HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-26 Public Comment - Gallatin Valley Sentinel - Public Comment for May 13 MeetingFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment for May 13 Meeting
Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 11:38:37 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,
We are submitting this public comment late on Monday evening to ensure you have ample
time to review it. While we've heard you comment in recent meetings that you did not receiveour comments until 1 a.m. the day of your 4 p.m. meetings, we hope that you can appreciate
that many Bozeman residents, including those who volunteer with our organization, balancetheir civic engagement with full-time jobs. Since we are more than 24 hours ahead of your
official Wednesday noon deadline, we trust this provides more than enough time for thisfeedback to be given the serious consideration it deserves. We also recommend that if you are
not able to read public comments submitted up until noon the day of your meeting, that youchange your meeting agendas to reflect a deadline for public comment that ensures that you
have ample time to read and consider them.
Furthermore, we strongly recommend that you update your website(https://www.bozemanmt.gov/services/bozeman-city-study-commission/upcoming-past-
meetings) with your current meeting schedule and topics, and republish a corrected calendar inthe local newspaper and via social media
(https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=311976&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN). Currently, there have been no posts on the City of
Bozeman's social media advertising your meetings or discussion topics since March, despitethe fact that you've changed the dates for your May meetings and the critical public hearing in
June. Providing the public with outdated links and incorrect calendars, while failing to utilizethe City's primary communication channels, effectively disenfranchises residents who wish to
participate in this process. Transparency requires consistent and accurate notification, and thecurrent lack of outreach falls short of that standard.
Here are our comments on each of your meeting agenda items for Wednesday, May 13:
F.1 Review Further Edits to Public Engagement Article
You have added a lot of language but have not made any changes that will have the effect ofneighborhood voices being heard, and by being heard, we mean actually having an influence
on a policy outcome.
Section 7.04 Neighborhood Assocations should be Section 7.03.
Your proposed language in Section 7.04(b)(6) requires that neighborhood communication be"accessible" to all residents. While this sounds virtuous, "accessible" has a specific, high-level
legal and technical meaning in government (often tied to ADA and Section 508 compliance).Does this mean every neighborhood newsletter must be professionally translated into multiple
languages? Does it mean every neighborhood website or flyer must meet strict WCAG 2.1accessibility standards for the visually impaired?
By hard-coding a term with such heavy implications into the Charter, you are placing anunfunded mandate on volunteer neighbors. If a small neighborhood association doesn't have
the budget for professional compliance or translation services, does the City then have theright to de-recognize them for being "inaccessible?" This creates a "gotcha" mechanism that
the City can use to silence neighborhood associations.
Section 7.04(d)(5) states that the City shall provide information and opportunity for
consultation to neighborhoods "when practicable." This is a dangerous and hollow standard.Who decides when it is "practicable"? If a development is controversial, if the timeline is tight,
or if the City simply doesn't want to deal with neighborhood pushback, they can simplydeclare consultation "not practicable" and move forward without any neighborhood input.
This language creates a massive legal loophole that renders the entire "commitment" toneighborhood associations meaningless. If the City is truly committed to a "thriving local
democracy," consultation must be a requirement, not an option to be exercised only when it isconvenient for the City. By including this phrase, you are codifying the City's right to ignore
its citizens whenever it chooses.
Section 7.04(d)(7) states the City should provide reasons for "divergence" from neighborhood
recommendations. During meetings, Commissioners often argue that they "already do this" byexplaining their votes from the dais. This is insufficient. A verbal explanation buried in a four-
hour+ video recording is not a transparent public record. For this section to have any teeth, theCharter must mandate a formal, written response to Neighborhood Association
recommendations. If the City chooses to diverge from the advice of a recognizedneighborhood body, that reasoning should be documented in a written finding attached to the
final action. This ensures that the "reasons for divergence" are easily accessible to the publicand clear to the neighborhood leaders and residents who took their volunteer time to develop
their formal recommendations, rather than being lost in the archives of meeting minutes.Without a written requirement, this section is simply a way for the Commission to check a box
without actually being held accountable for ignoring resident expertise.
Section 7.04(a) (City Boards) suggests that City Boards should serve a "public education"
function. This is a fundamental shift in the role of advisory bodies. The purpose of a board isto provide independent, citizen-led advice to the Commission, not to act as a PR arm for the
Commission.
When you task boards with "educating" the public, you turn them into a tool for
manufacturing consent for city policies. This is especially dangerous when combined with the'One Body, One Voice' resolution, which already suppresses dissenting opinions, and your
recommendation on that resolution is only just that - recommendations that can be ignored.We don't need boards to "educate" us on why the City's decisions are right; we need boards
that have the autonomy to tell the Commission when the City’s decisions are wrong. Werecommend that the Charter explicitly focus board roles on independent review and resident
advocacy, rather than city-sponsored 'education' efforts.
Section 7.04(c)(1) suggests that the City should advertise for board members "not less than
twice annually." This language is unacceptably vague and insufficient for a growing city. Atwice-yearly "general" advertisement does nothing to inform the public about specific
vacancies on technical or high-impact boards when they actually occur. It also relies onresidents to be subscribed to City emails or to check the website regularly. These vacancies
should be also posted on the City's social media to increase accessibility.
If the Study Commission is serious about "equitable engagement," the Charter should mandate
that every single vacancy be advertised individually across multiple platforms for a minimumof 30 days. Limiting the requirement to "twice a year" allows the City to fulfill the letter of the
law while effectively "stealth-filling" positions with hand-picked applicants. Transparencyrequires that the public is notified of an opportunity to serve at the moment that opportunity
arises, not just during a biannual sweep that most residents will miss or whose availability maychange between biannual postings.
Section 7.04(c)(2) states that board appointments should "reflect the composition of thecommunity." This is dangerous, ambiguous language. What "composition" is being measured?
Is the City tracking the race, age, gender, renter/homeowner status, or political affiliation ofevery applicant to ensure they fit a specific quota?
City Boards should be composed of the most qualified individuals who are willing to serve,not a hand-picked group chosen to satisfy a demographic spreadsheet. By forcing boards to
"reflect" a specific composition, you are telling highly qualified residents that their skills don'tmatter if their "category" is already full.
Section 7.04(c)(3) should be removed.
Section 7.04(c)(5) mentions the creation of "ad hoc commissions for specific purposes."
However, it fails to mandate that these influential groups be subject to the same publicadvertisement and open application process as permanent boards. "Ad hoc" committees are
frequently used to handle the city’s most high-impact and sensitive issues. If these positionsare filled behind closed doors without public notice, it allows the City Commission to hand-
pick a group that will deliver a pre-determined outcome. We recommend that the Charterexplicitly require that all ad hoc commissions be publicly advertised for a minimum of 30 days
prior to any appointments being made. Transparency should not be optional just because acommittee is temporary.
Section 7.04(c)(6) - Term limits should not be removed.
Items F.2-F.4
We would like to remind the Commission of the positions taken during the candidate forumhosted by Bozeman Tenants United in 2024. When asked if they supported the establishment
of wards, Commissioners Carson, Becky, and Deanna voted "Yes," while Jan was unsure.When asked if they supported increasing the number of commissioners, Carson, Jan, and
Deanna indicated "Yes," and Becky was unsure.
The summary of data from your own community survey indicates that the majority of
Bozeman residents lean toward ward-based representation. Furthermore, the majority ofrespondents indicated that if the city moves to wards, only the residents within those wards
should vote for their specific candidate.
We remind you of this because the public has asked for wards. While a few individuals have
expressed concerns, the majority has spoken, and those individual concerns can be addressedwith specific charter language rather than by abandoning the concept entirely.
By removing the mandate for 100% of the city to be covered by neighborhoods, you have leftresidents exposed to the same excuses used to ignore their recommendations in the past. If you
do not establish ward-based representation, you will have effectively completed this entireprocess without making a single substantial change to our local government that reflects the
outcomes residents have clearly indicated they desire.
We refer you to our previously-submitted public comments and recommended charter
language that you can use as a starting point for these decisions.
We also want to point out in response to Carson's comments that Bozeman isn't big enough for
wards that Belgrade operates on a ward system.
To put the need for wards into perspective, we look to our neighbors in Belgrade. Belgrade has
3 wards, with 2 commissioners in each ward, for a population of approximately 13,700,meaning every 4,500 residents have a dedicated voice. In contrast, Bozeman has zero
neighborhood-level representation for 60,000 people. We are advocating for a 7-memberCommission with 7 distinct wards. Even with this expansion, each Bozeman Commissioner
would still represent over 8,500 residents, nearly double the constituent load of 2 Belgraderepresentatives. This is a reasonable, common-sense expansion that ensures the Commission
remains manageable while finally giving Bozeman neighborhoods the dedicated seat at thetable they have been asking for. It is a solid intermediary step from going without any wards to
having wards, without doubling the size of the Commission.
Our neighbors in Belgrade have successfully used a Ward-based system for years to ensure
that growth is managed with neighborhood input. They prove that you can have a cohesivecity government while still guaranteeing that every resident has a 'neighborhood'
representative who actually lives where they live. If Belgrade can manage a 3-Ward systemfor 13,000 people, there is no reason Bozeman cannot implement a 7-Ward system for 60,000.
Additionally, if you insist on continuing to elect a mayor at-large, we recommend Belgrade'slanguage: "The mayor shall preside at all meetings of the council and vote only in case of a tie.
He/she shall appoint all members of boards and commissions with the consent of the council.The mayor shall be recognized as head of city government for all ceremonial purposes and
public statements, or may delegate this duty." Their mayor is elected every two years.
Thank you,
Katie Adams
On behalf of The Gallatin Valley Sentinel