HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-26 Public Comment - A. Kocieolek - Public commentFrom:Mike Maas
To:Alex Newby
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL]Public comment
Date:Tuesday, May 19, 2026 12:17:13 PM
From: Bozeman Public Comment <comments@bozemanmt.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:01 AM
To: Angie Kociolek <citizenangiekociolek@gmail.com>
Cc: Bozeman City Clerks Department <BozemanClerksDepartment@bozemanmt.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Public comment
Hi Angie,
All public comments to the Study Commission are housed under the Study Commission
separately from the City Commission public comments: 2024-2026 Study Commission Public
Comments
As they are a distinct entity separate from the City Commission their comments are not
interchanged between the two bodies.
I hope that clarifies.
Thanks,
Mike
From: Angie Kociolek <citizenangiekociolek@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 5:16 PM
To: Bozeman Public Comment <comments@bozemanmt.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public comment
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,
Can you please confirm whether or not written public comments made to the Study
Commission are also automatically included in the Public Comment repository? I’m not
seeing the comment I submitted to them at govreview@bozeman.net on May 13 so am
including it below so it can be added.
Also, there doesn’t seem to be one file where someone can find all the public comment
to the Study Commission about charter language. Given this hot topic it would be
appropriate for all the letters to be in one place easy to find. The May 20 deadline is
almost upon us so this seems like a priority to me.
Thanks,
Angie Kociolek
Emailed on May 13, 2026
Dear Study Commission -
Thank you for your work on Article VII of the City Charter. I appreciate many of your
additions and clarifications.
As the NENA INC Rep, current INC Bylaws Subcommittee Member, and engaged
resident, I offer the following insights, corrections, and suggestions upon reading your
latest draft attached in the May 13 agenda.
Page 1
Section 7.02
1. 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 its people 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 of their 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 “democratic deliberation”
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 to do 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 person meetings? 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 more ways 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 Charter and
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 the INC 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
Hello again -
I didn’t realize until today’s meeting that you deleted 7.04.d.4 “city-wide concerns.” I
heartily disagree with this deletion. It undermines the INC’s Purpose and Role.
Repeating “city-wide concerns” adds weight to this important facet of INC.
Angie