Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-06 Minutes, Study CommissionMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION April 25, 2006 The Study Commission met in special session in the Conference Room, Municipal Building, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 25, 2006. Present were Chair Loren Olsen, Brian Close, Marilou Turrentine, Bill Hayward and Harold Fryslie. Also present was Secretary of the Study Commission Celeste Janssen, Professor Steve Swinford, Mayor Jeff Kruass, Commissioner Sean Becker, and John Trull. The meeting was called to order by Chair Loren Olsen at 7:02 pm. Minutes Marilou Turrentine motioned to approve the minutes of March 28th as amended. Brian Close seconded the motion. Loren Olsen, Bill Hayward, and Harold Fryslie voted to accept the minutes. Marilou Turrentine and Brian Close abstained because they were not present on March 28tn Celeste Janssen will give her draft of the April 13th minutes to Loren Olsen tonight. Public comment There was no public comment at the time. Survey update Professor Steve Swinford passed out a handout summarizing the results from surveys he has received. 328 have come back, and 36 of the 1,000 were undeliverable. Professor Swinford hopes to eventually receive another 72. 375 responses will get us to a five percent confidence interval, and we currently at about a 7% confidence interval. Additional surveys received will not likely shift the results dramatically. Professor Swinford said that sending out another batch of 400 to get 100 back would probably not be necessary. Harold Fryslie agreed. Professor Swimford began to summarize the data. The clearest result was the unpopularity of "Commission choosing its own mayor" (it was the last choice for 75%). The second result concerned the difference between directly -elected two and four year mayoral terms. The number of people who put the two-year option as number one or number two was 97.4%. The same for four-year was 79.3%. Marilou Turrentine asked if Professor Swinford had taken demographics into account. The professor said no, instead the 1,000 were randomly chosen active voters. The only place where demographics would come into play would be in the bias about who is an active voter or who registers to vote. This limitation should be noted. Table 4 summarized the support for the current system. 36.5% agree or strongly agree with the current system, while 46.7% are on the disagree side. The answers are right on the cusp of the plus or minus five percent confidence intervals, so we don't see a clear response one way or the other. He urged caution with the "neutral" category, because that could mean anything. Professor Swinford asked for questions, so that he could go back to his office and generate the answers by doing the analysis. Brian Close asked if the responses show strong interest in changing the mayoral system. Professor Swinford answered that the answers tip that way, but it is close. Brian Close said that there was strong support for a directly -elected mayor in the survey ten years ago, and he asked Celeste Janssen to look up the information. The next three pages of the document were categorized responses by how people answered the Page 1 of 4 mayoral question. Professor Swinford took all 122 people who somewhat disagreed and disagreed, and looked at how they ranked different systems. The average ranking of four year directly -elect mayor was 1.57, and two year directly -elected mayor was 1.63. Those numbers are not significantly different when considering standard deviations, so there is no clear preference. He did the same analysis for the agreed and strongly agreed, and the ranking was 1.26 for two year and 2.08 for four year. Those numbers are statistically significant. The data for the neutral voters has no significant change in groupings, although it leans a little towards the two years. Steve Swinford noted that he heard about the survey on a radio show, and there was some misinformation that concerned him. He called into the show to clarify about the survey. Marilou Turrentine commented that some people don't understand the mayor/city manager role. She wondered if it would have been good to put the job description of the mayor on the survey. Professor Swinford said he is against the statement, because a long statement about mayoral duties could sway people one way or the other. Because of the way precinct maps are drawn, a small number of county residences received the survey. Professor Swinford said there was only a handful, and their data was unlikely to sway the overall results. Brian Close again stated his belief that the Study Commission should not use up a subvote on our current system. Instead, he wants the Study Commission to adopt a directly -elected mayor in our charter. He would like Professor Swinford to analyze the strength of current system versus new system, so we can have confidence as to what the reaction any given way might be. The survey was not set up to give these results, but Professor Swinford will do what he can. Harold Fryslie said that he finds no overwhelming direction from this survey. People tipped toward the two or four-year directly -elected mayor, and those who agree tipped towards the two-year. The Commission electing their own mayor is out. Harold Fryslie summarized by stating that the Study Commission is still left with a decision to make. Professor Swinford agreed. Loren Olsen said that as carefully as the survey was worded, he is still worried about letting 328 people decide the mayor issue for Bozeman. Steve Swinford said that looking at the raw data, what got the most votes was two-year directly -elected mayor: 2 year 148 4 year 111 Appointed 37 Professor Swinford reminded the Study Commission that there wasn't a question that asked "do you want to directly -elect a mayor?" The large amount of data in the middle makes him nervous, because there was not bimodal data. What jumps out at him is that not a single person who agreed with our current system put 2-year directly -elected mayor as their third choice. Loren Olsen wants to know if you can compare four-year directly -elected to the current system. Professor Swinford said you'd have to make a leap just by saying that agree or strong agree means "support". Then you look at the four-year numbers, which are 17.9% and 56%. Steve Swinford will look into data on the two-year mayor, what was the strongly agree or strongly disagree data. Loren Olsen will receive from Steve Swinford the full set of data, and he will email it to everyone. Bill Hayward said that if the Study Commission were to give the voters two choices (as is and directly - elected for two -years) wouldn't people vote like they answered on the survey, plus or minus five percent? Professor Swinford answered that is how he would predict the vote. Page 2 of 4 The Study Commission thanked Steve Swinford. He and Sean Becker left at this time Charter Brian Close explain the NCL's version of the Ethics Board. Paul Luwe's documents show that two- thirds of the Ethics Boards respond on a complaint basis. They work with the city or county attorney, unless there is a conflict of interest (in which case they hire.) Under Bozeman's current system, the individual goes to city or county attorney and pleads case. If the Study Commission decides to not establish an Ethics Board, Mr. Close hopes they will establish standards of what should get heard. An ethics board should take complaints verified under oath, and complaints should have a legal basis. Brian Close will take 7.01(a) and drafting language similar to what is being done around the country. He will also work on (b) from "refer cases" to the end. Brian Close also wants to talk to Paul Luwe about penalties. Mr. Luwe made clear the Study Commission couldn't force a state or county official to do something that they wouldn't already do by law. Special elections would require the work of a county office, and therefore Mr. Close isn't sure the Study Commission could suggest it. John Trull asked if a Board of Ethics could be a recommendation in the report, instead of being inserted into the charter. Brian Close said yes, but that is also saying the Study Commission can accept not having an Ethic Board. Harold Fryslie says he has confidence that if recommendation is given, the City will do something about it. Loren Olsen wondered if an Ethics Board would energize support for or against the charter. Marilou Turrentine asked what is the main goal? She believes the main goal is to put a charter in front of the voters that is going to pass. She thinks Jane Jelinski had a very good point, in that the charter as it sits is too long and has too much detail. The less that is written, the less people will find to object too. Harold Fryslie agreed with Ms. Turrentine, but doesn't wan the City Manager's duties to be removed. Loren Olsen said the charter is on the long end of what he expected. Bill Hayward said that the Study Commission could choose to make the political decision to make it a certain number of pages, that then cut out what is needed. Jeff Krauss said that the Study Commission will get lots of criticism, and the important thing is to get a charter every Study Commissioner can agree on. Everyone here will need to go out there and defend the charter as untied as possible. Loren Olsen said all the Study Commissioners have worked very hard, and this charter is better than the eight pagers he's seen. Draft Report Celeste Janssen passed out a physical copy of the draft report. Study Commissioners have already received it via email. New business Robin Sullivan will come to the May 2nd meeting at 8 pm. Bill Hayward won't be present, he'll be gone from May 1st to 11th. Marilou Turrentine will be gone from May loth to 15th, and can't access emails. Loren Olsen explained that the survey had 36 envelopes returned. Inside they had stamped envelopes to the MSU Sociology Dept. Professor Swinford could use these envelopes again, if everyone if comfortable with giving them to MSU. Brian Close moved to give the 36 stamped envelopes to MSU, and Bill Hayward seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Page 3 of 4 Loren Olsen said the Study Commission had been scheduled for "Eggs and Issues" with Chamber of Commerce in August, but they have the opportunity to present in May if wanted. Harold Fryslie would prefer August, and so would Bill Hayward. Brian Close suggested going to the local issues meeting in May as an alternative. Bill Hayward and Brian Close agreed to go on May 18th and do a very brief presentation. Marilou Turrentine stressed presenting as a united group instead of a group of individuals with different opinions on all subjects. John Trull asked if the Study Commission needs to have a campaign strategy to get the charter passed. Jeff Krauss said yes, but the Study Commission can't spend any city money on a campaign. Other people can campaign for the Charter, or they could set up a separate account. Brian Close suggested going through the Democratic and Republican parties, the Chamber of Commerce, and issue groups. The Commission or the City Manager could publicly endorse or oppose the charter. The Study Commission will meet with the City Commission sometime in early June. Confirm date for next meeting May 2, 2006 at 7 pm in the Conference Room of the Municipal Building. Adjournment at 9:29 pm There being no further business at this time, it was moved by Harold Fryslie, seconded by Brian Close, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously. LOREN OLSEN, Chair ATTEST: CELESTE JANSSEN, Secretary of the Study Commission Page 4 of 4