HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-26 Public Comment - Gallatin Valley Sentinel - Final Report Public CommentFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission; The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Final Report Public Comment
Date:Thursday, July 23, 2026 11:55:21 AM
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.
To the Bozeman Study Commission:
We offer the following comments and recommendations on the current draft of the final
report:
Since most voters will be reading this report online, we recommend hyperlinking the
table of contents to each section of the charter, so that a reader can click on a section ofinterest and jump automatically to that section.
We recommend making sure that the section titles in the table of contents matches eachsection of text. For example, the report's table of contents refers to II. B. as Key
Provisions of the Amended Charter, but the actual text says Key provisions of theproposal. Hyperlinking the table of contents will fix this issue, but if you choose not to
hyperlink it, then the text should manually be updated to match, as well as the pagenumbers, which also need to be added.Letter to Residents, page 3 - We recommend adding a paragraph toward the beginningthe specifically lets people know that this is going to a vote in November. As it is now, a
reader would need to read the entirety of the letter before finding out that voters will beasked if they want to adopt the amended charter in November.Report Summary, page 4 - In the second paragraph of page 2, we recommend addinglanguage that explains that there are two parts to the vote: one on the amended charter,
and another on the sub-options. We shared this final report with a few people who havenot been following the study process closely, and tthose unfamiliar with the study
process and potential outcome, the call to action and reasons why they should continuereading the report were unclear.Key Provisions of the Proposal, page 5 -Item #1 would be better titled as "Eliminating the Deputy Mayor" since that is
what is really changing. The title "Election of mayor" leads people to think thatsomething is changing in how the mayor is elected, which is confusing since
nothing is changing with that. The deputy mayor is what is actually beingchanged.
Item #3 still includes the mayor in filling a vacancy by appointment.Sub-Options That Are Presented, page 6 - the last part of item #3 ("...or if
commissioners would continue to be elected at large") is confusing to those unfamiliarwith the ballot language. It could instead say "all voters in the city." Comparison of Existing and Amended Charter, pages 6-8 -It might be helpful and add clarity if you identify that the city has the charter form
of government.In the table, where there are no changes being made, both the "Proposed Form of
Government" and "Evaluative Comments" sections should clearly indicate "NOCHANGE." For example, in items 1 and 2, because there is text in the proposed
form of government column for these items but not in others, it suggests that thereis a change, which is confusing because there are no changes being made.
Other major things that have changes in the amended charter (how vacancies arefilled, compensation, the deputy mayor, public engagement, and INC), are all
missing from the table. These are substantial enough changes to the charter towarrant having their own row in the table.Justification and Reasons For the Proposed Amendments, pages 9-11 - Each item identified in the table with a change should have an explanation in this
section. Tying back in to the previous comment about the table, in this section,you comment on vacancies and the new article on public engagement, but neither
of these appear in the table.Appendices
The text preceding the signatures looks like it has been copied and pasted fromthe date of the special election section. This should be customized to each section.Exhibit D (Ballot Language) - We recommend removing the "FOR ExpandedSytem, FOR Existing system," etc. and just simply have the choices be "Six
commissioners and a mayor" and "Four commissioners and a mayor (current)."This addresses the public comment that "existing" would be better understood as
"current" and makes the ballot language more direct and succinct.Exhibit E (Effective Date) - This should be nuanced a bit. While the overall
provisions can be effective at next year's fiscal year, if wards are adopted and thecommission is expanded, these need to be in effect prior to the opening of
candidate filing for 2027's municipal elections. This should be spelled out clearlyboth here and in the transition plan in the charter.
Thank you for considering these recommendations. There are several other areas where wewould recommend specific "wordsmithing" type changes, and we would be happy to submit
these based on the decisions you make today.
Sincerely,Katie Adams
The Gallatin Valley Sentinel