Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-26 Public Comment - C. Smith - Notice of EscalationFrom:Cynthia Smith To:Mike Maas; Emma Bode; Joey Morrison; Chuck Winn; Jennifer Madgic; Bozeman Records Requests;news@info.bozemanmt.gov; Bozeman Public Comment; Sara Rushing; Mark Bond;jim.drumond@bozemanmt.gov; attorney@bozemanmt.gov; agenda@bozeman.net;sworthington@dailychronicle.com; Cpphelp@mt.gov Subject:[EXTERNAL]Notice of Escalation Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 4:58:42 PM Attachments:TIMELINE OF ETHICS COMPLAINT.docx 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. August 7, 2026 Dear Mayor Morrison, Members of the Bozeman City Commission, City Manager Chuck Winn, and City Clerk Mike Maas: I am writing to formally document my concerns regarding the City's handling of my ethics complaint, my public records request, and the underlying questions concerning City funding,oversight, conflicts of interest, public access, and accountability. I am sending this correspondence because I have made repeated, good faith efforts to resolvethese concerns through the City's established processes. At this point, however, the combination of prolonged delays, lack of substantive responses, unresolved ethics allegations,and continuing difficulty obtaining basic public records has left me with serious concerns about whether these matters are being handled with the transparency, impartiality, andaccountability the public has a right to expect. This letter is intended to be part of the public record. I. MY CONCERNS BEGAN MONTHS BEFORE THE FORMAL RECORDSREQUEST I want to correct an important characterization that has been made publicly regarding when I began seeking this information. While my formal City records request was assigned Request No. 26-231 on July 5, 2026, my efforts to obtain information, answers, oversight, and accountability regarding HRDC and Cityfunding began months earlier. I began raising these concerns in April and continued communicating with City officials,attending Commission meetings, speaking during public comment, requesting information, and pursuing appropriate oversight throughout the following months. For clarity, I have prepared a separate chronology documenting my efforts from April 25 through July 30, 2026. That chronology is attached to this letter. I am not claiming that the formal records request existed before July 5. It did not. I am stating that the City was placed on repeated notice months before July 5 that I wasseeking information regarding HRDC, public funding, City oversight, and accountability. Those are materially different things. II. THE ETHICS COMPLAINT HAS BEEN REFILED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BUTREMAINS UNRESOLVED My original June 12 ethics complaint was rejected by City Clerk Maas on June 25 because he identified three procedural deficiencies under BMC 2.03.640. I did not argue with that process. Instead, I corrected the deficiencies identified by the City. I filed the complaint with the CityClerk's Office, identified the specific City Code and Montana Code provisions implicated, provided supporting facts and evidence, and included the required unsworn declaration. I then refiled the complaint on July 5 under BMC 2.03.640. On July 10, Mr. Maas acknowledged receipt and stated: "I write to acknowledge receipt of your complaint and will process it according to BMC 2.03.640." I have received no substantive determination since then. I have not received findings, conclusions, a status report concerning an investigation,information regarding independent review, or a determination concerning the conflict and ethics issues raised in the complaint. I understand that an ethics investigation may take time. My concern is not that a conclusion has not been reached overnight. My concern is that I have no meaningful information regarding whether the complaint is actually being investigated, by whom, under what process, or how potential conflicts will beaddressed. That is particularly important because the complaint itself raises concerns about impartialityand potential conflicts. III. THE PUBLIC RECORDS PROCESS HAS BECOME AN OBSTACLE RATHERTHAN A PATH TO TRANSPARENCY I followed the City's direction and submitted Records Request No. 26-231 through the formalrecords request process. The City initially proposed searching for "HRDC," "Human Resource Development Council,""Bozeman Tenants United," and "BTU." The City subsequently agreed to conduct additional searches after I provided further terms. On July 23, the City explained that it could not provide an estimated timeline because of the volume and complexity of the request. On July 30, the City informed me that Finance records were estimated to require approximately 12 hours of staff time, producing an estimated charge of $275. I was also told that the email portion of the request could require one full time staff member spending several months compiling the records. I recognize that large records requests require staff time. However, this creates a significant public access concern when the records being soughtinclude basic information such as how much public money was provided to an outside organization, where that money came from, what it was authorized to be used for, whatcontractual or grant restrictions applied, what department was responsible for monitoring the funds, whether required reports were submitted, whether audits or compliance reviewsoccurred, and what existing contracts, grants, payments, and oversight records exist. These should not be questions that are effectively inaccessible to an ordinary citizen becauselocating the underlying records is prohibitively time consuming or expensive. I am therefore asking the City to distinguish between records that require extensive emailreview and existing financial, contract, grant, payment, audit, monitoring, and compliance records that should already exist in identifiable City systems. I have specifically asked for records sufficient to show these things. IV. I AM NOT ASKING THE CITY TO DECIDE MY PRIVATE EMPLOYMENTDISPUTE I want to make this distinction unequivocally clear. I am not asking the City Commission to adjudicate my employment claims against HRDC. I am asking the City to answer questions concerning public money and public responsibility. Those questions include: What City funds have been provided to HRDC? How much was provided? From what funding sources? For what authorized purposes? Under what contracts, grants, agreements, or restrictions? Which City department or official was responsible for monitoring those funds? What reporting was required? What reporting was received? Were audits or compliance reviews performed? What safeguards exist to ensure that public funds are used for authorized public purposes? What communications occurred between City officials and the organizations involved? Were conflicts disclosed where required? Were recusals considered where appropriate? Were outside organizations given access, assistance, or strategic communication with City officials that was not similarly available to other members of the public? Those are legitimate public accountability questions regardless of who is asking them. V. THE APPEARANCE OF IMPARTIALITY MATTERS My ethics complaint raises concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest, special interest access, unequal treatment, public funding oversight, and the appearance that certainorganizations may have received a level of access or responsiveness that is not equally available to other residents. I am not asserting that every interaction between an elected official and an outside organization is improper. I am asking that those relationships and communications be reviewed objectively where the circumstances create legitimate questions about impartiality, preferential access, or conflicts. The public should not have to guess whether an ethics complaint is being independently reviewed. The public should not have to wonder whether the person receiving or processing a complaint has relationships with the individuals or organizations whose conduct is being questioned. And the public should not have to rely upon appearances when the underlying records could establish what actually occurred. That is precisely why transparency and independent review matter. VI. RECENT EVENTS HAVE HEIGHTENED THESE CONCERNS I have repeatedly attended City Commission meetings and used public comment to raise these issues. I specifically stated that I would continue attending until the records I had been requesting were provided. At a recent meeting, I arrived expecting to provide public comment and discovered that the meeting schedule had changed. I subsequently became aware of circumstances involving City officials and organizations identified in my ethics complaint that raised additional questions for me concerningrelationships, access, and impartiality. I also became aware that Mayor Morrison appointed the individual who had received and wasresponsible for processing my ethics complaint back onto the City's Ethics Board. I am not asserting that this appointment, by itself, proves wrongdoing. I am stating that, in the context of an unresolved ethics complaint involving City officials, the appointment creates a legitimate appearance of impartiality concern that should be addressedopenly. If the City believes there is no conflict, the appropriate response is not silence. It istransparency. The public deserves to know what safeguards are in place to ensure that the complaint isreviewed independently and fairly. VII. I AM ASKING FOR ACTION, NOT ANOTHER GENERAL ASSURANCE At this point, I am asking the City to provide a written response addressing the following matters. 1. Ethics Complaint Please provide the current status of my refiled ethics complaint submitted July 5, 2026 andacknowledged by Mr. Maas on July 10, including whether it has been formally accepted for processing, what procedural stage it is currently in, who is responsible for the next step,whether any conflicts or recusals have been evaluated, whether independent review is being considered, and when I can reasonably expect the next substantive action. 2. Public Records Please provide the records already identifiable and available without waiting for months ofemail review, particularly Finance records, grants, contracts, agreements, payment records, reimbursement records, scopes of work, reporting requirements, audits, monitoring records,compliance reviews, and records sufficient to identify City funding provided to HRDC. If the City maintains a central system, database, report, or financial record from which theserecords can be identified, please provide it. 3. Records Production Please provide a reasonable production schedule for the remaining records and identify what portion of the request is currently being processed. If the City believes the email portion must be narrowed, I am willing to prioritize categories. However, I do not agree that the existence of a large volume of potentially responsive emailshould prevent production of readily identifiable financial and contractual records. 4. Fees Please provide the legal and policy basis for the estimated $275 Finance charge and identify whether any fee waiver, reduction, public interest consideration, or other mechanism isavailable. 5. Preservation Please confirm that relevant records have been preserved, including emails, attachments,calendar entries, meeting notes, text messages that constitute public records, drafts, and communications concerning HRDC, Bozeman Tenants United, City funding, the ethicscomplaint, my public comments, and related matters. 6. Independence Please explain what safeguards will be used to ensure that the ethics complaint is reviewed by individuals who are sufficiently independent of the persons and organizations identified in thecomplaint. VIII. THIS IS A NOTICE OF ESCALATION I have made every reasonable effort to resolve these matters locally. I have contacted elected officials directly. I have met with the Mayor. I have submitted written requests. I have repeatedly participated in public comment. I have submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Political Practices. I have submitted a complaint to the Montana Transparency Project. I submitted a formal ethics complaint. When the City identified procedural deficiencies, I corrected them and refiled the complaint. When the City instructed me to use the formal records request process, I did so. When the City requested specific search terms, I provided them. When the City raised concerns about volume, I attempted to clarify and prioritize the request. I have been patient and have attempted to work cooperatively with City staff. At this point, however, I need more than assurances that the matter is "being worked on." I need records, process transparency, accountability, and substantive responses. If these matters continue without meaningful resolution, I intend to seek review throughappropriate higher level oversight and legal or administrative channels with jurisdiction over public records, government ethics, open government, and municipal accountability. I will also preserve and provide the documented chronology and correspondence as part of any such review. IX. FINAL REQUEST I am asking the City to treat this correspondence as a formal notice that these matters remain unresolved and that I am requesting accountability before pursuing further escalation. I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for the same thing any member of the public should be able to expect from localgovernment: Transparency regarding public money. Equal access to public officials. Impartial handling of ethics complaints. Preservation and access to public records. Disclosure of conflicts when they exist. And accountability when legitimate questions are raised. I have made every effort to raise these concerns respectfully and through the appropriatechannels. I remain willing to resolve this matter professionally and without unnecessary escalation. But that requires meaningful action. I respectfully request a written response addressing the issues above and providing the currentstatus of both my ethics complaint and Records Request 26-231. Please consider this letter and the accompanying chronology part of the public record. Sincerely, Cindy SmithBozeman, Montana 406-596-4451cynthia.logan.smith@gmail.com TIMELINE OF ETHICS COMPLAINT, PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, CITY OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERNS Purpose This timeline documents my efforts to raise concerns regarding HRDC, City funding and oversight, transparency, public access, and accountability. It also documents the steps I took to seek answers through established City processes and the City's responses to those efforts. APRIL 2026 April 25 I asked City Commissioners to walk through King Arthur Park with residents, rather than limiting engagement to members of Bozeman Tenants United. The purpose of this request was to give City officials an opportunity to hear directly from residents and see the community and its concerns firsthand. This raised a broader question about whether City officials were receiving a sufficiently broad understanding of the concerns being raised by residents. April 30 I submitted written comments asking the City Commission to take my concerns regarding HRDC seriously. I specifically explained that this was not simply an employment matter. I requested that the Commission consider the broader issues involving City involvement, funding, oversight, accountability, transparency, and the City's relationship with an organization receiving public resources. This is significant because it establishes that my concerns were presented to the City as a matter of public accountability rather than solely as a private employment dispute. MAY 2026 May 11 I met personally with Mayor Morrison to request records and ask questions concerning HRDC funding and City oversight. During that meeting, I was told that the Mayor would look into the matter, speak with City staff regarding how money was tracked to HRDC, and get back to me. This was a direct request for information and oversight from the City's elected leadership. May 12 I again contacted the City Commissioners requesting an explanation, oversight, and accountability concerning the issues I had raised. This was another attempt to resolve the matter through the City's elected officials before pursuing additional avenues. May 13 I filed an ethics related complaint with the Commissioner of Political Practices. The matter had now progressed beyond informal questions and requests for information into a formal ethics related process. May 18 I notified Mayor Morrison that I intended to raise the matter publicly at a City Commission meeting so that my concerns would become part of the public record. This was an attempt to use the City's established public process to place the concerns before the Commission and create a documented record. May 18 I submitted a complaint to the Montana Transparency Project concerning the transparency and accountability issues. By this point, I had attempted multiple avenues for obtaining answers and accountability, including direct communication with the Mayor, communication with City Commissioners, an ethics related complaint, and a transparency complaint. May 19 I was informed that there would not be a City Commission meeting for approximately two weeks. I did not receive a substantive update concerning the issues I had raised. This contributed to my concern that the issues were not being addressed promptly through the City's normal public processes. May 19 I requested an opportunity to speak with candidates for public office regarding these concerns. I received no response from the City Commissioners. This was another attempt to bring the issues to public officials and candidates for office rather than allowing the concerns to remain unresolved. JUNE 2026 June 9 I spoke during City Commission public comment concerning my concerns. This placed the issues directly before the City Commission through the City's public meeting process. June 12 I filed a formal ethics complaint with the City of Bozeman Board of Ethics. This represented a formal escalation through the City's own ethics process after my earlier efforts to obtain answers and oversight. June 23 I again spoke during City Commission public comment. I continued using the City's established public process to raise the concerns rather than abandoning the matter. JULY 2026 July 5 After City Attorney Mike Maas identified procedural deficiencies in my original ethics complaint, I corrected those deficiencies and formally refiled the complaint under BMC 2.03.640. On the same date, I submitted Formal Records Request No. 26 231 through the City's required public records process. This is an important point in the chronology. Rather than disregarding the City's procedural requirements, I corrected the deficiencies identified by the City Attorney and followed the City's stated process. The July 5 records request was also not the beginning of my efforts to obtain information. It was the formalization of requests and inquiries that had already been occurring for months. July 7 I again spoke during City Commission public comment. This continued the documented public record of my concerns and demonstrated that the matter remained unresolved. July 10 City Attorney Mike Maas acknowledged receipt of my refiled ethics complaint and stated that he would process it according to BMC 2.03.640. The City had now formally acknowledged the corrected complaint and indicated that it would proceed under the City's applicable ethics procedure. July 14 I again spoke during City Commission public comment. During that meeting, City Manager Chuck Winn characterized my records request as overwhelming and stated that I had only recently requested the information. This statement is significant when considered in the context of the documented chronology. My records request was formally submitted on July 5. However, my efforts to obtain information and seek City oversight had begun months earlier, including my May 11 meeting with the Mayor and my May 12 communication with City Commissioners. The chronology therefore distinguishes between the date of the formal public records request and the date my efforts to obtain information and City oversight began. July 15 The City formally acknowledged Records Request No. 26 231 and proposed an initial search. The formal public records process was now underway. July 21 I provided additional search terms and a detailed chronology demonstrating that my efforts to obtain information and seek oversight predated the formal July 5 records request by months. I took additional steps to assist the City in identifying responsive records and to clarify the scope and history of my request. This also created a documented record showing that the July request did not represent the beginning of my efforts to obtain information. July 23 The City responded that it would conduct the requested searches but could not provide an estimated timeline for production. The records process was moving forward, but there was still no definite production schedule. This created an additional accountability question concerning when the requested public information would actually be made available. July 30 The City estimated approximately $275 in staff time for the Finance portion of the records request. The City also stated that reviewing the email results could require one full time staff member for several months. The City therefore characterized the records request as requiring substantial staff resources. This raises an important factual question that should be resolved through the records themselves. What volume of records exists concerning the matters I had been attempting to obtain information about, and what does that record show regarding City funding, communications, oversight, decision making, and accountability involving HRDC? The City's estimate also reinforces the importance of distinguishing between the July 5 formal request and the months of prior communications and requests that preceded it. OVERALL CHRONOLOGY AND ACCOUNTABILITY SIGNIFICANCE The documented chronology shows a progression rather than a single, sudden complaint. Phase 1: Community Engagement April 25 through April 30 I first sought direct engagement between City Commissioners and residents. I then submitted written comments explaining that my concerns regarding HRDC involved more than an employment matter. Phase 2: Direct Requests to City Leadership May 11 through May 12 I personally met with the Mayor, requested records and information concerning HRDC funding and City oversight, and followed up with City Commissioners. I was told the Mayor would look into the matter and speak with City staff. Phase 3: Ethics and Transparency Escalation May 13 through May 19 After attempting to obtain answers through City leadership, I pursued ethics and transparency avenues and notified the Mayor that I intended to raise the matter publicly. Phase 4: Public Record and Formal City Ethics Process June 9 through June 23 I repeatedly used City Commission public comment and filed a formal complaint with the City's Board of Ethics. Phase 5: Corrected Ethics Complaint and Formal Records Process July 5 through July 30 After City Attorney Mike Maas identified procedural deficiencies, I corrected and refiled my ethics complaint under BMC 2.03.640. I also formalized my public records request through the City's required process. The City subsequently acknowledged the request, agreed to conduct searches, but could not provide a production timeline. The City later estimated substantial staff time would be required to review the responsive material. KEY ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS CREATED BY THE TIMELINE The chronology does not by itself establish wrongdoing. It does, however, document legitimate questions that remain appropriate for City officials to answer. 1. City Funding and Oversight If City funds or other public resources were provided to HRDC, what oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure that those resources were properly tracked, administered, and used? 2. City Knowledge When did City officials first become aware of the concerns I raised regarding HRDC, and which City officials or departments were responsible for reviewing those concerns? 3. Follow Through After I met with the Mayor on May 11 and was told that the matter would be looked into, what steps were actually taken? 4. Ethics Complaint What actions were taken after my corrected ethics complaint was received and acknowledged on July 10? 5. Public Records What records exist concerning City funding, communications, oversight, contracts, agreements, monitoring, complaints, and interactions involving HRDC? 6. Timeline of Requests Why was the July 5 records request characterized as recent or overwhelming when my documented efforts to obtain information and seek oversight began months earlier? 7. Transparency Why could the City not provide an estimated production timeline for the requested records? 8. Public Resources What specifically accounts for the City's estimate of approximately $275 in Finance staff time and the statement that email review could require one full time employee for several months? 9. Public Accountability What mechanisms does the City use to oversee organizations receiving City funds, and how can members of the public verify that those mechanisms are functioning? 10. Resolution What specific steps will the City take to provide answers to the outstanding questions and ensure that the underlying concerns are appropriately reviewed? CENTRAL POINT ESTABLISHED BY THE RECORD The central issue reflected in this timeline is not simply that I submitted a large public records request or filed an ethics complaint. The record shows that I repeatedly attempted to obtain information and seek City oversight through ordinary channels before escalating the matter. Beginning in April and May, I approached City officials, requested direct community engagement, submitted written concerns, met personally with the Mayor, requested information concerning HRDC funding and City oversight, contacted City Commissioners, and sought answers. When those efforts did not resolve my concerns, I pursued ethics and transparency processes, raised the matter during public comment, filed a formal City ethics complaint, corrected the procedural deficiencies identified by the City Attorney, and then submitted a formal public records request. The July 5 records request therefore should be understood in the context of the months of documented efforts that preceded it, not as the beginning of my efforts to obtain information. My objective throughout has been to obtain answers, understand how public resources and City oversight are being handled, and ensure that matters involving public funding, public officials, public records, and organizations receiving public resources are subject to appropriate transparency and accountability.