Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-26 Public Comment - Gallatin Valley Sentinel - Public Comment for Today's MeetingFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment for Today"s Meeting Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2026 11:34:11 AM Attachments:Recommended Edits 5.27.26.pdf 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, Please see attached our list of recommended edits to the charter. In the attachment, we havealso identified each of the areas where the draft charter shared in the meeting agenda differs from the worksheets you've shared on your website. Any change to the current charter, largeor small, should be tracked for ease of public awareness, and the clean draft copy included in the agenda should be as simple as consolidating the tracked changes from the worksheets intoone document, and accepting the changes. For ease of reference, we have highlighted in yellow the areas that are specific recommended changes to the text. The areas that are not highlighted represent the areas where there arediscrepancies in the documents. Our hope for you between today and tomorrow is that you will start with the Preamble, and go around the dais and accept motions for amendments to each Article, Section, and Sub-Section.This will help to maintain organization for all of you, and also to make it easy for the public to follow along. Once this process has been completed, we hope that you will incorporate thoseamendments that are approved into your worksheets and draft copy, and make that draft copy available to the public with as much time as possible (preferably more than 48 hours beforethe meeting) to review it before your meeting next week on June 4. Sincerely, Katie Adamson behalf of The Gallatin Valley Sentinel Preamble • “Citizen participation” should be added back in to the list of values because it is not the same thing as public engagement. • The phrase “secure the benefits” is used twice and is repetitive. Recommendation is to keep “secure the benefits” in the first sentence, and change it in the second sentence to, “By this action, we aBirm the values of …” • “Strong political leadership” should be removed from the list of values. In Bozeman’s commission-manager structure, “strong political leadership” can be a point of confusion because it can easily be mistaken for a “strong mayor” system. Bozeman’s system relies on a strong collective commission and a professional manager. This wording should be tweaked to emphasize collaborative leadership to avoid confusion. • We recommend adding “responsive” to the adjectives used to describe the commission-manager government in the first sentence. “…to provide for an honest, accountable, and responsive commission-manager government.” • It would be beneficial for the public to hear directly from City Attorney Greg Sullivan why the term “home rule” was removed from the preamble. • Incorporating these recommendations would look like: We, the people of the City of Bozeman, under the constitution and laws of the State of Montana, in order to secure the benefits of local self-government and to provide for an honest, accountable, and responsive commission-manager government, do hereby adopt this charter and confer upon the city the following powers, subject to the following restrictions, and prescribed by the following procedures and governmental structure. By this action, we aBirm our commitment to representative democracy, professional management, collaborative leadership, meaningful public engagement, active citizen participation, and regional cooperation. Article I – Powers of the City • Section 1.03 Intergovernmental Relations – Change “shall” to “may.” “The City of Bozeman may participate by contract or otherwise …” • The Intergovernmental Relations in Section 1.03 are too broad. Our recommendation is to narrow the scope so that agreements with other entities are not entered into without the express approval of the voters. • Our recommended language: The City of Bozeman may participate by contract or otherwise with the State of Montana, Gallatin County, or neighboring local governments strictly for the joint administration of infrastructure, emergency services, and operational utilities. The City is strictly prohibited from entering into any agreement, alliance, compact, multi-city coalition, or contract, whether within the State of Montana, out-of-state, or internationally, that establishes joint regulatory policy, zoning mandates, or political initiatives, except upon prior approval by a majority of Bozeman voters at a general or special election. This restriction shall not apply to the receipt and administration of standard, non-policy fiscal grants. • To Section 1.03, we also recommend the addition of our previously-proposed text (with revisions), which further spells out the “who” and “how” of intergovernmental relations: (a) Participation. (See recommended language above.) (b) Authorized Representatives. The city commission shall designate representation based on the nature of the engagement. (i) Administrative and Technical Matters. The city manager or designated staB shall represent the city in technical execution and inter-agency coordination. (ii) Legislative and Policy Matters. An elected city commissioner shall represent the city in policy-making, legislative advocacy, and commitment of city resources. (iii) Hybrid Matters. For activities involving both technical and policy implications, the commission may represent the city or delegate authority to the city manager to designate themselves or a member of city staB. (c) Public Process and Ratification. No representative of the city, whether staB or elected, shall have the authority to cast a final, binding vote, enter into a binding legislative or policy agreement, or commit the city to a position on state or federal legislation or joint lobbying eBorts without a formal public hearing and a majority vote of the city commission at a regularly-scheduled public meeting, and subject to the voter approval requirements of subsection (a) where applicable. Any legislative position, lobbying commitment, or agreement entered into without this public process shall be considered void. • The worksheet also needs corrected to move the Judicial Branch text to the worksheet for Article IV. Article II – City Commission • In Section 2.02(a), you have again changed the text from the original charter and added language that has not been flagged for the public to see as a change. The current charter says: “(a) Eligibility. Only registered voters whose principal residence is in the City of Bozeman shall be eligible to hold the oBice of commission member or mayor.” Your proposed language says: “(a) Eligibility. Only registered voters of the City of Bozeman, pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, of the Montana Constitution, shall be eligible to hold the oBice of commission member or mayor.” We recommend the following for the draft charter language: (a) Eligibility. Only registered voters domiciled in the City of Bozeman shall be eligible to hold the oBice of commission member or mayor. If language should need to be prepared for eligibility requirements for ward-based representation, we recommend the addition of our previously-proposed text (with revisions): (a) Eligibility. No person shall be eligible to hold elective oBice as a commissioner unless that person is a qualified voter of the City of Bozeman, and has been for a period of at least twelve (12) months immediately preceding the candidate filing deadline for such oBice, domiciled within the commission ward corresponding in number to the oBice for which that person is elected or appointed. Each commissioner shall, during that commissioner’s term of oBice, be domiciled within such commission ward. If a mayor is elected at-large, the mayor must be a qualified voter of the City of Bozeman and domiciled within the city limits for at least twelve (12) months preceding the filing deadline and maintain domicile within the city throughout their term. These eligibility requirements shall also apply to persons appointed to fill a vacancy in an elected oBice; however, the twelve (12) month domicile requirement shall be measured from and precede the date of appointment. Note: The MT Legislature has residency requirements outlined in MCA, so arguments of this being unconstitutional should be taken up with the state. (https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0050/part_0010/section_0040/ 0000-0050-0010-0040.html) • In Section 2.02(b) and Section 2.02(c), we recommend consistency in the spelling out of numbers. We recommend expressing numbers as “four (4).” • In Section 2.03(a), we recommend simplifying the duties of the mayor as follows: (a) Powers and Duties. The mayor shall be a voting member of the city commission and shall attend and preside at meetings of the commission. The mayor shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes, or may delegate this duty, and by the governor for purposes of military law but shall have no administrative duties and shall not interfere with the administration of the city as provided in §2.05(c) below. The mayor shall not have any appointment power to city boards except where required by state law. • In Section 2.04, we recommend the addition of the following two sentences: “The salary for the oBice of mayor shall be the same as that of a commission member, with any additional stipend for presiding duties clearly defined by ordinance,” and “An itemized report of all such expenses for each commissioner shall be published on the city’s website quarterly to ensure full public transparency.” With these recommendations, the new section would read: “The city commission may determine the annual salary of the mayor and commission members by ordinance, but no ordinance increasing such salary shall become eBective until the date of commencement of the terms of commission members elected at the next regular election. The salary for the oBice of mayor shall be the same as that of a commission member, with any additional stipend for presiding duties clearly defined by ordinance. The mayor and commission members shall receive their actual ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties of oBice. An itemized report of all such expenses for each commissioner shall be published on the city’s website quarterly to ensure full public transparency.” • Section 2.05, second sentence should clearly indicate that employment with the City of Bozeman is what is prohibited, rather than just generally other “employment. This would then read, “No commission member shall hold any other city oBice or employment with the City of Bozeman during the term for which the member was elected to the commission.” • In Section 2.05(c), first sentence, you have made a change to the text without flagging it to the public, and the clean draft diBers from the worksheet. The clean copy says, “…the commission or its members shall communicate with city oBicers and employees …” The current charter and your worksheet say, “the commission or its members shall deal with city oBicers and employees …” • In Section 2.06(a), last sentence, you have removed the word “absent” without flagging it to the public, and the clean draft diBers from the worksheet. The clean copy says, “If the mayor is incapacitated, dies, resigns from oBice, or is removed from oBice …” The current charter and worksheet say, “If the mayor is absent, incapacitated, dies, resigns from oBice, or is removed from oBice …” • In Section 2.06(b)(1), you have changed the text in the clean copy without flagging it to the public. You have changed “Fails to meet the residency requirements” that appears in both the current charter and your worksheet to “Fails to meet the eligibility requirements” that appears in the clean copy. • In Section 2.06(b)(4), you have changed the current charter text without flagging it for the public. The current charter states, “Fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Commission without being excused by a majority of the Commission.” Your clean copy and worksheet say, “Fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Commission without being excused by the commission.” • Section 2.06(b)(4) Your draft and worksheet should be changed to say “a majority of the commission” to make it clear that one commissioner cannot excuse the absence of another commissioner. • Section 2.06(b)(4) also diBers from the current charter text, which says “A commission member shall forfeit that oBice if the commission member …” Your worksheet says “A commission member or Mayor shall forfeit that oBice if the oBiceholder …” and your clean copy says “The mayor or a commission shall forfeit that oBice if the mayor or commissioner …” Which is it? • Section 2.06(c) also diBers between the worksheet and the clean copy. Your clean copy says, “A vacancy in the city commission or the oBice of the mayor shall be filled within 60 days of the occurrence of the vacancy by vote of the existing city commissioners. Commissioners must hold a public forum with applicants for the vacant commission or mayor position. This appointment will be in place until the next municipal election. The vacancy shall otherwise be filled, pursuant to state law.” Your worksheet says, “A vacancy in the city commission or the oBice of the mayor shall be filled within 60 days of the occurrence of said vacancy by vote of the existing City Commissioners. Commissioners must hold a public forum with potential applicants for the vacant commission or mayor position. Said vacancy shall otherwise be filled, pursuant to state law. This appointment will be in place until the next scheduled election pursuant to state law.” Which is it? • Section 2.06(c) conflicts with Section 2.06(a). Section 2.06(a) states that a vacancy for the mayor’s role will be filled by the vice mayor, and then the commission vacancy created by the vice mayor’s move to mayor will be filled pursuant to the rest of the section, and Section 2.06(c) says that a vacancy in the role of mayor will be filled by appointment within 60 days. Which is it? • Section 2.07 could be improved as follows: “The city commission shall be the judge of the grounds for forfeiture of a member’s oBice, pursuant to §2.06(b). In order to exercise these powers, the commission shall have power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and require the production of evidence. A member charged with conduct constituting grounds for forfeiture of oBice shall be entitled to a public hearing on demand, the right to be represented by legal counsel, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. The member shall be responsible for all costs associated with their legal representation; provided, however, that the commission may, by ordinance, provide for the reimbursement of reasonable legal fees if the hearing results in a final determination that no grounds for forfeiture existed. Notice of such hearing shall be published in the city’s oBicial newspaper of record and on the city’s digital platforms at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing. A vote to declare an oBice forfeited shall require an aBirmative vote of a supermajority of the commission.” At a minimum, we recommend the last sentence to be updated to reflect that the notice of the hearing will be published in the city’s oBicial newspaper of record and on the city’s digital platforms (social media and website). • Items listed in Section 2.11 should be listed as an alphabetical list (a, b, c), rather than a numerical list (1, 2, 3). • Section 2.11(6) has been changed from the original charter language in both the clean draft and the worksheets without flagging it for the public. The original charter text says, “Adopt or amend zoning and subdivision regulations.” The clean copy of the draft and the worksheet both say, “Regulate land use and development.” The text used in the clean copy and worksheets is probably more appropriate when considering the Montana Land Use and Planning Act (MLUPA), but this should still be flagged for the public to understand that it is a change from the current charter language. • To Section 2.11, we recommend adding the following language if wards are approved by voters in November: “(i) Establish or change the boundaries of city wards; provided, however, that the commission shall adopt the ward boundaries exactly as determined by the Independent Citizens’ Redistricting Advisory Board pursuant to §2.02(c).” • The worksheet for Article II has text for Section 9.04. This should be removed from this worksheet; it is already in the worksheet that includes Article IX. Article III – City Manager • Section 3.01 has been changed from the original charter without bringing it to the public’s attention. The original charter says, “The city manager shall be appointed solely on the basis of education and experience …” The clean draft says. “The city manager shall be appointed solely based on education and experience …” While a minor change, this should still show as a change in your worksheets. • The last sentence of Section 3.01 is diBerent in your clean copy and worksheet. The worksheet says, “The City Manager shall be provided with an annual comprehensive performance review.” The clean copy of the draft says, “The commission must conduct an annual comprehensive performance evaluation of the city manager.” • Section 3.02 of the draft charter says, … “shall be oBered a public hearing.” The original charter and worksheet say, “ … shall be aBorded a public hearing.” Again, this should be flagged as a change in the worksheets. • Section 3.04(1) should have commas between “provided for, by, or under this charter …” • The numbered list in Section 3.04 should be replaced with an alphabetical list. • Section 3.04(5) of the draft charter and worksheet diBers from the original charter text. The original charter says, “Prepare and submit the annual budget and multi- year capital program to the city commission for its approval and execute the final budget approved by the commission …” The draft and worksheet say, “Prepare and submit the annual budget and capital program to the city commission, and implement the final budget approved by the commission …” These changes should be clearly identified to the public. • We recommend adding back in “for its approval” in Section 3.04(5) because the commission also approves the capital program, not just the budget. • “Long-term” is hyphenated in Section 3.04(11) of the draft and worksheet and is not hyphenated in the original charter. Another change, that while insignificant to the meaning, is a change that should be tracked. • Section 3.04(9) would be better worded as, “Provide administrative options, analysis, and information necessary to inform the policies established by the city commission.” • Section 3.04(10) would be better if worded as, “Provide administrative support services for the mayor and commission members compiled by and directed through the city manager, subject to the provisions regarding the city clerk under §2.08.” • Section 3.04(11) would be better worded as “Assist in implementing the long-term goals and policies established by the city commission.” • Section 3.04(12) would be better worded as “Provide administrative support for intergovernmental cooperation authorized by the city commission.” • Section 3.04(13) would be better worded as “Support the public communicate and engagement processes established by the city commission and this charter.” • Section 3.04(16) should be removed. Advisory committees, whether temporary or otherwise, should be bodies that are appointed by the city commission and are subject to a public recruitment and appointment process. • In its place, insert as Section 3.04(16), “Provide the city commission with a formal ‘StaB Capacity and Operational Impact Note’ prior to the adoption of any new priority, policy initiative, or major project. This note shall explicitly detail the required staB hours, necessary technological resources, and the specific existing city services or projects that will be delayed or displaced if the new initiative is approved.” Article IV – Judicial Branch • The text of this Article should be replaced with the language recommended by Judge Herrington in October 2025: https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308393&dbid=0&repo=B OZEMAN. Article V – Departments, OFices and Agencies • Section 4.02 of the worksheet and the current charter both say that “… shall be made solely on the basis of merit …” The clean copy of the draft (in what is now Section 5.02) says, “… shall be made solely based on merit …” Again, this is a minor change, but a change nonetheless. • Section 5.03(b) would read better as, “The legal oBicer shall serve as chief legal adviser to the commission, the manager, and all city departments, oBices, and agencies. The legal oBicer shall represent the city in all legal proceedings and shall perform any other duties prescribed by state law, by this charter, or by ordinance.” • The end of Section 5.04 of the clean draft diBers from the end of Section 4.04 of the worksheet. The clean draft says, “… shall seek to act in cooperation with other jurisdictions and organizations, including aBected neighborhood associations …” The worksheet says, “… shall seek to act in cooperation with aBected neighborhood associations, other jurisdictions and organizations …” Again, the eBect of the text is the same, but the full draft and worksheets should match. The language in the clean draft is the preferred option, as it includes neighborhood associations as one of the organizations. Article VI – Financial Management • Section 6.01 of the clean draft diBers from Section 5.01 of the current charter and the worksheet. The draft says, “The fiscal year of the city shall begin and end as provided by state law.” The current charter and worksheet say, “The fiscal year of the city shall begin on the first day of July and end on the last day of June, or as otherwise provided by state law. Which is it? • The second sentence of Section 6.03 currently says, “The budget shall provide an overview …” and it should say, “The budget message shall provide an overview …” • Section 6.04(a) of the clean draft and the related Section 5.04(a) of the current charter diBer from the worksheet. The draft and current charter say, “The preliminary annual operating budget, the final budget, and amended budgets must be prepared in accordance with state laws governing municipal budgets as then in eBect.” The worksheet says, “The preliminary annual operating budget, the final budget, and amended budgets must be prepared in accordance with the MCA, “Local Government Budget Act” as then in eBect. Which is it? The worksheet does not even show these changes in red to indicate that the words were changed. • Section 6.07(a) of the clean draft diBers from Section 6.07(a) of the worksheet. The draft charter language says, “The city manager shall prepare and submit to the city commission a multi-year capital program in alignment with the budget process and at least biennially.” The worksheet says, “The city manager shall prepare and submit to the city commission a multi-year capital program at least biennially.” Which is it? • The end of Section 6.07 of the draft clean charter diBers from Section 5.07 of the worksheet and current charter. The clean draft says, “The above shall be revised and extended each year regarding capital improvements still pending or in process of construction or acquisition.” The worksheet and current charter say, “The above shall be revised and extended each year with regard to capital improvements still pending or in process of construction or acquisition.” Another minor change but still needs reconciled. • Section 6.09 of the clean draft diBers from the Section 5.09 of the current charter and worksheet. The clean draft splits the last sentence of the section in the current charter and worksheet into two sentences. This is not major, but again should be pointed out. • Section 6.09 of the clean draft also includes a sentence that is not in Section 5.09 of the current charter or worksheet. This new sentence says, “Such audits should be performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) and Generally Accepted Governmental Auditing Standards (GAGAS).” This should be added to and highlighted in the worksheet. • We recommend removing the last sentence of Section 6.09 altogether, so that an accountant or firm doing the city’s audit cannot also be doing other work for the city at the same time as the audit. This should not be able to be waived away by the City Commission. Article VII – Elections • The second sentence of Section 7.03 of the clean draft (and Section 6.03 of the current charter) diBers from Section 6.03 of the worksheet. The clean draft and current charter say, “In verifying petitions for initiatives and referendums, the percentage of signatures required under state law shall be reduced in proportion to the number of inactive registered voters as most recently certified by the county election administrator pursuant to state law.” The worksheet simply says, “In verifying petitions, the percentages under state law shall be applied only to active voters as certified by the county election administrator.” Which is it? • To Article VII, we recommend adding, if appropriate, language that defines how wards will be established. Our previously-submitted language, with edits based on other decisions that have been made, recommends, “The city shall be divided into six (6) wards as determined by the Independent Citizens’ Redistricting Advisory Board pursuant to §2.02. In the initial formation of wards and subsequent redistricting, as nearly as practicable, each ward shall be compact, contiguous, and of substantially equal population, and shall preserve existing neighborhood boundaries. Section 2.02 establishes the board that would establish ward boundaries and states, “The boundaries of such wards shall be determined by an Independent Citizens’ Redistricting Advisory Board by report to the commission and shall be redetermined by the board, by resolution adopted not later than twelve (12) months following the publication of each federal census thereafter, provided that the population disparity between wards shall not exceed ten percent at the time of any such boundary determination or redetermination, and no boundary shall be altered so as to exclude any incumbent from oBice prior to the expiration of that incumbent’s term.” • City Attorney Greg Sullivan should weigh in on Section 7.03 because there have been debates in the past on how this statement is applied, as recently as the Water Adequacy for Residential Development ballot initiative. Article VIII – Role of Public Engagement in Local Governance • To Section 8.04(b)(2), we recommend adding to the end of the sentence “,but only residents of the neighborhood association may serve on its leadership board and on the Inter-Neighborhood Council. This prevents a worst-case scenario of a business with a commercial interest from forming a new neighborhood and recruiting others with commercial interests to serve on the board but still allows those businesses to be active as members of the association. • Your proposed language in Section 8.04(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 2.1 accessibility standards for the visually impaired? By hard-coding a term with such heavy implications into the Charter, you are placing an unfunded 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 the right to de-recognize them for being "inaccessible?" This creates a "gotcha" mechanism that the City can use to silence neighborhood associations. • Section 8.04(c), we recommend keeping the text as you have it, where a full-time employee is designated as liaison to neighborhoods. What has happened in the past is that the neighborhoods liaison has been pulled away from this responsibility to fulfill others, such as covering for staB in the Communications department and to focus on the Belonging in Bozeman Plan, among other activities. Neighborhoods need a designated person, and if there is not enough work each week to full a full- time position for this, then that person can be utilized for other responsibilities, but neighborhoods should be their focus. • Section 8.04(d)(1), city “manager” Is misspelled. • Section 8.04(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 simply declare consultation "not practicable" and move forward without any neighborhood input. This language creates a massive legal loophole that renders the entire "commitment" to neighborhood 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 is convenient for the City. By including this phrase, you are codifying the City's right to ignore its citizens whenever it chooses. • Section 8.04(d)(7) states the City should provide reasons for "divergence" from neighborhood recommendations. During meetings, Commissioners often argue that they "already do this" by explaining their votes from the dais. This is insuBicient. A verbal explanation buried in a four-hour+ video recording is not a transparent public record. For this section to have any teeth, the Charter must mandate a formal, written response to Neighborhood Association recommendations. If the City chooses to diverge from the advice of a recognized neighborhood 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 public and 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 8.04(d)(8) should move out of the charter language and be put as a recommendation. • Section 8.04(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 is to 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. We recommend that the Charter explicitly focus board roles on independent review and resident advocacy, rather than city-sponsored 'education' eBorts. • Section 8.04(c)(1) suggests that the City should advertise for board members "not less than twice annually." This language is unacceptably vague and insuBicient for a growing city. A twice-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 on residents 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 minimum of 30 days. Limiting the requirement to "twice a year" allows the City to fulfill the letter of the law while eBectively "stealth-filling" positions with hand-picked applicants. Transparency requires 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 may change between biannual postings. • Section 8.04(c)(3) should be removed or changed to reflect the language recommended above for Section 8.04(c)(1). A vacancy should be posted to gather new applications. This could help to attract highly-qualified individuals whose schedules may not have aligned at the time of the prior board solicitation process. • Section 8.04(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 public advertisement 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 positions are 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 Charter explicitly 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 a committee is temporary. • Section 8.04(c)(6) - Term limits should not be removed. • We still recommend adding language to establish the Neighborhood Impact Statement process. Our previously recommended language follows, and if some sections of it are more specific than you would prefer for the charter, then we recommend moving those specific areas to a recommendation. Section 5.04 Neighborhood Impact Statements. (a) Definition and Purpose. A Neighborhood Impact Statement (NIS) is an official statement or position adopted by a Neighborhood Association and / or the Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) on any pending or active city legislation or policy. The NIS process is hereby established for Neighborhood Associations and the INC as the formal method to publicly express their support, opposition, or suggestions about any existing or pending matter before the City Commission, City Manager, City staff, or advisory boards. The filing of an NIS also allows Neighborhood Associations and / or the INC to provide testimony at City Commission, advisory board, and any other public City meetings pertaining to the submitted statement. This allows city leaders and policymakers to understand the impact of pending legislation and policy on the neighborhood scale and allows the public to participate in the decision-making process more locally. (b) Procedures. To ensure that the advisory roles of Neighborhood Associations and the Inter-Neighborhood Council are substantive and transparent, the following procedures for Neighborhood Impact Statements are established. (i) Right to File. Any recognized Neighborhood Association and the Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) may file an Neighborhood Impact Statement (NIS) regarding any matter pending before the City Commission and its advisory boards. The NIS is an official statement used to express the position of a Neighborhood Association or the INC as a whole and is not to be used to express individual, personal opinions. The NIS is a Neighborhood Association and / or INC’s formal communication to the City as to how the neighborhood(s) wish their representatives to vote on a matter that is before them. There are five types of actions from which the Neighborhood Associations and INC may choose: For, For If Amended, Against, Against Unless Amended, No Position, and Neutral. (ii) Process. Neighborhood Associations and INC must have a governing board in place and must have voted in a Neighborhood and / or INC meeting on the topic on which the NIS is being submitted. The NIS should include information about how the NIS was approved by the Neighborhood Association and / or INC (for example, if it was voted on by the entire Neighborhood Association or INC board, or if it was written by an officer authorized by the board to express its previously voted upon position). The NIS should also include the vote count. (iii) Early Notification. The City Commission, City Manager, City Clerk, or Neighborhoods Coordinator shall provide Early Warning notification to the affected Neighborhood Associations and the INC at least thirty (30) days prior to any scheduled final vote or public hearing on matters listed in Section 5.02(a). (iv) Submission and Inclusion. An NIS must be submitted to the City Clerk at least five (5) business days prior to the relevant public meeting. The City Clerk shall include the NIS in the official agenda packet and on the agenda item memorandum provided to the City Commission and relevant advisory boards. The NIS shall be maintained as a permanent part of the public record for the project or ordinance in question. (v) Public Meeting Protocol. During a public hearing or meeting where an NIS has been filed, the presiding officer of the meeting shall acknowledge the receipt of the NIS. A designated representative of the filing Neighborhood Association and / or INC shall be granted ten (10) minutes for a presentation and testimony, immediately following the staff and applicant presentations, to summarize the NIS findings. (vi) Formal Response. Should the City Commission take action contrary to a formal recommendation in an NIS, it shall provide a written or verbal explanation for the record during the public meeting, outlining the rationale for the deviation. (vii) Individual Rights Reserved. Submitting an NIS expresses a serious and committed position on an issue by a Neighborhood Association and / or the INC and demonstrates community interest and support (or disapproval) of an issue. This process does not preclude individual residents or members of the Neighborhood Association or INC from also expressing their opinions as individuals. Letters submitted to the City Clerk identifying an opinion on a specific NIS are to also be included in the file. • We still recommend adding language for advisory board eligibility that specifically addresses that individuals have a direct or indirect financial or contractual relationship with the City of Bozeman is not eligible to serve on the board. The city’s definition of “Conflicts of Interest” are weak at best, and it is absolutely an issue that we have people serving on advisory boards, giving input on, and often voting on decisions that will directly benefit either themselves or their employers. Our recommended language is as follows: (ix) Eligibility. To ensure the absolute objectivity of advisory boards, no person shall be eligible to serve on an advisory board if they, or their employer, have a direct or indirect financial or contractual relationship with the City of Bozeman. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to: Owners, partners, or employees of any firm, organization, or corporation currently under contract with, or bidding for a contract with, the City of Bozeman; Staff, volunteer, or board members of any for-profit or non-profit organization or entity that has received a discretionary grant or financial consideration from the City of Bozeman within the previous twelve (12) months; Any person with a substantial indirect interest in a firm, organization, or corporation that renders services to the City for consideration. If a member of an advisory board, or their employer or organization, enters into a contractual or grant-based relationship with the City of Bozeman during the member’s term, that member shall be deemed to have a conflict of interest and their seat shall be considered immediately vacant. All applicants for advisory boards shall submit a full disclosure of any professional, financial, or volunteer ties to entities doing business with or receiving grants from the City of Bozeman. To ensure ongoing compliance with the eligibility standards of this charter, every member of an advisory board shall file an updated disclosure statement with the City Clerk annually by January 31st. Should a member’s employment, financial interest, or organizational affiliation change during their term in a way that creates a potential conflict under this Section, the member must notify the City Clerk in writing within five (5) business days. The City Clerk shall review these disclosures to ensure compliance with this Section prior to any appointment. If a new affiliation violates the eligibility requirements in this Charter, the seat shall be declared vacant immediately. Article IX – General Provisions • Section 9.01(b) of the worksheet and clean copy of the draft diBers from the original charter Section 7.01(b). Both the worksheet and clean copy oBers ethics training to candidates for public oBice (“… including candidates for public oBice …”). If this change is being recommended, it should be brought to the public’s attention. • We recommend removing “including candidates for public oBice” because this utilizes public resources, including, but not limited to, the cost of staB time, to conduct this training, and training any number of candidates on city ethics is irrelevant until they are actually elected. If anything, you could add to this section, “Within the first three months of holding public oBice, newly-elected city oBicials will undergo the city’s ethics training.” Article X – Charter Amendment • The last sentence of Section 10.01(4) in the clean draft and Section 8.01 of the worksheet diBers from what is currently in the city charter and should be highlighted as a change for the public to be aware of. The clean draft and worksheet say, “In verifying petitions, the percentage under state law shall be applied to only active voters as certified by the county election administrator.” The current charter says, “In verifying petitions, the percentage of required signatures shall be reduced pursuant to Section 6.03, above.” Again, the public needs to be made aware of any and all changes that you have made to the current charter, no matter how significant or insignificant. • Section 10.01(4) makes reference to Article V for initiative petitions. This reference should be to Article VII. Article XI – Transition and Severability • Section 9.01(c) of the worksheet shows that changes were made to this section from the original charter, but there have been no changes. • Section 11.04 of the clean draft should include a timeline for Section 2.03(c), Appointing a Vice Mayor. Deputy Mayor Douglas Fischer will become mayor in January 2028, so the first Vice Mayor should be appointed in January 2028.