Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-26 Public Comment - M. Egge - Don't bundle a losing reform with winning onesFrom:Mark Egge To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission Subject:[EXTERNAL]Don"t bundle a losing reform with winning ones Date:Friday, May 1, 2026 3:09:14 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 Commissioners, I appreciate the work you have put into reviewing Bozeman's city charter.I'm writing to urge you to be disciplined about what you put on the November 2026 ballot. The most useful thing this commission can do is to deliver a small, focused set of changes that a majority of Bozeman voters will actually adopt. It would be a shame to bundle reforms that would clearwith broad support together with reforms that probably won't, and watch the whole package fail. The historical record on charter changes here is sobering. In 2010, thesame charter you are now revising required voters to decide whether to expand the City Commission from five seats to seven. Voters rejected the expansion 5,832 to 4,378, about 57 percent against and 43 percent for. Just last November, the Belgrade Charter Amendment failed 1,416 to 968.The default for charter modifications at the ballot box is "no." That has to inform what you bring forward. Compare what your colleagues at the Gallatin County Local GovernmentStudy Commission have decided to put on the same ballot. The County charter commission recommends no change to the form of government, but supports presenting the option to transition county elections from partisan to nonpartisan. One ballot question. One change. A clear, narrow,easily understood proposition that voters can evaluate on its merits. Two other potential recommendations—to expand the County Commission from three to five seats and to alter the powers of county government—were outvoted 4-3 by their fellow commissioners and set aside. While not"exciting," the county charter commission's discipline is admirable, and I'll wager that they'll succeed in accomplishing something useful that improves local government. The Bozeman Study Commission is, from what I have seen in your recentmeetings, heading in a different direction. The proposed Article VII would expand the formal role of neighborhood associations and the Inter- Neighborhood Council in city governance. I want to spell out why I thinkthat change in particular is unlikely to pass at the ballot box, because thedata are striking. Neighborhood associations are not a representative slice of Bozeman.Three points: First, the city's own outreach demonstrates the imbalance. When the city ran its first round of UDC engagement, about two-thirds of surveyrespondents were homeowners and one-third were renters—even though just over half of Bozeman residents are renters. Commissioners noted there were very few respondents in the 19–24 age group. The participation channels that neighborhood associations sit at the heart of skew older andmore propertied than the city as a whole. This November is a national election and we can expect meaningful participation from younger voters and renters. While 50% of Bozeman is 28 or younger, I imagine that less than 5% of neighborhood association membership is 28 or younger. Second, the INC's own membership math makes this concrete. As Commissioner Cestero noted at your April 24 meeting, the 15 currently active neighborhood associations include only about 28% of Bozemanresidents. The body the proposed charter would empower formally represents, at most, just over a quarter of the city (and as your own conversations have pointed out, expanding this representation introduces its own set of challenges). Third—and most telling—when the INC's positions get measured against actual Bozeman voters, the gap is enormous. Last November, Bozeman voters rejected the WARD initiative, which would have functioned as aslowdown on new housing, by 8,052 to 3,239—roughly 71% against. A few months later, the INC sent the Commission a letter requesting an interim zoning ordinance to pause construction of larger apartment and condo buildings inside the NCOD. That position passed the INC on the strength of90%+ support in a self-selected mailing-list survey. If you put a charter package before voters that includes expanded neighborhood-association authority, you will be asking the same Bozemanelectorate that rejected WARD to ratify a structure that further amplifiesthe voices most associated with WARD-style positions. I do not think it will pass. And if it is bundled with reforms that would otherwise have broad support, it will take those down with it. The clearest example of a reform with broad support is eliminating the deputy-mayor "apprentice" pathway. The current system, where voters elect someone to serve two years as deputy before automaticallyascending to mayor, is widely understood to be confusing and to weakenthe link between voter intent and mayoral leadership. Direct election of the mayor for a four-year term, which Commissioner Cestero has spoken in favor of, is the kind of clean, intelligible change that would likely win amajority. My recommendation is straightforward. Put forward a package that consists of changes that are (a) easy to explain in a sentence, (b)responsive to a problem most voters recognize, and (c) capable of standing on their own without controversial bundling. The deputy-mayorreform, for example, fits all three. Expanded neighborhood-association authority does not. Whatever the commission's appetite for the latter, I would urge you to weigh it against the cost of a failed ballot in November and the next ten years of operating under a charter unchanged becausethe package was too ambitious to pass. Thank you for your service and for considering this comment. Sincerely, Mark Egge 1548 South Grand Avenue, Bozeman MT 59715 (University Neighhborhood)