HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-26 Public Comment - C. Smith - Re_ 10_2__26 Meeting to Review Cynthia Smith, July 2026, Ethics ComplaintFrom:Cynthia Smith
To:Jordan Crosby
Cc:Joey Morrison; Douglas Fischer; Jennifer Madgic; Emma Bode; Alison Sweeney; Mike Maas; Sara Rushing; Mark
Bond; Mark Bond; Jim Drummond; Alex Newby; Greg Sullivan; Anna Saverud; Seth Bonilla; Bozeman Public
Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: 10/2//26 Meeting to Review Cynthia Smith, July 2026, Ethics Complaint
Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 10:01:53 AM
Attachments:image001.png
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.
Subject: Public Comment – Cynthia Smith Ethics Complaint – October 2 Board ofEthics Meeting
Dear Board of Ethics Members,
I am submitting this written comment regarding Agenda Item D.1, the review ofmy ethics complaint scheduled for October 2, 2026.
I intend to appear before the Board and provide comments regarding the recordcurrently before you.
I want to clarify one central point. I am not asking the Board to decide myemployment dispute with HRDC, my disability claims, unemployment
proceedings, or other matters outside the Board's authority. Those circumstancesprovide background for why I became concerned about public accountability, but
they are not the question I am asking the Board to decide.
My complaint concerns the conduct and actions of City officials in response to
my questions and requests concerning City funding provided to HRDC,applicable restrictions and safeguards, oversight and monitoring, constituent
access and responsiveness, preservation of records, and whether the samestandards of accountability and access are being applied consistently.
Importantly, the Respondents' own filing acknowledges that I requestedinformation concerning City funding, grants, contracts, restrictions, reporting
requirements, audits, monitoring, and compliance reviews involving HRDC. Italso acknowledges that I did not receive the individualized written explanation I
requested.
I am not asking the Board to assume that my concerns are proven. I am asking
that the factual questions raised by the complaint be evaluated against the actualrecord and applicable ethical standards.
I respectfully ask the Board to consider the evidence before it, identify whatfactual questions remain unresolved, and provide written findings explaining the
basis for its determination.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 3:14 PM Jordan Crosby <jyc@uazh.com> wrote:
As you all know, this firm has been retained to advise the Bozeman Board of Ethics. Ms. Smith’sethic’s complaint will be reviewed at the upcoming meeting on Friday, October 2 at 9 am at City
Hall in the Commission Room. The following link will allow you to view the meeting agenda andmeeting materials. https://www.bozemanmt.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/38188/3126
Ms. Smith’s Complaint will be heard under item D. To be clear, the purpose of the meeting is forthe Board to review Ms. Smith’s ethics complaint, the response, and our written analysis. See2.03.640(E).
After I present the item and our analysis to the Board, Ms. Smith, if she so chooses, will be given atotal of 10 minutes to provide comments to the Board. Given the limited purpose of the meeting,her comments should be confined to the information before the Board, including the complaint, the
response, and our written analysis. Ms. Smith may reserve a portion of her 10-minute allotment forrebuttal, but her initial comments and any rebuttal comments may not exceed 10 minutes in total.Following her comments, Board members may ask Ms. Smith questions.
Following Ms. Smith’s comments, the Respondents, if any, may present comments to the Board. Again, such comments will be limited to 10 minutes, and should be directed to the informationbefore the Board. Following such comments, if any, the Board may ask questions of the
Respondents.
Following comments by the parties, the Board will then take up its review and may: (1) dismiss
the complaint with or without prejudice; (2) make a decision on the merits without a hearing; or(3) determine a formal ethics hearing is necessary. See Sec 2.03.640(F).
To be clear, there is no expectation that either party make comments. We simply wanted to makeeveryone aware that the opportunity is available to those who may be interested.
Jordan Y. Crosby | UGRIN ALEXANDER ZADICK, PC
#2 Railroad Square, Suite B | P.O. Box 1746 | Great Falls, MT 59403
Telephone: (406) 771-0007 | Facsimile: (406) 452-9360
www.uazh.com
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received
this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or
otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have
received this e-mail in error and delete the copy you received.
Thank you.
-- Cindy Smith406-596-4451cynthia.logan.smith@gmail.com