HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-30-26 Public Comment - Gallatin Valley Sentinel - Final ReportFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Cc:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Final Report
Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 1:00:13 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:
After careful review of the draft final report, we submit the following recommendations. Ourcomments focus on substantive concerns, specifically statements that misrepresent the
underlying facts and a citation that misstates the Montana Code Annotated (MCA). We are notoffering feedback on proofreading or writing style, as our foremost concern is with accuracy,
not polish. We recognize this may seem like a lengthy list, but we ask that eachrecommendation be given individual, thoughtful consideration.
As with ballot education, it is also important that the Study Commission not advocate"for" or "against" a particular option in the final report. The wording in the following
sections allude to a recommendation in favor of voting "for" the amended charter andshould be neutralized:
Page 3, second paragraph of II. Report Summary: "We are recommending anamended charter ..." This could be phrased as "We are presenting an amended
charter ..."
Page 8, D, paragraph before the list of what and why: The first sentence ends
with "...why each amendment is preferable." This could instead say, "...why eachamendment was made."
Page 8, D.2: Should say, "... will stay the same with an amended charter, ifapproved by voters."
Page 4, B.1: Calling this "Election of mayor" is misleading because it leads readersunfamiliar with the work of the Study Commission think that something is changing to
how the mayor is elected, when really what is changing is the removal of therequirement for the elected mayor to serve the first two years of their term as deputy
mayor.
Page 4, B.3: This still contains language that the mayor will also be appointed in the
case of a vacancy. The last sentence should end with "for the vacant commissionposition."
Page 6, III.A: The reference to MCA is incorrect and should instead refer to MCA Title7, Chapter 3, Part 7. (You have it cited correctly in the Appendix, Exhibit A.)
Pages 6-7: Out of the entire report, this table may be the one thing that most peopleread, and as such, it should be as clear as possible in summarizing what is and is not
changing (or potentially changing).
When there are no changes, mark it clearly as "No Changes." For example,
putting text in Row 1 makes a reader think there is a change they should knowabout, when in fact, there is not. Same in Row 5.
In Row 3, separate out "City Commission is the Governing Body" from "Size."The city commission will remain the governing body, whether or not voters
choose to expand the size of the commission. Additionally, the information aboutthe deputy mayor should appear in its own row. There is too much going on in
one row as it reads now. It would be better to let the table extend to three pagesrather than try to fit information in fewer rows.
Row 8: You have changed the CIP from annual to biennial, and this is worthnoting, rather than indicating that there are no changes.
Page 8, D.1.ii: should refer to "general-governing" and "self-governing" as powers, notform.
Page 9, D.2.ii: The first two sentences of this are the same as D.2.i.
Page 9, D.3: The preamble does not mention three branches of government. This
reference should point to Article I, Section 1.01.
Page 9, D.4: Again, the title suggests that the way the mayor is elected is changing,
when it is just what happens in the first two years of the mayor's term that is changing.This would be better titled "Deputy Mayor."
Page 9, D.5.i: The end of the sentence should remove "or mayoral position" and justend with "vacant commission position."
Page 15, Section 2.06(c): This section still says, "Commissioners must hold a publicforum with applicants for the vacant commission or mayor position." The sentence
should end "...for the vacant commission position" since vacancies for the mayor arehandled by Section 2.06(a).
Page 15, Section 2.07: This could be modernized by adding that the notice of thehearing should also be published electronically. There are similar references in Section
2.12 and Section 6.02.
Page 19, Section 5.04: This should say, "Consistent with all applicable federal and state
laws with respect to land use, development, and environmental planning, the citycommission shall ..."
Page 25, Section 8.04(d): We will again point to the recommendations submitted inpublic comment by Mary Frances McHugh
(https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=312034&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN#docaccess-
f465cfbd79afaff21f7e02c049baca8a). Without these recommendations, per hercomment, "The result is disparate treatment of members of an HOA by their own local
government. It creates an impediment to participation of members of HOAs in vital cityaffairs which are broached and discussed, preferentially, in the INC. This can be cured
by the proposed language above "
Page 25, Section 8.04(d)(2): This should be removed from this section, and instead add
the Inter-Neighborhood Council to the list of groups who will receive ethics training inSection 9.01(b).
Page 26, Section 8.04(d)(9): To remain consistent with the voluntary process offorming a neighborhood association, this should be replaced with, "The staff liaison
should work with the Inter-Neighborhood Council to recommend strategies for growingthe neighborhood program."
Page 26, Section 8.05: Somewhere in this section, it should be declared that meetingsof city boards are held as open, public meetings.
Page 32, Sub-Option 3: This would be far easier to understand if it just said, "Allvoters in the city will vote for the commissioner who will represent each ward" and
"Only voters living in a ward will vote for the commissioner who will represent thatward." "Four-year terms" could be eliminated because the length of the commission
terms are not changing with this vote, and it is extra language that serves no purpose.You already have this wording in the blue box explaining Sub-Option 3 in the charter
text, and it would make sense to also use this simplified and more direct language on theactual ballot.
We would also like to clarify a statement made by one of the Study Commissioners at the July23 meeting. The Gallatin Valley Sentinel's comment regarding human rights in the preamble
stemmed from Chuck Winn's submittedcomments (https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?
id=312034&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN#docaccess-11b77ca7206e424cba4136822742ccfd).
Sincerely,Katie Adams
The Gallatin Valley Sentinel