HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-26 Public Comment - P. Steinmuller - Comments - Bozeman Study Commission draft reportFrom:Patti Steinmuller
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL][Possible Phish Fraud]Comments - Bozeman Study Commission draft report
Date:Friday, June 26, 2026 12:00:41 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.
WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be apotential threat.
It may pose as a legitimate company, tricking victims into revealing personal information.
If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not
respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLsmay have been modified to provide additional security.
City Study Commissioners:
Comments - Bozeman Study Commission draft report
I submitted initial comments before the June 18th public hearing. These comments include my
original comments, information from further review, and information I learned viewing the video of
the public hearing. I commend the study commission for the thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and
complexity of their work. The track changes document comparing the current 2006 charter to the
amended 2026 charter was especially helpful.
I agree with statements at the public hearing by Chuck Winn, city manager, that the text on
compensation and some text in Article V11, especially regarding the Inter-Neighborhood Council, are
too prescriptive for a city charter and may be more appropriate as recommended policy.
Although instructions in the amended charter and the ballot state that none of the votes on the sub
options will be considered unless the amended charter passes, I suggest clarifying that statement
and possibly bolding the text and placing the text in a box. See the suggestion for Exhibit D: Ballot. I
urge the committee to keep in mind, as others have suggested, that issue stated in sub-option 1, 2,
and 3 were placed on the ballot due to comments made by a large number of members of the public
who expect to have their votes counted, and would be very dissatisfied if their votes were
discounted due to a failure of the amended charter to pass. These are essential issues to consider in
educating the public about the amended charter and the ballot.
Consider whether the number of revisions and details in the amended charter may limit the public
having confidence in formulating a decision. Thus, one or more revisions, deemed unacceptable, a
“poison pill”, by a majority of the public, would eliminate the ability of voters to have their votes
counted for their choice in the mayoral issue, possible population delineation via wards, and size of
the commission. For some voters, those may be their main or only issues of concern. In that light, I
urge study commissioners to focus on revisions that possess significant rationale for improving
governance of the city, edit those revisions for clarity, and relegate policy issues to the
recommendation section.
Here are items of concern.
Section 2.04. Compensation; Expenses. In my opinion, the amended version is too complex and
unworkable. I agree with Mr. Winn that the details are prescriptive and would be better stated in
policy rather than in a city charter. The process of selecting the four resident members for the
compensation board and a timeframe for a decision are lacking. I agree with Mr. Winn’s statement
that basing the commissioners’ salary on an appropriate percentage of a full-time Equivalent of the
Gallatin County Area Median Income for a household of four is problematic in several ways and may
run counter to labor relation laws. Consider follow-up comments that Mr. Winn stated he would
submit. Also, reconsider how this issue is dealt with in other Montana cities.
Section 2.06. Vacancies
(c) Filling of Vacancies. Suggest revising the text to exclude the mayor since the vacancy of the
mayor is addressed in 2.06 (a) Vacancies.
Revised language: A vacancy in the city commission 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 position prior to the vote by the commissioners. The
appointment will be in place until the next municipal election. The vacancy shall otherwise be filled
pursuant to state law.
Section 2.07. Judge of Qualifications.
Consider replacing “newspapers” with “news media” since newspapers are only one type of news
media. Also, consider the use of the word publication. Does publication require an announcement to
be published in print media? Can publication also be digital, as in an electronic newsletter, online-
only media, or on a website?
Section 2.08. City Clerk.
Suggested edit. The city clerk shall give notice of commission meetings to its members and the
public, maintain keep the journal a record of its proceedings and perform such other duties as are
assigned by this charter, by the commission or by state law.
Consider replacing “keep” with “maintain” and replacing “the journal” with “a record” because
maintaining a record of proceedings better aligns with the use digitizing documents as a means of
maintaining them rather than keeping written journals.
Section 7.02 Methods of Electing Commission Members
I encourage the study group to revise the explanatory language for clarity and to include three
options as indicated below. As others have recommended, I suggest including a definition and
explanation of a ward system in city government, probably as an addendum of information rather
than in the charter.
Three methods of electing commission members.
1. Commission members shall be elected at large for four-year terms.
2. Commission members must reside within the ward which that office of commissioner represents
and shall be elected at large for four-year terms.
3. Commission members must reside within the ward for which that office of city commissioner
represents and shall be elected for four-year terms only by the electors within the ward in which
they reside.
Although I recognize the intent of the drafted revisions is to finalize the charter after the election by
maintaining a description of the election method that was chosen by the voters and removing the
methods that were not chosen, the text is unclear, and the intent is not easy to understand.
Consider placing the instructions in a box that will be removed after the final decisions have been
made in the election. Although that would be helpful for clarity, it would not solve the issue of the
charter containing some information that will ultimately be removed after the election choices have
been finalized by the election. Clarity is needed to promote readability and understanding of the
process.
Section 7.03. Initiative; Citizen Referendum, and Recall.
The paragraph below states that the signatures required under state law shall be reduced in
proportion to the number of inactive registered voters….
For accuracy, please check with the county elections office regarding the word inactive in relation to
signatures of voters on initiatives. A few years ago the Secretary of State attempted to discount
signatures of inactive voters from a state constitutional initiative, the SOS was disallowed from
discounting inactive voters from the signature sheets. If signatures of inactive voters cannot be
removed as long as they remain registered voters, please revise this sentence and a similar sentence
in 10.01 Proposal of Amendment.
“The powers of initiative, citizen referendum, and recall are hereby reserved to the electors of the
city as provided by state law. 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.”
Section 10.01 Proposal of Amendment
Item 4 refers to Section 7.03 and states, “In verifying petitions, the percentage under state law shall
be applied to only active voters as certified by the county election administrator.” For accuracy,
please check with the county elections office regarding the word active in relation to voters.
Article VIII
ROLE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Section 8.02, 8.03, & 8.04. While informative and helpful in stating how the city commission
engages with the public, I suggest that much of the information is too detailed and prescriptive for
inclusion in a city charter and more appropriate to policy than to a city charter. I suggest simplifying
the text to state intent and using the study commission’s recommendation to include language that
could be included in one or more policy documents. Also, I suggest substituting another word for
shall since the word shall means a duty or requirement. Since a lot can happen over the time a
revised charter may be in effect, it would be unwise to mandate actions that may inadvertently
become unwieldy or no longer appropriate to implement. I look forward to Mr. Winn’s suggestions
for these sections.
I suggest that all of 8.03 and most of 8.04 be a recommended policy. 8.04 d. Mandating hiring a City
Liaison would be inappropriate since employee hiring is the responsibility of the city manager and
has budgetary influence. 8.04 d. I suggest that the content and mandates regarding the Inter-
Neighborhood Council (INC) are too prescriptive for a charter and belong as a recommended policy.
If, as someone from The Sentinal stated that only about 30% of the city’s population are members of
neighborhood associations, consider including suggestions for increasing development of
neighborhood associations as part of a recommended policy. My neighborhood was an established
neighborhood association about 8-10 years ago, but we were so small a group that it became too
challenging to maintain participation as a neighborhood association. Perhaps there could be a future
opportunity to join an existing neighborhood association.
Section 8.05 City Boards. I suggest that as in sections 8.02, 8.03, & 8.04, much of the language in
8.05 is too prescriptive for a charter. A description could be included and most of the rest written as
a recommended policy.
Exhibit D: Certificate Establishing the Official Ballot
Consider amending the information before the three sub options. Consider revising the two
sentences below for clarity, writing the two sentences in bold, and placing the sentences in a box to
increase visibility and attention.
In addition to voting on the amended Charter, voters can choose from the three sub-options
below.
However, be advised that the results of any of these sub-options will only be applied if the
amended Charter passes with an affirmative vote.
Sub-option 2
I’m confused regarding Sub-option 2. Under election of commission members, For the Ward system,
the text states that Council members shall be elected by wards. However, since the title indicates
election of commission members, the text to the right of FOR Ward System would state, City
commissioners (not Council members) shall be elected by Wards.
Also, although candidates shall reside within the ward they would represent, mention of being
elected is confusing here because Sub option 3 provides the choice regarding how candidates for the
commission are elected. Please review and clarify the text of Sub option 2.
Sub-option 2 refers to voters while sub-option 3 refers to qualified voters. An explanation is needed
to state the reasons for using qualified in Sub0option 3.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Patti
Patti Steinmuller
952 Knolls Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715-7430
psteinmul@msn.com