HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-26 Public Comment - H. Stanley - Re_ Revision to City Charter InputFrom:Hal Stanley
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: Revision to City Charter Input
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:28:35 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.
Hi Becky,
I read over the Comm. Report and the Amended Charter and applaud the work you have done. I will plan to be at
the May 18th Public Hearing. I assume you all have discussed pros/cons of the various options if the Community
asks for more information or thoughts.
Glad you were involved as I think you helped channel it into a thoughtful and useful review and recommendations.
Hal
> On Jun 3, 2026, at 4:13 PM, Hal Stanley <zachmontana@me.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Study Commissioners on your work. I have not been able to listen to all the meetings but have tried to
keep up to date with your work. I have 2 comments on the proposed revised City Charter:
>
> 1. I don’t think it would hurt to have a requirement written into the Charter for annual goals and plans to be
presented to the public, and a formal public annual review of the goals and plans of the past year. I realize this is
done now informally, but by having it as a formal requirement of the Charter it would create a greater emphasis and
responsibility on the City Commission to use this management process. This should give the public more visibility
and hopefully a chance to comment.
>
> 2. For me the biggest shortfall in local government that we have as Citizens of Bozeman and Gallatin County is
coordination between the 2 government entities. I mostly blame the County and based on their preliminary report by
the the County Government Study Commission the majority seem to think there’s no reason to try to improve the
County Government with an updated structure. I think you met with that Study Commission and perhaps with the
County Commissioners, but I couldn’t find any meeting minutes. It seems to me that we might have more
coordination, cooperation, and planning if both Commissions had Charter requirements for at least monthly meeting
to work on problems and planning affecting the public in our County. Even better, formal requirements in some
interface problems like the “donut” area around the City where there will be annexation and should be more work on
areas like fire control (fireworks, burning), water management (wells, water treatment), planning (building
requirements, paths/trails, streets) and many other common items. In the best of times these 2 government entities
work together on these issues, but requirements in Charters or maybe Contractually would guarantee citizens that in
times of different politics there would be a citizen requirement for working out problems.
>
> Again, thanks so much for your thoughtful and detailed learning and evaluation of the huge area you are tasked to
review. I might also say that my opinion is there shouldn’t be Wards; and that by trying to be flexible in giving
voters a choice in the Charter, you are making the vote much more complex and expecting voters to understand all
the nuances that you have spend many hours learning.
>
> Sincerely,
> Hal Stanley
> 1727 Kenyon Drive