HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-29-26 Public Comment - H. Happel - Comments on Proposed Articles VII and IVFrom:Henry Happel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comments on Proposed Articles VII and IV
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:26:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners:
First, I would like to say thank you for all of your time and effort on behalf of theCity’s residents in connection with possible changes to the City Charter. This is importantwork.
I am writing to offer my views on proposed Articles VII and IV discussed at lastweek’s Study Commission meeting and revised since that meeting.
I do not think there is anything seriously wrong with the way that Bozeman is currentlygoverned. That includes the City Charter. We are one of the most attractive small cities in theUnited States and part of the reason is that Bozeman has been relatively well managed for along time.
The City Charter is difficult to change. It contains fundamental instructions to Citygovernment. These instructions in all likelihood are going to last for at least ten years. Thismakes me want to be conservative about changes to the Charter.
Article VII
1. Article VII begins by emphasizing the good of public engagement in City affairs.There is much hortatory language in Article VII, and much of it resonates with me.
2. However, Article VII fails to tackle the one glaring current defect in public input,which is that this input is mostly provided by relatively elderly, relatively wealthyhomeowners, and it suffers from a lack of input from younger working citizens, often renters,often with families. (Just look at the members of the public who attend your own StudyCommission meetings.) I am going to refer to this defect as the “Skewed Input Problem”. IfCity government really wants to be inclusive, to more accurately gauge the temperature ofcitizens on public issues, the Skewed Input Problem needs to be addressed. I have a couple ofsuggestions below.
3. I have often thought that it would be instructive and useful to have advocates for any
new law (federal, state, local) be required to articulate, as best they could, all of the unwrittenassumptions behind the new law. I think of this in the context of proposed revisions to the
Charter.
Neighborhood Associations
4. Section 7.03 of Article VII seeks to promote neighborhood associations as a means
to increase public engagement. I support encouraging new neighborhood associations todevelop organically as provided in the latest draft. This could be assisted by 1) identifying
individuals thought to have an interest and offering organizing advice, 2) providing financialassistance to get new associations going, and 3) helping to secure places for association
meetings.
5. Section 7.03 suggests that neighborhood associations are to focus on bothneighborhood and City-wide issues. I am somewhat skeptical of a typical neighborhoodassociation engaging at depth, for example, in City water policy. I would imagine that manypotential association members will be much more interested in truly neighborhood issues.
6. Nonetheless, Section 7.03 seems to want to give its imprimatur to the Inter-Neighborhood Council as a voice of City-wide public opinion. There are some structural
problems with this. The first problem is that deliberative groups of more than about sevenpeople become unwieldy. An INC with 15 members or more would have difficulty, without a
lot of time and effort, coming to well thought out views. A second problem is that themembership of the INC, without some contrary nudges, probably ends up with members
passionate about their neighborhood, but less interested and informed about Citywide issues.A third problem is that at present Neighborhood Associations evidently only extend to 28% of
Bozeman’s population. The biggest problem though, is that in all likelihood the INC wouldend up suffering from the Skewed Input Problem. The City could go a long way to fixing this
last problem with regard to the INC by mandating that half of the INC members be renters.
7. Section 7.03(d)5 says that the INC shall be consulted during the formative stages ofcitywide budget priority discussions. To my knowledge this would be new territory for theINC. How to engage the public in City budgetary discussions is an important topic, but I donot think that the INC would be the best forum for that discussion. A well-selected citizenadvisory board would be better. The INC may be a particularly poor forum for budget debatesbecause money spent in one neighborhood means it will not be spent in another.
8. Section 7.03 also could create some legal dangers for the City when it transmuteshortatory language into obligations. Take for example Subsection 703(c)4: “The City of
Bozeman shall be responsible for providing information on City and neighborhood issues toall neighborhood associations and INC regularly and early in the decision-making process.”
Do we want to give a group of neighbors opposing some development a legal argument thatthe development can’t go forward because of an allegation that the City failed to provide
information "early in the decision-making process”? Those words are quite vague.
9. Is there an argument for a cost-benefit analysis of some of what is in Article VII?For example, Section 7.02 says that “The City shall…. establish new institutional structuresto…. support…. and measure engagement on an ongoing basis." What are these structures andwhat might be their costs and benefits?
Citizen Advisory Boards
10. Section 7.04 deals with citizen advisory boards. The entity being advised by thecitizen advisory boards is the City Commission. This should be made explicit. I thinkSubsection 7.04 (a) would be improved if simplified to say:
“The purpose of the advisory boards should be threefold: to provide advice andrecommendations to the city commission, to encourage public participation in civicaffairs, and to assist in public education on matters within their purview.”
11. Subsection 7.04(b) says that advisory boards should adopt a charter, annualpriorities and public engagement processes. Given the function of these advisory boards, Ithink these matters should be set by the City Commission with input from each board.
12. As perhaps a test of some of the proposed language, I am wondering what public
engagement processes, different from those used at present, the Study Commission wouldadopt if Subsection 7.04(b) were in place?
13. One could envision a partial solution to the Skewed Input Problem in the form of anew citizen advisory board, a Working Citizens Board, limited to residents between the agesof 30 and 55, half homeowners half renters. This board would be charged with gathering inputfrom this demographic and offering its advice on all policy issues on the Engage Bozemanwebsite.
The INC and Citizen Advisory Boards
14. A reading of Sections 7.03 and 7.04 together leaves the impression, whetherintended or not, that the INC should be a stronger voice for public opinion than whatever maycome out of the deliberations of the citizen advisory boards. There is a significant divergencebetween the language applicable to the INC and that applicable to the City Boards:
Concerning the INC--
“7.03(c)(5): When practicable, the INC shall be consulted during the formativestages of citywide planning efforts, major policy, initiatives, and budget priority discussions.”
“7.03(e)(4): The City of Bozeman shall be responsible for providinginformation on city…issues to all Neighborhood Associations and INC regularly and early in
the decision-making process.”
“7.03(c)(6): When INC develops formal recommendations on an issue ofimportance, there will be an opportunity to present these recommendations during a CityCommission meeting.”
“7.03(c)(7): The city commission and or designated city staff shall publicly
provide timely responses to formal recommendations submitted by the Inter-NeighborhoodCouncil, including an explanation of how such input was considered or the reasons for any
divergence.” None of these obligations apply with respect to the City Boards.
Concerning the City Boards--
7.04(a): Advisory boards assist the City of Bozeman by…reviewing policies orproposals before decisions are made…” This is quite weak language compared to the
provisions applicable to the INC described above.
7.04(b): Boards, commissions, or committees of city government shall beadvisory only. They shall have no administrative authority unless specifically required byfederal or state law, or interlocal agreement. There is no corresponding language explicitlylimiting the authority of the INC.
Although I think there is nothing wrong with the INC weighing in on Citywide publicpolicy issues, giving it procedural rights above those of the advisory boards would be a
significant mistake.
Advisory boards have been and probably will continue to be of more value to the Citythan the INC. Part of this is because of the structural problems of the INC described inParagraph 6 above. These are problems substantially avoided by citizen advisory boards.These advisory boards tend to have as their members citizens with some substantial interestand significant experience in matters relevant to their board. They are in all likelihood betterequipped than the INC to understand and analyze discrete policy issues. In addition, the size ofthese boards (nine or fewer members) is such that they can engage in meaningful dialoguesamong all participants.
The discrepancies between the rules the City would apply to its advisory boards versusthe INC should be eliminated. If it was me, I would not impose on the City the obligations inSubsections 7.03(c)(6) and 7.03(c)(7), and make the obligations in 7.03(c)(5) and 7.03(e)(4),appropriately modified, apply to citizen advisory boards as well as the INC.
Article IV
There is one additional change proposed to the Charter, this in Section 4.04. Thesection deals with land use and environmental planning. The last sentence addresses
intergovernmental regional cooperation on these matters. The sentence is modified from whatis presently in the Charter to require the City of Bozeman to seek to act in cooperation with
affected neighborhood associations, as well as other jurisdiction and organizations to promoteintegrated approaches to regional issues. For purposes of regional cooperation, neighborhood
associations are thus elevated to the same stature as other jurisdictions in the region, forexample Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade. Neighborhood associations are not
governmental entities and I doubt they have the structure, weight, or decision-makingcapability to sit at the table of regional cooperation. I don't think that Bozeman would like to
have to cooperate with, for example, a Belgrade neighborhood association on regionalplanning issues. Neighborhood association concerns should be articulated to the City, which
should then incorporate these as it deems appropriate in negotiations with other governmententities. If the City feels it appropriate, a neighborhood representative could certainly be asked
to join a regional meeting to offer neighborhood views. I would leave Section 4.04 as it is.
Best, Hap Happel
From:Henry Happel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comments on Proposed Articles VII and IV
Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:37:47 AM
Attachments:Email- Draft-Article VII and IV-260428.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am sending my comments again, this time in the form of an attachment, only because the font used in my
previous email makes for difficult reading. MS Word and Apple Mail do not seem to play very nicely together.There are no changes to any of the words.
Best, Hap Happel
Dear Commissioners:
First, I would like to say thank you for all of your time and effort on behalf of the City’s residents in connection with possible changes to the City Charter. This is important work.
I am writing to offer my views on proposed Articles VII and IV discussed at last week’s
Study Commission meeting and revised since that meeting. I do not think there is anything seriously wrong with the way that Bozeman is currently governed. That includes the City Charter. We are one of the most attractive small cities in the
United States and part of the reason is that Bozeman has been relatively well managed for a long
time. The City Charter is difficult to change. It contains fundamental instructions to City government. These instructions in all likelihood are going to last for at least ten years. This
makes me want to be conservative about changes to the Charter.
Article VII 1. Article VII begins by emphasizing the good of public engagement in City affairs.
There is much hortatory language in Article VII, and much of it resonates with me.
2. However, Article VII fails to tackle the one glaring current defect in public input, which is that this input is mostly provided by relatively elderly, relatively wealthy homeowners, and it suffers from a lack of input from younger working citizens, often renters, often with
families. (Just look at the members of the public who attend your own Study Commission
meetings.) I am going to refer to this defect as the “Skewed Input Problem”. If City government really wants to be inclusive, to more accurately gauge the temperature of citizens on public issues, the Skewed Input Problem needs to be addressed. I have a couple of suggestions below.
3. I have often thought that it would be instructive and useful to have advocates for any
new law (federal, state, local) be required to articulate, as best they could, all of the unwritten assumptions behind the new law. I think of this in the context of proposed revisions to the Charter.
Neighborhood Associations
4. Section 7.03 of Article VII seeks to promote neighborhood associations as a means to increase public engagement. I support encouraging new neighborhood associations to develop organically as provided in the latest draft. This could be assisted by 1) identifying individuals
thought to have an interest and offering organizing advice, 2) providing financial assistance to
get new associations going, and 3) helping to secure places for association meetings.
5. Section 7.03 suggests that neighborhood associations are to focus on both neighborhood and City-wide issues. I am somewhat skeptical of a typical neighborhood
association engaging at depth, for example, in City water policy. I would imagine that many
potential association members will be much more interested in truly neighborhood issues. 6. Nonetheless, Section 7.03 seems to want to give its imprimatur to the Inter-Neighborhood Council as a voice of City-wide public opinion. There are some structural
problems with this. The first problem is that deliberative groups of more than about seven people
become unwieldy. An INC with 15 members or more would have difficulty, without a lot of time and effort, coming to well thought out views. A second problem is that the membership of the INC, without some contrary nudges, probably ends up with members passionate about their neighborhood, but less interested and informed about Citywide issues. A third problem is that at
present Neighborhood Associations evidently only extend to 28% of Bozeman’s population. The
biggest problem though, is that in all likelihood the INC would end up suffering from the Skewed Input Problem. The City could go a long way to fixing this last problem with regard to the INC by mandating that half of the INC members be renters.
7. Section 7.03(d)5 says that the INC shall be consulted during the formative stages of
citywide budget priority discussions. To my knowledge this would be new territory for the INC. How to engage the public in City budgetary discussions is an important topic, but I do not think that the INC would be the best forum for that discussion. A well-selected citizen advisory board would be better. The INC may be a particularly poor forum for budget debates because money
spent in one neighborhood means it will not be spent in another.
8. Section 7.03 also could create some legal dangers for the City when it transmutes hortatory language into obligations. Take for example Subsection 703(c)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.” Do we
want to give a group of neighbors opposing some development a legal argument that the development can’t go forward because of an allegation that the City failed to provide information "early in the decision-making process”? Those words are quite vague.
9. Is there an argument for a cost-benefit analysis of some of what is in Article VII? For
example, Section 7.02 says that “The City shall…. establish new institutional structures to….
support…. and measure engagement on an ongoing basis." What are these structures and what might be their costs and benefits?
Citizen Advisory Boards
10. Section 7.04 deals with citizen advisory boards. The entity being advised by the citizen advisory boards is the City Commission. This should be made explicit. I think Subsection 7.04 (a) would be improved if simplified to say:
“The purpose of the advisory boards should be threefold: to provide advice and recommendations to the city commission, to encourage public participation in civic affairs, and to assist in public education on matters within their purview.”
11. Subsection 7.04(b) says that advisory boards should adopt a charter, annual priorities
and public engagement processes. Given the function of these advisory boards, I think these
matters should be set by the City Commission with input from each board. 12. As perhaps a test of some of the proposed language, I am wondering what public engagement processes, different from those used at present, the Study Commission would adopt
if Subsection 7.04(b) were in place?
13. One could envision a partial solution to the Skewed Input Problem in the form of a new citizen advisory board, a Working Citizens Board, limited to residents between the ages of 30 and 55, half homeowners half renters. This board would be charged with gathering input from
this demographic and offering its advice on all policy issues on the Engage Bozeman website.
The INC and Citizen Advisory Boards 14. A reading of Sections 7.03 and 7.04 together leaves the impression, whether intended
or not, that the INC should be a stronger voice for public opinion than whatever may come out of
the deliberations of the citizen advisory boards. There is a significant divergence between the language applicable to the INC and that applicable to the City Boards: Concerning the INC--
“7.03(c)(5): When practicable, the INC shall be consulted during the formative
stages of citywide planning efforts, major policy, initiatives, and budget priority discussions.” “7.03(e)(4): The City of Bozeman shall be responsible for providing information
on city…issues to all Neighborhood Associations and INC regularly and early in the decision-
making process.”
“7.03(c)(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.”
“7.03(c)(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.”
None of these obligations obligate the City with respect to the City Boards. Concerning the City Boards--
7.04(a): Advisory boards assist the City of Bozeman by…reviewing policies or
proposals before decisions are made…” This is quite weak language compared to the provisions applicable to the INC described above.
7.04(b): 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. There is no corresponding language explicitly limiting the authority of the INC. Although I think there is nothing wrong with the INC weighing in on Citywide public
policy issues, giving it procedural rights above those of the advisory boards would be a
significant mistake. Advisory boards have been and probably will continue to be of more value to the City than the INC. Part of this is because of the structural problems of the INC described in Paragraph
6 above. These are problems substantially avoided by citizen advisory boards. These advisory
boards tend to have as their members citizens with some substantial interest and significant experience in matters relevant to their board. They are in all likelihood better equipped than the INC to understand and analyze discrete policy issues. In addition, the size of these boards (nine or fewer members) is such that they can engage in meaningful dialogues among all participants.
The discrepancies between the rules the City would apply to its advisory boards versus the INC should be eliminated. If it was me, I would not impose on the City the obligations in Subsections 7.03(c)(6) and 7.03(c)(7), and make the obligations in 7.03(c)(5) and 7.03(e)(4), appropriately modified, apply to citizen advisory boards as well as the INC.
Article IV There is one additional change proposed to the Charter, this in Section 4.04. The section deals with land use and environmental planning. The last sentence addresses intergovernmental
regional cooperation on these matters. The sentence is modified from what is presently in the
Charter to require the City of Bozeman to seek to act in cooperation with affected neighborhood associations, as well as other jurisdiction and organizations to promote integrated approaches to regional issues. For purposes of regional cooperation, neighborhood associations are thus elevated to the same stature as other jurisdictions in the region, for example Gallatin County and
the City of Belgrade. Neighborhood associations are not governmental entities and I doubt they
have the structure, weight, or decision-making capability to sit at the table of regional cooperation. I don't think that Bozeman would like to have to cooperate with, for example, a Belgrade neighborhood association on regional planning issues. Neighborhood association concerns should be articulated to the City, which should then incorporate these as it deems
appropriate in negotiations with other government entities. If the City feels it appropriate, a
neighborhood representative could certainly be asked to join a regional meeting to offer neighborhood views. I would leave Section 4.04 as it is. Best,
Hap Happel