Welcome to Zoom.

Enter your meeting.

Enter your participant ID followed by pound.

Otherwise.

You are in the meeting now.

You are the first participant.

Please stand by Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Loud and clear.

Thanks.

If you are able, please rise for the um pledge of allegiance, followed by a moment of silence for which you may be seated.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation.

Liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Are there any changes to the agenda?

Seeing none.

Becky, I've changed my position so I can try and see you if you want to speak.

But the rule should remain if I'm not noticing you just butt into the conversation, please.

Okay.

That sounds great.

Um next is public comment.

And we're going to do public comment a little differently than we usually do.

We're going to start with public comment on anything within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

As you know, if you've looked at the agenda, we're going to go through about six items or as many as we can of potential issues that might involve changes in the charter.

And before we get to that, um that section and discussion will also have public comment.

If for some reason you want to give public comment and get the heck out of here, now is the time to do it.

If you want to wait for the discussion, wait for the discussion, because you don't get two bites of the apple, so to speak.

So let's start off.

And the other thing is when we get to the items, we're going to ask for public comment on all of them at one time before we make any decisions.

Um because if we divided it into six pieces, we'd be um we'd be here forever.

Um, maybe that would be a good thing, yeah.

I don't know.

Um it's a it's a tough agenda to get through because we have a two-hour um shot and uh and then we're done.

So and then we will, if there's time at the end of the meeting, take public comment again on anything uh related to the commission.

So uh if you would like to give public comment at this time, remember name and address, um, three minutes, um, and um we're happy to hear from you.

Is there any public comment at this time?

I did say get the heck out of here, right?

I didn't say it the other way, did I?

No.

Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident.

Thank you all for this opportunity to speak.

I don't think this is part of today's topic.

But to me, the most disturbing issue before you is the proposal to split the Bozeman electorate into wards.

The decisions of our city commission affect all locations in this community, and commissioners need to be keeping the whole in mind.

Often a person lives at one address, works across town, and recreates all over.

People shop at several different stores, even several different grocery stores.

People live in the whole community.

For me, the most important characteristics of a candidate for any office is their experience, what they say they believe in, and how they represent themselves.

Here I'm shaking.

I do not want to be voting on candidates based on where they live in Bozeman.

I want to be able to vote on candidates because of their views.

The candidates that best represent me would not necessarily be in my ward.

So are wards a solution in search of a problem.

One reason I have heard for why wards are preferred is that in the past, commissioners have been mostly from the south side of town in the older neighborhoods.

Isn't that historically where more well off people have lived?

Isn't this really an issue of who can afford to serve?

The compensation for the work of commissioner is in no way commensurate with the time and effort required.

If you want the commission to be more representative, we need to increase their pay.

Unless the main qualification for commission positions is meant to be wealth.

I believe that today's topics are decisions on the governing body.

Some of these depend on whether or not the ward system gets proposed and accepted by voters.

For instance, size, I think five is adequate, but with wards, you would need more.

Pay should be higher.

But with more members needed for wards, this becomes even more expensive.

I hope to hear more discussion of these issues over the course of this meeting and your future meetings.

Thank you again for your service.

Thank you very much.

Sure.

Good afternoon, Study Commission.

Jim Webster, Bozeman resident, member of the historic preservation advisory board, and the interneighborhood council that is representative from the scanned neighborhood, but come here speaking only for myself and not as a member of one of those entities.

Thank you again for just spending the time to figure some of these things out and to try to move the puck down the ice in a constructive way for all these initiatives that you have.

I certainly was interested to go through the survey results that you had out there.

And as one of the people that filled out the survey, it was great to see how did the community come down on some things.

And just two items that I've got.

The um say when it comes to transparency and trying to avoid confusion, the say proper noticing of the public being able to make a comment on something that came up certainly in the recent first and second reading of the UDC when during the second reading of the UDC on December 16th, the public comment period had ended at the uh, you know, in the public comment period on the first reading.

So it seemed like, hmm, there may have been something off there, and then added to that, we learned that oh, there's only a 30-day statute of limitations.

I just learned this yesterday for the first time to challenge something like that.

So that would have been January 16th.

So that one went by the wayside.

I realize no, it's not in your purview to do anything about that, but just to note how do we improve this process for the future?

Then, secondly, on advisory boards, and I know Carson, I can think back 2025 years ago when you and I were both members of the historic preservation advisory board, or maybe if it wasn't you, I know it was certainly your wife Dee Dee.

And those boards were great, and back then they seemed to be able to advise more.

And now, in the case of our historic preservation board, it's not because anything, I don't think the city commission has done, but it's the state of Montana has taken away some of the teeth that these advisory boards used to have.

So in your survey here where it was asking, should advisory boards be able to advise, should they be able to make policy?

Well, it's nice if they could advise, and it would seem that there needs to be a mechanism for going back to the state to take back some of the advisory powers that those boards have.

And I know it's not your preview, but it's a recommendation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comment at this time from people in the room?

Is there anyone in the hall?

Is there anyone online, Caleb?

It doesn't look like anyone has their hand raised right now.

So no.

Okay.

All right.

Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda, but there are no items on the consent agenda.

No claims to approve.

And apparently there's been a glitch in the minutes.

So there's a couple of meetings and minutes we haven't approved.

And we will, they can be found if you want to not the minutes, but if you want to listen to what happened at the meetings, you can find them and listen without an index, unfortunately, which is what the minutes turn out to be.

Yeah.

So I have a quick update on that.

Yes, the video recordings are available.

The recording is the official minutes of the proceedings.

And then our vendor got back to me today that they have a fix for our issue, and they're waiting for engineering to roll it out.

In the meantime, we have an approach to where we can manually correct the issue.

So we'll try to get as many of those backlog minutes onto the one for next week.

Yeah, because we we're uh out of character gonna meet two weeks in a row um today and a week from Thursday.

So um keep that in mind as well.

All right, that moves us to correspondence or study commission update.

Uh updates from anyone.

Deanna, do you want to tell them about the guest editorial, the op-ed that you and I did Carson and I did an op-ed editorial?

And um there was a little bit of a um communication uh uh difficulty which uh resulted in it getting published a little bit late, but we have solved that issue.

And um we hope to be putting out op-eds very um regularly before these important meetings so that everybody knows what uh the topics are and uh how important it is that we hear from you.

Thank you.

Any other updates?

I have an update.

Uh Becky.

I just want to um share yeah, this I just want to share that there's um in in our in the packet of information that also went out to the public uh demonstrates that the um advertising of our meetings and topics and all those things have started on social media and um in the chronicle and will be coming out um on e-newsletters as well.

And uh the working ventures is doing this work in partnership with uh uh really incredible uh employee uh takami from the city of Bozeman, which is fantastic.

Um, and also things we post a little bit more on the website, so just people can find them there.

And then the second thing is I've got a call from Dave at Case Guy Country.

Uh Carson and I were on the radio um toward the beginning of our time, maybe late fall, is when we were on, and um he would like to have us back on again.

So I am working with him.

Uh there's no date set, and uh and uh not sure who else is gonna be doing it with me, but I just wanted to uh let everybody know that that's coming.

Great.

Any other Jen?

Thanks, Becky.

Really great job with all of that coordination.

Um just a couple of things.

I've uh proposed a workshop for Bozeman Business and Professional Women.

We'll wait to get to hear about that very soon.

Um also KGBM community radio is starting to do some PSAs for us.

Um I'm not even sure I added that to the list of what Becky has seen from my diverse media interests.

Um and lastly, Carson and I had offered at an earlier meeting when we were putting the study plan together for 2026 to look at a few uh other cities outside of Montana.

We met and decided to look right now at about four of them in the sort of Rocky Mountain West.

And with that, we picked um the following.

Uh Carson is looking at Boulder, Colorado.

I know some others may be looking at Boulder Colorado and other public comments have suggested it.

I'm looking at Eugene, Oregon.

Um I'm also uh um looking at Seattle, Washington, particularly because of the strength of their neighborhood program, and we have heard many, many comments from people uh interested in strengthening neighborhoods, and they've got a very good model.

I frankly lived there for about 10 years.

And then last but not least, uh Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Carson is uh looking at that as well.

So we're not gonna report anything today other than we have been beginning that research, which is uh paralleling similar research that we each did on the five cities in Montana, so we can just expand that comparison a little bit more outside.

But we've got city charters, uh how the city government is structured with the mayor and city commissions, city councils, and we'll keep you posted as relevant to the discussions coming up.

Thank you.

Um the only thing that I would add is that I was thinking about the other cities question as well, and um can maybe myself take on a few of these, but I thought of Boise, Idaho, Cheyenne or Laramie, Wyoming, Bend, Oregon, and Bellingham, Washington.

Um the B cities that people often explore with Bozeman, Bellingham, Boise, and Bend.

Yeah, I think it's all welcome.

Uh we just need to be a little judicious about when we're reporting on what they're doing relevant to the topic, otherwise we will um you know I could do New York City also, but no, I'm just kidding.

Um then I do notice um we got a request from Gallon Valley Sentinel for um Deanna and I to do a brief interview with them.

Did you see that?

Mike, you can it came to you, I think.

Yeah, I did, and I forwarded along today to both of you.

It I just forwarded it to Deanna and Carson since they were the ones that they asked to interview.

Yeah, that that's an interesting question.

Do we yield to what they want or do we um and that would be true for the uh radio interview?

Um I'm sure he asked for Becky and me because he knows Becky and thinks I'm really smart.

Um so I I don't know whether um how that works.

I don't have any um feeling that I have to be on any of those interviews.

Um willing to be able to do that.

In the PR world, generally when they ask an individual to appear, that's who they uh well, and that's who they would like to to interview.

So I I don't think we can just say, well, no, interview somebody else.

Unless one of us couldn't be available.

Okay.

Uh yeah, that was gonna be my suggestion is find out what the dates are and if they work for both of you, then by all means.

And if not, then somebody else.

Becky has her hand.

Fair enough.

I do have I never know when what to I have pending surgery um in March.

So um that may get in the way of a little bit.

Just for everybody uh of getting a new hip.

Can't wait.

Okay.

Becky.

Yes, thank you.

Uh apologize for uh missing this.

JN, you helped me uh I mean uh Barb, you helped me remember.

I'm uh uh we had uh uh a gentleman from Bozeman uh email all of us.

This uh gentleman happens to be my neighbor, so I gave him a call to see what was on his mind, and um I mentioned that we were looking at other cities and and and what they did in and um so I asked um him to investigate Bend, Oregon, uh Boulder, Colorado, and St.

George, Utah, as three small communities that have grown significantly in the kind of same path that Bozeman has.

He uh very generously agreed to do that.

So I sent him our chart, the Excel spreadsheet that had all the different things.

I said, can you just do it like that and add it on?

And so he is doing that.

I'm very grateful, and as soon as that is done, I'll share that with everybody.

Great, thank you.

Anything else under item E correspondence or study commission update.

Mike?

Yeah, just uh um piggyback on the comments about the website and more information coming from working ventures.

I spent most of yesterday morning updating our website with the content from them, changing some format stuff around, have some more their time blocked tomorrow and hoping to get the the updated information and general navigability uh done by the end of this week.

Great.

Anything else?

Okay, now we're gonna move to the um item F, unfinished business.

And I thought we'd start this conversation with uh Becky or Barb, who are doing the writing um pursuant to our decision, I think was last meeting.

What what what they're gonna do and how they plan to make this work for us, and then we're gonna dive into the uh the substantive conversations.

So I don't know whether it's Becky or Barb is gonna um.

Barb, do you want me to start and then how about you you continue?

Go ahead, Barb.

Becky's starting.

Oh I misunderstood.

That's okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um so um Barb and I um were asked to uh be writing the draft of the of the uh recommended charter and then also the final report to be able to bring it back to the the group and I just want to share kind of how we're doing that.

We developed a um uh uh document that we can share between us, just the two of us, and then um uh have a just an outline similar to the first report, you know, the other reports and what's required by the MCA, the Montana Coda annotated, I'm sorry.

And then um as each meeting goes by and as decisions are made, we will then take that information and prepare some draft language, bring that back to the the commission along the way.

So this is not something that Barbara and I will be working on in the background, and uh the study commission and public will never see it, but rather you'll see kind of some wording and renditions along the way um so that we can complete the timeline by May 18th to have the tentative draft document completed.

Um so I just wanted to share that that that's kind of how we're we're doing it.

So Barb and I are listening very hard during these meetings to capture the direction of the commission, the study commission, and then uh we'll go from there.

Barb, what have I missed?

I I think that's mostly it.

And and so we just took the past reports that are in our binder from previous study commissions and made an outline for the draft report.

Um and then we have the the chart that compares specific characteristics that we shared at the end of last year, and we'll start filling that out.

And from there we'll start a track changes version of the charter.

And just keep bringing that back as we roll forward so we can you guys can check our work.

Question, Jen.

Actually, more of a suggestion.

I knew when I was doing some research on these external cities, I put links in to all of those, and I had also hoped that the original chart might have links to the sections to make it a more useful document for me anyway.

Um is that anything that you could consider as you're updating that that chart?

So where it covers it's really easy, honestly, that covers all of the sections.

You can just put in the mayor, you can put in the city council, you can put in um any of the other areas that that are the variables that that we've identified, if it's possible.

Thank you.

Other comments.

I I was hoping that to the extent that you could if we decide take this meeting as an example to make a change in the charter.

That when do you when could we expect that we would see the change to language in writing?

So that we're keeping track of what's been changed and how.

I I mean I'm looking at Becky, but I would say with the exception of next week, which might be too quick, that it would be the next meeting.

We have two meetings.

Like we have two weeks in between meetings.

But next week that might be a little challenging.

But maybe we can pull it off.

We'll see.

Yeah, and I would say too that you know, we're gonna have we're gonna have four different things.

Barb, I just put work on myself to add another one.

Um is um you'll be able to see the original document with like the the original charter with all the markups.

Um for uh I like to see that, but it also makes me a little nutsy.

So uh we'll also have a clean copy.

So for people who especially as we go along, it's gonna be it could possibly be a little messy to to follow the bouncing ball.

So we'll have a marked up copy of the original, a uh clean copy so that people can see it if that's how they want to view it.

Um Barb is um there's a chart that's in all the different charters that have been made in Bozeman, but where it kind of shows the the rules, how it was, how it is, that kind of thing.

And so you'll be able to see that follow along from how it was before to what was being suggested now.

And then um, if we need to, it will also have a document of just the big changes.

So that those can, you know, um these kind of big decisions, like we're making possibly a number of decisions today, that those decisions so people can follow along in bullet points kind of thing.

Okay, did that, that, that, that.

So that was the part I added, Barb.

I'll take that on.

Okay.

Anything else?

All right.

So we're going to go through the following items in the charter and discuss whether we think there should be a change and what the change should be.

We're going to start with the deputy mayor.

Um, and that has to do with should we have a uh a situation where someone gets elected mayor, but they serve two years as the deputy mayor, and then they have um two years as mayor.

Um we've got a lot of public comment on that very recently as well.

So that was uh that was a good thing.

Then we will move to partisanship, meaning should the election of the mayor and the commissioners continue to be nonpartisan, or should people have to name their party.

Third item will be um filling commissioner vacancies.

Um the way the it has been done in the past has to do with the commission.

When someone leaves office, um, dies, resigns, um, is moved out of office for uh a legal reason.

The commission in the past has, I think within 30 days, had to appoint a successor.

There's uh there's a good bit of objection to that uh out there, and the question is can we or should we change that one?

Um would be whether there are other offices other than commission and mayor that should be elected as opposed to appointed.

Five, um talking about the role and duties of commissioners and how to think that through a little better.

We certainly have heard uh had some input on that.

I'm gonna skip and introduce each one of these as they come up as well.

Um then number six, number of commissioners, part-time, full-time, and and I think it's pretty clear on that one that we will make some tentative decisions if we get to it today.

I'm not sure that we're going to.

Um, but inevitably we have decided that decisions that we make today are decisions for today.

We won't have a finished product till we have the whole project product finished.

Meaning when we get to the discussion of wards and districts, we may come up with a proposal that suggests that the number of commissioners that we previously decided isn't the right number, and and or we need to change that.

So we would come back to that as well.

Um and the final product will be the final product, but until then anything may or may not change.

So with that brief introduction, uh what I'd like to do is take public comment on any of those items so that we can have it in advance of our discussion of it.

So is there any public comment on anything in item Front B?

Uh Daniel Carney, 213 North Third.

I sent these in as written earlier today.

I'm just gonna go over the highlights or low lights, depending on what you think.

Commission size.

Commission should be increased to seven, which would include one mayor, six commissioners.

All seven members should have equal standing, with one exception noted later.

There should be no deputy mayor.

Make the city attorney a nonpartisan elected position.

Elect the mayor at large, elect six commissioners by district, although Mary Batesman's Mary Bateson's comments were compelling.

And elect the city attorney at large.

All seven commission seats and the city's attorney's office should be nonpartisan.

Hold elections for all seven commission seats and city attorney every three years.

That could be staggered or all at the same time.

Um either works for me.

Adopt term limits for all seven commission seats and the city attorney.

I wrote this fairly complex, but between a commissioner, a mayor, and a city attorney, no individual should be able to serve more than six years among all three of those offices.

That would prevent anyone from becoming a full-time politician.

Salary and stipend continue the current salaries and stipends and term limits as previously described would preclude anyone from becoming a forever mayor, forever commissioner, or forever city attorney.

Filling anticipated, unanticipated vacancies, hold citywide special elections if that is allowed under state law.

And this is something I don't think anybody commented on.

I would say that the mayor could veto any vote-based decision by the city commission, but that the commission then would have the opportunity to override the mayor's veto within 30 days by a 5-2 vote.

However, I think the commission could override a decision made by the city manager by a five to two vote within 30 days of the city manager's decision.

And such an override could not be vetoed by their mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comment regarding anything in item F on the agenda?

If it's different from what you did, sure.

And it's short.

Mary Bateson.

And that's it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay.

Anyone in the Mr.

West.

And I'll be quick too.

Jim.

Jim Webster again, Bozeman resident.

Definitely echo Dan Cardi's words about the nonpartisanship going to seven commissioners and having a mayor with the city manager underneath the mayor.

And types of votes to veto, a five to two vote.

That makes sense over four to three.

So thank you for entertaining those items.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Yes.

I just have a question to clarify.

Would the proposing that the city you have to come to the microphone?

The city commissioner, or excuse me, the city manager would still be a paid position.

Your name, please.

Okay.

Yeah.

And with I'm just a question.

I don't have an opinion.

Uh with the current system with the city manager.

Is that what I understood they're both proposing stays the same?

Or I just want the clarification if that's what the study commission is proposing.

Is that also what these two gentlemen proposed?

These are proposals that these gentlemen have made.

I don't think we've ever discussed it.

So it's not a proposal that's currently in front of us.

Okay.

So just to clarify, I don't know if I understood what they said about their position on whether they think it's best to have a professional as a city manager professional or not.

I guess I think that they're suggesting a city manager who's a professional, but who answers to the mayor as opposed to the commission, except the commission has a right to do its hallway too for more clarification.

Thank you.

Anyone in the hall?

Anyone else here?

Online, Galen.

We do.

We are going to start with Emily Talago.

Remember to introduce yourself and you can start now.

Hi there, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi.

Emily Claido, Bozeman Resident.

Thanks for allowing me to tune in remote and give comment.

I guess zooming way out.

Thinking about when we start making these decisions.

Um I've been thinking a lot about like kind of the role of bureaucracy and reminding myself and that it's it's a legal rational framework um that spells out a um the role for decision making um an establishing authority for who makes those decisions and the reason bureaucracy you know comes across like a curse word anymore is is actually because the reputation it has is what we've seen required to make it an alternative to something like on monarchy or a dynasty that those things kind of turn on things like bloodlines and nepotism and um and so in order to prevent those things and as an alternative we have bureaucracy as a legal rational framework.

And so um again, speaking to why bureaucracy is become like kind of a curse word, is that um a system of checks and balances um is maybe not the most efficient system, but is the system that supports um preventing things like nepotism or um things like that go on the monarchy.

So that being said, overall, like going through these different things of looking at it through the lens of life.

What system provides the best checks and balances that we have balances of power and that we can get better representation for different viewpoints.

I will say um I think uh to agree with Mr.

or but Dan Cardi's um about the term limit kind of alleviating that sort of career politician concern.

I think that's valid, and I think that does address that as far as full-time part-time.

Um, anybody who's ever been a salaried employee or ever been in an executive position like that or C suite level, like those are salary things because there's an ebb and flow, and you have to be able to um you have it there there's gonna be a difference in in workflow and the amount of work and hours and all that sort of stuff, but you have to get the job done either way.

So I think looking at it more livable wage as opposed to like this kind of part-time, full-time, there's an ebb and flow to that.

Um I do just look really quick, you know, the rest of um the filling of the commissioner vacancies, that is spelled out by state law, but as far as I've heard, I haven't heard anything that says you can't tack on additional requirements to that, that the appointment has to happen, but there can be other conditions um applied through the charter of like if you want to make sure that somebody has uh time on a board or something like that beforehand, you can add additional criteria for the pool of uh appointment potentials.

So I'm looking forward to the rest of your dialogue, and I appreciate you guys um incorporating public comment.

Thank you.

That's it.

Okay.

Thank you all for your comments and your thoughts.

And so let's start with the deputy mayor.

Um the current situation, I think I described earlier.

And um we have gotten comments from people suggesting that we eliminate the deputy mayor.

Um I what I I propose that we do is we just go around and see what we all think, and then um uh have some discussion if it's needed uh on what the solution is or whether we should just leave it alone or whatever, and then move on to the next topic.

And my idea is to start with a different person every time.

Um and I can't decide whether it's Deanna or Becky because of positional.

So I'm gonna start with uh Becky on the deputy mayor um and that situation.

What are your thoughts, Becky?

Yeah, thank you, Carson.

Um, just for clarity, that the deputy mayor was started a number of years ago, so that the deputy when someone gets elected as mayor, just like uh Doug Fisher just did, then they serve as deputy mayor first for two years, and then they get to be mayor for two years, even though they're elected for a four-year term.

Um that was created for reasons that are don't necessarily follow right now.

Um we are the only city in the whole state to do that, and um we have seen and heard from the public significantly that um that should be eliminated, and so I support eliminating that position and having the mayor be a come on as mayor, just like we do in other places.

Thank you, Deanna.

In the answer in the interest of time, I totally agree.

I think we've had overwhelming public comment on this, and the deputy mayor position is not really a necessary one.

I agree with the elimination, but I wanted to add two caveats.

I do think because it was set up for particular conditions that may still continue to arise, that there be a conscientious onboarding, mentoring, whatever, there's ways that people can be brought into a pretty major leadership role that may not have had opportunities to have served.

And secondly, I think we have to also add, if we're all in favor of elimination, is how do we have a mayor pro tem and whether that process would come out of selection by the city commission, if it would come out for the next highest votes, whatever it might look like, but those two need to be in there for me to fully support the elimination.

Bob.

Yes, I agree that our current system of having of electing a mayor and having them serve as deputy mayor for the first two years of their term isn't working anymore.

It's it's confusing.

But it seems like it's run its course.

And I think eliminating it and electing a mayor for a four-year term would bring clarity to who is that legislative leader of the commission.

Um, and then I also have heard a number of people comment about it would improve our ability to have strong intergovernmental relationships because the term would be more commensurate to other elected officials, whether it's other mayors, whether it's the county commissioners, whether it's our delegation, um, as opposed to just having somebody in there for only two years.

So I have been persuaded that we should eliminate that position.

Like Jan, I think in doing so, we have to figure out how to have a person who can step in if the mayor gets hit by the proverbial bus for whatever reason.

There has to be some succession plan there.

And you know, a lot of other cities have that role filled by the the commission chooses among themselves who will fill that role.

And that seems like a fine way to do it for me because we have elected all of those people.

And so they could designate somebody on the commission to serve as vice chair if whatever happened happened.

So that's great.

I think we're going to be in general agreement on all of this.

The thing that I think is, and we've sort of mentioned this, but if you have someone elected as mayor for four years, they're mayor for four years.

And if they're popular and they run again, they're mayor for another four years.

Um, unless you had a one-year, a one-term term limit, which I don't think is likely to happen.

Um the system we have right now, you're the mayor for two years, and you're not going to be the mayor thereafter, um at least for another two years.

And uh I've been thinking about sort of the strong mayor, the thing we're not supposed to say, the executive mayor, what's the power of the mayor versus the commission?

And um area where I think having a mayor that's more active that matters has to do with as um Barb talked about.

How do the mayors of big cities across the state get together and um maybe um do some lobbying or education of the legislature, which is often primarily more rurally oriented.

And um, I know when I was the mayor, I tried to pull something together, and but I was a lame duck.

I was gonna be gone in in two years.

And um other mayors were around for longer periods of time.

So I I do think there's an intrinsic value in one, giving the mayor a little more power to um and maybe the charter gives the mayor that power to meet with other mayors across the state, um, not to make agreements behind closed doors, but to sort of work out how co collaboration and cooperation could be done to bring it back to the commission.

Um so I I think the main problem, other than the confusion, is that you two years and you're gone.

And um I I don't see that that works very well.

I do think we need to, as part and parcel of this, and I think we should discuss this a little bit, um, figure out well who runs the meetings when the mayor is sick.

Let's forget about the bus, let's just make the mayor sick a little bit.

And I would think that every two years, assuming we maintain four years of election, we will get to that at a later time.

But if that's what we're doing, the whole commission should pick the mayor pro tem, the assistant mayor, whatever you want to call that position, as someone that would run the meetings, and someone that would do the ceremonial aspects of being the mayor if the mayor is otherwise incapacitated.

And frankly, they would take over as the mayor if the mayor resigned or was otherwise unable to be it.

Whatever we pick and uh as a succession uh system, i.e., is it re-election or do we follow the current system, that person would be that person.

But the key is that you're picking the deputy mayor, the assistant mayor, the mayor pro tem before it happens.

Um I think that's a much better system to go by.

Um if we do make this change, there are uh, as we noted the last time, um how does this charter, the new charter come into being?

Because my understanding is you couldn't uh say pass it next year, and then um the current deputy mayor doesn't get to be mayor because we're electing a mayor right away.

So there would have to be a transition clause in the new charter that we wrote or in the clause in the charter.

But other than that, I think um this is the way to go, and I think we're generally united on it.

Any comments about any of this, Deanna?

I would think if we're going to be making decisions on how the pro tem mayor would uh come in to be into his position that that we would have to notice the public on that uh in order for public comment to come in on it.

I I don't think it's something we can decide today without having had that as part of uh our noticing on this.

Well, I sort of saw it as part and parcel of the uh you have to appoint someone at least to run the meetings when uh the mayor is incapacitated.

The uh the re-election if the mayor is done, perhaps uh that comes into play.

Uh although I think we um filling commissioner vacancies uh uh in my mind that means filling mayoral vacancies as well.

So that's item three F three.

Uh um Becky.

Yeah, I think um hearing what people are saying, I'd I'd like to um make a motion that certainly could be changed, but I would like to make a motion that we are going to um take out the deputy mayor position in um the next charter um and write in a process for appointing a mayor pro tem, I like that word.

Um that Barbara and I will kind of review language and research a little bit of language, bring that whole piece, that paragraph back to you at the next or the next meeting to Barbara's point, because we are meeting in one week, not two.

Um so the the motion is that we eliminate the deputy mayor position as currently written in the charter and write in a way to provide a mayor pro tem should the mayor become incapacitated.

Um is there a second?

I I can second that, but it feels I mean feels like we should get some clarity on whether we I guess let's let's ask Greg whether Mr.

Sullivan, if you could come up to the podium, please.

I think the the current question is can we make a decision through a motion to eliminate the deputy mayor and to provide for a process to um add a mayor pro tem to run the meetings when the mayor is otherwise incapacitated without having with with the notice that we have so Greg Sullivan, city attorney, and I just want to note that you guys uh appointed me to be your legal advisor, what, a month ago or so, a few weeks ago.

A few weeks ago.

Um you're not asking a legal question about can the charter do that.

Your question is, can you do something now?

And what I would just observe is that as you stated earlier, anything that you are doing right now are preliminary to keep the process moving forward.

And in Montana, the constitutional standard is a right to know and participate prior to a final decision.

So your final decision, as I understand the way you've laid out your study plan, will not occur until sometime later this year.

So I'm gonna kind of put it back on you as for as far as your notice.

I haven't read exactly what the agenda included.

Um just keep in mind that principle that the public does have a right to participate, and then they have a right to know, so their participation is meaningful before you make a final decision on something.

So if you're only doing preliminary discussion right now, so that two of you can move into drafting.

Um depending upon the nature of how you had written the agenda item, uh that would be the analysis that I would give for you tonight.

Okay.

So uh I I note that in the uh agenda is filling commission of vacancies does that fall within the category of filling the vacancy of mayor.

Um I think if that was part of your discussion, you could certainly determine it was that.

I also look at this as sort of if you go go back up, and this is what when you say notice to the public about what you're doing today, this is the document that provides that.

Um I mean I you're looking for a black and white answer from me.

I know you are right now.

I I um I guess what I'm asking is can we discuss it and come up with a plan without violating the having violated the notice?

Yeah, I I think that the standard for items on the agenda would be if you can make a good faith argument that what you're talking about fits within the agenda item.

That's not necessarily for me to tell you to referee that.

I think that's up to the commission to be able to make that decision.

Um I can certainly see if you're eliminating the deputy mayor position, you can make an argument that what necessarily necessary things are implied from having from doing that.

And then again, as you keep moving forward in your study process to have another discussion about those types of issues that flow from eliminating the deputy mayor position and even how you would fill the vacancy in the mayor.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um hearing that and looking at our agenda and and recognizing that the charter explicitly says that the mayor is a voting member of the city commission.

I I feel like we can we can make this um tentative decision so that Becky and I can draft it.

And again, everybody will get to review it and the public will get to comment on it again.

So I I feel like we can move forward in that way personally.

I uh I would sort of a friendly thought to that, meaning I heard it a very narrow concept of uh someone is incapacitated, and that would call for the um initiation of the mayor pro tem.

I would like whatever process we finalize, and whoever's gonna think about this, and I'd be happy to contribute to it as well, you know, that it's a little bit more than that in my mind that the mayor pro tem would have.

So I would like if it's you two, and thank you if you would um come back with that, but we could also inform you of any other thoughts at the next meeting, and then be able at the next meeting to um adopt it.

But it's certainly I think we can I can support the fact that we need to have some plan to figure out how we would have um a lack of a deputy mayor fulfilling not only just someone is in a catastrophic situation, but you know, the person's out of town.

There's so many other variables that I just want to make sure we're not uh short-siding ourselves.

Thank you.

Deanna, do you want to comment more?

Well, I I uh do stand on my comment that I don't think that we gave proper notice that we were going to go ahead and uh eliminate the deputy mayor.

Uh but I don't think that anyone should go ahead and draft charter language uh without public input on this because it is a very important uh decision.

So what but let's talk about what the alternatives are.

In my mind, there's two issues.

One is who fills in for the mayor when the mayor is ill away or whatever it is, and and that perhaps is a different discussion than who becomes the mayor when the mayor can no longer function.

And that to me um falls within the category of item three, um, filling commissioner vacancies.

And I I just want to point out in the last meeting, I specifically said, talked about this issue, and said when you go about changing the deputy mayor, there's a lot more to it than one thinks because you have to figure out who covers for the mayor when that happens.

We that was the beginning of this discussion, admittedly, in the last meeting.

Um to me, any of these things, and and maybe we need to notice it this way, any changes that we're gonna make inevitably require other changes elsewhere in the charter in order to fully effectuate it.

So to me it was an easy uh jump from um you don't have a mayor, how do you have a deputy mayor when you take the deputy mayor position out?

Um obviously you have to have a solution for that.

So I'm gonna suggest that the motion pass as is and the language come back drafted, and then we can um if there's um outcry about it, um we can have that discussion.

Hopefully, we'll get to item three, and that will give us a little more um what's the right word, a little more information on how we would deal with the mayor, because in my mind you probably deal with the mayor the same way you deal with the uh commissioner vacancies.

Although you you could insist or change the system to have a vote for deputy mayor every time, and the deputy mayor be the person that subs for the mayor.

Um the problem with that in my mind is that you end up with every time there's a mayoral election, you're electing the mayor pro tem, and um those that are running in off years never have the opportunity to be mayor pro tem, which is why you would change it every two years, which is what my proposal was.

Mike so I'd offer the suggestion in the um effort to keep moving forward with this that it is an iterative process.

So at this point, as I hear the motion that the eliminate the deputy mayor position as constructed in the current charter with a pro tem process.

Uh to Carson's point, item three today, filling of vacancies could address a portion of that pro tem process.

Additionally, the next sequence of meetings that we plan on having is addressing specifically the um executive role.

If there is a pro-tem element to that, that seems like a logical place to build in more layers on top of this general acknowledgement that there has to be something in place for the average meeting or resignation incapacitation of anything like that.

So I I think that where we're at in the process is the first building block, and we're gonna keep adding on to it as we go.

Uh to Greg's point, all of this is preliminary, and you know, we've got a few more months of these type of processes that any of these decisions can be changed.

Great.

Any other comments before we vote on this motion?

Jen.

Carson.

Hang on, Becky.

Janet.

Okay.

It's okay.

Go ahead, Becky.

Jan yields to you, Becky.

I just want to I think you I just want to piggyback on what Greg had said, and really, you know, my motion could be changed a little bit in terms of we're voting to direct a draft of with the removal of the deputy mayor and a process to elect a pro tem um for the commission.

And of course, all that final um vote will be later, but it's not today, right?

But it is so we're voting to ask Barbara Becky to draft it into the charter.

Well, what's it?

And now I'm um the the remove the elimination of the deputy mayor and a process to appoint a pro tem uh mayor.

Okay, that's the motion.

I have an amendment.

I I would amend it that we uh vote to eliminate the deputy mayor position and table the discussion for um pro Tim Mayor.

Is there a second to the amendment?

Which one, Carson?

The I I I don't want to I don't want to change my my motion in that way.

So if we want to turn down my motion, we can then address the second motion.

No, the there's an amendment to your motion.

It has not been set, the amendment has not been seconded.

If there is no second, it fails for lack of a second, and then we're back at your motion.

Jen.

What I wanted to do is clarify what I hope might happen, and I don't know if this needs an amendment, but that the language would come back to be a part of the agenda next week that you're drafting, and I want to just make sure that was clear so that it would be a noticed, number one, and it would be following in a flow, so that we're continuing what we're talking about today, but we had not had a chance to think this through.

So if that is the case, I would like to support Becky's motion.

All right.

Is there any further discussion?

I I guess what I want to say is when we draft the um agendas in the future.

There needs to be a way to draft that says we will take up these issues and everything that flows there from.

Um just in the exercise of great caution.

But I I I can't imagine looking at this without going, yeah, then who runs the meetings when the the mayor's not around.

Um and and inevitably that discussion encompassed that.

So I I don't I don't see this as a lack of notice, but I also recognize that um there may be people out there that would feel like there was a lack of notice, and I'd rather um get it right, but we will get it right again.

On the other hand, I do not think that every time we vote on changes and it comes back in the next meeting so that we know what you what uh Barb and Becky are doing, that we're gonna vote on it again because we will build up 50 votes and we'll never get to where we need to get.

We will, of course, as I said at the beginning, vote on the final product and everything that's in it when we get to May or June, and then we'll have a actually we'll vote on a draft, and then there'll be a dis uh a public meeting, and then we'll get to the final and we'll vote on it.

So there are two more votes on this issue no matter what.

Um as a point of order.

Do we have a second on the amendment?

We do not, so it fails for lack of a second.

Thank you.

All right, are we ready to vote?

All those in favor of Becky's motion, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Aye.

Whoops, we had a little time gap.

I assume you voted before your motion.

Yes.

Okay.

Opposed.

Opposed.

The motion carries four to one.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda.

Is should the election of merit commissioners be nonpartisan or should they be partisan elections under section 6.01A of uh the current charter.

And um thoughts on that.

Let's start with Deanna this time.

I think we've had pretty uh clear public comment on nonpartisan keeping our uh elections nonpartisan.

And um, you know, I would be happy moving quickly forward on this one uh because we can't discuss every one of these items, or we're gonna be here till four tomorrow morning.

So we're here till six tonight, whether we like it or not.

Jen.

I was actually thrilled with all of the diversity of public comment that was almost consistently for nonpartisan.

It also um my other guide besides the public comment and my own lived experience has been the model city charter handbook, and they have put out a very excellent rationale to keep all of this nonpartisan.

So I'm strongly in support.

I have nothing to add.

I concur completely.

Becky.

The only thing I will add is every single city in the state of Montana is nonpartisan, and I would support a strong nonpartisan question.

Uh I agree with that.

I would like to think that most of the issues that come in front of the city commission are not partisan in nature in any case.

And um that um attaching to party politics, particularly in this day and age, um, is scary to me.

And um I've always appreciated that we have nonpartisan um positions on the city commission, nonpartisan on the school board.

Um I think local issues, what we're really coming down to and asking ourselves is what's good for our community.

Um and not much more than that.

So I would support that.

Any further discussion?

Anyone want to make a motion?

I move that we retain the election of mayor and commissioners as nonpartisan for the charter.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion.

All right.

Let's vote.

Well, those in favor, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The time delay gets me every time, sorry.

Do you know that your time delayed, Becky?

Um motion.

Yeah, Zoom's always time delayed.

Motion carried unanimously.

Okay.

Next item up is item three, filling commission of vacancies, section two point oh six C in the current charter.

And that I as I recall, the current way of doing it is that we the commission appoints and that they must appoint within 30 days, which I think is part of state law.

And I asked uh uh attorney Sullivan to uh give us a little education on that, because as you know, um though we have self-government powers, it doesn't mean that we can do things differently than what the state tells us we must do.

So that's the charter section that you put up.

Thank you.

Greg again, Greg Sullivan, City Attorney.

So a couple things that I want to say right now, and I'll take the opportunity for on this section to just put it in the record.

Um earlier today you had talked about looking at communities in other states and their charters.

And I just wanted to make a suggestion that as you do that, recognize that those charters may flow from the way that those state laws are established to allow those charters to be created.

So just keep in mind as you're looking at provisions in other states that Montana has a unique set of statutes that control what a charter can be.

So you'll need to also recognize and do the analysis at some point, and I could help if you want me to about whether that type of provision in another state can be included in a charter in the state of Montana.

Um that's just a suggestion.

So uh as Mike just pulled up that the filling of vacancies the way the current charter requires it to be is pursuant to state law.

So the way that the city has gone about filling vacancies is pursuant to the statutory process.

And that statutory process is relatively prescriptive and says you shall fill a vacancy by appointment within 30 days of the vacancy.

So every time that the city has run a vacancy over the since the adoption of the charter, the reason that we do it that way is because that's the statutory requirement for filling the vacancy as required by the charter.

A couple minutes ago I just mentioned, and then that same statute talks about that you have to put that vacancy up for election at the next election.

And so we have done that also.

So if a vacancy is for six months, six months before the end of the term, and we have enough time to work with the elections administrator, we would get that vacancy on the next election.

And it could be for then uh a three-year term only filling the regular term of whoever had left that position.

That's the way it works.

I think Mike had described that at some other time.

Um I want to just put on the record again that there are statutes in Montana that the legislature has created for the form of government.

So all of the different forms of government have a different part in the Montana Code.

The charter form, which is what the city currently has, has a number of statutes that talk about what charters can do and what charters cannot do.

So the item that you had just talked about, there's a reference in 73704, which is a statute the legislature has created for how a charter addresses the legislative body.

Again, that statute is 73704.

Um it allows a charter to have a provision addressing the legislative body, whether the election is on a partisan or nonpartisan basis.

So you do have authority in Montana to establish whether it's partisan or nonpartisan in the charter.

Um the next part of that same sentence allows you to establish the grounds for removal.

And in the charter, we have also addressed the grounds for removal.

Or the study commission 20 years ago addressed the grounds for removal.

The next thing that it says in that same sentence, it allows the charter to address the method for filling vacancies.

So what I understand is that the study commission in the past have made a call that the method for filling vacancies was pursuant to state law.

I think you guys have the ability to do a different method for filling the vacancy.

So as long as your discussions sort of evolve around what the method for how the vacancy will be filled, then you can do that.

If you stray outside of the method of fulfilling vacancy, then that is questionable whether something that you would come up with would actually be allowed under these statutes.

One other thing I just want to point out, there is another provision in a different part of those same statutes.

And this is 73708.

And Mike, yep, thanks for following along here.

This has limitations on what a charter can contain.

So in subsection two, it clearly says charter forms, which is what the city currently has, and it appears that's where you're gonna keep going with, are subject to state laws establishing election procedures.

So you can have a method of filling a vacancy if that method of filling a vacancy relates to an election.

I think you could do that, but then the procedure for running the election, the charter can't have anything that diverts from state law on how that election is run.

So that's my my interpretation of how seven this provision in 708 is read in conjunction with the provision in 704.

That was all I wanted to share.

So are there election procedures in state law that would prohibit us from calling a special election to fulfill uh a slot on the commission or the mayor for that matter?

You know, I I don't believe so, but if you want to establish something in the charter for that, I think it would be a good idea for Mike and I to have consultation with the county elections administrator before you actually made a final decision on that type of process.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions of Mr.

Sullivan on this topic?

Becky.

Greg, can you uh address the 30-day thing?

Sure.

Um I see that in uh viewed silver bow, that's a combined consolidated and the Anacon and Deer Lives as combined consolidated.

They have 120 days and 60 days.

Yeah.

Um grade has 60 days.

Everyone else has 30 days, or they just kind of default to the state statute.

Um can you address that, please?

Sure.

Um I'm gonna make an as I talk about that, uh, maybe a little editorial comment about that statute that I think Mike and I have talked about in the past.

That doesn't tell you what happens if you don't fill the vacancy within 30 days.

And we've we've been because the process that the city has developed and used, you know, a few times over the last dozen years or so, we've been pressed to meet that time frame.

It's difficult.

Notice to people, hey, put in for this vacancy, uh review by the commissioners a public meeting to discuss who should be appointed, deliberation by the commission, then appointment, all within 30-day period is pretty tight.

I think if you guys make want to make a different call on the time frame, and you make findings that that different time frame is a method for filling the vacancy, you can do that.

Which may result in what other communities have mon in Montana have done.

That may be the same type of analysis that they did.

As long as that different time frame still is the method.

So let me see if I understand this.

Let's say there's a vacancy on the commission.

And um we have put in the charter that as um I'm drafting bad language as soon as possible.

Um that position will be filled by a special election.

And let's say as well that um it happens, um we instruct the commission instructs the city clerk to communicate with the elections office, and that person comes back and says, yeah, we can do it in 120 days.

Under this statute, technically we're duty-bound, the commission is duty-bound to fill the vacancy within 30 days until the 120 days when the actual election occurs.

Is that how that works?

Um.

If you wrote into the charter a very specific provision for how a vacancy is filled, and say, for example, you said that needs to be filled by a special election.

The process that you described in working with the elections administrator on how when to run that, that would all unfold.

This statute on the 30 days would no longer be applicable because the charter provision had talked about filling the vacancy.

Okay.

The method of filling the vacancy was now would then have been, because of the charter language, the special election, and we would not use this charter provision.

Even though it's statute.

Even though it says pending an election.

The council shall.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions?

All right.

I have a question.

I'm sorry.

I have a question of Mike.

Uh so in your experience is 120 days long enough to pull off a special election.

Uh in my experience working with the election administrator, there's set times in a different statute on elections on when those can happen.

Typically, I think uh you can piggyback on school board elections, June primaries, and a November general that would be out of sequence, but I'd have to double check with them.

So there isn't any such thing as just a special election.

I don't know.

I I've never been a part of one that where we just set a special election and picked our own time.

Okay.

I think we have some research to do.

It sounds to me like I'd like to know how much it would cost to do an election if it was just us.

Last municipal election, City of Bozeman's bill was 105,000.

All right.

We know that.

Okay.

Barb.

Oh, wait, we haven't even done that yet, have we?

I'm sorry.

We're still on questions at place.

We're still on questions of people.

Are there any other questions?

Yeah.

Barb.

So now I'm confused.

Um so I think I'm understanding that we could in the charter provide us for a special election as a method for filling vacancies.

Greg is nodding yes.

Do we have to because that is probably going to take more than 30 days to pull off a special election?

Do we have to then appoint someone for that gap between when the person resigns and the special election happens, or does that seat just stay vacant?

Do you see what I'm saying?

Maybe just down.

I think the answer was no, we don't have to.

In this stance.

And it's it stays vacant.

So when I said no, you don't have to, I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't.

Also.

So if you felt it was important for the continuity of government pending a special election for you to fill a vacancy until that special election occurred, and you said that was the method of filling the vacancy was first a temporary appointment and then filling it for the rest of the term through the special election.

The chart, if you decided to do that, I think you can do that.

The charter would need to lay out those procedures.

Other questions.

Okay.

We're on Jan.

What do you think?

I always love to start the hot button issues uh discussion.

I know there's been a lot of passion from the public comments on a variety of perspectives around uh the need to fill vacancies with a special election.

At this point, I'm not convinced that's the best use of uh the resources, and I say this as a democracy advocate.

I do believe in where possible, we want to have the maximum number of people speaking and voting on any issue and on a candidate.

But with a special election, special elections are very small in turnout.

They're very expensive.

If we do go to any type of award system, and I haven't decided on that myself, um, then we're talking about a pretty large expense.

I don't know if it's prorated because it's only one smaller geographic slice of the community.

But I do think we have some other options that we ought to be looking at in terms of um whether or not we only can do uh the current mandated way of following the the Montana State Code and doing it within 30 days.

I'd like to suggest that we try to have a 60-day limit.

And I as I was checking other cities outside of Montana, um, they have some pretty interesting um opportunities where they organize candidate forums.

They organize um uh versions of um voter guides and really use that information to make a much more informed decision than I think our very hurried way of having to jam a few people in a very quick way.

And I think it would be important for us to to consider that.

So I'm um I'm not in support of uh of that method, special elections.

The other thing I've seen with special elections is that they when they can be attached and be a special election to a school board election, to um uh an even year election, let's say, which ours are always on the odd years, that we will have much more voter participation, education, engagement, and that is what I think is at stake um with going with a uh special um a special election funded, you know, at an average of a hundred thousand, maybe more, um, that may only generate a few people voting on it uh as one speaker already indicated, and it's gonna be part of my comments later, that representation is for really the whole city.

And so I would like the whole city to be able to vote um when there's a vacancy.

Thank you.

Yeah, I um I am also not sure a special election is the right way, especially if we have we are limited to those times where there are already elections happening.

Um I am concerned about the cost of doing that and the low turnout that would likely happen if it wasn't attached to some other election.

School board elections notoriously see really low turnout.

Our last municipal election saw really low turnout.

Um and I think if we have an election and spend 100,000 to do it, even out of those cycles, it's gonna be even lower.

So that's a concern.

Um as I understand our current process.

Assuming somebody resigned or stepped down like the day after they took office, the most, the longest an appointed member could serve is two years, and then they would have to run for election, right?

Um yeah.

So I guess I feel like that's that's not the way it happens either, right?

People don't resign the very next day.

Um so they're serving as an appointed member for a only a portion of the term, and then they have to run for the rest of the term.

Um so I would be in favor of looking at whether we need some more time so that we can have a more robust engagement of the community when appointment decisions have to be made.

Um and I am also in favor of learning a little bit more about the timing and the costs and what the downsides of a special election are.

Um but right now I'm not I hear I hear people want it and feel like it would result in um having those appointed positions be more representative, but I I'm concerned.

I'm I'm also concerned about leaving a seat open um while we organize a special election.

Um so I feel like there has to be some amount of time because it you can't just pull off a special election in 30 days.

So um uh I've mixed up the procedure a little bit by me speaking last every time, and I'm not sure that makes any sense, but for today I'm gonna continue it because that's the way I started it.

Um but next time I will just go in in the circle because um because we'll go to Becky, then Deanna, and then to me.

Becky.

I really want to echo what Barb is saying.

Um I think 30 days is really short, and if we're allowed to and able to move it to 60 days, that would allow the public to be able to get input, give input to the city commissioners to be able to help them in making the decision.

Um I agree that the time that the temporary person or the filled vacancy is very short, and then there is an election.

Um I did speak to Eric Semerid, the election person for the county, um right as the study commission started to see if we should do a special election for the charter.

And I asked him, I thought how much does it cost?

My brain is uh I know it's over 100,000.

I think he said 135.

Um and leaving a vacancy open while we all kind of mess around and try to do a special election doesn't feel right.

Um we've had a number of comments saying we don't want to spend our tax dollars that way.

So um given that the temporary will serve a short amount of time, I would be inclined to say let's leave it the way it is and add uh the 60 days to be able to give everybody more time.

And I I think about this too, like if somebody passes away suddenly, um, you know, that clock starts the next day when the commissioners, the community is perhaps mourning, and now we have to fill that within 30 days.

And that's like the worst case scenario.

Um we've done it pretty well in the past, and I think that the community can do it well going forward, but maybe just a little bit more time.

Deanna.

I I think that we've heard pretty strongly from the community that they would like uh these vacancies filled by special election.

And I don't think uh so I I'm I'm in favor of special elections.

So um I don't know what to think of this.

Um meaning I I've been going through it.

Um I I don't know, and Mike, maybe you know what is the additional cost to the city if we join another election, like a school board election, a national primary, um, a county commission election.

Is there a significant extra cost associated with that, other than that at least in the past the county has refused to um send out stamped mail ballots in the city had a front all of that money.

Now that may have changed since then, but do you know?

Uh so the uh the prorated amount would be based on our portion within a total election.

So with a like at the time of a presidential election where it's going countywide, all the municipalities, um, you know, the legislative elections, that those costs get split up more.

In our last municipal election, there was no there was no state question, there was no county question, it was exclusively city of Bozeman costs.

So that's where we we hit that 105,000.

Now we the to the point Becky was making that a special election would be even above that is because other communities were also in that municipal election cycle.

So the advertising costs while those other communities were smaller, they were still split um in that county cost for running the election.

If we're the only one, it's going to be above that amount.

Um attaching it to another is going to be a prorated based on the based on the specific election.

I couldn't give you an exam.

Exactly.

Okay.

So I I get the public comment that says we elect people and um if they end up not being able to serve, we do not we we want to elect somebody else as opposed to letting the commission pick them.

Um I'm a little worried that um we're reacting to a situation that has happened more frequently than ever and won't necessarily happen um into the future.

So there's a little bit of of that.

On the other hand, I do see, you know, if if if there is a precipitous event, someone runs for commission, they get elected and they have a heart attack and die a month later.

That's a la that's a one year and eleven month period.

I wonder if there's something in between that says if there's less than a year on the uh the remaining term of the person that's gone, the commission appoints.

And if it's um if uh if an election can maybe it would be another way to put it is is if an election can be held um within so that the newly elected person serves for at least a year that um maybe that would be a way to go so that you don't end up with a appointed person for a year and six months, but that you don't uh rush to a special election when one is gonna happen within I don't know what it is, a year um or whatever.

Um I do think that if you piggyback on and um I'm trying to think of when the last time we did this was, but if you piggybacked on a school board election, that would be really weird.

Um I do remember um some votes on certain things where people had no idea they were on the ballot.

Uh I I used to count uh used to be an election official, and I remember one person dialing 911 and asking them how to vote on a given issue because they had no idea that it was going to be on the ballot.

Now that's an extreme.

But I I I think piggybacking on either partisan elections or school board elections isn't necessarily the best way to go because one, they tend to be low turnout, but two, it would just be a big surprise.

And and I'm not sure that people would get it.

So I'm open to a discussion about whether there is a time frame.

Um, but at a minimum in my mind, if there's only one year left, um I I think it it's okay for the commission for to follow state law and have the commission just reappoint somebody because I I don't think it's that long.

It it's the expense, and and the other thing that I heard in public comment was the power of incumbency.

And um I'm not sure in a local city election that it's the same power that exists, say for Congress, because Congress people send out mailings to their constituents all the time.

And uh at least in my experience, I I get more mailings from my congressmen shortly before their election than I have in the previous two years.

That doesn't exist um for us.

There's no paid um commission or mailing that goes out.

So that's kind of where I'm at in this.

Mike, just one couple pieces of information.

I do recall in uh spring of 2020, the city's parks and trails district was uh on the same as the school board elections.

So that was May of 2020.

That one I do remember, and then um just anecdotally in 2024 when we did the uh commission uh appointment process.

I looked it up, we received 360 public comments on that uh appointment process in that 30-day window.

Yeah, and maybe I'll just add, I'm sorry.

The 30 days is it a good way.

It's gotta be longer than that because you want um people to have time to consider do they want to apply for the position, um, the public to hear, and to try and do all of that in 30 days makes for a um a process that doesn't feel like it's open and transparent.

Okay, Jen.

Discussion.

Yeah, quick addition.

Um I had that's why I started by saying 60 days should be at least one fundamental change.

I hope we could all agree on.

Uh the second part, which I did forget to say, is um that you know, people had talked earlier about job our job descriptions and requirements, and we've talked about it so far, and it will come up.

And I think that's another opportunity to really tie these two together, because part of it is that we really don't have much in terms of this kind of a structure for any part of the election, quite frankly, but for a vacancy in particular.

So I would encourage us to keep that in mind as we're looking at the city commission positions.

But I do think that um if we might ask Mike on a little bit more research about what the turnout has been on primaries, for example, in the last couple of years.

And I know you were referencing, I agree that school boards can be a little tricky because we really in my opposing a special separate by itself election, and if we ever go to a district which would make it a very small population, um, I just feel we need to have a larger participation in the election of these key decision makers.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Do we want to make a motion at this point or do we want to um move this to the next meeting?

We have seven minutes left.

20.

Well, uh I I think that we need to discuss the next meeting for some time.

Any thoughts?

I guess my thought is I'd like a little more information, and I I think we can come back to this discussion when we discussed um districts, because that does affect it.

Um I'm gonna suggest then that we table this at this at this time, unless there's objection.

Okay.

Um and I'm wondering if if we can uh talk about uh item four um and then uh discuss the next meeting.

So item four starts with um Barbara.

I'm sorry, that's whether that we should elect officials, whether in the charter we should provide for electing officials other than the city commissioners and the mayor.

Barbara.

if if we can uh talk about uh item four um and then uh discuss the next meeting so item four starts with um bar i'm sorry that's whether that we should elect officials whether in the charter we should provide for electing officials other than the city commissioners and the mayor bar yeah so um up until today and well in the last sort of 36 hours this this wasn't a topic that we had received a whole lot of comment on up until today and then today most of the comment that has come in for this meeting supported keeping police chief city attorney etc as professional positions that would be hired um and that is my inclination as well um because I think that that those are the treasurer the attorney that they are positions that we need some degree of professional expertise so I am in favor um and it seems like most of the public comment not all but most of the public comment that we've received is also in favor of keeping those positions as um hired professional positions Becky I completely agree um and looking at the other cities across the state um the the ones that are connected to a county are elected um have elected clerk or attorney or sheriff uh everyone else is hired I think that level of professionalism is essential and I would um I don't think I'm not gonna offer any offices that I think should be elected continue to hire Deanna I'm fine with hiring I'm sorry I didn't hear I said I'm fine with keeping them as hired uh positions and I think we have a lot of public comment in that direction and while there are some uh there are some good arguments for putting that into the electorate I think that the um keeping it non-political and um having some uh continuity is important Jennifer yeah and in agreement with all and I would just also bring in the fact that the employee survey also seems to me a public comment in its own form and there was a clear desire to keep that um type of system that would be professional sorry that would be professional and um nonpartisan I also uh think the model city charter made some very very good arguments uh in favor of keeping what we have so I would make that once we get there well I I would agree with the rest of you um I think city attorney which is the only public comment that I recall that where someone suggested that should be an elected position um as a former lawyer I resigned from the bar when I reached a certain age um public law and representing cities and counties is uh is a highly specialized um area and I think that um you want someone that knows what they're doing when it comes to um advising a city and a county and you certainly don't want it to be a political position uh and um experientially um I've seen in other jurisdictions um where um particularly when they're partisan elections um where there is a slant that the person brings and the slant uh affects their philosophy and um they're advising generally people who are not lawyers who are don't know much about municipalities or counties and it it it's it's a a greater position of power than you want what you want is someone who knows the law and who um is beholden to the entity and giving them the best advice neutral advice possible and um to to make it into a political issue um vote for me because whatever um is is probably not wise which is which is why I would uh I would support a motion um to not change article four of the the current charter regarding elections any other move you gotta do better than that I move to I I move to uh keep the current charter as it is in the um and I don't see it in front of me here uh I I can look it up here related to higher and um to maintain to uh the professional positions yeah to maintain the uh you got me off guard here uh I'm sorry

Is is probably not wise, which is which is why I would uh I would support a motion um to not change Article 4 of the the current charter regarding elections any other you gotta do better than that I move to I I move to uh keep the current charter as it is in the um and I don't see it in front of me here uh I I can look it up here related to higher and um to maintain to uh the professional positions yeah to maintain the uh you got me off guard here uh I'm sorry um or the professional higher positions yeah what section is that 4.03 okay so 4.03 uh legal officer there we go um so I I I move that we keep section uh 4.03 legal officer as it is in the current charter as an appointment okay is there second I'll second it.

Is there further discussion?

Right.

That's probably a little more limited than discussion was, but since we're not changing the charter, it doesn't make any difference.

So are we ready to vote?

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

Aye.

Motion carries five zero.

All right.

I suggest we pick up um with item five and six.

Carson?

Yes.

Carson, I just want to add one thing uh um now that we've passed that motion um we have been provided um some um an offer of changing the writing around the judicial system by a judge it was early like late summer early fall and um I I I just want to uh acknowledge that that is there it's not to make the judges hired or or you know just just the way the the language is written I'm gonna ask um that judge to provide more written information for us to help us understand it um and I'd be bringing that forward to everybody once um once we do that I just wanted to remind us that we had that in our back pockets or provided to us.

So you you'd like us to write a letter to the judge that made some proposal and ask for more information as to why so that when we get to that topic in April or May we'll have more information.

Yes I'll be I'm I'm sharing that I I've been I'm happy to do that.

I'll be writing to her and saying thanks for that write up but why did you provide it?

What do you hope to come out of it?

How is it different than state statutes so that when we get to that point we can vote on it.

Does that work for and understand it better?

Does that work for everybody?

Okay.

Thank you.

All right we will pick up um in later agendas what's left here um the next meeting is February 5th and um I I'd like Becky and Barb to just sort of outline what that's gonna look like so that we can add our two cents to anything that you all have played.

I will say that Deanna and I have written to um Dan Clark and suggested how he prepare for this and specifically requested that if there's any reading that needs to get done that he provide it by Friday so that it can go in to the uh agenda so that everybody can have it not only us but we can read it over the weekend and the public can read it whenever so I think we're gonna we're I I'm gonna have to think about this because it was set up premised on the the assumption that we would have had a little bit more conversation about the duties of the commission um but that said the plan for next week is to start the conversation about who is to be the executive leader of the city and digging into our current city manager structure having an executive mayor who is the one that all department heads report to or a hybrid and so the learning session for next week which I hope Dan can come prepared to to share is to focus on the benefits and challenges of those various models and um how other Montana cities are doing so that we can have more information and and also cities outside of Montana to inform our conversation about whether we keep our current city manager structure or move to something different.

So that we can have more information and also cities outside of Montana to inform our conversation about whether we keep our current city manager structure or move to something different.

Okay.

Anyway, can I add just one thing to what Barb's saying?

So for new business, that's exactly what I have as well, right off of the study plan that was approved on uh earlier this year.

And then the unfinished business is the process to appoint of Mayor Pro Tem vacancies decision for commissioners, and then to review the duties of the commission commissioners.

Um things still do need in my mind need to be done.

We can't put them off till June or the next meeting because then everything gets pushed, and the the uh proposed draft is due the 18th of May.

So we did talk about Thursdays if we need to stay and you know bring snacks and a and a pillow that we need to do that.

So that's what I see on the unfinished business.

And Carson, can I yes?

If I can add to, we we knew that this executive leader of the organization of the city was going to be a meaty topic that we would have lots to learn, and so we actually planned two learning sessions, and then the sort of preliminary decision conversation about whether we want to make changes is scheduled for March 5th.

So we have we have time to to still have the discussion of the two topics we didn't get to um today, next week.

So and then we can keep rolling forward.

So, what's the pleasure uh the study commission?

Is it to do the education and then get back to these issues, or is it to finish these issues and then get to the education?

Partly because uh I think I want to tell Dan when to arrive.

He doesn't need to come at four o'clock and wait till six to get started.

Um and I'm uh I'll go either way with it.

I do think that it would be valuable to finish this discussion in the next meeting and to begin the process uh on the executive.

What do you all think?

Which first?

I support that.

Finish this uh uh items on our agenda today first and then move into Dan's.

And I just want to congratulate whoever put this agenda together.

This was so helpful.

It had the links, it had everything, and I think if Dan can do, and you know I've already said that, Carson, to you, that if he can do a similar kind of an agenda, it was very, very helpful.

I appreciate it.

All that worked so hard on it.

Other thoughts.

I'm thinking if we want to put a um full of time into the discussion that is before us, um, and we have an open-ended meeting next uh uh on the fifth, that maybe we should have Dan first, and then that gives us whatever time we need to finish this business.

I I could go either way on that.

I I I do like the idea of him having a specific time when he comes, speaks, questions, and then he goes.

Um I'll go either way with that.

I can go either way as well, so maybe we should ask Dan what works best for him, whether he comes at the top of the agenda and we get our learning done and then resume business or vice versa.

Uh I can do that.

I can I can go either way.

Any objection to me saying to Dan, are you happy coming at four or are you happy coming at six?

And and let's um let's 5 30.

Let's make sure that we understand we're gonna get through all of this.

And so uh I think it would be helpful on of filling commissioner vacancies if people came with proposals as to how it might work.

Um because we there were a few ideas thrown around, and it might be helpful to have those proposals in the agenda if we if if we can.

If we can't, we can't.

Um could I make one other suggestion?

Yes.

Um, because we know that people have rightly communicated that we meet so early, they can't always participate.

And I'm wondering because we are gonna perhaps have a longer session, if we could announce that that we have a sort of time certain with Dan's presentation, and then if we're going to be going back to the decisions that so many of you are here for and listening in, that we know that it's 5:30 or 6, that those decisions are going to begin to be re revisited and move forward so that folks can finally find a time to join us if that's I think that's good, and it's worth noting that at least his presentation will be accessible to everybody after the fact as well.

And it's worth noting that at least his presentation will be accessible to everybody after the fact as well.

Um which argues for doing this.

Can I add to that?

Yeah, argues for him doing it first.

One of the things that working benches is going to be doing is taking the education portion that is provided to us at some of these meetings and um making those into YouTube videos and putting it on the City of Bozeman channel along with the commie.

So like for example, when Dan comes and presents, then that learning will be very accessible to the public.

And Takami said that the YouTube channel on for the city of Bozeman's very attended.

Okay.

Anything else?

We have four minutes for any closing public comment.

Step forward, please.

Good evening.

Laura Grochowski, Bozeman resident.

Two things.

One, Mr.

Sullivan alluded to, and you mentioned also, Mr.

Webster.

I'm concerned about state having final say on so many things.

I mean, if our hands are tied, why are we here?

And when you do these discussions with these other cities if they have these same issues, how do they deal with that?

There was one other thing.

Oh, someone mentioned there was a school bill along with something else.

How was the voter turnout?

And I it I'm not expert on anything but interior plants.

Um I would think that it would draw more people to vote.

But I don't know what what was the voter turnout on that particular thing.

I think that'd be good information to have, and if we can't get it in 30 seconds, we'll have a next meeting.

Yeah.

Because I um spent so much time like so many other people with the Guthrie.

Makes no difference.

Every single this isn't what we're talking about, but everybody knows, well, you know, every single project, 100% of their projects were approved.

Doesn't matter what anyone says, but then there was the state.

I think someone said you could build, you could put a trailer next to the story mansion because the state says you can.

If you have a residence that is less than 2,000 square feet, you don't need to require any parking.

So let's all build 1999 square foot places and who needs parking.

Anyway, this the who cares and when did the state begin to just gain all this power?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comment?

Online, Caleb?

There is not.

All right.

Then this meeting.

Oops, Mike, quick response.

Parks and Trails District in May of 2020 had just under 30 percent turnout, closer to I guess 27 by my back of the envelope math.

27% turnout on that.

Thank you.

For which it is what is it normally?

That so that was May, that was May of 2020, the school board and special district election when the parks and trails district was adopted.

And and I'm gonna suggest that we come down and answer questions because the next meeting has to start right now.

This meeting is adjourned at 6 p.m.