One minute morning.

Can I show that on your test?

Are you there?

Hey, Barbara.

Just tested.

I I can hear Mike, but everybody else is really far away.

They haven't turned their microphone.

That's because we have our microphones on.

Okay.

Do you microphones are absolutely critical when you're on Zoom?

I now have understood.

Yes.

Yes.

Do you have a camera?

Because we can't see you if you think you can be seen.

Oh, hi.

Okay.

Mike, are you ready?

I'll call to order the study commission of Bozeman meeting of January fifteenth, twenty twenty six and ask all who were able to please stand for the pledge of allegiance and then a moment of silence.

You can be seated for the moment of silence.

Seeing none, is there any online?

Public comment.

Second.

Any public comment?

Since it's a consent agenda, we don't discuss it unless someone wants to pull something from that agenda.

May I ask a question?

Should we acknowledge the minutes or not a part of the record that normally goes into a consent agenda?

The minutes are not have not been prepared.

I know.

That's my my point.

Sure.

Thanks.

All right.

All those in favor of the motion?

So indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

I motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Next on the agenda is correspondence or study commission update.

Any reports from anyone on anything that's been going on for them.

Jad.

Becky, did you?

Did you have anything?

I don't think so.

Okay.

I'm thinking hard, but I don't think so.

I was just trying to model if we one by one.

Sorry, that's okay.

I just want to do a short outreach report on some of the areas Becky and I have been working on around communications and outreach.

That we had asked your permission last time to submit a proposal to the Pachaka Chaw program.

But as we discovered that the program, if we're proposal had been accepted in February, would have removed two of us to make the program for the Pachaka Chaos.

So Becky and I decided to move that proposal to either the next round in June or September of 2026.

So that's just an FYI.

Presentation to the League of Women Voters as requested on March 23rd at noon.

And that lastly, we're submitting a proposal to the business and professional women for either April or September, again, along the same lines as strategic outreach that I had proposed many times over and are now acting upon.

I think we should also consider continuing a few op-eds, particularly to launch this whole new stage two, if you will, of the study commission's work so that we reach some of the frankly the city influencers that read the op-ed and opinion page and happy to work with folks on that.

And last is just a really interesting program I saw this morning in at our university.

I'm going to pass this around, but I'll it's because I only made one copy, but you can take a photo if you're interested.

It's a four-part series by the University MSU, their College of Letters and Science called Public Things: Conditions for a Sustainable Democracy.

And they start out by looking at a city commission meeting in Boston that was filmed by the acclaimed documentarian Frederick Wiseman.

So let me just send this to my left.

I'll pass it to the right.

If you're interested, it is has a monthly program uh through January all the way through April.

Looks really, really right up our alley.

So if you're interested.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other correspond correspondence or study commission updates?

Deanna, do you have any for us?

Becky?

I do not.

Barb.

Nope, nothing.

Holidays.

Yeah.

Yeah, holidays.

Cool.

Nor do I.

Okay.

So other than I had a great holiday.

Um cool.

All right.

Next on the agenda is unfinished business.

Determine who will draft the city study commission report.

I think we started that discussion in the last meeting.

Um and I'm trying to remember, but I I think Becky and Barb were interested in doing it.

I think I expressed interest several months ago and again at the last meeting.

Yeah.

I thought you were more interested in doing the minority report.

We don't know that there's going to be one at this time.

Um there isn't any reason why I couldn't do both.

I think that would be complicated but interesting.

So we need to come to a decision.

Um other comments by uh the other two people who have volunteered to do it?

Because I think it it is a two-person job, not a three-person job.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that a couple things.

Go ahead, Bob.

Oh, I was just going to say that, you know, as we put together the study plan and really dug into past reports and what's required.

I think I I felt like I really got a good grounding in it.

And you know, I'm I am prepared to make the time to do this, but you know, because I actually frankly have a lot of years of experience of being a good writer and practice writing clearly about super wonky, complicated policy, government stuff.

Um so felt like that is a contribution I could make if that's of interest to the committee to the commission.

Yeah, Barbara, um I was gonna say the same things.

Um you know, it's interesting when I think about why I joined on to the commission or put my name in the hat um and then um subsequently got elected, but is because I say thing like you, Barb, just through my you know years of experience of work.

I've written so many bylaws and policies and legislative laws and and know how to you know write wonky stuff and and I think too that I be you know I'm very interested in the draft is just the draft, but being able to take people's our votes and our concepts and then put them into words so that we can have a draft that we can discuss back at our our at our meetings.

So I don't think it would be like Barb and I are writing it and then running away, but it really is a draft, and we have to have that draft done by May 18th.

Um I'm gonna be attending our meetings virtually for the next six weeks.

Um because I'm gonna be living on my camper, so I'm gonna I've got the time to dedicate um specifically in the next few weeks, but also all through the spring.

Um not teaching at MSU during um uh for a live class or anything.

So um I'm uh more than happy to work with Barbara on that.

Deanna, do you want to?

Well, I would be happy to work with either Becky or Barb on on that.

And uh I think uh we're all good writers and we've all had a good deal of experience writing what you refer to as wonky stuff.

And uh I think it's really important that we have kind of a balance in um the uh uh assessment of the materials that we're pulling in.

And um I feel like I could uh add that balance and make sure that not make sure.

Uh I don't have any doubt that Becky and and Barb could do so uh as well.

But clearly we have different views, and I think both should be um discussed before any final report is written.

And hopefully we won't have to have a minority report.

Certainly.

Okay.

Hey Carson, yeah, Carson.

Can I add one?

Can I add one thing?

Like I to Diana's point, I would see that you know, our sort of whoever ends up taking the first crack at getting stuff on paper, both for that comparison chart we're gonna have to prepare as well as for the actual report.

It would be a process of bringing it back to everyone to to review and make sure we're accurately reflecting any decisions that would be made.

But the drafting would happen after decisions get made and and we'd bring it back and say, did we get it right?

What do we need to change?

So it's not like the people drafting it or doing it to the exclusion of everybody else.

It's gonna be a group project.

Um we just have to have someone taking the lead on getting things on paper.

All right, Jen.

My point exactly, I was going to say I know I also have perspectives that I think are important, and I also know it's going to be a collective process as we've been trying to do all along, but we do need some leadership.

I'd like to move that Becky Franks and Barb Cesco Sister, sorry, Cicero, um co-draft the initial report.

And then I'll speak to it.

There's a second.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Interesting question whether I get to second or not.

I know, right.

Um, but there's a second by Becky discussion.

Should I speak?

You can.

Thank you.

Just just briefly, I think everyone has spoken eloquently about all the skills that we have on this team.

It's a very powerful team.

But I do think they have really done this deep dive into where we are in terms of the previous decisions that have been made, the ways that we've been thinking about it.

They have strong skills.

But I think they've been working together very well as a team.

We do require two people, but two people only on our projects, according to the bylaws.

And I think that deep knowledge will serve us well in that draft.

I also want to say to Deanna, as a good writer, and we worked well on an op-ed.

I'd love to work with you more on op-eds and really keep those coming out and use your skills in that way.

Maybe over the next few months.

I don't think we have to do them every month, but I'd like to suggest that as well.

So thank you.

All right.

I guess I should weigh in a little bit.

And the question is where does the balance lie and how to best do it?

And until we really have the discussion, um, and we really haven't had any of this discussion.

I don't know how it's going to come out and who's going in what direction or whatever.

Um but my general um sense is that um that Barb and Becky are kind of right in the middle of um of this group, and um that I think they would do a good job with that.

Um and so I'm gonna support the motion as it stands.

Any other comments from anyone?

Any public comment on this issue.

Thank you.

I should have taken public comment earlier before stating what I was gonna do.

If there is any public comment, I will listen to it and perhaps change my mind.

Mike, anybody online?

All right.

Then let's vote.

All those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those you're like five seconds behind this part.

Online's always delayed.

Uh um those opposed.

I'll abstain.

Motion carries four zero with one abstention.

Okay.

Next on the agenda is new business, working ventures.

Stan and Anna, are you on?

Or Mike is standing on.

You can get a copy of that.

Stan.

Oh, we have sorry there.

Um, everybody did get while he's getting them on, everyone did get the spring 2026 Bozeman City Study Commission communication strategy printout.

I do want to apologize.

Um, Anna and Stan sent this to me.

I thought I sent it out with all the flurry of emails.

I did not until today, about like an hour ago, which I very much apologize.

So I'm glad we've got a printed copy.

Stan, we can see you now.

See you now.

Um, the uh city employee survey results.

Um issue going on.

Issue going on.

So hang on a second, hang on, second, hang on, second, hang on, second.

Oh, hang on, hang on, second.

Hang on, second, hang on, second, hang on, second, hang on.

I don't hang on, I'll hang on.

Nope.

Oh, there we are.

Stan, can you try it again?

Yeah, how's it is it working better now?

Brilliant, thank you.

Awesome.

Uh it's great to be with everybody.

I'm gonna go ahead and get started with this presentation.

We're gonna jump into first the city employee survey results.

Um, then we'll hit on the commission survey, followed by um the survey focus on uh city board uh members.

So um let me know if this isn't uh changing slides or anything as I go along, but uh brief overview here of the the survey.

Um so this is the latest and greatest data.

Uh 174 total surveys completed as of noon today, mountain time.

I did just check prior to this meeting.

There were two more that came in.

Uh the reason why we're presenting this data right now, kind of some of the preliminary results is this is stuff that you guys are talking about.

This is stuff that you want as quickly as possible.

We did keep the survey open through the the end of today.

All of our messaging says that as well.

And so those two that have come in so far, we may get a couple more tonight, but we'll go ahead and shut off this survey you know, tomorrow morning essentially, because all of our messaging um that went out said through January 15th.

So with that being said, we did send out some messaging.

Thank you, Mike, for your um help in in getting uh that sent out.

Uh the initial email went out January 5th, followed by a reminder email on January 12th.

The survey featured a combination of questions related more specifically to how local government um structure affects the work of existing city employees, as well as many of the same questions as the community survey.

And so on these results, we'll be able to do some comparative analysis as well as to the results from city staff versus uh the community at large.

So looking at the initial demographic profile for those 174 individuals that um completed the survey as of noon today.

Um of the questions that we asked is uh work category rather than individual departments.

We categorize multiple departments into different um work categories.

And so you see uh infrastructure and utilities uh responded at the highest level, 45 individuals there, internal administration, 30 responses, public safety, 25 responses, community and resident services, 24 responses, planning and development 17, and other 15.

And within each of those work categories on the survey, we provided examples of different departments that might might fall into that those categories.

So it should have been fairly easy to decipher which category an individual uh would have been placed into as far as their work category.

As far as city residency, um the numbers indicate that 92 answered that they lived within city limits, 72 indicated outside of city limits.

Length of employment, we see the greatest number uh here at 73 individuals answered less than five years.

Uh 43 um were between five and ten years with employment with the city, and then uh we got 47 responses from individuals who had worked for the city for more than 10 years.

As far as supervisory or management role, um, most individuals were not in a management role who responded.

We had um 64 uh responding yes and 94 um responding no, whether they were either a supervisor or in a management role is how that question was framed.

Getting into the current uh perceptions of of how things are going.

And this is where I I think um this kind of comes out throughout the the survey, and you'll see it in the takeaways.

But you'll you'll you'll start to see that um you know, within this commun within this employee survey, as compared to the community survey, there's definitely um you know a feeling of wanting the status quo to continue onward, and which makes perfect sense when you're talking about employees who you know are want that stable work environment.

So nothing overly surprising here, but the way that this um this data here is set up is kind of the gray color is from the community survey, the green color is from the employee survey.

These um were all Likert scale uh questions.

And so you know, looking at uh these questions, we had two questions that were exactly the same between the community and the employee surveys, and then two questions that were a little bit more specific to the employee um survey, and so they were not on the community survey.

One question here at the top that was only on the community survey.

So that question was I stay informed about local government issues in Bozeman.

Um that's the community results.

We took that question off for the city uh employee survey.

So the question that was the same, or that were one of the two questions that was the same is I understand who leads and makes decisions in our city.

And we had roughly the same average here.

We had a 3.8 average from the community and a 3.77 from the employees.

This next question, I am confident in the current structure of city government and Bozeman, uh a lot higher percentage here, or a lot higher average here uh from city employees versus the community at large.

So we had a 3.54 for the employees as their average score versus a 2.7 from the community as far as the confidence level in the current structure of city government.

Um so these two questions at the bottom were specific to the employee survey and were not on the community survey.

This one was related to whether they believe that the structure enables clear roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines for city employees.

So an average rating there of 3.76, relatively high rating there.

And then whether the current structure supports efficient delivery of service in their department, that average score was 3.64 on that scale.

And again, you know, thinking about those scores, it is a one to five scale, not a zero to five scale, so keep that in mind.

So this is where we get into some comparison between the other community survey and the employee survey, looking at leadership priorities.

Top priorities for employees include accountability, transparency, efficient administration, and stable administration.

So in the community survey, accountable leadership was identified number one.

And that also stayed at number one with the employee survey, but it was it was tied actually with something that was number six on a community survey.

And so employees identified efficient administration as their other top leadership quality.

And so that's something to pay attention to, efficient administration as well as stable administration.

Both of these two categories here came in at a higher rate than the community survey.

And then you had a relatively decent-sized drop-off here with the democratic representation, which was much more frequently choice chosen with the community survey versus the employee survey.

So on to the next page.

Options included hybrid executive, which is you know the mayor handles some executive tasks, but the city manager still manages most daily operations, legislative leader, which is the current state, where the mayor leads commission meetings and represents city but does not run departments, executive leader, mayor elected separately, directly manages the city operations, and then that hybrid legislative option, which is the mayor breaks ties in commission meetings, but does not manage the day-to-day government.

So we also saw some big changes in this one between the community survey and the employee survey, especially in the role in this number one option for city employees, which is the legislative leader, is how they felt that the role of mayor should continue forward.

Again, that is the status quo, that's how it's set up right now, versus the results of the community, which had more of a split between the legislative leader and that hybrid executive providing more duties essentially to that role of mayor.

And so you can take away from that what you will, but um definitely some strong opinions there from some city employees wanting some stability or maintaining the existing status quo with that.

Um the questions related to city manager, and so this was um something where we asked whether the city managed whether whether the city should retain a professional city manager, uh the survey options included yes with reduced powers, yes, um full executive authority, which is the current form, or no um with uh the mayor being the executive authority running things.

And so on your community survey on the left here, um you're seeing you know uh yes with reduced powers.

Um so again, that category is city manager handles some operations, will the mayor takes on more authority, uh correlates with the results from that last um that last question on the previous slide.

But from the city employees, strongly against 72% are saying yes, full executive authority, that city manager should run all operations.

Um again, this is the current form.

Um and then we're we're coming in with 18.9 as yes, but with reduced powers, uh 3.7% unsure, and 5.5% saying no, the mayor should be the the um the role that runs uh city government.

So certainly some distinctions there between the community survey and the employee survey.

Um as far as electing additional officials, uh this is from the community survey on the top, employee survey on the bottom here.

The question was framed um basically asking survey respondents um whether they selected whether they would support the idea of having additional city officials elected by voters, and then we provided the examples that in some cities positions such as city clerk, city treasurer, or city attorney are elected.

And so what we saw here from the community survey is you know, 209 individuals saying yes, they would support more individuals uh being elected directly.

Um said no, and 131 um you know said that they needed more information or were not sure.

So a little bit more of an even split, uh nothing overly decisive there.

However, looking at the employee survey, um, you're seeing this uh 103 individuals indicating that they would not like these positions to be appointed versus 29 saying yes and 34 saying not sure or unsure.

Um which also corresponds with um you know ranking stability uh you know relatively high.

So um this one on the city commission, so asking for some feedback related to the city commission, that G geographic versus citywide commissioners, um they were asked on a on a scale of one through five, um, you know, whether the question is I believe Bozeman should prioritize geographic district-based representation rather than total citywide votes for commissioners.

So we had 23 strongly disagree, 20 at a two rating of disagreeing, 45 was neutral, and that also is the same number as agree, and then um 31 saying strongly agree.

So again, that's those that's where those numbers fell as far as asking the question of like should city commissioners um should that be broken up into wards essentially.

Um and then potential geographic rules.

So this is that question, same as the community survey.

We asked um whether they considered if um the geographic-based commissioners were used, which rule makes the most sense.

Uh and so it's the question of should the commissioners live in the same ward that they represent.

Um looking at these results, uh commissioners live in the district, voters only from um from the district.

It was number one at 96, and then commissioners live in the district, voters from across the city, um 39, commissioners live in the city, uh voters only from the district at 17.

And then um commission expansion.

This is on the left is the community survey, on the right is the employee survey.

So question related to should the commission expand beyond five members?

And the community survey.

And then 41.7% saying no.

On the employee survey, these two categories kind of change by 11% or so.

And so we've got on the employee survey asking whether it should be expanded beyond five members, 53.4% say no, which is yeah, a little bit higher, um, decent percent higher than the community survey, and 22.7% say yes, which is again lower than the community survey by a decent percentage.

As far as advisory boards and neighborhood council questions, uh the advisory boards and neighborhood councils, um survey respondents selected that they thought um the main uh what what the they thought the main role should be for city boards and and neighborhood councils.

So on the employee survey, and these are both employee survey results, providing advice to the commission not to make final decisions.

Again, this is status quo, this is the current form.

That one had 85 compared to this other one, which is you know providing a little bit more power by sharing input and shaping policies, limited decision making power at uh 60 percent or 60 um responses.

Next over here is the influence of boards and councils, and so um question related to how much influence should they have and then the answer here was um 93 answered advisory only and then uh 54 answered shared influence versus only 12 that answered strong influence and four answered unsure.

So executive summary, some key takeaways here.

Um the big thing is understanding the uniqueness of each group of respondents with each survey.

So we've done the community survey.

We've um you know gave us some really large numbers uh of data to look at.

We're do we did the employee survey.

A lot of the questions that we asked seem to indicate um that desire to maintain the status quo.

Um we're gonna review the the drafts of the uh commissioner survey as well as the um board survey.

So looking at those items and trying to figure out the best way to for you all as the study commission to kind of analyze and assess um those different perspectives and put it into the right context as you work towards that final report.

And so that's um that's the quick uh summary of this employee survey.

Um and again, thank you, Mike, for um all of your work in uh in getting uh the messaging out and and uh helping us uh make sure that we had a good number of respondents.

So any questions on on any of the the items that I presented?

Good.

Just a couple.

Uh thank you so much for all of this.

Uh what is your N?

What is the total number of responses so far, Stan?

So um the data that you're seeing on the screen is 174.

However, we added a couple more people this afternoon that completed the survey, so that's 176 um last time I checked.

When and I'll run the data, we'll we'll stop it um tonight because we said that we would go all the way through the 15th.

And so um we will we'll take it offline later tonight, and then we can provide um the updated uh data, including that uh the results from that city commission component that I indicated was was uh missing for some reason from um from these uh survey results.

So somewhere it'll be at least 176.

And I actually meant to ask that, but and I have other questions, but I'll just ask my one question with the follow-up.

How many people total received the survey?

The employees.

Um, we know the numbers from uh the that are actually city employees.

Uh I had Mike look that up for me, and I'm drawing a blank right now on it.

Do you recall off the top of your head, Mike?

Yeah, I just looked it up to make sure I had it.

We have 498 full-time employees and 26 part-time.

So a total of five, 24 by my quick math.

Thanks.

Other questions?

Deanna?

Uh Stan, the um survey has a lot of um uh mixed responses and unsure uh selections.

Yeah.

Um how do you um handle that kind of ambiguity?

And um when would you say that the uh results stop being directional?

Um and become something that we should be uh working on procedurally.

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um so I mean there's a few things that those those unsure or need additional information results can help us understand.

Um part of that is is kind of the educational component that is needed uh to be able to answer that question.

Uh and so as we this is survey number two of the four surveys that we're going to be doing.

Um, and so looking at the correlation between those unsure answers on the community survey versus similar unsure answers on um this survey might give you all um you know some good data points to to say okay, we yeah, it looks like um you know this is uh there's gonna be some educational components needed to really really understand uh to help folks understand how how to better feel informed to answer these questions, but um I don't know there's a certain uh number threshold that that hits, and you go, okay, well I mean that that that will be for for you all to determine too is you know if those unknowns are or uh other groups start creeping up a little too high, then um you know what weight do you put into that question.

Would you be doing a uh a follow-up survey to um try and determine where the uncertainty and not sure is uh flipped over into a decision?

How are we going to how are we going to garner that that information?

Um good question.

Uh you know, we we haven't talked about follow-up surveys to any particular group uh right now, but we can look at the language in those surveys and uh you know see if anything else is necessary when it comes to uh doing any sort of follow-up survey.

The the challenge there too is these are completely anonymous surveys, and so we'd be sending out, you know, any follow-up surveys will be sent out to the group as an entire.

Um and so you know, crafting the question, doing some education um related to it, and then seeing if the results came back differently.

But I think you've got good results from um all from the two surveys we've done so far.

I just want to be certain that we're handling the ambiguity and um not moving forward um on something as inconclusive as these results are okay.

Barb, do you have any questions?

Becky.

Um I actually go ahead, Stan.

No, it is Barb.

I was just gonna say I I can I can only partially see the see the slides, so it would be it would be helpful if somebody can email me the slides at some point so I can review them and think about it more.

Sounds great.

Um I would say too that you know with all these surveys, you know, um one of the things when when working with data, it's the data just are, right?

We look at the data, how are we gonna interpret it?

We we look at, you know, um and and think about okay, what does this mean in terms of us being able to think about what the city charter should look like?

And so for me, um that's helpful.

Um I'm appreciative that you compared the city to the count to the community survey too, as well.

Um and then also um when you send that uh Mike, I want to thank you for putting I I see we've got a presentation category on our website with all these presentations, so thank you so much for that.

And um I'm excited that we can add this to that, I would assume.

Yeah, okay, great.

Great.

Uh I see um all of this is informationally important to us, but um I also see other ways where we can think of how we tweak how we change the charter based on what we've heard um in person and from the various reports.

I do think the fact that we're not getting huge crowds out to see us, and we're not getting um a large number of people responding, and frankly, um for variety of reasons like that.

I think people generally are satisfied with the structure.

And so I'm I'm headed in the direction of saying, all right, let's talk about various aspects of the structure with an understanding that we're tweaking it.

Um there probably only be two or three major changes that that we will recommend.

And we're not there yet, so I'm jumping, I'm jumping way ahead.

But but I'm not hearing um, I'm not hearing uh a large number of people coming out and saying you gotta change this because this is terrible.

And um I was thinking about the number of people that voted in the election.

Um I think it was around um the I can't remember, I think I got around 10,000 votes or something like that.

Um and I'm going, well, that's really interesting.

10,000 voters and um the community survey got 500 plus responses.

Um if you conglomerate all the surveys, you're gonna end up with less than a thousand um less than a thousand opinions.

So that that says to me um something like we need to look at how to make government better um more than there's this one grave glaring error failure in our charter that we need to take up.

And and so uh that is affecting how I look how I look at this.

Um other Jab comments or questions.

I was trying to ask one question so everybody else could too.

I just had a couple more though, um, and I appreciate uh Deanna's question about how do we think about the unsure answers, and I do appreciate that the idea of more education and how those unsures may be a part of how we are structuring the part two um action plan is a really good opportunity for us to um see where those may fit and working with Dan and the other centers.

So I also think there's a bigger question that we won't take on right now, but really what is the role of all of these pieces of information?

We have the data.

We we are getting a lot of data, and I'm very appreciative of it.

I'm I'm settling in my mind for not getting thousands of responses.

I wish we would, but we're not.

And um, but I also know there's a number of parts to this process which have included our hearing.

We wrote up the hearing comments ourselves, we made some assessments, we've got some of those.

We're gonna have a whole deep dive for the next four or five months in all of these areas, and so also appreciating the way that you've built, and we'll go into those other surveys next, how you built all of these uh surveys to have a comparative, which I really really appreciate, that we can look at different sectors of our community and be able to see what perspectives they're bringing.

Last but not least, my last question is you have the term, and I should have asked this earlier, uh different democratic representation.

And I know you're not talking about a party, but I'm wondering what democratic representation means when people chose that as a quality they want in leadership of our community.

Yeah, and I I mean I would I'd put that back to you as well.

I mean, these were terms that were were added as far as leadership qualities, and um, you know, we we asked the exact same question on the community survey as we did on the um city employee survey.

And so um without any sort of additional definition um outside of just that phrase and so uh understanding was that interpreted correctly the way that we wanted it to be.

Um how do you all interpret it and how do you use those those results um to move things forward?

Okay.

Anything else on this topic?

Becky, what's next from oh, sorry, Deanna?

I just wanted to note that I did submit a um statement for the record, and um just to um address the uh uncertainties and the sort of the curiosities and um uh ambiguities in the report and to uh lay out where we want to be sure that we're not acting uh prematurely.

And just to um address the uh uncertainties and the sort of the curiosities and um uh ambiguities in the report and to uh lay out where we want to be sure that we're not acting uh prematurely.

So um that is uh submitted as a statement.

Thank you for that.

I think we all have that copy of it today.

I think it should uh go somewhere on the website so it can be found.

Um I guess I invite any of the rest of us that feel um the need to state their opinions on what the they take for the survey, we should do that as well.

Becky.

Um so uh Stan and I'm I'm aware of the time here too.

Um we did get uh we've got this um survey.

I know that um we're anxious and ready to go to be able to um survey the current and past uh city commissioners from the last 10 years as well as the advisory board members and neighborhood uh no advisory board members since 2015, right?

Which is when there was a big shift in the number.

I'm looking at Mike.

There was a big shift in the number of advisory boards to a smaller amount.

We want to capture that year prior, the people who are on the many advisory boards.

The shifts happen that consolidation was 2021.

2021.

Okay, so back maybe five years for the advisory boards.

Stan, you've got um two surveys ready um and need input from us.

I'm I'm thinking at this point we're getting a little perfunctory because we've had a couple already, and some of the questions would be the same.

So I'll let you take that and see what kind of feedback you need from us.

Okay.

Um yeah, so two surveys here.

First one, commission survey.

This is the the exactly that for previous um current and previous city commissioners.

Uh first ten questions on this survey, and again, kind of the introductory uh language, the welcome language talks about um having you know uh focusing in on uh city commission members and past members and all of that.

Um but then um questions one through ten on this one are are similar are the same questions that we ask in the community survey.

So you all receive this in your packet, so I won't go through any of those questions.

Where it starts to get different then is questions starting with question 11 gets more into the questions related to city commissioners and past city commissioners and their perspective.

So question 11, uh what do you think is the most appropriate number of city commissioners to best represent Bozeman and why?

And this is right after that question that we've asked um city employees and the community um about whether they believe that the city commission should be beyond expanded beyond five members.

So we're asking a clarification question to those who've served in that role on what what that appropriate number should be.

Um question 12 is new.

I believe the city commission understands the day-to-day work of city employees, and then that's a strongly disagree to a strongly agree, Likert scale there.

Question 13 through 21 asks them to think about their time having previously served or currently serving as a city commissioner.

So 13 asks approximately how many hours each week does it take you to do your work in the commission?

Fourteen asks if you had more time, would it allow you or would it would it allow the quality of your work to improve?

Question 15.

Do you think the commissioner position should be full time?

Question 16, do you hold regular employment in addition to your role on city commission?

The option here is um yes, full time, uh yes, part-time, or um.

And so since we're also asking of past commissioners, I think I should reword that one to include um you know, make it more in this perspective of for those that are currently serving, do you currently hold or when you served on the city commission?

Did you hold um uh additional regular employment?

And so I'll change the wording on that one.

Um is your work on the commission constrained by your regular employment?

Yes, no, unsure or not applicable.

If the position of city commission were full time, would you have been able to run for office?

Yes, no, or unsure.

Do you believe the commissioners are getting a fair stipend for their work as a commissioner?

Yes, no, or unsure.

Number 20, based on your role and responsibilities of a city commissioner, what do you feel a fair stipend should be?

Asking them to kind of list that out.

21, do you understand the responsibilities of a commissioner liaison to advisory boards?

Yes, no, or unsure.

And then the advisory board and neighborhood council's questions are again very similar to the community survey.

We did break those out into separate city board and neighborhood council questions.

So as we do that comparative analysis, the results are going to be a little bit more specific, but it won't be a one-to-one comparison with the community survey.

So we'll we'll note that when we provide the um the analysis there.

And then 27 and 28, instead of demographic questions, we basically um did uh kind of the role and experience questions.

And so this is uh 27.

How many total years have you held local elected office in Bozeman?

Less than five years, five to ten years, more than ten years.

Again, this allows them to put the number of years in longevity with any elected office.

Uh we didn't make it specific to the city commission, but we could if we if we wanted to.

Um and then 28, prior to becoming a city commissioner, how many years did you serve in a volunteer capacity with a city board and or a neighborhood advisory council in Bozeman?

Less than five years, five to ten years, more than ten years.

So just kind of understanding their pathway to um pathway and experience um leading up to their roles as current or past city commissioners.

So any input on this one thank you so much, Dan, uh Becky.

I um thinking about what Deanna had said about unsure, I think it is really important to have unsure when it is a complex question and that we aren't forcing them to say yes or no when they really are unsure, like they literally don't know.

However, I'm wondering if we if unsure is overused in this survey, like for example, could you have worked full time?

They probably know that.

Um I don't want to go through every question laboriously and leave it, I want to leave it to you, but I would ask that you just kind of read through each one and when we don't need an unsure, take it off.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Jan, do you have comments or questions about the the survey?

Just a quick one.

Um number 28, and if this applies elsewhere, I'm wondering um if people didn't uh have a volunteer with a city border and neighborhood advisory.

I love the question, but not everybody has done that.

Do you want to have uh another open-ended answer to say um something else?

Never did, never did, or this other thing.

There's a whole lot of ways we all volunteer in our community.

We're all leaders in our community, but are not necessarily coming out of those two pipelines.

But I think we'd want to know where they're coming from to really give us a better sense of the larger question.

I always ask about demographic representation.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Are you thinking an open question related to them listing out um some of the boards and and volunteer work that they do?

Kind of keeping it very broad, or what are you thinking?

Well, probably for excuse me.

Probably for confidentiality, I guess maybe it has to be broad.

Um, so we don't have to have anything specific, but it could simply be a fourth choice um other volunteer service.

Okay.

Well, I I do have a question, Stan.

What what are you trying to pull from this survey that is actually directional in terms of our thinking about the structure of uh city government?

Um a lot of these questions, I'm I'm not sure what that information is going to give us that is uh relevant to the work that we're doing.

If for example, that last question.

Yeah.

Um great question.

Um so you know, we're we're trying to create as much data point as many data points as as possible for you all.

However, we want to make sure those data points are valuable to you.

And so, good question on that.

When we're talking about you know these roles and and the the things that we're looking at in the charter, um, understanding from the perspective of those individuals currently occupying those roles gives a unique and valuable insight into how that they're currently functioning.

And so that's why this was requested of us, I think by by the the commission, um by the study commission, and so that's why we put this together.

And I I do think it could provide some some valuable um insight uh coming from those commissioners.

Also, the last time around uh around in 2006 um with the study commission, they did a very similar survey, less questions, but a very similar survey to um city commissioners as well.

And I would just like to add that I think some of the questions that that you put in here are related specifically to some of the questions we've had, which is you know, do we have enough commissioners?

Do we need more commissioners?

Is this a full-time job?

Is it really uh uh you know 20 hour a week job, or is it bigger than that?

Um do they understand how there should be um appointed to a board or should they not be appointed to an advisory board or you know, all those things.

So to me, I think there's a lot of valuable information, but Carson.

Yeah, I I think some of these go to uh a question that's popped into my brain um about this is do we want um I'm just gonna throw out numbers that are um no science in them and not necessarily an opinion.

Do you want eight part-time city commissioners who are involved in the the commerce of the city because they have another job, or or some connection to the city?

Or if if the amount of work is enough for four full-time people, is that preferable or not?

And I'm I'm not sure I know the answer to that.

And I see these questions as giving some insight into um whether that works better or not uh for us.

So uh I'm I'm I'm liking the questions.

Barr, do you have comments or questions in regard to this survey?

No, I like it.

And and I, you know, I think too that you know, for me, um the responses may not necessarily be determinative, but I think in terms of some of the things that have come up about clarifying the roles of a city commissioner in the charter, um the number of commissioners, all of that is is gonna be important.

The other thing I am interested in is you know, if advisory boards and our neighborhood councils are sort of places where people initially get engaged and then get excited and motivated to go on to run for office.

I think for me that that then says, yeah, we really should invest in maybe strengthening our neighborhood council program and um bringing some clarity to that because it's a way to develop community leaders.

Anything else before we go on?

We don't need a motion here, we're just providing input.

And then um you'll work with uh Takami and Mike to be able to get those surveys out.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And I mean these two surveys uh we can get them out at the exact same time.

We can uh leave them open for a similar period of time that we did with the city employee um survey, kind of giving that uh 10, 11 day time frame window and and putting it out there, doing a reminder and um seeing what results we we we get back, and then that should allow us to really take a look at these results.

Um probably won't have it in time for the next meeting, but the meeting right after that, because I know we got back to back meetings there the the end of January and the first uh week of mar of February.

So maybe that um that first week of February um meeting might be a good one to really look at these results.

Thank you, Stan.

And um we've got one more one more question from Jan.

Apologize.

Go ahead.

Uh thank you.

Just wasn't sure if I understood how far back each of these surveys go.

In other words, participants, does it go back to five years for each of these surveys, or are there different levels of how much how many people are included with each survey?

Thank you.

We were thinking 10 years for commissioners because there's not many people.

Like if we just went five years, there's not a whole lot of people.

So we were thinking 10 years, but with the advisory council advisory boards go back five, so we can capture all the people who've been on, plus when there was a whole bunch of or a higher number of advisory boards.

Am I doing the right math?

Yeah, that was the initial discussion, but yeah, advisory boards you could go back a little further than five, because five would only get you to right at that moment of transition.

Maybe there's six or seven.

Yeah, you want to capture a couple years.

Okay.

Yeah, we have the uh so we have a compiled list of all the members that we had prior to consolidation, and then we have all the current members since consolidation forward.

So we can definitely get that who were on the boards at the time of consolidation and maybe a few others, but I know I have that, which is close to 200 people before consolidation.

Super All right, go ahead, Stan, with the advisory.

I know there's a lot of similarities there.

There is a lot of similarities there.

So very similar setup here with questions one through a specific intro to the the board members, you know.

But um questions one through ten are going to be exactly the same as the other survey.

Um and will correspond with the community survey um and a lot of the questions from the employee survey as well.

So getting into question 11, um 11 through 19 is really where it distinguishes itself from the other surveys, uh asking questions about their role as advisory um board members, and so question 11.

Um approximately how many hours each week does it take you to do your work for the board you serve on?

Question 12, do you feel your ideas are being listened to while serving on the board?

Uh yes, no, unsure.

Are you being properly consulted for your knowledge and expertise while serving on the board?

Is number 13?

Number 14, do you feel constrained in openly sharing ideas while serving on the board?

Uh number 15, is the board you serve on specific enough in its scope to adequately utilize your knowledge and interests?

Uh number 16, is the scope and authority of the board you serve on too narrow, too broad, just right, or unsure?

Question 17, what recommendations would you provide to adjust the scope and authority of the board you serve on?

And then 18, should city boards have term limits?

Yes, no, or unsure.

19, if term limits were in place for serving on city boards, how long should they be?

Questions 20 to 23 are those um similar questions that we've asked before related to advisory boards and and neighborhood council, so not much has changed there.

Um question 25 through 28 is the replacement for the demographic stuff, just understanding uh role and experience of these uh uh.

Whoops, this is uh um sorry, just gonna change that in real time.

Um but uh understand the role and experience as city board member so number 25.

How many total years have you served on city boards in Bozeman?

Less than five, five to ten, more than ten, number twenty-six, how many total years have you lived in Bozeman?

Uh less than five, five to ten, more than ten, unsure or not applicable.

Have you previously held elected office in the city of Bozeman?

Yes, no, or unsure.

And have you previously or do you currently work for the city of Bozeman is the last question on number 28.

So any thoughts or feedback on this one?

Thank you so much, Stan.

And I would uh ask the same thing to look back at all the unsures, particularly number 26 through 28.

Um I can't imagine you'd be unsure if you've previously held elected office in the city of Bozeman.

Yeah.

Carson, why don't you uh lead the way on on questions and comments on the survey?

Uh yeah, uh I my my thoughts are at the very beginning of the survey, because we're trying to get different perspectives from people that served on advisory boards in the old days and the ones in the present.

There are a couple things.

One is um, you go a little further down.

Um I think it's question when you start asking about their experience.

Oh, yeah.

Question 11, probably.

Yeah, yeah.

So you're talking about does it take?

That's for current members.

You you definitely want a did it take you.

Um and I think there should be a um uh uh a um question that says when did you serve on boards?

And maybe you do it as simple as before 2021 set the date and after 2021, so that we have um that kind of um understanding as to the different experience in the the new system and in the old system.

So those would be my two comments.

Thank you so much, it's great.

Barb, how about you?

Negative?

Okay.

Deanna.

No?

Jan?

I wondered um right where you have your role as an advisory city board member.

I think you want to say a city advisory board member.

Tiny correction, but uh the other part is that we know this is going to go beyond the seven, I guess it is, CABs.

This is going to other city appointed um board members, city appointed members of other structures such as task forces, I don't know, other advisory councils, I don't know what they're all called, but there's up to what 29 or 19, right, Mike?

So we have uh 20 boards and then our partner boards like the Board of Health that has appointees on it, the um criminal justice.

Police review board, all of those.

So um police commission is a city appointed board.

Right.

So so the all of that falls under the bigger umbrella, not just the the five or seven superboards as some people call them.

Yeah, it's gonna be beyond the consolidator boards.

Okay, and that language would still resonate with anybody that would fit into that number of 20 so or so boards.

I think so.

Okay.

And I know we have some here, so I'll just ask that more broadly, but thanks.

All right.

Um Stan, do you feel like you have the feedback and you can make edits to both of these surveys, get it to Mike and Takami, and then um and then we can start to implement those stat, right?

Yeah.

Um one thing that I would throw in there too, with that number of board members and and going back, there's gonna be there's gonna be some folks that have served on multiple boards, and oftentimes we're asking these questions in the perspective of how you know are they tapping into your expertise and and all of that on the board that you're serving on.

If someone has served on a couple boards over this period of time, um I may have to change up a little bit of the wording to support that as well as I think about this.

Okay.

And then um Stan, we've also received the um very thorough um information about the spring 2026 Bozeman City Study Commission communication strategy that I know Anna has been working on a lot and with Takami, who's um who I got to meet as well.

She uh works with the city during the marketing, she is um an incredible gem and already started doing some things.

Um is there anything further?

I mean, the the document that you handed out looks very complete.

Um is there anything further you or Anna want to add to that?

And then I can just ask our um study commissioners if we have any questions and then kind of move on, unless yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I'll hand it over to Anna.

It looks like she joined, she's here.

Yeah, um I think nothing further to add beyond what was already included um in the meeting materials.

Um welcome any questions, but have been delighted to get efforts underway and figure out a working dynamic that works well with Takami and Mike.

So many thanks to both of them.

Thank you so much, and thank you, Anna, for all I know you've designed all these to have a look and feel that looks uh um similar across different platforms, whether you're on social or whether you see a poster or whether you see an ad in the paper, you've got some similar looks so that people can track stuff to everyone's point.

This is complex stuff, right?

And so being able to follow it.

Um questions about this particular plan.

The goal is to make sure that everybody knows when we're holding our meetings, which topics, how they can get the information, and that they can provide public comment um on anything that we're offering.

So that's the goal.

Deanna, do you have a I I do uh have there been ads running in the chronicle that I missed?

Uh no, they're starting in January, it says here first January.

Um they have not been in yet because we had to um be able to get all the uh inner workings with um to Kami, uh get through the holidays, work with Takami, get hooked up with the Chronicle people and do all the things.

So this is actually the first uh the first Monday of February.

Well, it's only the 15th of January.

Um Anna, do you know when those things will start I think that once we uh commit to the budget that they've given us for running a 1-8th um uh page ad every other week through May, then we should I my hope would be we could get going um the following week.

I think that once we uh commit to the budget that they've given us for running a 1-8th um uh page ad every other week through May, then we should I my hope would be we could get going um the following week.

Yeah, and social.

We'll have to confirm that would be from the from the chronicle.

Okay.

And then Takami's gonna start with the social, right?

Yep, and then tikami is good.

The um the social pieces follow web accessibility guidelines, so those should be good to post.

Um, and she can set up the the campaigns again.

It comes back to that budget question of do you want to toggle it into high gear and do high saturation?

Um, or something that would be more moderate saturation, and and both of those options and those tiers are listed within the meeting materials.

Yeah, and we have already approved our our budget line item for outreach and engagement.

And so um for me, that's on page two of our hand now.

Um for me, it's however it whatever it takes to reach our goal.

Our goal is to make sure everybody knows what they're doing what we're doing and how to engage and when our meetings are and what the schedule is.

The one thing I would like to add is um that there's gonna be a poster available of the on page three, your city charter and all the meetings and and the topics.

Um, and that will take us to be able to hang hang them up around town.

So um Mike or Takami will let us know when those are available and printed.

We uh I'm gonna ask everybody to jump in and grab a few and hang them up wherever you hang out.

All right, anything else?

Thank you very much, working ventures.

It's been very helpful.

Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Take care.

All right, I'm gonna jump us right into Dan Clark, who's been patiently sitting here.

Um we um are digging deep into questions involving what I'm gonna call legislative governance.

Um in our study plan, we talked about, you know, should we add commissioners?

Should we not?

Should they be part-time or full-time?

Um, how do we go about filling vacancies and then getting a little bit into the mayor situation, thinking of the mayor legislatively at this point.

Um and how do you know, should we change the way we do the deputy mayor?

I notice this serendipitously, the new deputy mayor is here.

Um listening to us.

So um so how do we uh how do we move forward in the legislative governance part of this?

Um, what more do we need to know?

And uh Deanna and I met with Dan Clark and ask him to put together uh a presentation where um we can learn from what else is happening in the state of Montana and decide whether we want to follow it um or um go our own way or how we want to go about doing it.

So um then if you're ready, I'm happy to turn it over to you and thank you for your patience.

Oh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Appreciate the opportunity to be with you and all and just congratulations for getting to where you are in the process.

I know it's been a lot of work.

I think uh you're on the right track from the presentation, the surveys, the information you're gathering.

It seems like it's gonna be useful.

Um I could make more comment on that, but it's only if you would like to hear it.

Um Mike, I did send you the latest version of the spreadsheet.

Look at this guy.

Look at him like he's on top of it.

So that's uh Barb uh for your benefit to see since you're not here to get a hard copy.

And uh the public that's here, I do have copies of this if you'd like to look at it.

Beautiful, uh, up on the banister there.

Um so I what I what I did for you is I went through for basic our conversation that we had with uh uh Mr.

Taylor and Ms.

Campbell uh regarding the the different structures right of around the the governing side.

And I can I did a comparison chart, and that's what we're looking at now.

Uh looking at the largest or the more the larger communities in the state of Montana.

Not all of them have charters, but that's okay.

But I did unpack within the charters and determine what it is that each of these different jurisdictions uh are doing relative to these different uh characteristics.

Uh so I can go through and give you a little bit of an interpretation if that would be helpful if you've got questions.

Uh I'll just yield to whomever is leading this portion of the conversation.

If uh if you want this to be formal or informal, I'm happy to just have a running conversation with you, or we could be very formal.

I'd like to see this as um a conversation and discussion.

Okay.

Um and so that means since I'm not gonna be looking at everybody and if you have a question that you think is pertinent to something Jan's uh Dan is saying, um jump in.

Yeah.

Um and if it gets to be too cumbersome for us or you, then we'll go back to something a little more formal.

Okay.

Well, so yeah, I'm happy to entertain follow-up questions to it that you have.

Uh do you want to start with the question?

Well, I do have one question.

I I mean, I'm I I wasn't prepared to ask a question, but I will.

Uh uh if you want to uh give us a little bit of background on um your experience in Montana cities.

How often are the problems that people identify actually a structural problem?

Yeah, yeah, that's a great question.

And I was thinking about that based on some of the conversation that we're having around the survey and some of the research that I've been delving into in preparation for this discussion.

And um a portion of the effectiveness of governing is going to be based on the structure.

So the conversation we'll have here, I think there's a weight to that.

But I think the a heavier weight, and this is what I've been seeing with several of the different uh publications and research that I've been looking at is it's it's really dependent upon the people that we elect.

It's it's their willingness to be affirmative in their in their actions to follow through on their uh roles and responsibilities, and that's really where what makes or breaks uh the effectiveness of government.

Uh there is a there is a part of that that is structural, and I think that's where you know, and this is this is always the struggle that you're gonna have is that what is the altitude that you're gonna be operating at relative to we can't control the people that we elect, but is there something about the structure that we could modify or change uh withdraw that might give that a known a better chance of succeeding?

Um yeah.

And most of the time that I spend in local governments is usually where there's a hot spot, and it's not so much of the structure, it's mostly about the people and and just the the conflicts that are expressed in that.

Um follow-up?

Yeah.

So in in cases where um cities have made a structural change, um in your observation, has it actually solved uh the problems they identified, or did it create trade-offs where they may have solved one problem but they created others.

That's another good question.

There the the the it's rare that changes, structured changes are happening.

We've got a 10-year review.

Um and and even though we're having a 10-year review, there's there's not that many, particularly now, changes that are being adopted.

Uh, if if you look at the arc of this from 1974 till or you know, 76 till today.

I think there's a lot more change and and and uh an interest in change uh trying to find that sweet spot of governing in their in those communities.

So I think there is more, and as we're getting further away that I think we're finding that we've found a process that works for us.

And so although we're voting to have it, it's kind of check it out, make sure if that if there's something we can make better, but we haven't seen a lot of changes.

Now, with that said, City of Haver has recently changed.

And I think that was that was, and I think I may have used this example before.

I think that was in a response to a cute an acute interest that the public had that couldn't be resolved without adopting self-governing powers.

Prior to that, they had been asked four times to adopt self-governing powers in a charter, which was rejected at the ballot box until there's that acute need.

Uh so yeah, I don't know if that helps answer that question there.

I don't know if it makes have or better, but I think uh it was responsive to an expressed need of the of the public and that they were able to respond to that.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh Dan, I'm I'm not sure if you were planning to present anything or summarize anything.

So forgive me if I I'm coming leaping ahead as usual.

But um I know one of the questions for me that's been a theme all along is the concept of effectiveness.

And did anyone ask you from our group to talk about not only what effectiveness can be or look like, but how is it measured or assessed?

So I don't know if that's gonna be a part of what you're presenting around the particulars of the first layer of what we're talking about today, City Commission and mayors.

Does that contribute?

Do the struct how do the structures contribute to the effectiveness of how the city functions and people's um perception of it?

Yeah.

Uh and I'll just speak in general, and then we could talk about more specific opportunities here within the the chart.

And I think effectiveness is a is kind of a loaded, because there's so much more variable tied to that effectiveness.

It's it's uh a political willingness to act and some of those other things.

So if we look at the structures, you know, like wards versus at large, you know, kind of some of the things that are at play within your conversation here, or partisan or nonpartisan, or some of some of these characteristics.

Could I could I just say it seems like there's some ways that might be um you know a little more extreme extreme, but you know, is it about people not the amount of people suing a city?

Is it about the uh whether there's been a um uh budget that is not you know that is gone cities gone bankrupt or budgets not being uh fulfilled within what they expect.

I I don't know what I'm just assuming there's some expertise on what effectiveness, you know, how how is a city measured to be a place?

Um is it a livable city?

Is it a happily happy city?

I'm just not quite sure how we look at structure, which by in in and of itself, without some qualitative aspect, what what should we be changing in the first place?

Yeah, and why should we change it?

I'm not against the change.

I just I'm trying to figure out what's the result if you do those changes.

Yeah, and I I think those uh I don't have it to to your specific question, though I don't have any data that would show on that effectiveness, those metrics that are used to measure the livability and some of those other uh quality of life aspects uh are necessarily tied back, or at least I haven't seen anything yet.

I'm sure there's information out there, and we'll just have to go look for it.

It ties back to the structure.

Uh there's there's a lot that goes into those metrics that have that would have nothing to do with with the structure.

Um those are those are all good questions, and I think these are things that you're you should be thinking about is particularly as you're looking at the potential proposals.

What are the what are because everything's gonna have a trade-off?

There's not a Schenger law out there.

Everything's gonna have a trade-off.

And as I've said before, this is all an experiment.

You've been operating and doing things in a certain way for a certain amount of time.

And the opportun the time is now to think about are we getting results that we're okay with?

And if we're not, would making a change to some of these structural things give us a desired result, a desired outcome.

And and I think to be honest, it might be nibbling just really what we're doing now, is look nibbling around edges.

I don't think there's anything that's gonna be really substantive that'll make a huge difference.

I think I think you've pretty much, I think we around the state.

That was my comment earlier.

I think we pretty much found a homostasius in how in for the community, it's culture, it's size, we've pretty much found what works best for us and and making huge leaps or big jumps or or shifts uh no no one no one's making those anymore.

Hopefully I said that right.

I'm looking at the proposals that are coming out from this session right now, this local government review, and a lot of them are already done.

They've said, yeah, we've looked at it, and there's we don't see how we can make things any anything substantively better by making a change.

Is is the comments we're hearing from some of the early reports coming back from their surveys and studies that they've had engagement with the public.

Does that help?

Yeah.

Speaking of the along the conversation.

Yeah.

So Becky, do you have a glad?

Yeah, I think you know, I think that's a great question, Jan, and I think when I'm looking at all these line items, it I can say that's maybe the broadness of the question, and I'm wondering about a couple things that I'm seeing just kind of stand out.

And I'm wondering about a couple things that I'm seeing just kind of stand out.

One of them is the number of council members, us and just two others, Great Falls and Helena have four council members and a mayor.

Everyone else has a lot more members, which is interesting.

Can you tell me about the effectiveness of why do cities get more?

Because we're definitely on the low end of all these cities.

Yeah.

The largest being uh Silverbow, and the way that the reason why they have 12 is they when they consolidated the city and the county, they had nine city commissioners and they had three county commissioners, and they thought just for ease, we'll bring them together.

However, when Anacona Deer Lodge consolidated, they decided to go to five.

Yeah.

The research search shows I think uh the other let's see, is it the Michigan, Michigan, uh not Michigan, Minnesota, University of Minnesota, the other U of M, because I'll talk about the other NSU, Michigan State.

Uh the other U of M has done some research and they've consolidated what they did is they looked and did a uh a lit review and they gathered up who's been doing research around the size of small bodies that govern, governing bodies that are of small size.

And there the aggregation of the research shows that five to seven seems to be the sweet spot, but anything 12 or less is pretty much affected.

There the the gains or losses going up to 12 is pretty minimal.

So that five to seven.

So I think you're you're you're within that range of what's thought of as being uh an appropriate or acceptable for a community for a small governing body.

Um that if that helps.

Now uh I do know there has been conversation with the study commission in Butte that has 12, are talking about we feel from the input they're getting from the the commission and the input they're getting from the community that that's a bit much, and that there's there's too much opportunity for people to hide and hide.

I don't know if that's the best word, but to to be lean into the mic.

To be a little less engaged, to uh you know they're they're not contested races.

They so it's just by acclamation, they keep getting in that seat, they're not contributing very much.

Those are some of the comments.

So if they had less, it might create a more competitive environment where people are contributing more.

It's easier to just kind of sit back and let others do the work and they just vote yes or no.

And so there's there's more of that on that larger size and some of the the input that we've seen from the research.

And but there's more work to be done when there's only five.

So they're you're putting more kind of labor expectation on the a fewer number.

Um representation with more, you can get uh a different variation of representation.

Uh California, when they adopted their voting rights act, I think in 2020 or something, a lot of the California uh municipalities were operating at large.

And then uh when that was brought in that the voting rights act forced a lot of them because that that at large was not giving appropriate representation consistent with that law.

So a lot of them is now have broken up, so now it's about 50-50, those that are at large and those that are with districts.

Uh and they found that those that are districts, it's usually because there's a demographic uh or socioeconomic or uh religious barrier uh differences within that community.

So they want to make sure they had those representations.

So you can look at that, you know.

What kind of representations are we interested in if you're to look at the at-large versus the uh that was districts question?

Yeah, yeah, because we've got Bozeman, Great Falls, and Helena are the big cities that are at large.

Most have wards.

And can you tell talk more about the research behind that?

And yeah, and the the at large uh the what the wards, I'll say the wards in Montana are the default.

So they they have to make the affirmative affirmative effort to change to at large.

So that's and that's why you're seeing there's fewer that do at large than there are.

And I do I will say that it is interesting with Lewistown has the hybrid where they have three that are elected from uh districts, or they have three wards and then one's elected at large.

And I think there's two elected from each of those wards.

And why?

What what's the thought behind that?

Uh what's the thought behind?

The thought behind that.

I I think for them, I I'm not privy to the conversations that were happening, and I think that was changed in the 80s, the mid 80s when they made that that change.

It was either mid-80s or mid-90s.

And I'm not privy to what the conversation was behind that, but but it could be that they, and this is a conversation I think Madison County and some level counties have this conversation too about our county commission representation.

If we went to five, uh we have three elected from districts and then two at large.

So we have a different view, a view set that there is something to be said about I'm coming from a let me back up.

Also within those districts, um you could have three wards where people have to live in that ward, but everyone's elected at large.

Or you could have three wards where the people need to live in that ward or elected by that ward, and then you get the at large.

So you just have a mix of that representation and that uh perspective that's brought to the to the conversation in the community or in the in the council chambers.

Do you see people with the wards get hyper focused on their neighborhoods that they represent and lose sight of wait a minute, we all live here in this town called sit Bozeman, right?

Or do you feel like it's an asset, or do you see that it's an asset uh meaning that now these people who live here feel more represented and and because we're we're hearing we feel uh people feeling disconnected from the government, like I I don't matter in the government.

So can you talk a little bit about that?

Yeah, an example with with a county situation that there's not a lot that I can draw from experience on based on your question.

I I have heard there is a county that that does uh have three districts, they elect the people need to be nominated from that district and are elected by that district.

We have one that operates that way that I'm intimately familiar with.

Most counties, it's I'm uh uh nominated from my district, but we're elected all at large.

So when they sit at the county commission's table, they're thinking about all the folks, but I am coming from my part of the county, so there's that lived experience that comes from that geographic area.

That's Galton County.

Gallant county's that way, correct.

There's another county that they that I come from my district, I'm elected by my district, I'm very much accountable to my district, and that creates a lot more tension when it comes to allocation of resources, particularly around roads.

That there is a bigger fight around roads, and then it's like I can gain an alliance, so me and my fellow commissioner, we can gang up and we can strip your budget for your roads to heck with your constituents, and we're gonna because I want more money for my roads, and I've got to get an alliance with someone else.

So you get some of that that business going on.

And I then that's some of the input that I've been getting from that that county, there's a frustration around that.

Yeah, I I do want to note we're not talking about wards in in this section.

That's a much right representation.

Sorry.

Oh, it's Barb good question.

Yeah, thank you.

Oh, and now I can see the whole room.

Well, maybe not.

The camera is moving all over the place at the moment.

Um I um well, I have a couple questions, but I'll I'll start with my commission questions.

Um I sorry this chart was really helpful, Dan, so thank you.

And and I I did a little thought exercise to see if there was any different if there was anything I could tease out about the size of the various communities and the number of commissioners.

And I guess I'm just wondering if you have any reflections on um because it's all over the map.

There is no pattern, like it's not like bigger cities have more commissioners and smaller cities have less than we do.

Some cases much smaller communities have more than we do.

And so I guess do you have any sort of reflections on you know whether it would help in terms of maintaining the effectiveness of uh essentially a citizen legislature to expand the number of commission members by one or two so that we had a little bit more a greater number of people to share the load, and and if there is any sort of population size at which that starts to make sense.

Yeah.

Great questions.

I you know in in my work over the last 18 years with cities and counties, I there just hasn't been a lot of conversation around size, other than the the the conversation that Butte is having and some of the the input.

We've we've when I've visited with the commission in Billings, who have 10 commissioners plus the mayor.

Uh they they don't seem to feel it's a problem.

Um way or the other, they don't think it's great, they don't think it's bad, it's just it's just how it is, and this is just what we do.

Um and I think that puts you in a great position as the the study commission as I think about all the conversations and all the data that you've been collecting.

The the survey, and I think kind of the questions that you're asking the the survey creators earlier.

I think some of you were kind of getting around this, is it's their data points.

They're points of data that provide information, and it's not gonna, it's not necessarily gonna answer the question what should go on the ballot.

I think you should take all that information in and say, okay, for example, the size of the commission, you know.

Um we're at five.

If we went to seven, this is what we think will happen.

This is what we hope to happen, and that's your argument.

We hope to have these things happen by going this direction.

And and that gives context for the next 10 years for the community to evaluate.

Did we achieve the hope that was the the aspiration of the study commission?

And then in 10 years, we think, well, that was the ooh, ooh, that does remind me of what I'll put okay.

That they tried something.

It didn't.

It didn't give them the outcome they were hoping for.

And that was the county commission that shifted from three to five.

And they did that for the 10 year cycle, and then they went right back to three.

It didn't, they were hoping for an to make it easier for the commission to engage each other without worrying about the quorum, because three size of three, any two get together and you've got a quorum.

And they're hoping that better, more effective outcomes would be a result of having five, because there could be more development of ideas before it's actually brought to fruition through the political process, that there could be more of those conversations.

And I and I think it didn't give them that outcome, or if it did give them that outcome, there's probably other downsides that outweighed whatever benefit they were getting.

And so they changed it back, kind of a no harm, no foul.

And so that's where I kind of think that that I was fascinated by that data.

That but it's 170 voices out of 50,000 people.

But what does it tell you?

That was the employees out of fifty 500 people.

Or 500 people.

So still it's less than percent.

Yeah.

But what does that but it does give you, because at the end of the day, it's still gonna have to go on the ballot.

But I think if you were to sh say from this from all these data points, and there might be some data points that are very strong that you might say, you know what, we've heard other things that support a different direction, although this was strong in the cumulative, these other ideas, or this other perspective might win out the day.

Uh, but what this is what we're hoping to achieve.

Anyway, that's those are things I think for you to think about.

So you don't get too deep into you know, really, we want to make sure it's the right decision.

Well, it doesn't need to be the right decision, then there is no right decision.

But here's an option.

And if the com and if the the citizens think, let's try it.

It doesn't have to be right, it doesn't have to be wrong, it's just well, let's try it.

Let's let's try it out.

And I think if you come with good reasoned rational thought behind it, this is what we're trying to accomplish.

It gives a clear message to the public, then let's watch for those uh points of impact or uh criteria for evaluating whether we want to do this again in 10 years.

Barb, is that was that your question, Barbara?

Sorry.

Yeah, no, it no, it was, thank you.

Um and and as ambiguous as the answer, that's okay.

We can live with that.

Um I uh I did have a follow-up question because when we met with the current, when we met with the current commission, you know, we did hear from several of them that they thought there might be value in um somehow bringing greater clarity to what is the actual job of a commissioner um in terms of roles and responsibilities.

And I'm wondering if you have seen any other municipalities address that a little more specifically in their charter so that that people who decide to run have a better idea of what what the job description is, if you will, and if there are pros and cons to adding that kind of specificity about roles for the city commission into the charter.

Let me just piggyback on that.

Yeah, I want to piggyback too.

Um when I was reading through the charters that you sent us, there were great detailed descriptions of what the city manager's job is.

Yep.

Great detail as to what the mayor's job is.

And I I didn't find anything that was anything then very general about what the city commissioner's job might be.

Yeah.

Is that similar?

And my piggyback is um of these numbers of commissioners, are they full-time or part-time?

And um is it is there any comparison in terms of what people are paid?

You know, are they citizens, citizen commissioners?

Meaning I got a full-time job and I'm on the commission because now there's 10 of us, and I don't have to do 40 hours a week, and I can actually have another job to be able to satisfy what we want them to do.

Yeah.

So that's my piggyback.

Can I add another piggyback?

Yeah, I'd better write notes down the number once.

Let's go with this and then I'll see if it's answered.

What was the original question again?

I like job description.

Duties and job descriptions.

Um great questions.

And and as you probably will find in the model as as you read through and pour through that model charter, they they are very cautious about specificity in a charter.

Uh because it it thinking of if if you think of the mindset of your charters like your constitution, we want to have general broad statements and allow the flexibility as times change for the the organization, the city, to through by ordinance create the specificity.

Does that make sense?

That that things that that made sense for City of Bozeman in 1987, uh, if if you were to put that into the charter then, it today in 2026 may not make it might be a real impediment that it's it really inhibits and and and you know blocks you in or ties you down.

So that's why, particularly with the legislative branch, they are the policy-making body.

Now, what a city commission rolls and responsibility, how the city of Bozeman chooses to uh organize the commission, the city commission, organize them, allocate resour uh or uh responsibilities and all that is done by policy.

So if you want the specificity for recruitment of people in the community, I think that would be the administrative process that the city would do rather than seeking that in your charter, providing that specificity.

I would like to have more general rather than specific in a charter and and allow the local the as time goes by for the community to morph and and evolve within the framework of that charter without having the confines of very specific structure.

Now, with the manager, typically what you're finding in the in the roles and duties of the manager is what comes, it's almost word for word coming out of the Montana Code annotated.

When they're defining the commission manager form for the general government powers, what they've done is they've just taken that structure and they've put it into the charter.

Some might tweak, they might add something here or there or clarify something.

Um but usually it's just word for word that goes into the charter.

And I don't recall, I I should have looked more closely at that on that question if if Bozeman's and I do have well for for your for your edification.

Here is the commission manager.

This is what the structure for the general governing powers looks like.

And you can you can look at the uh the responsibilities for the manager, it's probably gonna found sound eerily close to what you're reading in these various charters.

And that'll be found on page two uh well, duties of the manager, bottom of page one seven three three or four goes to the duties of the manager.

And then outline and and there again uh it can be more specific by policy.

If the commission says we want to be more specific, we want to provide, you know, that could be done by the governing body as long as it fits within the framework of of the the chart real quick, just as a note our charter, section 3.04 defines the powers and duties of the city manager.

So if you want to make a note with that to cross-reference references, right?

Yeah.

So Ms.

Barbs does.

No, she still has her hand up.

Bob, you have your hand.

Oh no, no.

I thought I put it down.

And I'm I'm done for now.

When we move on to the mayor, I have some more questions, but thank you.

Let me just quickly go through the chart.

Okay.

And I'll explain.

So that's been bugging me.

I want to I want to make sure you're clear on my it makes sense to me, and I want to make sure it makes sense to you folks as well.

So it's sort of becomes a really helpful tool moving forward.

I I don't think there's any question about what partisan nonpartisan, you know.

Uh I think there's is to my knowledge, there is one municipality in the state that operates by charter with partisan elections, but in practice, it's still nonpartisan.

So what does that mean?

It means that a charter says they should have partisan elections, but they've never, since the charter was adopted, have had a partisan election.

Uh-huh.

They still operate with nonpartisan elections.

I'm sorry, who is that?

It's a municipality in the state that operates that way.

Oh, yeah.

Do you want me to tell you specifically who?

Sure.

Cut bank.

The city of Cutbank.

Yeah, if you look in their charter, it says partisan.

So I was doing a training with them on their charter.

I said, Do you do that?

No, we've never done that.

Right?

Not my circus, not my lucky.

All right.

Uh at large, we talked about that.

There's only a few that do the at-large.

Uh Newt Lewistown is the only one that does the uh hybrid.

Uh council terms, you can see there pretty much across the board four years for the council.

Um the number of council members now, just for clarification, anticonda Deer Lodge Butte Silverbow, they have a different form.

They have a the commission executive form.

And so that's why it's just five members plus the elected chief executive who's they call a CEO.

Butte has 12 elected commissioners, and then they have an elected CEO or you know, yeah, chief executive.

Uh if we slide over these others where it says a number plus M, that means that it's a commission with a specific office of mayor that's elected separate from the commission.

So you've got to actually declare, like in Bozeman, I'm running for mayor.

Um you jump over to where it's a slash.

So in Lewistown, Livingston, and West Yellowstone, this is where you run as a commissioner, and then the commission selects who their presiding officer is going to be.

And and that's from their membership.

So they select one of their members to be, and it's usually by ordinance and it's for a term.

I know in West Yellowstone they serve for a one-year term.

I think in Livingston, it's a two-year term, if I recall, maybe a four-year in Louis in Livingston or Lewistown's two.

Well, they'll have a term, and then it's at the pleasure of the commission.

So if at some point the commission says we're done with you being that person by a motion, they can change and select someone else.

Why why can she also does that?

And I may have misread.

Do they do that as well?

Not have an op.

I thought they had an office, but I yes.

Their commission chooses that the committee mayor or the assistant mayor, thank you.

The assistant mayor, yes.

Yes.

So that then when the mayor, whoever's been a selected, they also select a mayor pro tem that when the mayor is absent, whether it's the elected mayor or one that's elected from their, you know.

So in the case, like if so that's usually spelled out.

Either it's in the charter, how the the deputy mayor or mayor pro tem is selected.

It's either spelled out in the charter or it's done by an ordinance, an act of the commission that could be changed uh at the the interest or will of the commission.

But if it's in the charter, that's what it is.

There's no flexibility.

Yeah.

So that was one that's kind of weird.

Um the presiding officers, they're they don't call them mayors, they're they're presiding officers, so they're really even reduced more uh than having someone that has the moniker being mayor that gives them a little bit different cachet and it's ceremonial and uh okay.

Then we look down, you can see the different uh any questions about the real quick, Dan.

Yeah, go ahead.

Can you correct me if I'm wrong?

Missoula's mayor only votes in the matter of a tie.

I believe so.

Yeah.

So that so Missoula is the largest municipality that operates with that commission manager form.

I'm sorry, the commission executive form, similar to the consolidated city counties.

But yes, they have what I would call, we had this discussion earlier, a a weak mayor form of government.

In that the mayor in their charter says the mayor prepares the budget in consultation with the commission.

The mayor appoints board members with consent of the commission.

The mayor uh only vote the mayor has is to uh veto.

Uh may or may not break the title.

You know what?

So those are, and then you have a strong mayor that says the mayor prepares the budget and presents it to the commission.

Strong mayor mayor appoints without consent all boards.

So that's a strong mayor.

So it's really in those duties of the mayor, uh, whether they're strong or or a weak mayor, but there's still that commission executive form where they're the elected chief executive.

Does that make sense?

When you hear that term banted around, they'll often say, well, Missoula's a strong mayor.

What they mean is they're an elected mayor that has the chief executive responsibilities and authority of the chief executive.

It's not delegated to the or it's not the responsibility manager.

Like in the case of Bozeman, the manager of Bozeman is the chief executive.

And the mayor is a part of the commission and is a ceremonial.

Sorry to I'm already just diminishing your role, but uh uh Dan.

Uh wouldn't those duties be spelled out in the charter?

I mean, there's an yeah, so the the duties of of whom?

The mayor?

The mayor.

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

So most you'll see in the charters, they'll have very generic terms for the commission.

Yeah, well, you were just saying a strong mayor means this and this and this, but it really means whatever the um charter says it means.

Yes, yeah.

So in the Missoula, in the case of Missoula, when you look at those delegated responsibilities and duties of the elected mayor, they're on the the collaborative side.

So on the weaker side, they don't have that strong, I'm making these decisions.

That's always I'm making this decision, but you got to feel good about it, council.

So it's that I gotta check in with you.

So that's that makes that weak mayor.

And and I'll say this that I'm not aware of any municipal government in Montana that has a strong mayor form of government.

And we actually have in the Montana Code annotator a statutory structure for a strong mayor form of government.

And if you compare that with the normal commission executive form that the other 13 municipalities operate under, they all under operate under that that weak mayor or that shared duties.

What did we say earlier?

Is a shared governance structure?

And we were trying not to use the word weak, so maybe we ought to come up with the case.

Yeah, that's another term.

It has a bad thing.

Let's come up with another term.

Thanks.

We just got to change the rest of the country.

One step at a time, man.

You had a question.

Um just waving goodbye.

Goodbye.

Can I jump in here on the mayor Fisher?

Real quick.

Um so sorry, I've got too many mice happening over here.

Um so I just want to point out a couple things in Bozeman history, just how we got to where we are with the mayor.

Um, so you know, we were uh incorporated in 1890 or 1883 with the highest vote getter as mayor.

It wasn't until our current charter that that was no longer the case.

So we kept that, you didn't run separately for the mayor, you enlisted for the commission and you ran, and the highest vote getter was dubbed the mayor.

It became a separate office as part of our charter.

And so when we we adopted the city manager form, we still had that highest vote getter is the mayor.

Um our charter specifically to Dan's point, pulls back some of those, some of those powers explicitly.

The lat one of the last thing under powers and duties is that they shall not have any appointment power to city boards except where required by state law.

So it creates an even more structured uh shared governance, in that in many places the mayor is the one making the appointments with consultation and confirmation type of language.

So we our current charter has pulled that um back, and then of course we have our unique two and two situation that uh I would love to have been a fly on the wall when they were debating that one.

Um so that that's just something that's exclusive to Bozeman related to the mayor, and then the other just quick point you had talked about the number on the on the commission.

Um quick math, excluding the consolidated, because I just think they're in a completely different category.

Uh the ones listed here have an average of 7.2 members, including their mayor council combination.

exclusive to to Bozeman related to the mayor and then the other just quick point you had talked about the number on the on the commission um quick math excluding the consolidated because I just think they're in a completely different category uh the ones listed here have an average is 7.2 members including their mayor council combination and Bozeman went to five in 1970 when we hit 1500 people population at that time statute required us going from three to five so we've had five representatives on that legislative body since we had 4000 less people so just wanted to get those in before I forgot and if if I recall I was just trying to look it up and you might know too I it was my understanding that Bozeman was the first municipality in the state of Montana to adopt the manager form of government and that's been operating that way since the 30s.

A what form of government the the manager form of government since the 30s I think yeah so they that's we tried in 1912 and the election failed and then they passed it by election and then had to go to the legislature to get the legislature to allow municipalities to have that form before they could actually implement that form.

So we were the we were the first one and then if you go back to when we abolished wards to Dan's point about that being the default the argument in 1929 when we eliminated wards was well now we have a city manager so the geographical representation doesn't have the same effect because we have a a dedicated staff person who's running those operations to handle the budget type of arguments where you have one person overseeing it as opposed to the you know alliances that are gonna you know keep Nelson story or somebody else in boxed in in their in their little corner so you know their street doesn't get plowed but ours gets plowed twice a day type of thing.

So yeah there was the first one and then that's why we got rid of wards is we went to that manager form back to the unless you have another question I wanted to ask this as a follow follow up but um I I think it's still relevant I'm wondering if you know in our state um do full time paid positions impact the commun the type of representation from a demographic standpoint.

Do we know any kind of demographics from the structures people have chosen either within part or full time and how many types of commissioners versus mayors what what does that tell us about who is at the table of decision making yeah to the to the question about pay and status of you know deployment or however you want to look at that uh I am not aware so municipalities typically don't categorize their commissions as either part time full time they usually and I don't know how you do it here but usually it's you're elected and we'll pay you a stipend and usually the stipend is reflective of the level of work that's expected of them and we have some communities ranging that that it is purely volunteer that they get no stipend to I think Bozeman gets the most the the largest stipend I believe right now and I could do some checking on that again but uh I think you are I think in Bozeman the the the highest stipend for their commission members um I you would be sparing like billions I don't think it's very much at all a couple hundred bucks a month or something if I if I recall I could there is a I think the league has their salary survey on their website I think the league is the one that has that um just uh our ours is is it's referred to as salary it's calculated as salary um they have by ordinance the power to raise the salary for after the next election so if our current sitting commission passed an ordinance that wouldn't go into effect until January of 28 so it has to go through an election beforehand um so some of like two of them currently three of them currently would in a sense be able to vote for their own raise but there is the uh the election yeah process in there and then um anecdotally I live in Belgrade and they just a couple years ago voted down increasing the stipend from $50 a month to a hundred dollars a month.

Yeah so Dan are you saying that the full-time part-time and whatever this the salary or stipend is that's not something we put in the charter I I think that would yes I think that's that's a real time let that happen let the the local governing body make those decisions rather than locking it down and it and so that's well I'm trying not to have to insert my values here.

Um that's typically what we see is that's I uh try to remember Belgrade's charter if it has that number in it or not.

I think it's uh I think it's not it's not it's not in the charter, but it does have to go to the voters for the voters determine, whereas in Bozeman, the the legislative branch has the authority by charter to raise their salary.

So that the charter lays out how they can adjust it.

And uh personally, um my take is this body also has the op the option within its final report to make recommendations to the governing body that are not valid questions for the voters.

So one uh one of those recommendations could be hey, next time you do a salary increase, or as a result of a recent salary increase, however, it wants to be worded, we think you should more clearly define the role of mayor as XYZ answer these questions.

What is that policy set out?

And to that point, I did receive a um text from Greg uh Sullivan on this, and he said that uh for a future meeting, he can he can talk uh about the job of a commissioner, he specifically listed fiduciary duty of loyalty budgets as legislators, the judicial role in a quasi-judicial hearing, and how state law establishes decision points.

So he he can give more color to what is contained in other um legal frameworks than our charter of what the role of commissioner is.

And I and I think it would be helpful in that suite of recommendations, would be you know, if for to make it more approachable for people to want to serve in office to help me understand what is the commitment, what it what is it gonna take?

And because you what you what would not be the ideal is someone saying, wow, that that that's a lot of money to be an elected commissioner, and all I just show up at a meeting once a week, you know, and that might be attractive, but if you look at this is what we expect from you, as a fellow commissioner, I need you to match my energy as we collectively, this is where it comes down to structures, it's not a structural thing, it's how do the the people that we're gonna elect want to do their job.

That we need to work hard at trying to solve some of these very complex issues, it's gonna take a lot of time and energy beyond just showing up once a week for a couple hour meeting and then collect this this salary.

So that might be helpful in being clear for people and what those expectations are.

So, how does that fit with county commissioners who I have no idea what they say, but I have always thought of them as full-time jobs and they're paid accordingly.

Am I wrong about that?

No, so counties are different.

Yeah, and counties have to declare uh at the beginning of each year whether they're full-time or part-time.

And what that means, you know, full-time means full-time, part-time is still up for debate on what that means, and usually it's in the resolution that they adopt what their expectation is for full or part-time.

And then there's a a wage that goes along with that.

So it's more of like a position.

Counties are different than cities.

Counties are that as I said before, the administrative arm of the state.

And so they're they're administering those state needs and and issues at a local level.

So they have a different role and expectation and and responsibility than municipalities have.

So that's that's why you so yes, they they have to declare whether they're full or part-time and then what their salary is going to be with that.

Which is which is different.

Those expectations are different, not placed on municipalities.

So I just I want to hit a little bit of my own experience, and then we can go from there.

When uh I first got a mom in politics, I was appointed to an advisory board.

And um there was a commissioner liaison, and uh I think in the three or four years I was on that committee, the commissioner liaison arrived once.

Yeah.

And without um divulging or saying anything derogatory about something, that person was um.

Any ideas that we had about doing this particular board better or input, no, you can't do it because which came to be uh I came to understand that there are some employees in the city, and um I I believe that this particular person, I'm trying to stay away from gender, um, had so much on their plate that any idea from us that might have been a good one meant more work to that person, and therefore it became no.

Any ideas that we had about doing this particular board better or input, no, you can't do it because which came to be I came to understand that there are some employees in the city, and I believe that this particular person, I'm trying to stay away from gender, um had so much on their plate that any idea from us that might have been a good one meant more work to that person, and therefore it became no, and in the absence of a commissioner liaison being present, the word never got anywhere.

Um so in my mind somewhere it ought to be written, and and I'm getting from you a little bit that normally it is written in the norms of the commission that you attend the meetings of the advisory board to which you are assigned.

And further, the other thing that stunned me was different commissioners had different views of their role.

Some commissioners thought I'm here to listen to these people who have more insight and more knowledge uh of this the job of this particular advisory board.

Um and others took took it, you could tell which one I thought was the best in their um on them to convince the advisory board to do what that commissioner thought was best for them and to rubber stamp it.

Um would we go about recommending, and I guess it would be a recommendation to the commission that they write, you know, this is the role of the city commissioner liaison to an advisory board so that everybody was on the same page, and um people didn't flock towards certain boards where they thought they could get their policy um rubber stamped by closer to Mike Rubber stamped by that.

What how do we how do you how does one deal with those issues?

Yeah, those are those are challenging issues because that it really comes down to the individual's willingness to, like I said earlier, to perform the duties to the extent in which we would expect them as the public.

Um it's hard to legislate that.

It's hard to force that without inadvertently creating other problems.

Um the commissioners or the the commissioners or city council members, they're the boss is the electorate.

And that's which you gotta keep them satisfied to keep in office, and that bar for in some situations is gonna be pretty low.

The electorate doesn't always know that they're not they're shirking their duties by not showing up at yet another meeting as the liaison for this particular board.

So if if we're not so this is comes back to that conversation about pay, you know, if I've still got to have my full-time job, if I'm gonna try to raise my family and I'm gonna try to do my civic duty, and I can't do all of one or the other, something's gonna give.

And if we have a long list of expectations and duties as a commissioner, it's gonna be hard, or you're going to really limit the access of people that's those that have the time to do that might be of a particular demographic.

That so those are those are always challenges, and and this is not anything unique to Bozeman or to Montana.

These are these are things that we struggle with across the board, trying to figure out how do we have this level of engagement, and we want the best of you, the most of you, but we want you to do it as a volunteer, but also we want you to represent a particular demographic or perspective in my community that's not always at the table.

So it's like, well, that's a lot, and it's hard to get people to follow through on that when their boss is the electorate, and I'm I'm accountable to them once every four years.

Go.

Thank you, Dan.

Uh you know, I I want to back way up when you were talking about the charter being uh uh needing to be very loose in general, because this is one of the things where the charter the charter is present at every meeting.

And the charter does lay down uh some of the guidelines about um uh what is expected of the commissioners and advisory boards and their relationship to the advisory boards.

And um I think that that saying the uh charter should be loose and and and the commission sort of decide what that should be, um, may not be what we want to do.

We have an electorate here in Bozeman that's very unhappy with the way things are being done.

And they label it as you know, lack of transparency and lack of representation.

They're using a lot of descriptive terms.

And I I think that we need to look at the possibility that some of these uncertainties and these expectations could be met through the charter language.

You're not wrong.

And um, and I think it's important to keep that in mind because honestly, you cannot keep up with what's going on in Bozeman.

Uh, in this advisory board and that one, and this and and the commission meetings and uh board meetings.

And our presence could be our charter.

Yeah.

Yeah, and you're right, and it's not that I'm advocating for a looser, but it's but just know that when you when when you get in to be more parochial, it's going to be more there's going to be more to interpret.

There's going to be areas which you can hide behind uh and less flexibility for the municipality to be responsive as times change.

And just knowing these are these are all trade-offs.

There's no good or bad, they're all trade-offs.

And so what you need to do is decide we would like in this instance, we're going to go deep, we're going to put barbs in there, we're going to put you know, some some strict expectations, and uh and see how that flies with the electorate.

And if they say, Yeah, we like that idea, then we try it out for 10 years.

And it might be beautiful, it might really solve some of the problems, or it might create some angst and you know, can't wait for the next vote.

So I and that's the thing.

We got to try it.

So I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's just it's there's going to be trade-offs for that.

And so typically the language like which we'll see in the in the model charter is they'll encourage broader framework, and then let the legislative branch get the details that can modify.

But in this case, you may say we want to go deep.

The model charter is one view from one.

Sure.

It's a data point.

Uh no, yeah.

It's along with the surveys, along with the public comment, along with what you're hearing.

You have that discretion.

This is what I love about this process.

It comes down to the five of you and your discretion.

You could put something on the final report and on the ballot that is purely your idea that you've heard no one talk about it, but you think this is going to make a difference.

You've got that ability.

That is your prerogative, and you've got that discretion to do that.

So from that all the way to we're not going to do anything unless we've felt like there's a strong movement within the community to act in a certain way.

If we're not feeling that, we're not going to do anything.

So you you can go that whole range from we're not going to do anything unless we feel like it, the community's pushing it, to we're doing what we think is right, and we'll let it all play out in the ballot box.

But that whole range of discretion.

Mike.

Yeah, so um to this to this point, real quick, the charter is broadest terms, the codes, the ordinances, that's where the rules of procedure are established, that gets narrowed, and then to Carson's point, norms of behavior can be anywhere from a person-to-person agreement, or in the case of our current commission 2019 at the end of the that December term, they adopted a formal resolution that outlined what those norms of their behavior were.

And then for the board role and what it what does it mean to be a commission liaison, what is expected of a board member, the staff member.

We we attempted that with the high performing boards resolution when we wrote it.

I'll be curious to see that survey data of what board members that have operated under that think about how well that that actually accomplished that goal.

But that was that was the point at consolidation where we had the history and knowledge of some commissioner, city commissioners didn't come to board meetings.

Some came and contained this like their own little fiefdom, and that they were gonna rah-rah, cheer on the goals that they wanted for that particular policy or recommendation or general guidance of whatever it may be.

And so this consolidation process accompanied we had this, let's define the roles as we're re-setting that period.

And now, you know, about five years or a little over that we've been operating in that consolidated form, we have a lot more information.

So I I think you can look at those data points and say, hey, this is what I'm hearing, or you know, I just I don't think anything you put in a resolution is going to get to what we want.

You can recommend stiffer language in an ordinance, or the stiffest in the charter and say you are prohibited from doing this, thou shall do that.

So there are those options out there, and I mean this is a grand experiment.

We'll see.

Oh, Bob has our hand up.

Barb.

Um well I I was just wondering if we're ready to shift to digging in a little bit to the mayor piece.

Barb, do you want to do that?

Or we haven't covered the election office vacancy yet.

And that's on our list for today.

Do you want to do that first and then jump into mayor?

Well, I was uh uh I was kind of hoping we could talk about well, you mean vacancies for the commission?

Right.

I can just repeat the charge.

Okay, if you yeah, if you want to do that, that's fine.

I just I wondered if we could at some point get to the mayor piece.

Um hopefully before seven.

Yeah, yeah.

Dan do that, and then we'll jump to the mayor.

Yeah, that sounds great.

So the the elected official vacancy, as you go through and look at the different charters, uh you can see anecdotal launch, they've put specifically 120 days to fill the vacancy.

So what is that four months?

Who?

Uh if if if you look under vacancy, I should have put number three.

And then Butte has a 60 days they're required to fill a vacancy that occurs within 60 days, as as does Belgrade specifically put most, and then the ones where you see the double access.

Sorry, they're just appointing people, nobody's electing, just to clarify.

Yes, so when a vacancy occurs, what's the timeline?

So and we we can come back to what causes a vacancy in a second.

So when it occurs, they have to replace them for six in 60 days.

Usually and I don't know of anyone that's not saying that we're only going to appoint you until the next municipal election.

So if someone resigns within the first two years of a four-year term, they get appointed to the next, and so they get appointed for two years.

And so never will we have someone serving an elected office for longer than two years, that there'll always be a chance to then put an elected person in that seat.

Even with the mayor.

No one appointed will last more than two years.

And and the appointed is the only way you can fill a vacancy.

That's the I guess no one has something contrary to that as a process.

That that's laid out in statute.

Um, so the ones where Dan has it noted here, the defaults of statute that that's our process.

It's 30 days to make an appointment by the governing body.

So what some have done is they haven't spent specific in their charter how long it'll they their their timeline for appointing.

So when there's a lack of specificity, my assumption is that the default would be the MCA, which then comes back to the 30 days.

So when you see them, you know, 30 days with the double asterisk, they didn't say a timeline.

They just said that the process by appointing someone.

So if if someone were wondering what should be the timeline, what would the timeline be, it would be either default to the MCA or they could create their own local ordinance that would define a timeline.

Or they'll use language, and I don't I don't remember on Bozeman's, but they'll use language of vacancy.

We uh that they will uh fill in a vacancy will be prescribed by state law.

And what they're doing is they're just saying, hey, that process of the state law is fine with us.

So all we're gonna put in that in that charter is that, and if and if the state law changes, whatever that is, is what it is.

If you def and so this is where it's been problematic in some situations where they've been very specific in the charter about something that is consistent with what the MCA.

And it's something that they don't have the authority to do anyway.

They just say, we're gonna follow exactly what the state law says.

The state law changes, but their charter now is out of sync.

And that becomes a problem uh for for someone to have to go back and modify their charter.

Um that exam that example right there specifically is um what our finance director brought up about aligning the the fiscal year.

So our charter specifies the exact dates of the fiscal year.

If for whatever reason the state of Montana decided to change to have the fiscal year become October 1 beginning, our charter is now out of line with the with the state requirement of the state.

And Dan pretty much nailed, I'm looking at it, and for our vacancies, and it says it'll be uh shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term pursuant to state law.

And that's where the um if there's a general election between the appointment date and the uh end of the term, you're appointing them through the point at which that election happens.

Commissioner Magic was initially appointed in one of those two-year terms.

Uh Commissioner Coburn was initially appointed in one of those terms.

Uh Deputy Mayor Fisher was appointed at the end of two years, but then ran for another term, and then uh Commissioner Bode was also appointed in one of those two-year end of a term.

So we've seen those appointments happen at a higher frequency in the last handful of years.

They've all been in that two-year kind of time frame to then go to election for the remain for the next two-year term.

Is there a default in state law as to what happens if you don't appoint within the time limit?

Uh let me try.

I don't think so.

No.

So I think it just says you will be less to school board members.

Um, and the county superintendent appoints if the school board doesn't appoint fast enough.

I I just want to note historically Al Stiff died, and I think it was months, if not years, before the existing commission could then agree upon who to appoint.

And they only came to agreement because the next election, um, I think Steve Kirkhoff got elected, and so they appointed him into Stiff's position to give him a from election day until he would have been sworn in.

From election day instead of from that.

And state law must have changed after that.

Um what you'll find what I usually say with the state law is they it's only written in the affirmative with the assumption that you will do it.

So when it says you know you will appoint someone within 30 days, the assumptions you're gonna do it, and they don't spend a lot of energy writing in the law, and if you don't, we will this is the the outcome.

Or but it's it's an elegant solution, right?

If the school board can't figure it out, then it's gonna default to someone else.

Yeah.

Uh that that could be a motivator, which you could incorporate something like that into your charter if it becomes an issue, right?

Uh if you've got an issue of that happening and it's politics.

We have some communities that they've gone years without appointing someone because they can't find anyone.

No one's you know, no one's willing.

Uh not a problem here.

Uh could I that's just one more piece?

Um, so does that mean under state law under under the code that a person would never be serving longer than two years as an appointed commissioner?

That would be the absolute deadline that they would ever serve longer.

Yes, with an asterisk.

Okay.

So there is a deadline for filing and for office, and there's a deadline for writing candidates.

So writing candidates deadline is gonna be like September.

Uh so if someone resigns in like October 1st, the election is in November, which they've missed, and so they'll be serving for two years plus a few months.

Okay.

So that's the only caveat is there's uh you just can't get people in there to file in time to be legitimate in the election.

But if the election were within a year, um, and person would be able to make all of those other deadlines, then it doesn't wait till two years.

It's just the next election that you can reasonably file and have a candidate have a candidacy um to run for.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I think the the legislature in making it this way is they want to as reasonably soon, or as soon as reasonably possible, get an elected person in there rather than appointed person.

And rather without having to call for special elections and all that, which is very expensive.

So what they say, well, and this is kind of the those trade-offs, right?

It's like it's not ideal.

We'd love to have always have someone that's elected and accountable to us in that particular way.

But is it is the juice worth the squeeze?

Is what it's gonna take to do that really, are we getting much out of it?

So those are some of the things I I guess some of the things for you as well to consider, right?

Is we're we're trying to balance some of this and is the the effort worth the uh the impact.

I will also just mention on the what determines the vacancy.

And I think you might have a couple things listed, and whatever's written in the state law of the state statute.

So and what you have listed is also part of the state statute anyway.

So it's nothing outside the ordinary, uh, which is fine, right?

It's it's it's always nice when there's some continuity and consistency that you're unless there's really something egregious going on in your community, it's like we've got to stop that, and we're gonna add something here to to stop that.

Like people not that are elected that don't show up.

Uh and it's like, well, I'm gonna I'm gonna collect the money, the the salary, and I'm just not gonna show up.

What are you gonna do about it?

There's nothing the charter says I have to be there unless you pass an order, you know.

That's usually what forces the local government to say, okay.

Well, we didn't expect someone to be like this, but since you are, we will create some guidelines and rules, and they'll do that internally.

But but usually there is a long list of things that that qualify for vacating.

We've got right now an elected official in a county that has moved from the county.

Oh, has not uh resigned, has not let it just quietly moved, established residency in another county in hopes of running for office in that county, hoping to serve out in the rest of the term in this county and transition right into the law says that seat becomes vacant as soon as you your residency changes outside of the jurisdiction you've been elected, something to that effect.

So technically, as soon as that individual moved and got established a residency in that county, the commissioners, county commissioners, should have declared that seat vacant and then open for appointment.

I I don't remember what there is a process by which they appoint those elected officials in the county.

But anyway, so uh upon the happening of death resignation, uh moving from the jurisdiction, uh determined incompetent from a uh appropriate tribunal.

There's a list of things, uh moral interpitude, the commission of moral turpitude, you know, some of those things, which is a discretionary, did that meet it, did it not?

That's what on the happening, usually then it takes an action of the commission to declare that.

So uh and then just the elected officials.

Uh the only those two uh treasurers of the state that are elected.

In fact, I think they're down to one now.

There was a treasure, I believe it was of Medicine Lake Wheel in eastern Montana that was elected in this small town for 20 years, and finally that person decided they weren't gonna run again, so the city could make that change from being elected to being appointed, and so they made that shift.

So I think uh Missoula's the only one that has an elected treasurer, and then the consolidated city county government, since they're used to already electing the sheriff, electing the the clerk, the district court, the clerk to recorder, all uh all those folks are still elected in those jurisdictions.

One one last thing I just really want to say about vacancies um to Dan's point.

Uh Missoula had a residency vacancy in their city council, a sitting council member moved into a different ward.

They vacated their current ward seat, and the city was now on the in the process to appoint that replacement, they then filed to run in their new ward.

And so the uh election that just happened in November was from technically two incumbent candidates that were now in the same ward.

And then one of the reasons, one of the considerations on why these are done by appointment and not vacancy, is the cost of an election.

Our municipal election last November, without a countywide question or statewide question, we pay the full vote for our costs of election, and it was 105,000.

So if we were to do it, too, wasn't it?

It was a mail ballot to do because mail ballots are cheaper than in-person ballots, and we opt to pay return postage.

So it was uh 105,000 to have that election last November.

So if there was a vacancy for some unforeseen circumstance, that's a pretty big hit in a budget.

Yeah.

Okay, can we move on to the mayor?

So again, as you can see here, this is unique.

Uh how you select the mayor with this uh deputy mayor, mayor, split term.

Uh, and I guess there that that's uh I I'm kind of curious what kind of feedback you've been getting from the community about that and from nobody no one wants it.

Well, no, no, no one wants it.

No one likes it.

That that might be an easy thing.

The deputy mayors.

I I don't know if I should say this.

I was not my story to tell, but because this is all being recorded, right?

The the the previous the previous study commissioner, and you could probably talk to him yourself.

The previous study commissioner pulled me aside at a meeting.

Because we were talking about the mayor, deputy mayor's circumstance.

Who he says, I was on the study commission when we put that into the charter.

And his story, right or wrong, he said that he was trying to get something to happen in the charter, and he was not getting a lot of traction on it.

So his idea was I will come up with this interesting proposal that might just shock everyone, and then he could use that as a chip to get concessions to get what he wanted.

Eddie said I proposed it.

And to my mortification, they thought sounds like a good idea.

I lost my chip.

I got this weird thing introduced in the charter, and it went to the fruition, and that's how he said that's that's his story.

He said how it got in there.

We don't work on that way.

We don't want to do that.

No, we'll have to do that.

But it was all it was kind of interesting with the politics, and he said, I'll just take this kind of outlandish idea and I'll throw it in there to see if I can't use that to say, okay, I'll withdraw that, but I want some concession on my idea.

And that never happened.

And so he said that's how you got that mayor, deputy mayor thing.

So it's kind of an interesting deal.

Uh, there's all sorts of stories that go into why people do things.

But so it's a unique thing.

Uh, and that I guess the determination is it working for you?

It doesn't sound like anyone saying, boy, that's a swell idea.

It's confusing.

So I uh I guess uh no one else does it in the state.

Is there anything else you want to talk about on that mayor?

Barbie had something specific, it seems like yeah, well, yeah, to that, I mean, kind of building on that.

I mean, if we do get rid of it, then the next question is how long does our new mayor's term last?

And so, Dan, I was just wondering, I mean, I see most mayor terms are four years, but there are a few that are two, and there's even one that's one.

And so I'm wondering if you could talk about sort of thinking and best practice and thoughts around the length of term um if we get rid of our split term, because you know, yeah, I don't think it's working.

People have been consistently critical of that.

Yeah.

And I uh and the statute, I'm just gonna see if my computer's gonna wake up here in time, but the the statute says that well uh you'll need to develop a transition plan.

So a transition that the commission will have to do it.

So if this happens, you have to have a transition plan that talks about how we're gonna have an orderly transition of elected offices.

The law also says that no one will uh will lose their elected office as a result of a voted in change to a charter or form of government.

So it could be that uh in this cycle, it and I haven't even thought about how you might look at that transition plan, but depending on the the timing of it, that uh the next time you have a uh a municipal election, which will be in 2027, the transition plan would be that that position would uh would you would not have a mayor, you would just have the existing mayor serve out their term, and then that then that the next so it'd be 2029 would be the beginning of the first four-year term, something to that effect.

Right, and that would be the start over.

So the existing mayor would still maintain their position, transition out, and then and then you would have that incumbent seat potential year over year.

Our current current uh deputy mayor elected in uh 25.

Then in 27 becomes mayor until 29.

Can he run for mayor in 29 for four years?

Yes.

That's what the transition, yeah.

I think he would because right now they can't run when they're already in that office, so that's why you're gonna have to that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, so I think after that.

We'd have to write that into the plan that they can run when they're already in office.

Yeah, you could write it.

I think the assumption would be since there isn't that barrier for them for a deputy mayor seat.

Uh that clean.

They would have yeah, they would have full option with without having to be written.

I think it's implied with the the way the uh the election laws are written.

And we so one of the sorry I would just say and we have no term limits.

So anybody is most of our commissioners keep running again.

Yeah, and what's the term limits?

Hmm.

So Bob.

Well, I was just I was I don't need to do this now, so I'll show I was trying to figure out the math of the transition plan and and when our current deputy mayor's term expires.

So but we yeah, so I was actually gonna talk to that point.

So um I think it's important to frame Douglas Fisher ran and was elected for mayor.

He has a four-year term.

Our charter specifies the first two years of that four-year term he serves as the deputy mayor.

So his term is four years.

January, first Monday in January of 2026 through the first Monday in January of 2030.

To Dan's point, any charter effect that would be voted on in November of 2026 would be for an election in 2027.

Mindful of an elected position cannot be lost by this change.

Douglas Fisher's term goes through 2030.

So that 2029 would be the first time the mayor's office would appear in a new form on a ballot.

Right.

Now I'm sure that if I'm incorrect, uh the Greg will let me know, but that's uh that timing wise would be based on how this election is for a term of four years.

Yeah, and it at least in what I've seen from other charters, there will be several transition things depending on what you like.

If we created wards, you'd have the same question.

When when do they when do you begin that election process?

And so the starting point for some of the things in the charter that we uh put in front of the voters may be different than the starting point for other things.

And you just uh the way I've read it, you have trend a transition um section that talks about when each of these transitions occur.

I I wanted to say one other thing, and uh again, I believe part of the um impetus for the deputy mayor scene was there was an election where uh a specific person um had never been on the commission before, had never held elected office, and bam, suddenly they were running meetings and didn't know how to.

And I think part of the impetus for that this thing was well, let's not put ourselves in this position again.

Um I I think historically there's only been one person since then that ran for mayor having never been on the commission and got elected.

So it the the impetus for it if it had any validity is probably gone.

More important, and and the reason why um I think we need to change this is if you can only have a mayor in office for two years from a state perspective, statewide perspective in the cities and League of Cities and Towns getting together with other mayors, you're a lame duck the minute you start.

And um because everybody else is there longer except for uh Great Falls.

Um and you're gonna be gone in two years, and you won't be able to get elected mayor two years later, where at least Great Falls could have consecutive terms.

So that's some of the history there, I think.

Could could I add one thing to that?

Yes.

Fully agree and understand Carson and others.

I think, however, in addition to what we're figuring out in transition plans, timing elections, terms of office.

We also going back to the very first point that Dan made today, you know, it's about the people as well as the structure.

And I'm not hearing things like training and education pipelines of development.

We can't structure all of it, but we can certainly either keep track of these with recommendations to the city commission.

In other cases, I think we ought to consider how and much how much and back to Deanna's point of whether or not we want to have some level of job expectations for city commissioners because it blows my mind to read pages of details for a mayor and a city manager and one sentence for a city commissioner.

And I think we might want to think about that because I do see with the work I've done with ordinances and resolutions and all kinds of things for our city government, you can have the best past laws, but nobody knows how to implement them.

Nobody is trained to know how to implement them.

And I think we want the best for a mayor coming in who can be another person who's never served before, and we don't want to cut that out from the opportunity of the brain trust pool of candidates and potential leaders in our city.

Yeah.

So let's consider those, please.

Yeah.

And it and like your in the charter currently, they have a training expectation around ethics.

Right.

And so and I think there's there's I think there might be a small community that has an expectation in their charter for training for their council and mayor.

You know, they just we want to have the uh provide the the most opportunity for them to be successful, and so having a training requirement.

So that's you know to the to the question about uh mandatory, um sorry, about term limits.

So term limits.

Uh there are a couple that are written.

I think there's at least one that's written, maybe two written into charters.

They were the 1974 charters.

Um they have never been challenged.

There is a discussion amongst the legal community whether it's legal or not.

And so again, it's one of those things that, well, it's it may not be legal, but it could happen until it's challenged the court says no and declares that that's not legal.

It's that kind of separation of powers situation.

I will refer, and this is maybe where uh Mr.

Sullivan could weigh in at some point in 714 of the MCA.

This is the section that deals with self-governing powers, and this is the mandatory provisions.

So 7114 it outlines the mandatory provisions that local governments with self-governing powers is subject to the following provisions, right?

So these are the things they have to do, and it includes things like uh all laws establishing legislative procedures or requirements for units of local government.

You can't change the ordinance procedure.

We've locked that in.

Uh one of the things it does say all laws regulating the election of local officials.

That's all that says.

So by putting term limits on an elected office, are you by default regulating the election of a local official?

Does it go to that level, or is it only concerned with the electoral process that is outlined in Title 13?

Um parts one and four, one and five that relate to local government elections.

I I again it there's no age opinion to this, there's no Supreme Court case on this.

It is so some have ventured, but most of the legal community that I'm aware of today will uh have been telling their study commissions that they do not feel that that proposal is consistent with 7114.

Is there a legal opinion at the beginning?

But each jurisdiction has the ability to make get their own legal opinions, and it's relevant to your jurisdiction until either the attorney general or the supreme court or district court weighs in on that.

So that's like cautionary tale.

It's it's so our position, the center, our position of the center is that what's not something we would advise, but also we want to be transparent, and that's what we're sitting with it.

So if you if it's something you want to pursue, I would suggest you get with uh your legal counsel and see if that is something that is a you know his interpretation may be it's like no, I only think that's relating to this part of the electoral process, and it doesn't necessarily apply to term limits or but other I know other attorneys have said yes, we feel it does apply.

So that's where we sit.

We're we're just very conservative.

Right, we won't want to make advice that ends up being wrong at the end, and it and so we're like we'll say no until your attorney says otherwise.

So that's where I'm good.

Thank you for that.

Is there anything else before we move on with the agenda?

Then thank you very much for your time.

You're right.

And I'm happy to work with you too on the next the next date and and specifics about what you want to have as a conversation.

Right.

Just for your um that'd be February 5th.

February 5th, if you can and you got the study plan, right?

Yes, okay.

Um let's move on to the future agenda items.

I think we should talk about the um January 28th meeting.

Um, because that's when we're going to make decisions as to what if any changes we want to make in the charter regarding this narrow area.

Are you ready?

And um I would suggest what?

No, I'm sorry, it's sweet.

Um I would suggest we've come with ideas for changes that that we want to make um as concrete as we can do them.

I actually, for the fun of it to try and figure this out, started drafting the thing on the deputy mayor and getting rid of it.

And it's fascinating how many different places you have to change the charter to make it consistent, much less the transition, which I spent a good bit of time trying to do math in my head.

Um can I offer a list of what I've heard today?

Yeah.

Of things we might vote on next week.

Because next week on the study plan says that we're going to have discussion and decisions on um potential changes.

So some of the things that I I have six things that came up today.

One is Deputy Mayor.

One is the number of commissioners.

Partisan, nonpartisan.

Other elected offices.

The filling vacancies timeline.

Do we want to stay with 30 days?

And then duties of commissioners.

Do we want to lengthen 2.01 or just leave it the way it is?

I think some of those will be short conversations.

The deputy mayor might be a short conversation.

Some of those might be long, but I don't know what you guys think about that.

Barbara, I see your hand up.

Yeah, I was I I think that sounds right to me, Becky, and I was gonna offer that you know we are going to have to build out this chart for our report that compares um our present form of government and its characteristics with any changes.

And so in looking at the characteristics in that chart, like I feel like the things we should talk about and hopefully make some decisions on next week are the size of the commission.

Um the the mayor and how that works.

So the presiding officer and whether we stay with this two plus two thing or change it.

Um the terms of commissioners, and then like you said, do we want to get specific about duties?

Um I I was thinking that this chart could offer some structure to conversation and start to analyze our current form and changes we want to make.

And and let me just add to that, and I'll get to you, Deanna.

I I think that the way we're doing this, we should understand that we are trying to make all the decisions that we can on this narrow subject area which we've considered, but that we may make changes in April that cause us to want to make changes to what we have discussed, but we're trying to build a uh build a vision of what this is gonna look like one step at a time.

So with that thought in mind, that's how we're coming to the meeting.

Deanna.

Well, I I'm all in favor of uh getting on with our business, but I don't think we have enough uh community import input uh for most of these things.

Uh we don't really have a um mandate for let's say uh districts or wards.

The only thing we've heard, and it's not in the um it's not really in the um survey that we did, um, but we do know just from public conversation that people don't want the deputy mayor thing to continue.

Um but we don't I I don't know on what basis other than our own personal opinions we would move forward in drafting any kind of language about um the number of commissioners or uh I mean there's fiscal um uh considerations that would have to be made and the community would have to weigh in on um the cost of wards, nobody has looked into what's it gonna cost uh to um to create wards and who's gonna do that and when will it be done?

I mean, I think there are a lot.

I think we're jumping the gun to do anything beyond the deputy mayor um language at this point.

Do you realize I did not mention wards?

I didn't mention wards or districts, though, because we that's not till February, March.

That that we're that we're talking about to your point, like we didn't know what it costs and how it would work, and so we haven't even touched wards.

I just want to make sure you didn't hear that.

So what are we suggesting that we start writing?

The uh deputy mayor and mayor, and I'm I'm on board with that.

Yeah.

Um number, number of commissioners.

Number of commissioners, I would not be on board.

Okay.

I don't I don't think we've had enough input.

But or considered the fiscal um But Deanna, we're not gonna get it.

That's the problem.

I I don't think on that issue in particular, do we need five commissioners in a mayor or six in a mayor, or whatever the right number is.

I I don't think people have um I don't think we have a lot of information on it.

So uh you'll hear what I think at the next meeting, but I I don't think you're gonna get a broad swell of public opinion on this topic uh other than um what we've seen in the survey.

We know it was on the ballot um what was it six years ago or seven years ago and it was it was voted down.

Do you think that just by talking about it, we have enough information among us?

Have we done the fiscal investigation?

We need to look at the fiscal piece piece of it that's not hard to do.

Um if if you're adding one or two.

If you're totally revamping it, you're right.

But I I'm not hearing anybody coming in with total revamping.

Um and and I I'm trying not to have the discussion.

I I personally think it's it falls into the category, if it ain't broke broke, then let's not fix it.

And I haven't heard from anybody.

The problem with the commission is there are only four commissioners and we need six.

Now someone could make that case, and I I will hear them and have that discussion.

But um partly because we haven't heard that that much.

Um I'm I'm gonna um at the next meeting, I'm likely, unless I hear something that I haven't thought of, and that's totally possible.

I'm not likely to say we got to change the number of commissioners.

Um I might do what the last commission did is I might say, you know, we've grown a lot, 55,000.

Um when we hit 70 something uh an increase in the number of commissioners should go to um uh a vote the way it was done the last time.

But that's that's sort of the way I'm looking at this.

If we're not hearing a lot about it at any bro, and if and we can't figure out how it's broken, then I don't think we should be changing it.

Um and what about the relationship to uh wards or districts and the number of of uh uh commissioners that we have?

Do you think that there would be any like if if we get down to what did you say, April, and and we get a lot of of input, I think that is something we've gotten input on.

That's when we might come back to this discussion.

And then we would uh use this revisit it if need be.

Yeah.

Barb, I'm sorry, but again, go ahead.

Oh, I was just gonna say, like, from my perspective, in terms of the number of commissioners, like next meeting, that's the very beginning of that conversation because wards and a decision around that is gonna factor into it.

I also feel like the gathering of public feedback on all of this is a very iterative process and will continue right up until and even after we release our draft report.

And and if we come up with something that people really hate, I have absolute confidence in this community to turn out and let us know that.

Um and so you know, I don't see the harm in starting to have the conversation in next meeting.

We may say, well, no, we're not, we don't think we need to expand the number of commissioners right now.

And then when we get into the wards, we say, oh, well, yeah, maybe we do, maybe we have three wards with two commissioners each or whatever plays out, um, and all the way along we'll be promoting our meetings, we'll be gathering public feedback on it, and and we'll up until you know we'll release a draft report and then we'll take feedback on that.

And so I I feel like this is just the beginning of that conversation.

Can I make a recommendation?

Um, you know, part of why this the study plan is written is because hell or high water on May 18th, we need a draft report with decisions, right?

We have a lot of decisions to make, and so we had to kind of parse them out by the months so that we can on the 18th of May, we got that report, right?

So that we can have the public hearing that's required for people to give input on that draft report.

So um when the the idea is that for we have learning and then we have decision discussion or discussion decision day, and but we've got two weeks, and so if we have are able to send these out, um we can say, okay, what further information do we need to gather?

And and we could say, Dan, can you provide us the fiscal or Mike?

Can you provide us the fiscal um implications between having X or z or Y or you know, those kinds of things we can we can research it, we can ask for further information and and you know, because we've kind of also gone into this point of we need we all have to do homework, a lot of homework before every meeting, so that we're ready to to absorb the information, right?

And so Dan sent all the stuff out, but that's kind of our new pattern here.

Then we have to decide stuff.

Um, but the draft report's not done until May 18th either.

So to both of your points, we could change a decision, but at least we have to start figuring this out, otherwise it ain't gonna happen.

Okay.

I would like to make two requests now, which I was hoping we might want to consider how to carve out more of the agenda for future meetings, so we might start at 30 minutes before we leave to really say where the next research info steps might be.

I would love Mike to find out what it would cost to have five full-time city commissioners.

And Dan, I would appreciate if you can find examples.

I can sorry, I I can answer that question right now.

Oh, okay.

It'd be the current salaries that we're paying them.

Go go ahead.

So the the current mayor, I think makes just over 40,000 a year and the uh commissioners I think are at 34 or 35.

Um I can I can track down the exact ordinance they just adopted one.

But that's full-time.

Our charter doesn't specify.

I know.

Our job descriptions don't specify.

It's so there maybe the word is livable wage.

Anyway, I'm wondering if if we decide to have what we would consider full-time mayor or mayor and um and city commissioners, you know, parsing both of those out, what would that be?

What would that cost?

So if right now that's to me not money for full-time work.

So maybe but maybe the info that Mike could come in with with what's the average um what is it, AMI for the co for the county of Gallatin?

Um, and then we can go from there.

Because I don't I don't think that we can um it's you you're into big speculation.

Um, unless you're paying the the mayor full time the same as what the city manager gets.

We probably would be good to have that figure um in front of us.

If we're gonna discuss if we are gonna discuss it, and I know that the fiscal impacts are super important, which is why I appreciated knowing the cost of an election if we had to have a special election every time somebody had to leave their position.

But I just thought it would be helpful to have that before we can get into the discussion.

And Dan, I wanted to then ask you: are there places that would have what we would consider closer to full-time commitments of mayors and city commissioners, maybe in the bigger cities, if there's anything you know about that in our state or nationally, um, I think it would be helpful to see what that looks like as well.

Well, what uh one question I would have what is the county commissioner get paid in Gallagher County right now?

That would be good information.

And do we have job descriptions for them?

Yeah.

So would that be fair to ask of Dan the job description?

Well, Dan's not gonna be here at the next meeting.

Oh, okay.

So we need to provide us written information.

Yes.

Would that be all right, Mike?

A different contract.

We'll figure out how to get it.

I I know you will.

So the uh the Gallant County Pay Bozeman AMI.

I know where to get both of those.

I got a pretty good idea the to Dan's point earlier, Montana League of Cities and Towns, I think keeps a a salary survey of all elected officials or the municipalities.

That would be very helpful.

And then if there is a job description that goes with at least the county full-time, because we know that exists as a full-time position.

That would be very helpful.

All right.

Anything else before we go to the last uh bit of public comment?

Can I ask one thing?

Yes.

Right now we've got a meeting on July 2nd.

And I don't know that that's a great day for any of us to be coming to a meeting, nor is it an optimal time if the public does want to participate to come on July 2nd.

And so I'm just wondering if um Mike, you could shoot out some dates the week prior.

Um it has to be approved.

You'd have to shift a lot more dates in your timeline.

Um so your tentative report timing is based on when your public hearing.

Can you go to the top of this document because all those dates are on there?

Wrong those.

What day of the week is the second?

Good question.

I don't know.

Thursday.

Thursday in the holidays on the third, which is Friday, because the fourth is on Saturday.

So the eighth it has to, we have to be able to adopt it.

Um later than the eighth is the idea.

Um so that that changes your timeline, and I have to double check the statute, but that report has to be available X number of days prior to adoption.

Right.

Um so it it would be the last week of June then instead.

Which I think would require us to move the public hearing up from May 28th, is my point.

Oh, it has to be a whole month ahead.

That's what I said.

We'll have to look at those dates.

Okay, we look at that and just kind of throw out some ideas.

Yeah, let's explore.

I mean, I have no problem with it.

Yeah, neither do I.

Uh but we want some of it.

But do we want any public?

Well, I don't think the public's gonna be leaving town on Thursday.

Some of us all right.

So that's a discussion.

Yeah, just something about which we may disagree.

Let's see what's possible, and then we can have a real discussion.

All right.

Is there any public comment on uh any item within the uh I I don't want to butt in in your regular conversation, but I I will it may be worth having a conversation with your legal counsel around what is uh what can you put on the ballot?

I'll just make reference to 73150 and 73151 where it defines what can go on a ballot.

So the question in my mind is I'm trying to figure out how to help you get to where you want to be.

Can you just put on the ballot the the existing charter versus the proposed charter?

Uh but I think you may have to follow 151, which says you can only have three sub op three options for them, so it's partisan nonpartisan, it's wards or at large, it's what was the other one?

I'm just picking things out of the blue.

Uh you know, whatever.

And it's either keep the existing or what's proposed.

Keep the existing, so it's either keep nonpartisan or go to partisan, keep at large, and you've got three options that would then modify your chart.

So if that's the case, if the legal interpretation is that those are your options to modify your charter by making three tweaks with two options to choose from existing to whatever you're proposing, that limits your decision space.

If it comes from legal counsel saying, no, we can do all sorts of changes in the charter, and it's either keep the existing charter or adopt the the new charter.

And I feel uncomfortable making that determination for you.

I think it'd be best coming from uh Greg.

However, whatever that might be, if it is you got three options, then that's going to limit your conversation about what your what decisions you make moving forward.

Of the six things you might want to do, which of the three do we want to put on the ballot?

Are you saying in the entire charter there could only be three changes?

That's one interpretation of the way the statute's written.

I I would recommend asking Greg to weigh in on it.

He and I have had just some preliminary, like draw it on a whiteboard and try to wrap our head around that question.

I know he hasn't done any significant analysis on it, but you know, I would I would highly recommend this board asking for a formal opinion on that.

Well, I just don't want you to get spent a whole lot of time coming up with nine things you want to do and realize oh, we can only have three.

Maybe it's not a bad exercise.

You say, okay, of the three of the nine things, what are the three things we want to put on there?

Except the deputy mayor, there's there's there's the level of modification versus suboptions because the deputy mayor was just written in the charter.

And I think the distinction here is that was do you want to adopt a charter form of government?

Yes or no?

And now we have a different question in modifying a current charter form of government.

So definitely something to Dan's point, we need to get great on.

I just don't want you to get too far down the path and then realize, oh, we've we've you know, conservation the benefit.

I I appreciate the the sentiment.

I think we need to know that, but I will tell you when I just tried to change the deputy mayor thing, there were there were three changes just associated with that.

I think you're fine there.

It's just that concept and then it'll filter through.

Yeah.

You have to I'm just saying it's it's a little bit of a great way to advance.

Okay.

Um any public comment online?

And not online.

I do know if you have for I yeah.

Okay.

All right.

There being no more public comment, this meeting is adjourned at 7.09.

Isn't that great?