COURTS CHAPTER 1. COURTS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS GENERALLY Part 1. Courts -- Definitions and General Powers Powers Respecting Conduct Of Business 3-1-111. Powers respecting conduct of business. Every court has power to: (1) preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence; (2) enforce order in the proceedings before it or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority; (3) provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it or its officers; (4) compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process and to the orders of a judge out of court in an action or proceeding pending therein; (5) control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it in every other matter appertaining thereto; (6) compel the attendance of persons to testify in an action or proceeding pending therein in the cases and manner provided in this code; (7) administer oaths in an action or proceeding pending therein and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers and duties; (8) amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. History: En. Sec. 452, p. 134, Bannack Stat.; re-en. Sec. 609, p. 159, Cod. Stat. 1871; re-en. Sec. 529, p. 178, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 529, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 546, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; amd. Sec. 110, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6292, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 8844, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 128; re-en. Sec. 8844, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-501. Disclaimer: The Internet version of the Montana Code Annotated is provided as a research tool to users of the Code. In case of inconsistencies resulting from omissions or other errors, the printed version will prevail. 4/24/26, 3:33 PM 3-1-111. Powers respecting conduct of business, MCA https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0030/chapter_0010/part_0010/section_0110/0030-0010-0010-0110.html 1/123 A. B. A. B. C. 1. 2. 3. 4. Chapter 22 - MUNICIPAL COURT Footnotes: --- (1) --- State Law reference— Municipal courts, MCA 3-6-101 et seq. Sec. 22.01.010. - Establishment. The municipal court is hereby established pursuant to title 3, chapter 6, Montana Code Annotated (MCA 3-6-101 et seq.). The court is established for all intents and purposes set forth in state law and any reasonable inference therein. The municipal court will be a court of record by electronic recording or stenographic transcription and will assume continuing jurisdiction over all pending city court cases. (Code 1982, § 2.06.010; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.020. - Sessions. The municipal court will be in session at times and on days established by the court except nonjudicial days. A judge may set specific hours as necessary. Nonjudicial days are defined as any legal holidays, or days appointed by the President of the United States or by the Governor of Montana for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday except as set forth in subsection C of this section. The municipal court will, on any day: Give instructions to a jury when deliberating; Receive a verdict or discharge a jury; Exercise its powers in a criminal action; and Issue writs of prohibition, injunctions and habeas corpus. (Code 1982, § 2.06.020; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.030. - Office of clerk of the municipal court. The position of clerk of the municipal court is established. The clerk will work under the supervision and control of the chief municipal judge. (Code 1982, § 2.06.030; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.040. - Duties of the clerk of the municipal court. 4/24/26, 3:36 PM Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances about:blank 1/424 The clerk of the municipal court will establish, maintain, retain and administer all municipal court records by means of electronic filing or storage or both. In any event, the clerk will maintain a paper copy of all records established. The clerk will assist the municipal judge in the recording and signing of court proceedings as well as general operations of the court. The clerk will have all other powers and duties as prescribed in MCA 3-5-501, relevant to a municipal court as well as all other duties assigned by the department of administrative services. (Code 1982, § 2.06.040; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.050. - Office of municipal judge. The office of the municipal judge is hereby established for the city. There will be two full-time municipal judges. The commission may change the number of full-time municipal judges by ordinance. The chief judge of the municipal court shall be determined in accordance with title 3, chapter 6, of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA 3-6-101 et seq.). (Code 1982, § 2.06.050; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999; Ord. No. 2073, § 1, 4-20-2021) Sec. 22.01.060. - Method of selection and term of office. Each person holding the office of full-time municipal judge will be elected at a general election and will hold office for a period of four years. The terms of the municipal judges shall be staggered. (Code 1982, § 2.06.060; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999; Ord. No. 2073, § 1, 4-20-2021) Sec. 22.01.070. - Qualifications of municipal judge. A municipal judge, at the time of election or appointment, shall be a resident for one year of and registered to vote in the county. The municipal judge must have the same qualifications as a district judge, as set forth in article VII, section 9 of the 1972 Constitution, except that the judge need only be admitted to the practice of law in the state for a minimum of three years prior to the date of election or appointment. (Code 1982, § 2.06.070; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.080. - Powers and duties of municipal judge. A municipal judge will have those powers and duties as are provided by state law and the state supreme court. A judge will also have all duties imposed by city ordinances. A judge will hear and determine all suits, actions and prosecutions instituted in the municipal court pursuant to state law and ordinances of the city. (Code 1982, § 2.06.080; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) 4/24/26, 3:36 PM Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances about:blank 2/425 A. B. A. B. C. D. A. B. 1. 2. Sec. 22.01.090. - Compensation and expenses. The city commission will establish the annual salary or the annual rate of adjustment of a municipal judge. The municipal judges will receive any actual and necessary expenses as budgeted in the city's annual budget. (Code 1982, § 2.06.100; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999; Ord. No. 2073, § 1, 4-20-2021) Sec. 22.01.100. - Oath and deposit of funds. The oath of office will be filed with the office of the city clerk. The moneys, from whatever source, collected under the jurisdiction of the municipal judge will be deposited and managed in accordance with law. All such moneys will be deposited with the treasurer of the city as directed by the director of administrative services. In order to establish an appropriate control of moneys deposited temporarily for bonds, appearance bonds, etc., all such moneys will be placed into a trust fund to be maintained and controlled by the clerk of the municipal court. Upon final disposition of the matter to which such a bond pertains by the municipal court, the clerk of the municipal court will disburse such moneys according to the direction of the municipal judge. (Code 1982, § 2.06.110; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.110. - Qualifications of a judge pro tempore. When a judge of the municipal court has been disqualified or is sick or for any reason unable to act, the judge will call in a qualified practicing attorney of the city who will be judge pro tempore with the same powers for the purposes of the cause as the judge of the municipal court. Any person acting as judge pro tempore must meet the following qualifications: Be a sitting judge of a court of record or be an attorney admitted to practice in the state for a period of not less than five years; and Be either a resident of the county or have a law practice or other law-related employment whose business address is within the county. (Code 1982, § 2.06.120; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) State Law reference— Similar provisions, MCA 3-6-204. Sec. 22.01.120. - Vacancy filled by commission. 4/24/26, 3:36 PM Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances about:blank 3/426 A. B. A. B. C. Should a vacancy occur in the office of a municipal judge, the city commission will appoint a qualified individual to serve for the remainder of the term. (Code 1982, § 2.06.130; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.130. - Appeal to district court. A party may appeal a municipal court judgment or order to the district court in either criminal or civil actions. An appeal to the district court is confined to review of the record and questions of law, subject to the supreme court's rulemaking and supervisory authority. On appeal, the clerk of the municipal court will transfer the record consisting of an electronic recording or stenographic transcription of the case tried, together with all papers filed in the action. The clerk may charge the requestor a reasonable fee for any copies or transcription made necessary by the appeal. (Code 1982, § 2.06.140; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.140. - Limitation on appeals. A party in a civil case may appeal a municipal court judgment or order to the district court in cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $1,000.00. In criminal actions, a defendant may appeal a municipal court judgment or order to the district court in cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $300.00 or where incarceration has been ordered. The state may appeal in any instance set forth in state law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the district court may, in the interests of justice, accept appeal jurisdiction upon petition of the aggrieved party. (Code 1982, § 2.06.150; Ord. No. 1490, § 1, 1999) Sec. 22.01.150. - Fee schedule. The city commission may set a fee schedule for the Bozeman Municipal Court by resolution. The clerk of municipal court shall collect and deposit fees with the city treasury. (Ord. No. 2117, § 1, 7-12-2022) 4/24/26, 3:36 PM Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances about:blank 4/427 EMBARGOED until 6 p.m. E.S.T. December 31, 2024 (No wires, broadcast, Internet, or other formats until 6 p.m. E.S.T.) For further information, contact the Public Information Office pio@supremecourt.gov 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 1 of 15 In December 1761, a little more than one year into what would be a fifty-nine year reign, King George III decreed that from that date forward, colonial judges were to serve “at the pleasure of the Crown.” This royal edict de- parted from the long-standing practice in Eng- land, enshrined by Parliament in the 1701 Act of Settlement, of allowing judges to retain their offices “during good behavior.” The King’s order was not well received. To the colonists, stripping lifetime appointments from judicial officers marked yet another in- stance in which British subjects living on the west side of the Atlantic Ocean were treated as second class. George III compounded the in- sult about a decade later, in 1772, when he es- tablished a salary set by the Crown for superior court judges in Massachusetts, preventing 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary J. Waties Waring Judicial Center, Charleston, South Carolina 28 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 2 of 15 them from accepting the then-prevailing local government wages for their services. A prom- inent Boston lawyer by the name of John Ad- ams protested that the King’s actions made co- lonial judges “entirely dependent on the Crown for Bread [as] well as office.”1 Despite widespread disapproval in the col- onies over this interference with the independ- ence of their judges, the King held his ground. Accordingly, the ninth of twenty-seven griev- ances enumerated in the Declaration of Inde- pendence charged that George III “has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the ten- ure of their offices, and the amount and pay- ment of their salaries.” After securing independence, the fledgling United States did not immediately set about creating a national judiciary. Indeed, among the many defects of the Articles of Confedera- tion, the absence of any mention of a judicial branch—or judges at all—seems particularly glaring. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 remedied that oversight. In a tidy rebuttal to the King, Article III, Section 1 of the Consti- tution of the United States states that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good Be- haviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” You might have expected the man who soon would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, to have authored 1 J. Adams, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. 1, 1961. 2 Federalist No. 78. the portions of the Federalist Papers devoted to the judicial branch. But, as I explained in my 2019 Year End Report, Jay spent the winter of 1788 recovering from a severe head injury sus- tained while trying to protect a group of medi- cal students from an angry mob who thought, erroneously, that the students were stealing ca- davers from graves to practice surgery. As Jay rested to heal the “two large holes in his fore- head,” the task of championing judicial inde- pendence fell to Alexander Hamilton. Quoting the French political philosopher Montesquieu, Hamilton endorsed in Federalist No. 78 the principle that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” 2 Hamilton anticipated that the relatively weak judicial Stipple engraving of Alexander Hamilton, c. 1834 29 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 3 of 15 branch—possessing neither the sword nor the purse—would require “all possible care . . . to defend itself” against the attacks of the other branches.3 To that end, “permanent tenure of judicial offices” would free judges to perform their essential role as “the bulwarks of a lim- ited Constitution against legislative encroach- ments.” 4 In Federalist No. 79, Hamilton ar- gued for judicial compensation that could not be diminished—noting that “power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” 5 Hamilton’s masterful defense of judi- cial independence also went on to presage Chief Justice Marshall’s foundational decision in Marbury v. Madison, recognizing the duty of the courts “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” 6 The independent federal judiciary estab- lished in Article III and preserved for the past 235 years remains, in the words of my prede- cessor, one of the “crown jewels of our system of government.” 7 Indeed, it is no exaggeration to conclude, as Chief Justice Rehnquist did, that “the creation of an independent constitu- tional court, with the authority to declare un- constitutional laws passed by state or federal legislatures, is probably the most significant contribution the United States has made to the art of government.” 8 Before the American 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Federalist No. 79. 6 Federalist No. 78. 7 W. H. Rehnquist, Remarks of the Chief Justice at the Washington College of Law Centennial Celebration, American University, April 9, 1996. 8 W. H. Rehnquist, Judicial Independence, 38 U. Rich. L. Rev. 579-80 (Mar. 1, 2004). 9 W. H. Rehnquist, 2004 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary. founding, no other country had found a way to ensure that the people and their government respect the law. One reason judicial review has endured and served us well lies in yet another insight from Chief Justice Rehnquist, articu- lated in his 2004 Year End Report: “The Con- stitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law.” 9 Or, as Justice Kennedy put it, “Judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 1993 30 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 4 of 15 as they please. Judicial independence is con- ferred so judges can do as they must.”10 In that same 2004 Report, which would prove to be his last, Chief Justice Rehnquist observed that “[c]riticism of judges has dra- matically increased in recent years, exacerbat- ing in some respects the strained relationship between the Congress and the federal Judici- ary.”11 That statement is just as true, if not more so, today. In truth, some tension between the branches of the government is inevitable and criticism of judicial interpretations of the peo- ple’s laws is as old as the Republic itself. In Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s time, the debate was framed by pitting those who believed that the government’s powers extended only to those specifically enumerated in the document against those who found in it more expansive powers. Today we often use terms like originalism and pragmatism to describe these differences of opinion. The political branches sometimes inquire into judicial philosophy when considering nominees for the federal courts. But the oath—and the duties that fol- low—are the same regardless of the President who nominated and the Senate that confirmed every new Article III judge. Judicial review makes tensions between the branches unavoidable. Judicial officers re- solve crucial matters involving life, liberty, and property. At times, as Hamilton recog- nized, an independent judiciary must uphold 10 A. M. Kennedy, Testimony in Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judicial Independence, 2007. 11 W. H. Rehnquist, 2004 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary. 12 Federalist No. 78. the Constitution against the shifting tides of public opinion, as “no man can be sure that he may not to-morrow be the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to- day.”12 It should be no surprise that judicial rulings can provoke strong and passionate re- actions. And those expressions of public senti- ment—whether criticism or praise—are not threats to judicial independence. To the contrary, public engagement with the work of the courts results in a better-in- formed polity and a more robust democracy. Indeed, when working in panels, judges them- selves join from time to time the ranks of crit- ics through concurring and dissenting opin- ions. Two district judges independently look- ing at the same legal issue can also come to different conclusions, leaving it to higher courts to resolve the split of authority. And room for disagreement is almost endless when it comes to the vast swath of trial court work that involves the application of variable legal tests to unique fact patterns in individual cases. In last year’s Year End Report, I opined that the application of discretion in these situations explains why machines will never fully replace human judges. But it also creates fertile ground for debate and criticism. At the end of the day, judges perform a critical function in our democracy. Since the beginning of the Republic, the rulings of judges have shaped the Nation’s development and checked the excesses of the other branches. 31 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 5 of 15 Of course, the courts are no more infallible than any other branch. In hindsight, some judi- cial decisions were wrong, sometimes egre- giously wrong. And it was right of critics to say so. In a democracy—especially in one like ours, with robust First Amendment protec- tions—criticism comes with the territory. It can be healthy. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, “[a] natural consequence of life tenure should be the ability to benefit from informed criticism from legislators, the bar, academy, and the public.”13 Unfortunately, not all actors engage in “in- formed criticism” or anything remotely resem- bling it. I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that, in my view, do threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) in- timidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. There is of course no place for violence di- rected at judges for doing their job. Yet, in re- cent years, there has been a significant uptick in identified threats at all levels of the judici- ary. According to United States Marshals Ser- vice statistics, the volume of hostile threats and communications directed at judges has more than tripled over the past decade. In the past five years alone, the Marshals report that they have investigated more than 1,000 serious threats against federal judges. In several in- stances, these threats have required the assign- ment of full-time U.S. Marshals Service secu- rity details for federal judges, and approxi- mately fifty individuals have been criminally charged. In extreme cases, judicial officers 13 W. H. Rehnquist, 2004 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary. have been issued bulletproof vests for public events. Fortunately for our Nation’s judges, the vigilance of law enforcement officers and in- vestigators has stopped many threats of vio- lence before they could be carried out. Indeed, from the founding of the Republic in 1789 un- til 1979, only one federal judicial officer, Chief Justice John Slough of the New Mexico Territorial Supreme Court, was killed in office. And the quarrel that led to Slough’s shooting in the billiard room of a Santa Fe hotel in De- cember 1867 did not stem from a judicial rul- ing, but rather from the judge’s off-the-bench criticism of a territorial legislator. In more recent decades, however, disgrun- tled litigants have perpetrated acts of violence against several judges and members of their families. Between 1979 and 1989, three fed- eral judicial officers—two district judges and a circuit judge—were killed for doing their jobs. In 2005 and 2020, close relatives of fed- eral judges were shot to death by assailants in- tent on harming the judges who had handled their cases. More recently, in 2022 and 2023, state judges in Wisconsin and Maryland were murdered, also at their homes. Each instance constituted a targeted attack following an ad- verse ruling issued by the judge exercising or- dinary judicial duties. These tragic events highlight the vulnera- bility of judges who sign their names to the de- cisions they render each day and return home each night to communities, where they remain involved as neighbors, volunteers, and con- cerned citizens. Judges cannot hide, nor should 32 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 6 of 15 they. I am grateful to the many federal and state legislators who have stepped forward to sponsor bills shielding judges’ personal identi- fying information from the public domain. I also thank Congress for providing additional funding to protect the physical security of judges and justices. And I commend the Mar- shals and other officers who work on the front lines day and night to keep judicial officers across the country as safe as possible. It is re- grettable that law enforcement officers must now dedicate significant additional resources to protecting judges, tracking and investigat- ing threats against them, and prosecuting those who cross the line between lawful criticism and unlawful threats or actions. Of course, attempts to intimidate need not physically harm judges to threaten judicial in- dependence. In earlier times, these provoca- tions usually were directed at judges’ homes. Perhaps the most egregious example involved U.S. District Judge Julius Waties Waring. As a judge in South Carolina from 1942 to 1952, Judge Waring issued numerous rulings opening voting and educational opportunities for Black Americans. Local residents outraged by these decisions burned a cross in the judge’s lawn, fired gunshots at his home, and hurled a large lump of concrete through his front window. Elected officials called for his impeachment. But Judge Waring stood strong until taking sen- ior status at age 71, secure in the knowledge that an equal protection challenge to racial segrega- tion had made its way to the Supreme Court. By the time the landmark decision in Brown was issued in May 1954, Waring had moved to New York City, returning to South Carolina only in 1968 to be buried in Charleston, near the federal courthouse that now bears his name. Today, in the computer era, intimidation can take different forms. Disappointed liti- gants rage at judicial decisions on the Internet, urging readers to send a message to the judge. They falsely claim that the judge had it in for them because of the judge’s race, gender, or ethnicity—or the political party of the Presi- dent who appointed the judge. Some of these messages promote violence—for example, set- ting fire to or blowing up the courthouse where the target works. Occasionally, court critics deploy “dox- ing”—the practice of releasing otherwise pri- vate information such as addresses and phone numbers—which can lead to a flood of angry, profane phone calls to the judge’s office or This cross was burned on the lawn of Chief Justice Warren’s apartment building early in the morning on July 14, 1956. 33 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 7 of 15 home. Doxing also can prompt visits to the judge’s home, whether by a group of protestors or, worse, an unstable individual carrying a cache of weapons. Both types of activity have occurred in recent years in the vicinity of the Nation’s capital. Activist groups intent on har- assing judges have gone so far as to offer fi- nancial incentives for posting the location of certain judicial officers. Public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credi- ble basis for such allegations. Within the past year we also have seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intim- idate judges for their rulings in cases are inap- propriate and should be vigorously opposed. Public officials certainly have a right to criti- cize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their state- ments when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others. Disinformation, even if disconnected from any direct attempt to intimidate, also threatens judicial independence. This can take several forms. At its most basic level, distortion of the factual or legal basis for a ruling can under- mine confidence in the court system. Our branch is peculiarly ill-suited to combat this problem, because judges typically speak only through their decisions. We do not call press conferences or generally issue rebuttals. To make matters worse, as I noted in my 2019 Year End Report, the modern disinfor- mation problem is magnified by social media, which provides a ready channel to “instantly spread rumor and false information.” At that time, I endorsed a renewed emphasis on civic education as the best antidote for combating the epidemic of misinformation. I am happy to report that the bench, bar, and academy have embraced this essential project—writing and speaking about the distinct role of courts in American government and explaining what they do and don’t do. But much more is needed—and on a coor- dinated, national scale—not only to counter traditional disinformation, but also to confront a new and growing concern from abroad. In re- cent years, hostile foreign state actors have ac- celerated their efforts to attack all branches of our government, including the judiciary. In some instances, these outside agents feed false information into the marketplace of ideas. For example, bots distort judicial decisions, using fake or exaggerated narratives to foment dis- cord within our democracy. In other cases, hackers steal information—often confidential and highly sensitive—for nefarious purposes, sometimes for private benefit and other times for the use of state actors themselves. Either way, because these actors distort our judicial system in ways that compromise the public’s confidence in our processes and outcomes, we must as a Nation publicize the risks and take all appropriate measures to stop them. The final threat to judicial independence is defiance of judgments lawfully entered by courts of competent jurisdiction. As noted above, two of the major pillars of our Repub- lic—separation of powers and judicial re- view—create an inevitable tension between the branches of our government. Hamilton fore- saw, and Chief Justice Marshall confirmed, the 34 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 8 of 15 role of the judicial branch to say what the law is. But judicial independence is undermined unless the other branches are firm in their re- sponsibility to enforce the court’s decrees. After Brown v. Board of Education, for ex- ample, multiple state governors sought to defy court orders to desegregate schools in the South. The courage of federal judges to uphold the law in the face of massive local opposi- tion—and the willingness of the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations to stand behind those judges— are strong testaments to the re- lationship between judicial independence and the rule of law in our Nation’s history. It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy. Most cases have a win- ner and a loser. Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system—sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential top- ics. Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed, and the Nation has avoided the standoffs that plagued the 1950s and 1960s. Within the past few years, however, elected of- ficials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Judicial independence is worth preserving. As my late colleague Justice Ruth Bader Gins- burg wrote, an independent judiciary is “essen- tial to the rule of law in any land,” yet it “is 14 R. B. Ginsburg, Remarks on Judicial Independence, Conference of American Judges Association, 2006. 15 C. E. Hughes, Address of the Chief Justice of the United States to Joint Session of Congress, Mar. 4, 1939. 16 W. H. Taft, Remarks at the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association, American Law Register and Review 43(9) 577 (1895). vulnerable to assault; it can be shattered if the society law exists to serve does not take care to assure its preservation.”14 I urge all Ameri- cans to appreciate this inheritance from our founding generation and cherish its endurance. I also echo the words of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who remarked—in the after- math of a significant prior threat to judicial independence—that our three branches of government “must work in successful cooper- ation” to “make possible the effective func- tioning of the department of government which is designed to safeguard with judicial impartiality and independence the interests of liberty.”15 Our political system and economic strength depend on the rule of law. The rule of law depends, in turn, on Article III of the Con- stitution and judges and justices appointed and confirmed under it. Those men and women re- main connected to the people they serve and do their work in the public eye. Chief Justice Taft is the only person to have served as head of the judicial and a political branch. As he put it, “Nothing tends more to render judges care- ful in their decisions and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act of theirs is to be subject to the intel- ligent scrutiny of their fellow men, and to their candid criticism.”16 But violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable. 35 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 9 of 15 The federal courts must do their part to pre- serve the public’s confidence in our institu- tions. We judges must stay in our assigned ar- eas of responsibility and do our level best to handle those responsibilities fairly. We do so by confining ourselves to live “cases or con- troversies” and maintaining a healthy respect for the work of elected officials on behalf of the people they represent. I am confident that the judges in Article III and the corresponding officials in the other branches will faithfully discharge their duties with an eye toward achieving the “successful cooperation” essen- tial to our Nation’s continued success. As always, I am privileged and honored to thank all the judges, court staff, and other ju- dicial branch personnel throughout the Nation for their commitment to upholding judicial in- dependence and the rule of law through their outstanding public service. Best wishes to all in the New Year. John G. Roberts, Jr. Chief Justice of the United States December 31, 2024 Photo credits: Page 1, Sallie Dixon, used by permission. Page 2, Engraving by J.F.E. Prud’homme after Archibald Robertson, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States. Page 3, Photograph by Dane Penland, Smithsonian Institution, Courtesy of the Supreme Court of the United States. Page 6, Bettmann Archive/Getty Images, used by permission. 36 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 10 of 15 In October Term 2023, the number of cases filed in the Supreme Court increased by two per- cent compared to the prior year.1 For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2024, the number of cases filed in the U.S. courts of appeals remained relatively stable, decreasing by less than one percent. Civil cases filed in the U.S. district courts decreased 14 percent and cases filed in the U.S. bankruptcy courts increased 16 percent. Pretrial supervision cases increased two percent and post- conviction supervision case numbers decreased by one percent. The Supreme Court of the United States The total number of cases filed in the Supreme Court increased two percent from 4,159 filings in the 2022 Term to 4,223 in the 2023 Term. The number of cases filed in the Court’s in forma pauperis docket decreased two percent from 2,907 filings in the 2022 Term to 2,847 filings in the 2023 Term. The number of cases filed in the Court’s paid docket in- creased 10 percent from 1,252 filings in the 2022 Term to 1,376 filings in the 2023 Term. During the 2023 Term, 69 cases were argued and 64 were disposed of in 55 signed opinions, compared to 68 cases argued and 66 disposed of in 55 signed opinions in the 2022 Term. The Court also issued four per curiam opinions in argued cases during the 2023 Term. 1 The October Term 2023 workload statistics cover the period between the docketing of the first case with the 23- prefix on June 30, 2023 and the release of opinions and an orders list on July 2, 2024. Appendix Workload of the Courts 37 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 11 of 15 The Federal Courts of Appeals In the regional courts of appeals, filings remained fairly stable, falling less than one percent from 39,987 in fiscal year (FY) 2023 to 39,788 in FY 2024. This was an 18 percent drop from FY 2019, the last full fiscal year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Total civil appeals were down two percent from the prior year to 21,270. Criminal appeals increased four percent to 10,067. Appeals of administrative agency decisions went up eight percent to 4,992. All other appeals (bankruptcy appeals, original proceedings, and miscellaneous applications) decreased 12 percent to 3,459. Appeals by pro se litigants, which amounted to 48 percent of filings, increased three percent to 19,101. Prisoner petitions accounted for 21 percent of appeals filings (a total of 8,388), and 87 percent of prisoner petitions were filed pro se, compared with 38 percent of other appeals filings. 38 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 12 of 15 The Federal District Courts The federal district courts docketed 290,896 civil cases in FY 2024, a decrease of 14 percent from the prior year. In the ongoing earplug products liability multidistrict litigation (MDL), 23,624 cases were filed in the Northern District of Florida in FY 2024, down 50 percent from the prior year. All other civil case filings fell nine percent to 267,272, less than one percent below the num- ber filed in FY 2020. Cases involving diversity of citizenship (i.e., disputes between citizens of different states), which had climbed 47 percent from FY 2022 to FY 2023, fell 33 percent to 104,254 filings in FY 2024. These fluctuations are closely tied to the cases involving earplugs, as many MDL filings are in the category of diversity of citizenship. Federal question cases (i.e., actions under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States in which the United States is not a party) increased two percent to 141,000 filings in FY 2024. Filings involving civil rights or prisoner petitions accounted for 58 percent of all federal question filings. These civil rights filings grew 10 percent from the prior year to 40,719, while these prisoner petition filings dropped less than one percent to 40,841. Cases with the United States as a plaintiff decreased two percent to 3,069 in FY 2024, while cases with the United States as a defendant fell three percent to 42,567. Filings involving Social Security, civil immigration, and prisoner petitions accounted for 81 percent of all cases in which the United States was a defendant. Civil immigration filings increased 10 percent from the prior year to 12,183, prisoner petition filings decreased 12 percent to 8,341, and Social Security filings decreased eight percent to 13,845. Civil immigration cases address topics such as petitions for naturalization and adjudication of immigration status. Criminal immigration cases, discussed below, deal with matters such as un- lawful entry and reentry into the United States, alien smuggling, and fraud and misuse of visas or other permits. 39 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 13 of 15 The federal district courts docketed 69,673 criminal defendant filings (excluding transfers) in FY 2024, an increase of six percent from the prior year and a reduction of six percent from FY 2020. The largest categories were filings for defendants accused of immigration offenses, which increased 30 percent to 25,446, and filings for defendants charged with drug offenses, which fell eight percent to 16,735. Ninety percent of total filings for defendants charged with immigration-related offenses were received by the five districts on the southwestern border: the District of Arizona, the Southern District of California, the District of New Mexico, the Southern District of Texas, and the Western District of Texas. The Bankruptcy Courts The bankruptcy courts docketed 504,112 new filings in FY 2024, representing a 16 per- cent increase from the prior year, but 18 per- cent below the total for FY 2020. Of the 90 bankruptcy courts, 87 courts re- ceived more petitions in FY 2024 than in the prior year. In FY 2023, 85 courts received more petitions than in the prior year, which suggests that some of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on bankruptcy fil- ings—including moratoriums on evictions and certain foreclosures, as well as reduced consumer spending—continued to subside. 40 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 14 of 15 Nonbusiness (i.e., largely consumer) petitions, which amounted to 95 percent of bankruptcy petitions in FY 2024, increased 16 percent to 481,350. Business petitions rose 33 percent to 22,762. Petitions filed under Chapter 7 accounted for 59 percent of all bankruptcy filings, up 20 percent from the previous year. Petitions filed under Chapter 13 increased 10 percent, and those filed under Chapter 11 rose 39 percent. Pretrial Services, Federal Probation, and Supervised Release System A total of 121,777 persons were under post-conviction supervision on September 30, 2024, a decrease of one percent from the prior year and a reduction of five percent from FY 2020. Of that number, 109,174 were serving terms of supervised release after leaving correctional institutions, a decrease of one percent from FY 2023. 41 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary Page 15 of 15 Cases activated in the pretrial services system, including pretrial diversions, rose two percent to 72,899.2 2 In the 2022 and 2023 Year End Reports, pretrial services case activations were reported excluding pretrial diversions. 42 MCA Contents / THE CONSTITUTION … / ARTICLE III / Part III / Section 1 Separation of… Montana Code Annotated 2025 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA ARTICLE III. GENERAL GOVERNMENT Part III. GENERAL GOVERNMENT Separation Of Powers Section 1. Separation of powers. The power of the government of this state is divided into three distinct branches--legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted. Disclaimer: The Internet version of the Montana Code Annotated is provided as a research tool to users of the Code. In case of inconsistencies resulting from omissions or other errors, the printed version will prevail. 4/24/26, 3:31 PM Section 1. Separation of powers, MCA https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0030/part_0010/section_0010/0000-0030-0010-0010.html 1/143 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio Becky Franks, Study Commissioner SUBJECT:Discussion on Wards and Districts MEETING DATE:April 30, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:The Study Commissioners may discuss and begin the decision making process on Wards and Districts. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:The Study Commissioners have previously participated in Learning Sessions with Dan Clark and received materials and research on Wards and Districts and how they would interface with Bozeman if proposed. Attached: At Large vs. Wards (Dan Clark) Wards Documents for Bozeman (Dan Clark) UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None identified Attachments: At-large VS Wards 3.12.26.pdf Wards Documents for Bozeman 2026.pdf Report compiled on: April 24, 2026 44 Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. Comparison of Electoral Systems in Medium-Sized Cities Prepared by the MSU Extension Local Government Center Introduction The City of Bozeman has a long history of conducting its elections on an at-large basis. When the study commission first proposed a city charter in 1976, it recommended electing city commissioners nominated by wards but elected at-large; however, that charter was ultimately rejected by the voters. In the Final Report prepared by the City’s first local government review, the study commission documented findings from a community survey indicating concerns about responsiveness in local government. As the report noted, citizens expressed “some dissatisfaction with the apparent unwillingness of local government officials to listen to them. The commission feels that the election of some of the commissioners by districts may cause those, so elected, to be more responsive to residents of their [ward]. A recognized danger in this method of electing commissioners is that they may become overly responsive to the citizens of their area. This may result in less concern for issues that affect the whole city and may cause a lack of harmony among commissioners. Election of all commissioners by the total electorate of the city will reduce the likelihood that these situations will develop.” Fifty years ago, the study commission had identified many of the same advantages and disadvantages associated with ward-based and at-large elections that continue to shape the discussion today. Below is a review of the advantages and disadvantages of elections conducted by wards, at-large, and hybrid systems (a combination of ward-based and at-large elections). These conclusions are drawn from peer-reviewed academic literature and applied research guides, including publications from the American Journal of Political Science, Political Science Research and Methods, and the Canadian Journal of Political Science, as well as practitioner-focused resources such as the Democracy Reform Primer Series produced by the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government at the Harris School of Public Policy, and analyses from the Pacific Research Institute. Artificial intelligence tools were used to synthesize and organize findings across these sources. ELECTIONS BY WARD Below is a list of advantages and disadvantages of elections by ward. This is a familiar practice in Montana and is the statutory default option for those municipalities in Montana that have selected the commission-executive form of government. Advantages 45 Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. • Increases descriptive representation for racial and ethnic minorities o District elections increase representation for racial/ethnic minorities when groups are moderately sized and geographically concentrated. [Source 1 & 4] o Conversion from at-large to district elections produces dramatic gains in minority officeholding when minority population share is sufficiently large. [Source 3] • Enhances representation of lower-income neighborhoods o District systems increase the proportion of elected officials from lower-income and high-renter neighborhoods. • Stronger neighborhood advocacy o Ward councilors focus on geographically defined neighborhood interests and are more responsive to localized concerns. [Source 6] o Ward-based systems create a “representational focus” on smaller areas, improving neighborhood-level responsiveness. • Lower campaign costs and higher local engagement o Candidates campaign within a smaller geographic unit, which reduces cost barriers and encourages more candidates to run. [Source 4] Disadvantages • Risk of parochialism (“ward politics”) o Councilors prioritize neighborhood interests over citywide needs, which can fragment policy decision-making. • Encourages logrolling and pork-barrel spending o Ward systems incentivize vote trading to direct geographically concentrated spending to each member’s area. [Source 8] o This can raise total municipal spending on localized capital projects. • May disadvantage women candidates o Empirical evidence shows women are less likely to be elected in single-member districts compared to at-large elections. [Source 4] • Ineffective when minorities are not geographically concentrated o District representation benefits minorities only in cities where groups are sufficiently large and segregated. Otherwise, districting provides little or no improvement. [Source 4] Options for Elections by Wards If Bozeman were to retain five elected commissioners, one option would be to continue electing the mayor at-large while electing the remaining four commissioners from wards 46 Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. drawn to be as compact and equal in population and geographic area as practicable. Under this approach, each ward would be represented by a commissioner serving approximately 14,500 residents. By comparison, districts for the Montana House of Representatives generally include between 10,000 and 11,000 residents. To further reduce the number of residents represented by each commissioner, the study commission could propose adding two additional commission seats. Expanding the commission in this manner would allow for six wards, with each commissioner representing just under 9,700 residents and the mayor elected at-large. Possible charter language: Following each federal decennial census, the city commission shall divide the city into [the number of commissioner wards corresponding to the number of commissioners elected by ward], ensuring that the wards are as compact as practicable and equal in population and geographic area. Apportionment may occur at any time for the purpose of equalizing population and area among commissioner wards. However, a commissioner ward may not be changed in a way that affects the term of office of any city commissioner who has been elected. Additionally, changes to the boundaries of any commissioner ward may not be made between the date that is six months prior to a city commissioner primary election and the date of the general election. AT-LARGE ELECTIONS At-large elections are the statutory default option for selecting city commissioners in the Commission-Manager form of government. Advantages • Encourages citywide perspective and policy coordination o At-large councilors see their constituency as the entire city, which promotes citywide rather than neighborhood-based decision-making. [Source 6] • Reduces neighborhood parochialism o At-large elections were originally adopted to reduce corruption and the hyper-localism associated with ward systems. [Source 6] • Promotes gender diversity o Research finds at-large systems tend to elect more women compared to district systems. [Source 5] • Less susceptible to gerrymandering o Because the entire city votes, manipulation of district boundaries is not possible. [Source 4] 47 Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. Disadvantages • Marginalizes racial and ethnic minorities o At-large systems historically diluted minority voting power and still suppress minority representation in many contexts. [Source 4] o Conversion from at-large to district elections consistently increases minority representation when minority groups are sizable. [Source 3] • Higher campaign costs o Campaigning citywide is significantly more expensive, limiting candidate diversity. [Source 2] • Overrepresentation of business or elite interests o At-large representatives tend to align more with citywide economic interests (business elites) rather than neighborhood-level concerns. [Source 6] • Lower responsiveness to neighborhoods o Councilors elected citywide pay less attention to geographically specific issues. [Source 6] HYBRID (MIXED WARD + AT-LARGE) SYSTEMS Research on hybrid systems is more limited, but emerging studies offer clear patterns. Advantages • Balances neighborhood representation with citywide perspective o Hybrid councils that are majority district-based retain the representational benefits of ward systems but incorporate at-large seats that promote citywide coordination. • Improves gender diversity o Including at-large seats in an otherwise ward-based system can increase the election of women compared to pure ward systems. • Reduces extreme drawbacks of both systems o Hybrids can prevent excessive parochialism while still protecting minority and neighborhood voices. [Source 9] Disadvantages • Minority representation depends on the proportion of ward seats o Hybrids with only a small number of district seats may still dilute minority representation compared to pure districts. [Source 9] 48 Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. • More complex system design o Hybrid systems require balancing ward boundaries, at-large ballot design, and potential structural inequities. • Can perpetuate inequities if at-large seats dominate o Research warns that if at-large seats form a majority, hybrid systems replicate the underrepresentation issues of pure at-large models. [Source 4] Hybrid Options for Bozeman One option for structuring the City Council is to retain a five-member council, with one member serving as mayor. Under this approach, the mayor would continue to be elected at-large by voters citywide, while the remaining four council members would be associated with geographic wards. Those four wards would be drawn to be as compact and equal in population and geographic area as practicable. Within this structure, a key design choice is how the four ward associated council members would be elected. Under one variation, each of the four council members would be required to both reside in and be elected by voters within their respective wards. This approach would emphasize direct neighborhood representation and accountability between council members and the residents of their ward. Alternatively, the four council members could be required to reside in a ward but continue to be elected at-large by the entire electorate. This option would preserve a citywide voting base while ensuring geographic diversity among council members, blending elements of ward representation with at-large elections. Gallatin County uses this same method when electing the County Commissioners. Another option would be to expand the council to seven members, which would reduce the number of residents represented by each councilor and increase overall geographic representation. Under this model, one member would serve as mayor and be elected at-large, along with one additional council member elected at-large. The remaining five council members would reside in and be elected from five wards drawn to be as compact and equal in population and geographic area as practicable. This structure blends ward-based representation with at-large positions, balancing neighborhood responsiveness with a citywide perspective. It would also spread representation more evenly across the city while retaining at-large seats to address issues affecting the community as a whole. Summary Table 49 Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. Model Advantages Disadvantages Ward Strong minority & low income representation; localized responsiveness; lower campaign costs Parochialism; logrolling; may reduce gender representation; ineffective where minorities not concentrated At-Large Unified citywide policy view; more women elected; less gerrymandering Dilutes minority representation; higher costs; elite dominance; weak neighborhood responsiveness Hybrid Balanced citywide + neighborhood representation; better gender diversity; moderates extremes Minority gains depend on ward ratio; can replicate at large inequities; structurally complex Sources: 1. Cushing-Daniels M, Jones D and Shannon B (2026) District-based elections and class- based representation: evidence from the California Voting Rights Act. Political Science Research and Methods, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2025.10070 2. Warnken, M. (2025, February 13). City representation: Single-member districts versus at-large (Free Cities Center Analysis). Pacific Research Institute. https://www.pacificresearch.org/free-cities-center-analysis-city-representation-single- member-districts-versus-at-large/ 3. Abott, Carolyn and Magazinnik, Asya. 2020. "At-Large Elections and Minority Representation in Local Government." American Journal of Political Science, 64 (3). 4. Trounstine, J. (2024). District vs. at-large elections: A practical research guide (Democracy Reform Primer Series). University of Chicago Center for Effective Government. https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu 5. Hofer, S., Huang, C., & Murray, R. (2018, October). The trade-offs between at-large and single-member districts (Hobby School of Public Affairs White Paper Series No. 14). University of Houston, Hobby School of Public Affairs. 6. Koop, R., & Kraemer, J. (2016). Wards, at-large systems and the focus of representation in Canadian cities. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, 49(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423916000512 [Wards at-l...f Poli Sci | PDF] 7. Trounstine, J., & Valdini, M. E. (2008). The context matters: The effects of single-member versus at-large districts on city council diversity. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 554–569. 50 Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. 8. Dalenberg, D. R., & Duffy-Deno, K. T. (1991). At-large versus ward elections: Implications for public infrastructure. Public Choice, 70(3), 335–342. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30025474 [At-Large v...astructure | PDF] 9. Jasso, F., & Krebs, T. (n.d.). Hybrid city council election systems (Informational brief). Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs, California State University, Los Angeles; University of New Mexico. [Hybrid Cit...on Systems | PDF] 51 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER | QUASI JUDICIAL HANDOUT | 01LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER | WARDS vs. DISTRICTS | 01 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “WARDS” AND “DISTRICTS” IN MONTANA In the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), the terms “ward” and “district” are not interchangeable, they apply to different types of local governments and serve different legal purposes. Created only in municipalities (cities and towns) Used for electing city/town council members and defining representation within the municipality Boundaries changed only by ordinance Must have at least 150 electors to form a new ward Number of wards depends on the class of the city (1st, 2nd, 3rd class or town) WARDS Used only in municipalities (cities and towns) Under MCA 7 5 4401, cities and towns must divide themselves into wards for election and other municipal purposes. These wards must be roughly equal in population, and statute prescribes how many wards different classes of cities must have. If the City of Bozeman were operating under general powers and elected its council members by wards, MCA 7 2 4401(2)(a) would control, requiring the city to establish no fewer than four wards and no more than ten wards. However, because Bozeman operates under a voter approved charter, the Charter itself may determine the number of wards or a hybrid of wards and at large and is not required to conform to this statutory expectation and range. Characteristics of Wards The purpose of Wards ensure representation within a city/town by dividing the municipality into smaller election units. Used primarily in counties (and sometimes in multi-jurisdictional special entities) DISTRICTS The MCA uses districts in two major ways: As county election districts Counties use commissioner districts or other “districts” for electing county officials. These are not called “wards” as that term is strictly used when referencing a municipal service or voting area. Butte Silver Bow Consolidated City/County and Anaconda Deer Lodge Consolidated City/County use commissioner districts As “special districts” for delivering services Special districts (park districts, fire districts, rural improvement districts, etc.) are legally defined in MCA 7-11-1002. A “special district” means a unit of local government that is authorized by law to perform a single function or a limited number of functions. These may be countywide or multi jurisdictional. 1 2 52 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER | QUASI JUDICIAL HANDOUT | 02 Prepared by the MSU Local Government Center. For Educational use only. For interpretation of the law, please seek competent legal counsel. Characteristics of Districts Created by counties (or jointly by cities and counties) Used for: Electing county commissioners (in districted counties) Organizing service delivery (fire, road, RID, SID, mosquito, cemetery districts, etc.) Special districts can cross city boundaries and are defined in statute depending on the district type Purpose Districts are designed to: Structure county representation (e.g., commissioner districts) Provide specific public services in a defined geographic area Relationship Between Wards and Districts in Election Law MCA 13-3-104 clarifies that wards (municipal) and districts (county) are separate units, but precincts may be drawn in ways that intersect both, so long as voters can be clearly identified for each unit. This reinforces that wards = municipal units, and districts = county or service units. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER | WARDS vs. DISTRICTS | 02 53 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission SUBJECT:Discussion for May 13 MEETING DATE:April 30, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Study Commissioners may discuss the upcoming May 13 agenda and how to best use their time 54