HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-26 Public Comment - A. Kociolek - Re_ Public comment re Charter LanguageFrom:Angie Kociolek
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Cc:Barb Cestero
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: Public comment re Charter Language
Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 4:39:38 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.
Hello again -
I didn’t realize until today’s meeting that you deleted 7.04.d.4 “city-wide concerns.” I heartilydisagree with this deletion. It undermines the INC’s Purpose and Role. Repeating “city-wide
concerns” adds weight to this important facet of INC.
Angie
Sent from my iPhone
On May 13, 2026, at 2:54 PM, Angie Kociolek<citizenangiekociolek@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Study Commission -
Thank you for your work on Article VII of the City Charter. I appreciate many ofyour additions and clarifications.
As the NENA INC Rep, current INC Bylaws Subcommittee Member, andengaged resident, I offer the following insights, corrections, and suggestions uponreading your latest draft attached in the May 13 agenda.
Page 1
Section 7.021. Strike “s” from “recognizes.”
2. Add a dash (-) between “Inter Neighborhood.”
3. Change “can” to “shall” to ensure that Neighborhood Associations (NA) will
be an institutional structure.
Page 2
Section 7.04
1. Define City of Bozeman here to include our local governing body AND itspeople to clearly set it apart of other uses of the word “city.”
2. As done elsewhere in the document, add “the City as a whole” in the last
sentence in Purpose: “Neighborhood Associations will champion the needs oftheir neighborhoods and the City as a whole to ensure…”
3. Might be worth fleshing out what is meant by “democratic deliberation” in this
context. I can appreciate the need for thoughtful process but “democraticdeliberation” sounds a bit formal for the realities of Neighborhood Associations.
4. The INC does not have the capacity or time to work on NA boundary setting.
The neighborhood itself with the guidance of the staff liaison are well equipped todo that foundational step. Suggest removing INC from b1.
5. When speaking of two-way communication with all residents of a
neighborhood - do you mean like having an email address and regular in personmeetings? In order for each NA to have a shot at reaching ALL its members (that
is residents, property owners, businesses, organizations within a given boundary)the city ought to be informing everyone with a mailing address of its existence
and how to get involved - ie sign up for our email/paper newsletter with moreways to get involved. Then we as an NA can maintain two-way communication.
Without the city’s resources - such as postage - NAs are left to promote themselves via hand delivered paper newsletters, social media, word of mouth,
fliers, etc.
6. *** Change “elect” to “select” to be consistent with other parts of the Charterand INC Bylaws. In b8. “… eligible to select members to serve on the Inter-
Neighborhood Council.” ***
7. Define Inter-Neighborhood Council before referring to it.
Page 3
1. Suggest elaborating a bit on the expectations of a City Commission Liaison.“Liaison” implies acting together for a common purpose. I think it is reasonable to
expect that a Liaison would be an ally, a partner. Recent interactions between theINC and the current CC Liaison have not had the sense of working together.
Perhaps the Charter can help in this regard.
2. d* - again remove the task of INC developing neighborhood boundaries.
Sincerely,
Angie Kociolek