Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-30-26 Public Comment - N. Nakamura - Neighborhood associations, boards, and wardsFrom:Natsuki Nakamura To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission Subject:[EXTERNAL]Neighborhood associations, boards, and wards Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 11:41:22 PM 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 Study Commission, Thank you for listening to my various comments this evening. Here are some of my thoughtsin written form on some of the topics. (Disclosure: I am a member of the city's EVB, but speaking only on behalf of myself.) Neighborhood associations: I am very concerned about trying to mandate Neighborhood Associations (NAs) in every neighborhood, especially if that included a requirement that NAs be comparablesize and could result in consolidating or reorganizing existing NAs. Consolidating NAs that have different issues defeats the purpose of having an entity to addressneighborhood-specific issues. Additionally, if there is a goal to mandate comparably sized NAs throughout all of Bozeman, the charter should probably also include how andhow often boundaries/redistricting would be reassessed. I also don't know what amount of staff support would be sufficient to support thisinitiative, compared to current staffing focused on supporting NAs that have been voluntarily formed by residents willing to make this effort. If the charter included somerequirement of % of Bozeman being part of a NA, what happens if the required threshold of NAs is not met - INC is not allowed to function?Dictating in the charter that some neighborhoods shouldn't have more of a voice than others on INC is overstepping and should instead by handled by INC's by-laws. INC intheir by-laws could decide that for votes, larger NAs get more delegates if they felt like they needed to balance different voices and neighborhoods. Language in "principles of public engagement": Some caution around language such as "representative," "recruit beyond usualparticipants," or "bring in new voices." Maximum participation is obviously good, but this comparative language could be discounting of folks who currently participate,especially if there is an idea of a "silent majority" that is considered representative. Vague language like "engage effectively" or "meaningful ways for residents to influencedecisions" could mean something very different to different people. "Convenient times" is also different to different people. Meetings during theday/workweek might be more convenient for city staff, someone paid to advocate for an issue, parents with kids in school, and those who work in the evening, but certainlyinconvenient for those who work 9-5 jobs that don't include time for civic participation or advocacy. Wards: The Gallatin County Study Commission, in their consideration of expanding from 3 to 5districts, asked the Clerk/Recorder's office to do a mock-up of a potential map of 5 districts with comparable populations. This map gave folks something to look at and see if those who felt underrepresented (primarily in Big Sky and Gallatin Gateway) feltbetter represented by having more districts. Not sure if it would be possible to do a similar thing for a discussion of Bozeman wards, but it could be helpful and interestingfor folks to see potentially how Bozeman might be cut up. Many natural neighborhood leaders are already volunteering many hours running theirNAs. If we had wards in Bozeman, these would be some of the qualified folks to run for Commission, but that could leave a void in their NA. Issuing minority reports: The Gallatin County Study Commission's report includes a minority report, which helpsmemorialize some of the discussions and pros/cons considered. This will be a useful reference to potentially continue discussions in a future study commission.The "One Body, One Voice" principle for city advisory boards--though it does not explicitly prohibit it--seems to discourage a submission of a minority report to the CityCommission. From what I have observed in Commission meetings, a staff report sometimes--but not always--makes a note of a split vote by the advisory board. Therecording of the meetings acts as the minutes to capture how boards voted and what was discussed; the City Commissioners can watch the recordings, but don't have to andmight not have time to. There have been times when a split vote from an advisory board was noted in the staff report, and as a result a Commissioner (who clearly did not watchthe recording) asks if the discussion and reasons for the split vote can be summarized, which then put either the staff liaison or the commission liaison in the position ofeditorializing on the reasoning of the dissenting votes. This can be an uncomfortable position to try to speak for others and there is also the risk that points are misconstrued(perhaps unintentionally). In other times, when left to the staff or commission liaison to summarize a discussion, I have seen instances of (perhaps unintentionally) the boardbeing portrayed as unanimous on something that wasn't unanimous. This is all to say there is value in a minority report (if the minority feels compelled to do so) tomemorialize the discussion and put in their own words the reasoning of the dissenting vote. So thank you for including in your recommendations that the Commission reviewResolution 5323 and I hope there is consideration on how discussion is captured other than watching the recording of a meeting. Thank you for your consideration, Natsuki Nakamura