At this point, I don't know if you have my controller.

Ready?

I'll call to order the Bozeman Study Commission meeting of February eighteenth, twenty twenty six at four PM.

If you're able, please rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence.

You may be seated for the moment of silence, whatever you would like.

Um, and um then we'll start with the rest of the agenda.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States in America.

One nation on your God in individual level with liberty and justice for all really.

And then finally at the end, hopefully we will have time for just public comment on anything that's going on in the meeting or anything else that people have thought of that they want to say.

And if you can't wait till then because you've got something else to do, um speak now and uh uh but don't speak twice on the same item.

Um three minutes is allotted.

Please state your name and address.

Um, and um we'll open it up to public comment at this time.

Is there any public comment at this time?

Hey, um good afternoon, commission.

My name is James Dilts.

I am resident and property owner at 2204 Buckreak Avenue here in Bozeman.

So in the past year alone, the city commission has been making some controversial decisions in ways that seem to me to try to minimize the input of the general public.

For example, a decision that was would have been opposed by college students, but supported by the snowbird population here was made during the summer.

Um there's also that meeting that occurred the week after Thanksgiving, which was during normal work hours, was obscenely long, contained multiple issues, which should have been their own meeting, and was also conducted in the lame duck session after the voters had elected commissioners with some differing views.

So right now there's very little in the city commission to prevent somewhat a controversial candidate to be appointed who can then use these kind of strategies to get their agenda passed.

Now I just want to be clear that I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything unethical.

Um we're dealing with politicians here and they are going to play politics.

That's just the way it is.

However, I'm saying that I'd like for you to consider that fact when you're deciding what changes to be made to our city or city charter and ways to try to um align the incentives of the commission members of the politicians to be with the good of the general public.

So most specifically for this meeting, I'd like to express my desire to um and the filling of vacancies with based on appointments, but instead look into trying to get make it filled using a special election or having that's not possible, having the um voters be involved in more than just public comment at a couple meetings.

So even if the turnout is low or it is expensive, that would be worth it because you're still going to be forcing the um candidates to be in front of the general public, which will result in a very different kind of candidate.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comment presently?

Anyone in the hall?

I always ask that question.

There's never anybody in the hall, but anybody waiting for public comment in the building?

Seeing none.

Uh Caleb, is there anyone online?

Uh, not at this time.

Okay.

Let's move the agenda forward then to the consent agenda.

Mike.

I just want to uh clarification.

There are claims to approve on here.

Um so in the item itself, there are four claims uh totaling seven thousand six hundred and twenty dollars and sixty-nine cents.

Uh apologize missing that um language change from the previous meeting.

Okay.

Uh since this is a consent agenda and we're gonna vote, is there any public comment on the consent agenda?

We don't get to discuss it.

Is any uh and I should ask this does anybody want to pull any of the items on the consent agenda.

Carson, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented.

I'll second it.

It's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor of the items on the consent agenda as listed, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Next up is correspondence or study commission update.

Um the first thing we're gonna talk about is a change in the schedule.

Uh I I know we've been talking about it for several um weeks now.

And uh we've been slow to change it, but um I think Becky and Barb worked through this change.

I don't know who did, but um proposed change.

Carson.

So I'm gonna give it to Becky to talk about it.

Yeah, thank you so much, Carson.

Um I was talking to Mike to try to get some clarity around when we need to get the final language approved.

And I and just for clarity of language, so we've got the the charter.

Um we'll have some changes.

We we've already uh agreed that we want to make a couple changes or offer the public a couple changes.

So we'll have the charter language, and then wrapped around that charter language is a full report.

And if anybody wants to see examples of what that report might look like, you can see all the past reports that have been written, they're on our website study commission uh website.

Um so then we've got the charter language, you've got the report language, and then we've got the ballot language.

So because we're gonna have this on the ballot, we we need to have this very specific ballot language turned in.

And what I learned from talking to Mike is that we need to have the ballot language turned into the county election department by August 10th, but we do not have to have the full charter language or the full report language.

And the reason why I was talking to him about that is because to that um last gentleman who did public comment.

Um I apologize for not remembering your first name.

Um Jim.

We do not want to hold that final time for public comment on July 2nd, unless we really don't want anyone to be there, right?

Uh the third is a federal holiday, the fourth is on the Saturday of July.

So we don't want to do that.

In fact, those first couple weeks of of July in Bozeman, Montana are just ridiculously busy for so many people.

So could we stretch out and and not vote on the final language of the charter or the report until later was the idea.

And so in looking at that, if we have the ballot language that needs to be done and and and submitted to the county on the August 10th, you can see that we can um we can kind of slow our role a little bit.

So the idea is that on May 7th, we're gonna review the charter, the draft charter like just the charter language, and then submit that for legal review.

It'll this will be a time on May 7th for the public to you know bring us information or thoughts and then the commissioners to discuss.

Then on May 13, Barb and I will go back, make some edits to the just the charter language, and then uh Barb and I will go make edits and we'll bring that final approval of a draft and then release it for public comment.

So the the um MCA uh Montana Code annotated says that we need to have a second public hearing.

We'll hold that public hearing on the 28th.

That'll give the public 15 days to look at uh what I what we see is our final draft.

So it's just draft, right?

Um and then we'll have that public comment.

Um then uh that's gonna give Barb and I time to continue writing the the charter language and start working on the report language, which are two different things.

Um we're gonna come back on the 17th of June to a regularly scheduled meeting.

Uh on the 4th of June, we're gonna to review the public and legal comments, and then on June 17 to decide on what if there's any sub-options for the ballot, because again, we need the ballot language first, and then we're gonna take the first two weeks of of July to do some writing, and that's where um we're gonna be able to have time to do that and not um uh impede the the the schedules of our constituents during the fourth of July week.

So the seventh the the 15th of July we come back and and uh give input on the draft report and charter language.

30th of July, we can approve that ballot language so it can be submitted on August 10th, and then Barb and I can continue working on the final approval for the charter and report language that we don't have to have done until the last week of August.

And that'll give us two full months to work with the public because the next trick is gonna be a big trick, which is to help the public understand what we've put in there.

What what all did we what are they gonna be voting on, right?

So that's our whole next stage, which we'll be talking about again.

So that's the proposed schedule that that we've kind of walked through.

Thank you for the sets the tee up, Carson.

Thank you.

And Greg wanted to comment on one thing.

Uh regarding or I could um the May 7th review of draft charter language and submit for legal review.

I think Greg would like to, as you're writing along, have you submit stuff to him?

Because it's it's just a review to make sure it conforms to what it needs to be.

Um and so I would the May 7th would be uh I would call that final legal review.

Because if you don't give him anything to look at until then, then you're sort of compressing the amount of time that he has to go through it.

But my assumption that you would you as you were writing language, you would run a biome.

Is that correct?

Excellent.

Thank you.

Is that okay with you?

Yes, absolutely.

And then the the last piece is that I look at it.

Um it may be a little ambiguous the way you've written it, but and Eric and um Jasmine can weigh in on this because they're here also if they want to.

Um we have to have the final version of the proposed new charter ready at the same time that the ballot language is ready, I would think, because um in the somewhere in the ballot would should be the change to the charter.

That in my mind is ballot language, and I could have that wrong.

Um can I can I take a stab at this and all yeah, go for it, Mike.

So if I'm if I'm wrong, the experts in the back can correct me.

The ballot language will be for the existing charter, or for a new charter, something very similar to that language, and then if there's a sub-options, that would be part of the ballot language as well.

The full content of the charter is not part of the ballot language.

And based on my reading on the MCA, that final report and the final language has a different deadline after the ballot deadline.

So you're telling me that so we're ballot language that has to be submitted is not the changes in the new charter, correct?

Wow.

When does it just is do you want the new one or do you want the old one?

Right, but you gotta know what the new one is to decide whether you want the new one or the old one.

Right.

So there's a there's a release date in MCA for when that final report in front of the election has to happen, but that date is later than the resolution to put ballot language is based on the MCA dates.

All right.

Well, that's a good thing I wasn't in the legislature at that time.

Um is that right?

Um I guess I want to hear that from uh the legal powers that be.

And I have a question.

The legal powers are there.

Um so Greg Sullivan, uh Boseman City Attorney.

Um I'd like to talk about that.

That I I get that, if that's the way that the statutes are set up.

I just would there's other aspects that I think I would ask you to consider if at the time that you vote to put specific ballot language on the ballot, you haven't had your report and the final charter that you would vote on for the ballot language.

So I if if you want me to, I can work with Mike on that.

I I'm not doubting that this the dates are the way that Mike had said they are.

I just thinking about sort of like what are you voting on when you vote on ballot language?

You're voting on putting the charter on there, and so I would ask you to just sort of maybe be flexible in that time frame in mid-summer about how you're uh when you're done with your charter, like what you may propose as a charter.

So to follow up on that, the the key point that I was talking is the report, the final report contains things outside of the charter, the operation consideration that has a much longer tail on it than the ballot and potential changes.

And right, and so the charter language that would be the subject of the ballot.

I would ask you to be pretty considerate about those two happening at the same time.

Yeah.

So something to think about.

We can keep working on that over time.

All right.

Uh that's all right.

My preference is on whatever the date is, August 10th, we have down and unchangeable the new charter that we're going to put in front of the voters.

And if there are subcategories of individual voting, we would have that done at that time.

I understand the idea that the report itself, um, which has a whole bunch of other things associated with it and which would not go on a ballot.

The report wouldn't be part of the ballot, that would be that would be fine.

But um I I guess what the question that I'm asking is if we vote on a motion to make this change, are we committing to one way or the other?

And I what I hear you saying, Mr.

Sullivan is leave that part of it open in your brains.

Um the the part that talks about the August 10th ballot language.

Yes.

And and I would say the same way we're changing our schedule here any time between now and say that July 15th, we can change the schedule again.

Fair enough.

And Eric and Jasmine, when you get up here, if you have a a different or a similar view, feel free to uh express it at that time.

Um we've got um Deanna, then Becky, and then Barb if she wants to say anything.

Deanna.

Thank you.

Uh when um uh in this schedule, uh does the minority report, should there be one, um, need to appear.

And is there room in here for uh evaluation of the report so that the minority report uh makes sense?

I read that as part of the final report, similar to any operational considerations that would go to the to the city commission.

Those are all under my question is in this timeline, is there sufficient time to review that before writing the minority report?

I don't because it looks to me like they're both two on the same date.

I see draft report as the majority and minority reports and any operational recommendations, it's all within the word report.

Yeah, so on May 13th is an opportunity um preceded by May 7th, where there's a review of the draft charter language.

So that's the draft, it could be a draft minority report.

Okay, but would not the remote minority report, I I'm maybe missing something here, but would not the minority report need to see the report before uh answering it.

I mean, it really can't be done simultaneously.

It absolutely can be done simultaneously.

If there's a minority position on something that the majority of the board takes, that can be a draft item for a minority report.

So if if the body votes three to two on any decision, those two already have their idea for the minority report.

Okay.

And between the draft and the final, seems to me that's when the the timing of all this will come together.

And and I just want to be clear that the way this is structured May 7th and May 13th, we're not talking about the full report, we're talking about the draft charter language.

So that's when we're like we're talking about the draft charter and having a public hearing on the draft charter.

Right.

And it seems to me that at that point, if there are differences about what should be in the draft charter and or the options, that's when the minority report starts coming into fruition.

Um it gives you time from May 13th till technically, I guess till the end of August to do that report.

Right.

And the first time the draft report, the draft broader report, which includes the charter, is July 15th, when we bring the whole thing together.

Minority report draft yes, report and final charter language.

Okay.

Um Becky, you were next.

Yeah, I just want to say um Greg, I just uh one of the things that I was thinking about with when I was talking to Mike and when I was looking at the MCA, just for us to be thinking about when we draft the ballot language.

And and I think that we can know on July 30th if we're going to do that or not.

Therefore, we can draft the language that the election department needs to be able to start crafting the ballot.

Um when we say that um you know in at that time all the concepts of the charter will will be completed, but the writing might not be, the editing might not be, right?

Um and so that would give us another month um to write that the month of August, and more to the point, it would give the public time to digest in a time when they're more in town.

That's why on number 10 it says end of August or the week after Labor Day.

We still have six weeks or more, seven weeks before the election.

Um, and so there's plenty of time to be looking at it, but that we don't need to get the final final T's crossed, I'vedou the charter and and the um the report, but the concepts can be complete so that we know yes, we are going to vote for a new charter, or we're not going to vote for a new charter, because it it seems like that's all we need to submit on August 10th.

So I just want to throw that out there.

Um, and again, the intent is to make sure that the public has time to um digest it and that we have time to write it correctly so that we don't have to do it over the fourth of July when everyone's out of town, just like that gentleman had mentioned.

I'm good with um not meeting on July 2nd.

Uh um at least if you ask me at this moment, would I vote on July 30th to approve uh uh new charter without having all of the provisions in it and the T's crossed and the I's dotted?

I wouldn't I want to on July 30th, and you could change my mind and life may change my mind or whatever, but on July 30th, when it says approve the ballot language, I want to know exactly what we're submitted, what we're submitting by way of the charter, the new charter, and what the sub um, if there's sub votes are on that and what they are and what that language is.

I I think um in addition to frankly, I think you need that much time to educate voters as to what you're doing as well.

And if you wait till the end of um end of August, the beginning of September, you're losing a whole month in that process.

So that's me.

How about we and um I'm gonna vote for any motion to change the uh schedule as it is, um, and but I'm giving you my humble opinion about what it means to me.

Any further discussion?

Is there any public comment on this issue?

Caleb online.

All right, then let's vote.

Is it uh actually let's have a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve um to approve this change in our in our schedule, uh knowing that we may have some edits as we go forward.

It's been moved and seconded.

Further discussion.

All right, all those in favor, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye, aye, aye.

Motion carries four zero.

Thank you.

Thank you, Becky, for putting that together in Mike.

All right, next item is E2.

Oh, and I I I'm sorry, before we voted, I was supposed to say that Jan had looked at the uh schedule and thought it was fine too.

Um develop transition and communication strategy for ballot education.

Becky.

Yeah, um I um have talked with let me get this my brain wrapped around this real quick.

Just give me a second.

Um so I've been talking with um working ventures, and one of the things, and with Mike um and with um our city manager, Chuck.

Um things we know is it's um that we will be having a uh a charter amendment brought on the ballot.

You know, we will be having a ballot initiative in this fall.

We've already voted on a couple things that we know that will be changed.

So therefore we will be saying, Do you want the old charter or do you want the new charter?

Um our communication strategy thus far is really focused around how do we communicate out and gather input from the public and different subcategories of the public, like the commissioners and the advisory boards and um uh and staff.

And so uh we've been doing that, and then uh in January, we asked uh working ventures to put together um uh marketing materials, which they did.

And right now, where it sits is Takami who uh works for the city and is the communication person and marketing person is doing an incredible job of kicking out all the uh social media posts, managing all those and getting all the uh copy that has been developed by working ventures into different uh various printed and online uh places for the public to see our meeting schedules, and so people know what's coming up all the way through June and can attend and participate in ways that feel best to them.

Um so that's going through June.

Since we're gonna be having a ballot initiative, it is time to hire a ballot education firm.

Um to make sure that we have that specialized um work available for us going forward.

Um one of the things that uh we know is that something we've already talked about here is asking the public to vote on do we want a new charter or not is going to take a significant amount of education.

Um I think about how much we have all wrestled with what's in the charter and how do we understand wards and how do we understand all these things.

Um and so we're gonna have to be able to educate the public to say, do you want the new charter or don't you?

That takes um some specialized work, and it also it's important that we make sure that the education that is developed, that every word is wrapped around uh education and not advocacy.

We're not trying to convince the public to do one thing or another, we're simply trying to educate them on what it is that we're bringing forward and what it is that they're voting on.

And uh so it is very important that we do that.

The city of Bozeman has hired a ballot education specialist all the way through, and so um, in working with the strategy team, um we thought, okay, the work of communication strategy has moved into marketing.

Marketing's now being implemented by Takami through the city of Bozeman platforms.

And working ventures is get is finishing up all the copy and all the surveys that have been done.

Um they're still waiting for the commissioners to answer a lot of the questions.

So uh working with Mike on getting the commissioners to fulfill those surveys, and then once that's done, they'll be able to be able to get us their final report on all the surveys, comparing all of them together, which will be great so we can keep an eye on the ball on what the public wants to know.

And then they will go ahead and um uh close out their contract, and then we'll save that money and hire a ballot education firm to be able to do that.

Um Mike, you have uh worked with some ballot education firms, and you said that this is kind of a common thing for you.

Can you talk a little bit about what you know about that?

So not me specifically, but the city, whenever we have um a millebe bond issue, any kind of ballot question, we hire specialty firm to do that education program.

Uh we had one last fall.

I mean, when I first started, we did had one uh we had the parks and trails district.

Um due to COVID, we dropped the education campaign on that one.

But then uh if you look back, the public safety center had an education campaign.

So it's a it's a common practice within the city to get a ballot education firm on board that specializes in this type of messaging.

Um when we way back about a year ago, we're looking at RFPs for communications and different I compiled a group or a number of those recent contracts that the city had had in RFPs, so we have those as a as a framework to look at the typical contracts has been um in the $50,000 range, I believe for for those services, and then some of those costs go you know, they go up if you do an all addresses, uh mailer, or if you if you choose not to, obviously that's a that's a different programmatic decision, but um yeah, around that 50,000 uh has been what I see is about the average for those contracts that we've done.

And then some of those costs go, you know, they go up if you do an all addresses, uh mailer, or if you if you choose not to, obviously that's a that's a different programmatic decision, but um yeah, around that 50,000 uh has been what I see is about the average for those contracts that we've done.

And I I mean we had the education campaign with the ward initiative.

So there's numerous examples that we've had in the last six, seven, eight years.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

So the idea is that um working ventures uh contract will come to a close soon.

We'll have about 20,000 left of that.

We still have quite a bit in our budget to be able to hire a ballot education firm.

The idea is that we'd put out a RFP, uh, we uh put it out in March and have it due April 1, and then um it would ask we'd ask them to start June 1, which would give significant amount of time for them to be able to develop the the education around the charter.

Um and uh that would include possibly a a voter guide form um uh form or uh uh forms that where you could talk, they would make sure that we follow the laws on education, not advocacy, and then also uh it would be real important for them to have situational education, so it's if then if this then this, or here's currently what we have, and here is what the proposal is, so people could clearly understand when they vote in November.

Um so that's the idea, and in addition to that, and I'll stop talking and hear from everybody else.

Um I I think it would be wise to have Mike and Carson work together on putting out that RFP.

Um, hopefully by March 1, should we choose to vote that way today?

Um Mike obviously has a lot of connections to these companies, which would be great.

He also has sample RFPs, which would be great.

Carson, um I I believe you were part of the first two attempts at the City County Joint Justice Center doing ballot initiative, so you have experience with that, and um I would I would think it'd be great for the two of you to put out the RFP, collect all the uh um the candidates, and then bring to us the first week of April who you recommend that we bring on board to be able to do this.

So that's my uh suggestion.

Okay.

Comments from uh comments or questions from the commission.

And input.

Deanna.

Well, I would uh add a step in there that uh allows the commission as a whole to evaluate the uh candidates and do it at least similar to what how we arrived at working ventures where uh we had some input.

I I don't think it's something that you and Mike should determine.

Other comments.

The thing I wonder about that, Deanna, if you could comment on it is um, because I I thought of that too, like we did with uh communication strategist, is um that will slow everything down in terms of so if they're due April 1, we have a meeting the 5th of April, I believe.

I don't have all the dates in front of me.

Um and then and we we would it would take a whole meeting.

So we would have to set up a separate meeting for that if we wanted to do it the same way, or if we wanted to have them bring two candidates and just tell us about them so we don't do the whole um one-hour meeting.

So I think either we'd have to set up a separate meeting, which we could do, or they could come and say this is the candidate we're thinking of, or here's two candidates we're thinking of, here's the qualifications of each, and then we could vote on which one.

Um maybe we could do that during the meeting, otherwise maybe we just set up a separate meeting early in April.

So that's the only thing I'm worried about.

Um and the city's worked with a bunch of companies already, so I'm just feeling a little bit more comfortable, thinking that whoever they come up with will probably be a good one.

What do you think of all that in terms of timing, Deanna?

Well, I I don't think that uh a lack of our planning, which has resulted in this uh timing conflict should result in in a decision that isn't uh based on even public comment.

Um it's an important thing, and I think there are among uh the people that I have spoken to in the community, there are some questions, particularly about the uh ward uh initiative um having breached the uh boundaries of uh education and crossed over into advocacy.

Um it's an important thing, and I think there are among uh the people that I have spoken to in the community, there are some questions, particularly about the uh ward uh initiative um having breached the uh boundaries of uh education and crossed over into advocacy, and uh so I I would want to choose this company very carefully and have an have the ability to look at their past work and evaluate if uh we're going to give our constituents the voters in Bozeman uh a really fair uh education to make an informed decision on.

And I don't mind an extra meeting.

Okay.

Barb, your thoughts um well, A, I think it's a good idea, and I think we need to get the firm on as soon as we can.

Um, I I think if we should, if we are going to have more of us involved, I I don't particularly feel the need for that.

I feel like it is a decision that that can be made by a subcommittee, if you will.

Um but it it would have to be an a different meeting that's out of our regular meeting schedule given all of the learning and the conversation that we need to have about the substance and and particularly about the um ward or district election idea.

I think that's gonna take some time to sort through, so I don't want to detract from that um in April and May.

Mike, yeah, any thoughts?

So one of the um one of the biggest things to consider with with doing ballot education, uh the reporting component and compliance with commissioner political practices.

So in my opinion, having a firm that has uh experience with that and can uh take some level of that burden off of us would be beneficial.

Um, but it is a in a I mean the reporting aspect alone is a lot.

Um, and so just be mindful that it it may take more than just hiring a contract professional and saying, all right, here you go, run with it.

Just my two cents.

Uh you know, I'll I'll go whichever way you all want to.

I don't think that we have a lot of time, and um it it I guess the discussion is a little complicated.

If we're all agreed on um what we're doing, what we're putting in front of the voters, um, it's one thing.

If there is in fact a minority report um as to a given item, um I I guess I can see where there might be worries.

We don't know where we're gonna end up so far.

Um we haven't um disagreed on the two things that we're gonna change.

But uh I I don't pretend to know where the future is.

Uh I this is what my suggestion would be we make a motion, we pass it, and that um Mike and I look at the applicants and um if if there seems to be uh a clear choice, we bring some choices to you and you all decide um whether you want to interview or whether you want to um just make a decision.

I I don't think that this group has to be on um board unless I'm missing something by June 1st, they could be on board by July 1st uh because we won't even have had a final uh version of what they're doing the education on until then.

So that gives us a little bit of time.

Um but I I just looked at our April meetings.

We we're full up in April um and um, but if we need to tack it on, um we will do it.

And I don't know if that's too nebulous or ambiguous to uh move forward or not.

Can I make a suggestion?

Um I'd like to make a motion and then it it'll have a tail, so hang on.

I'd like to make a motion.

So I move to put out an RFP for a ballot education specialist.

Mike and Carson will develop the RFP and bring a recommendation to the April 15 meeting.

Period.

That's that's the motion.

Knowing that we if you do bring the recommendation forward, and we say we want to have uh a whole nother meeting to talk about who is going to be that that specialist who's gonna get the RFP, we can then set it up for the next next week or the next day or whatever.

We can then set it up for the next next week or the next day or whatever.

Um not the next day because we have to get public notice, but uh for the next week and hold a separate meeting, or we can choose that there's an obvious candidate and we just decide to vote.

But if it's going to be an extended conversation, we would set up a separate meeting.

So my original motion is the one where I said period.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Uh is there any public comment on the motion?

Caleb Hallway.

All right.

Seeing no public comment, further discussion.

All right, let's vote.

I have none.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries 4-0.

Thank you.

Okay, now it's quarter to five.

We're ready for the discussion with the Gallant County Elections Office.

The office is here, or the officers.

Um Eric and Jasmine, please come forward, join us.

And Greg as well.

Um what's your pleasure?

That's sort of addressing us.

Coming up here is being more a part of us.

And uh we like to be as accommodating as you all like.

Uh maybe if we each had it at the microphone, it would be good.

Good.

And then Greg, did you want to weigh in first?

Sure.

No, no, no, you gotta come up at our level.

Yep.

You even can get snacks when you're up here if you want to.

Okay, Greg.

So I just want to set the stage and kind of go back to the last time I was standing in front of you.

Set the stage for your discussion with Eric and Jasmine.

So a couple weeks ago when I was here last time we were talking about filling of vacancies.

And that's what this discussion is focused on.

So I just wanted to make it the distinction between two statutes in Montana law that talk about what a charter can do and what a charter cannot do.

So there's a statute that we went through last time that clearly says on for the legislative body, the charter can have provisions regarding the fill the method of filling a vacancy.

There's another statute that clearly says a charter cannot affect initiative referendum or election procedures.

So those are two different things.

So when we were talking last time, we talked about how do you fill a vacancy at the current charter, it's currently a 30-day process.

It's the our charter, the city's charter reflects what's in state law.

You had discussions about alternative methods of filling a vacancy, extending the time period, and what I had said about a special election is if you characterize a special election as a method of filling a vacancy.

I think state law says that you can do that in a charter.

Now you still have to then recognize the other statute, which says that you can't alter election procedures.

And so I think that's Eric and Jasmine to talk about election procedures because they are the elections administrator and the professionals on that, and I am not.

So I just wanted to make that distinction to set the stage for your discussion.

Thank you.

With that introduction, tell us what we need to know, and then we're gonna ask you questions about things that we may or may not need to know.

Sure.

I I think uh we'll introduce ourselves first.

I'm Eric Semarat, I'm the Gallant County Clerk and Recorder and the lectured administrator for the rest of this calendar year.

And then after that, I will no longer be the election administrator.

Um that duty has been is being split off.

Oh and will be a separate office.

Yeah.

I'm Jasmine Hall, I'm the election manager for Alton County, and I work under Eric as the administrator.

Cool.

Thank you.

Yeah, so uh regarding Greg's introduction.

Um I am of an opinion that uh might differ a little bit from that, being that uh that the law that uh requires uh elections to be conducted for a primary and a general election, uh does not allow for special elections for things that are other than uh funding uh elections.

So for for like bonds and levies and things like that, you can call for a special election because there's there's a specific exception in that law.

Um and it and it says that it um local government elections must be held on these days, according to you know when the primary and general election happens and odd year elections for municipalities.

So I'm not sure that you know we're we're on the same page with that.

Um but we still wanted to give the opportunity for you to ask questions about uh you know what procedure might be regarding vacancies or whatever you wanted to do there with your charter.

All right, so if I may, yeah.

If we came to you and said we want to have a special election to fill this vacancy, would you do it?

Uh or would you seek legal counsel?

I would seek legal counsel exactly that, yes.

Okay, because I I don't read it that way.

So wow.

All right.

Other questions, and I'll back off for a minute.

Any questions?

But do you have the the Montana code that you are referring to there?

131405.

131405?

Yeah.

Um I don't know.

Uh maybe our conversation is very short, and we should just look for legal opinion, other than uh Greg who has weighed in on it.

I we may need somebody else.

So can I can I ask a clarifying question?

So your you're saying your read of Montana election law, which is different than municipal charter local government law, your read of Montana election law is that it prohibits calling a special election to pro to fill a vacancy.

Yes, because it only provides for primary and general elections and special elections for bond measures.

Right, right.

And and if you if you overrode that, let's say, with a with a charter amendment, um that would be uh an election procedure that you can't you don't have the authority to change.

So Greg, did you want to in fact do you want to get up here and be part of this conversation in the same way they are?

So I will just got shocked.

Um so I want to be clear and respect the opinions of the elections administrator.

We are not legal counsel for how the elections operate.

That's the county attorney's office.

So when I had said and being clear about this distinction between the charter statutes and the election statutes, I did not opine that you can call a special election.

I said if that is one of the methods that you want to look at, then you need to talk to these guys.

Okay.

So I want to be clear about that.

The other thing that I have the ability to do, if you want to do this, if there's something that is so important to you, I have the ability to ask the attorney general for a formal opinion that would guide you.

That is always an option.

I have that authority under state law to ask for that.

Okay.

Thank you.

So let's just explore it a little bit because it's possible that we would determine it's not a good idea anyway.

Um you have a regular city election, there is uh a portion of the code that talks about what I call a runoff, what the code and everybody else in the world calls a primary, but it's a nonpartisan primary.

Um so in your normal election, for if if you had the city commission voting for one slot in a given election, there are is a provision that requires uh primary.

Yes, how does that work?

Sure at present.

Yeah, it would be uh three times the number of seats that you have plus one.

So that would kick it into uh if you exceed that, then it kicks it into a primary election.

So if you had a single seat that was up for election, and this is only for a primary, I like if if it went into a special election and there was such a thing, I don't know how that would be affected at all.

But we might want to mirror that system, sure.

And so uh it would be if there was a single seat, that's uh three times that would be three candidates plus one, so four candidates, and if you exceed that, then you have a primary.

Okay.

And if if we were doing that in the normal course of events, when do people file what month?

You you file in June, and then when is the primary?

Uh in September.

And and then the elections in November.

November, yeah.

And when you have the primary, who gets eliminated?

Uh down it takes you down to that minimum or maximum amount uh which would be four candidates.

So if you had five can five candidates, you would have a primary.

You'd have a primary, but only one would get dropped off.

Yeah.

And then um who wins in the final election of four?

Uh the person with the most votes.

So it's not the person with the majority with a 50% majority, it's just the most votes.

If there's no majority requirement in Montana law, okay.

Um it's a plurality.

And then I I've raised this uh with you, and um just uh what if we wanted to do rank choice voting?

Uh yeah, that is not an allowed uh method of voting in Montana.

All right, so that's totally off the table.

Yes.

Okay.

Um any other questions?

Becky.

Um I don't know.

I mean, the 13145, I've got it pulled up here.

It's a very simple sentence.

Um I'm not an attorney, however, I can read.

Um, and it seems from what Eric's saying combined with the state saying that um you know we kind of have to fill we have to fill the seat.

So that was our original understanding is that you know this idea can we or should we hold a special election?

And so that was a question to begin with.

Well, the state let us do that, and now we're seeing this that says except that the election concerning funding may be called as a special election.

I am starting to run out of gas on this idea of special election and more leaning towards the 60-day with the qualifications that we put into the potential language, which is um the office of the mayor or city commission shall be filled within 60 days of the occurrence of said vacancy by vote of the existing city commissioners, and that commissioners must hold a public form with potential applicants for the vacant commission or mayor position, and said vacancy shall be filled pursuant to state law, um, and this appointment shall be in place until the next scheduled general municipal election.

That's for me feeling like it's the only legal way under the current MCA code at this point in time, maybe 10 years from now when we do another study commission, there could be another option, but it seems like every time we turn around, we're getting blocked into this.

And but that we can make some changes to make it better than what it is right now to give time for public input.

So I'm that's just what I'm thinking.

Other questions, Mike?

So hypothetically, and I know putting it kind of on the spot with this.

If we were allowed to have this special election, how would you think a candidate filing period could operate?

Because we see the statute here that if we were gonna call a special election, it has to be at least 85 days.

But if we were to just call it in 85 days, can candidates file up until day 75, day 84, right?

What's your opinion on that list?

I understand your question.

And that this is where uh you know the statutes aren't really set up for this.

And uh, because they just changed the filing periods this year, um in the past year, and it went from you know, the uh there was like a 60-day filing period essentially, and now it's down to 15 days, 105 to 90 days.

So technically the filing period would close before you uh actually had the question required to have the question to us, um or that you know, the to the resolution to calling for the election, right?

It it just doesn't jive didn't they also change the it's 90 days instead of 85 now?

Did I misread the there was a uh House Bill 270, I think it was it was House Bill 207, I believe.

And if you go back to part four on this code here, and you go to write on it to 403, that gives you the days.

So 90 days before the election is for a write-in candidate, and it's no sooner than 105 days before and no later than 90 days, so there's no window for write-ins anymore, and you have to file within that 105 to 90 days.

Okay, that's what it is.

So again, here playing devil's advocate that we could do this, candidate filing fees are based on salary for a position.

Would that prorate for a partial term?

Uh well the so the salaries is like an annual salary for that position.

So it wouldn't prorate, no.

It's whatever it is for an annual salary.

Because they would that person, should they be elected, let's say, um, they would be in there for a year to to be they would be paid at that same rate as ever, I assume the other commissioners.

Yeah, I just in my scenario, like with us if a special election was called and they were to serve less than a year, they're not gonna have that same salary.

That so that's where so it's if we called a special election and they are only gonna serve nine months of a term, would they only pay three quarters of a filing fee?

It's based off an annual salary at that time, so whatever that is, that's for a rate of filing.

Okay, yeah.

Other questions?

Yeah, I would like to hear what uh Austin Newton has to say uh about this.

Uh as Greg suggests Attorney General.

Uh Attorney General, yeah.

And um, and then also I I think that we should maybe be thinking about other solutions to this.

When we look at public comment, it's primarily the idea that the uh commission is appointing people, and um not necessarily the same people that would be elected, and they point out the advantage of incumbency when it does come to the uh election time.

So what if we were to consider something like the appointments uh of uh the filling of vacancies by appointment last until the the end of the term and the appointee cannot run in the next election, but could run in a subsequent election.

So we could at least eliminate the incumbency uh advantage and give people an immediate because right now people feel that if someone is appointed to the commission, um they slide right in, and and history tells us, yeah, that's pretty much the case.

Eric, in your non-lawyerly opinion, would restricting candidacy be an election procedure?

Would restricting candidacy?

I think it would be a constitutional problem that would be for your attorney to answer.

Well, I mean, there's that let's get philosophical a little bit.

At times in my history in this county, when the county commission has had to fill a slot, they have usually filled it with someone that's pardon my I can talk this way because I'm 80 now, who was so old that they weren't going to run again.

And there was a gentleman whose name I've forgotten from West Yellowstone, and there was another gentleman that did not run again.

And but that was within the discretion of the sitting county commission at the time.

And the city commission could be urged in our report to do that or not.

Um I I do want to say, I'm looking at you, Eric and Jasmine, I'm really not talking to you at all at this point.

We elect people who we want to serve us in a variety of ways.

And up till now, when we've elected people, one of their duties as a commissioner is to fill vacancies.

And if we don't like the way they fill vacancies, we could um not elect them the next time.

And so it's it's a little bit um strange to me that we should be talking about oh, they they're they're serving their own needs.

They were elected, and they will be elected again.

So uh they're just doing their duty here, and and then I did a little chart.

Um if you look at um Chris Mell, oh God, Michael Walner, Walner, Ihoe, and Christopher Coburn were the four people that left office most recently.

Douglas Fisher, Jen Magic, Emma Boddy, and Christopher Coburn were the people that were appointed.

I I don't see that as being a major political shift, one way or another uh in terms of what actually happened.

Um if you want to go back further, there was a shift.

And it was my first, I think it was my first month on the city commission, uh, we replaced Eric Bryson with Cindy Andris.

There was a conservative person replaced with a relatively progressive person.

Um so in the last five situations, I don't think that the commission has done anything to protect um its politics.

So I'm a little bit thinking that the people that are that object to this process just don't like the picks that were made.

Um and it sure it would have been better to have an election, um, particularly for um the ones that lasted, I think Jen Magic had close to two years um an appointment before she got re-elected.

But what while we're talking, I I would also say I read the fact that they everybody that got appointed got re-elected along the line was a um a positive statement from the electorate.

We like these people, it was a good choice, as opposed to um saying that it was something that had to do with um the power of incumbency.

Um I don't know where we want to go with this, but what I don't want to do is end up either putting on the ballot or um making a choice that turns out we can't do.

Um so I I would I would request that Greg ask the attorney general for an opinion.

Uh uh, but I want to know what that means.

In other words, i if the attorney general gives an opinion one way or another, does that settle the matter, or does that just give us a little further guidance?

Sorry.

So a couple thoughts on asking the AG, um, it's a lot of work to make the request?

To make the request.

Um it's not just sending an email and asking a simple question, it's doing all the legal work in support of yes or no and giving that to the attorney general's office, so that's a considerable amount of work.

Um attorney general opinions in Montana are binding until overturned by a district court.

So I guess what I would ask is that before before you would ask me to go down that road, that you guys really think hard about whether that's the right thing for you to do and not just ask this question as something you're interested in.

Fair enough.

Like if you are the between the five of you, adamant that that is one of the things that you need to know an answer to, then okay.

But if you are not adamant that that is a viable solution for you, then there is a different viable path to filling a vacancy, then don't spend the city's resources, don't spend the state's resources and asking a question that's not going to end up at a place that you really want to go.

That's just my suggestion.

Good.

Barb and then Becky.

Thank you.

Um so one question for Eric and Jasmine.

And in our option A that we're considering, which is to continue to fill vacancies by appointment with some changes to make it more to engage the public more.

The last sentence says the appointment will be in place until the next scheduled general municipal election.

Could we have an appointment in place until the next primary election?

To shorten the time of an appointment before an election.

But um, it as long as it's the municipal primary election, because that's what we just specified in that law.

And uh, you know, that only gives you two months.

So in hearing this conversation, it sounds like you're kind of dealing with that appointment process that happens maybe in right after somebody takes uh office in that even numbered cycle is what I'm kind of hearing.

Um, just to kind of put this into perspective on what happens in an even numbered cycle for our office.

Um, if you were to run a special election, if this was a school or anybody else that was coming to us for a funding request.

Um, federal election cycles are very big and cumbersome for our office.

We begin ballot preps starting in March.

We are already gearing up for this year, and they piggyback over each other it from our school elections that are conducted in May with our special districts, and then the following month that primary election.

We also have to do list maintenance in the beginning of the year, that has to be done 90 days prior to the start of a federal election.

So the beginning of the year we're doing um list maintenance processes, which go right into our school election, which goes right into our federal election in June for the primary.

Then we have a very short window in between the end of June till our November election, which occurs.

Um we mail that around October, things start gearing up in September.

So we have a very short window between July and September, where logistically speaking, it would be very that's kind of the window that we have to conduct special elections.

Can we do that in those windows?

It depends.

Um, you know, we have testing and tabulator certification processes that have to happen.

Um Eric and I were discussing how that would function if we had a special election pop-up, you know, in the middle of April.

It just logistically could not happen because of certain processes in the elections that have to occur, especially in that piggyback period of time.

Also in the summertime and even number cycle, we're dealing with state petitions.

Um, so we're verifying thousands of signatures from ballot initiatives around the state that have to be done at certain different timelines to appear on the November election.

So we're we're pretty much going through election processes.

It's not just once a year.

Uh so um considering a special election, we work with schools and those that come to us for funding, they usually work with our office to find a date that works for our office and their office.

So trying to establish a special election that is going to occur after an unknown time with set deadlines following that would be very difficult, I would think.

Just to expand on that a little bit.

Um almost all the requests we've had for special elections over the past, you know, since I've been in office, um, we've encouraged them to run those special elections during a regular election.

So they've occurred during uh, you know uh school or primary.

Yeah, but prime primary elections, general elections for both municipal and federal uh elections.

And so those are still special elections, like if the city runs a bond, we encourage that you run that with the federal general election or something like that, because we're already conducting the election.

And all those processes are happening already.

And so uh, you know, it's much easier.

Um in more of what Jasmine was talking about.

Right now, we're in the process of doing list maintenance.

It's required by state law.

And if uh it takes the whole month of January and February to do that.

We have to send notice, then there's 30 days wait, send another notice, 30 days, and then we start um uh we start inactivating voters that don't respond.

Okay.

That process uh happens every year.

It it alternates NCOA uh N VRA, depending on which which one you use.

But if if we ran a special election in January or February, um it would preclude us from doing that process.

And so then we'd have to pass that process on to the summer.

The only time that we would have to do it.

And if we didn't get it done in the summer, we're breaking the law.

So um we really like to keep the schedule that we're required to do.

Try to do that piggybacking wherever possible.

But we have done that.

I mean, we we have run a special election in uh uh March and then uh and in February, and we didn't do that NVRA process, and then we had to do it in the summertime.

What was the turnout and what was the election then in March?

Um I don't have the turnout for that.

Okay.

Becky Um this is all super interesting.

You know, it's interesting to listen to the time constraints, you know.

Um Eric, I think you had said that what what we're talking about now is really a situation where someone gets elected and within the first three months decides that or some something happens that they are not able to fulfill their their um the remainder of their term.

Um otherwise, if it's much later than that, we're really looking at just doing uh you know, continuing like we're doing where the the city commission appoints somebody.

The rarity of that um up against the complexities of holding a special election are seeming um like it's it it may not even be worth discussing anymore.

I'm reading m Mike, can you put up the option A and option B on the screen so everybody can follow along?

But I'm reading option B and it starts with option B.

I starts with if the vacancy can be filled by a special election.

That's what it starts with.

And what we're hearing already is that it can't.

And so okay, that gets me right back to option A.

And I think that what we've come up with is clever, it has significantly improved public input for the appointment of filling the seat.

And I'm I'm I'm feeling more happy with that right now.

Um where before I was like, okay, let's let's look at this idea of a special election.

But it sounded pretty clear from every angle that special elections is not gonna logistically happen.

Um and so for me, I I don't know that I need the attorney general to weigh in on this one.

Um I think that for this round of the study commission, we go with option A.

And if at the next round of the of the study commission 10 years from now, they want to start looking at special elections, maybe you know, between then and now people who are all excited about it should you know make some changes to the MCA that would allow the study commission to do that 10 years from now and in 20 2036.

But for now, I'm thinking option A really is our only way, and it's much better than what we had.

So I'm excited about that.

Okay, why don't we take public comment on this issue if there is any Roger Blank present.

Hope you all are doing well and thank you for your service.

Um I'm of the view that we should maximize democratization of the process of picking a replacement vacancy, whatever that may be or may look like.

Um I think it is worth it um for the benefit of the public and benefit of the commission to get the AG's uh view on this.

Um because the AG may come back and say, hey, wait, there is there is a way to do this, or he may say, No, you can't do it.

And then you're with the AG's recommendation, the decision that you make then will will have maximized the democratization process for the public and offered the public um that maximum democratization, even if you are then limited, versus just saying um no, we're just gonna go with one particular uh way because we don't want to necessarily be inconvenienced with doing the additional steps necessary to maximize the advantage to the public, because I think if there is a way to do it and allow the public to have input, I think that is is the best the best way to do it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Hello, Natsuki Nakamura, Bozeman resident.

I just more have question, just getting more clarity on the if it's possible.

I understand special election has a special definition, and so maybe we're not asking for a special election, but if there's some clarity about can it be on the next election that's already happening just to minimize the time that the appointments have filled in that seat, that would help be helpful.

My understanding, just reading over um 13107, it sounds like in an even year, the primary typically happens in June.

The first Monday or first Tuesday in June, and an odd year, the primary would be as Eric Zimmer had mentioned, the Monday, first Tuesday in September.

So based on if it's an odd year or an even year, that would be maybe how a primary is defined.

And so is if there's a way to have it, if it's an even year, have it in that June primary, or if it's an odd year, then maybe it's not worth having that September primary, but still having it on the next municipal election that would be happening in the odd year.

So just getting some clarity.

If it's uh if it's possible to tag along to the June primary in an even year or a school board election rather than having a special election that's totally separate.

Um I know for the plastics initiative when they collected signature, they were told it was a special election, so they had to get 25 signatures because it was an even year.

But the city commission also, as a commission body, voted to put uh a mill levy question about public safety funding on that special on that special election, so they also kind of do in a special election.

So is there a way that the commission could vote to add it to a future election, whether it's a June primary or a upcoming school board or something?

He's just getting clarity about what the options are, maybe not a special election, but what are the other options of adding it to and that something sooner than every two years?

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Caleb?

We do.

Or do you want to wait until all the public comment is done?

We should wait till public comment is done.

Okay.

Um yes, we do.

We have uh Jason Delmu.

I'm gonna start your timer, and if you can introduce yourselves and then you can start.

Okay.

Hi, this is uh Jason Delmu.

Um I'm a bookland city resident over on Peach Street.

Um and I'm sorry if I missed uh a prior um meetings of this body, if there's agreement that the appointment process is flawed and that there needs to be an election.

Um the appointment process seems good.

I mean, the four that are making the appointment were elected, so they embody a democratic um process anyway.

And it seems like those four are able to do a deep analysis and try to get someone who can hit the ground running um either through their prior um volunteer or work experience and sometimes even on prior city bodies that they volunteered for, or maybe like a school board um that kind of shows relevant community involvement and understanding.

Um it seems superior to um, you know, just trying to have an election based on uh I don't know, campaign slogans and political ads and political spending.

Um especially if it's a truncated period where you're trying to get somebody in to fill that vacancy so you can return to an odd numbered body and not have potential uh you know two to two tie votes.

So anyway, thanks for listening, and I really appreciate everybody's service uh on this on this board.

Thank you.

Anything else, Caleb?

Uh is it?

Uh is it thank you?

All right.

I do have uh uh uh a point to make.

Um I don't think that we should uh leave this without really uh doing some creative thinking.

It and I'm what I'm thinking right now is if we were to move to a seven member commission, why not just say the vacancy uh remains until the next election?

Because there'd still be uh six people, granted that is an even number, but there are I mean that's not an insurmountable um uh difficulty.

And uh I I think that we have heard overwhelmingly from the constituency that they are not satisfied with the appointment.

And I just want to clarify something, Carson.

Who who was the replacement for eHO?

Um Douglas Fisher.

That was Douglas not Emma.

I think it was Emma.

No, it was Douglas Fisher.

He was appointed in the end of November of 2023.

Uh when I was looking at it, that's almost about maximally the length of uh appointment process that you would get because EO's uh resignation was effective, I believe, less than a week before the general election that year.

So then who report that so then who replaced her?

Douglas Fisher was appointed to replace her for the for the remaining two years of her term.

It was just the timing of her resignation precluded getting on that November's election.

Anyway, I I think that we should put some thought into uh other solutions.

If we can't do an election, and that's beginning to sound like that's a very complicated thing to do, uh, although I I do think that we should uh go forward uh uh much for the benefit of uh the constituency uh with a uh determination from the AG.

Uh I I think they deserve that.

Uh and we deserve it.

And uh, but in the meantime, I think that we should um we should pursue other options all right.

Any further discussion or are we ready for a motion from somebody?

Mike?

Can I ask two questions?

Um let Mike go and then it'll be you, Becky.

So Eric, I was gonna I was gonna ask if you could kind of elaborate on the the special election definition um related to public comment and how even if it is at the same time of another election, a municipal election in an even year would be considered a special election.

That's right.

Just because of uh I guess that's in the uh 131405, it it tells when you can have um if you go back to 405, yeah.

It it tells right there in the first sentence that uh it the primaries established by 131107 and the generals by 1311, and those two things, if you go to either one of those, um it says that uh there's the times for for holding the primary election in even number years, and then the odd number years uh is down there.

So that's subsection two, yeah.

Two is is four-year four-year uh municipal elections.

So that is the standard time uh for when a municipal election occurs in in uh 104 is the same.

Okay, Becky.

So Eric, what uh my first question is, Eric, what you're saying then is um uh Mike, can you put up the proposed language?

If we say this appointment will be in place until the next schedule general municipal election, does that do as our public comment said in terms of being able to do a June election or the next November election?

Is that the general language we would use, or is there a different title we should put into that?

Right.

So I I guess um what I was saying is like the June one would be off the table because that is a federal election.

Um the next you know, municipal odd year election, if there was a primary would be that uh September election.

So the language we have in there is what you're saying covers our intent.

Is that what I'm hearing you say?

The next available election for this would be called the general municipal election.

Right.

Or is there a different term?

Yeah, I mean it would be it would occur at the same time as uh as the general if there if a primary uh was required, you know, you would have separate offices for the unexpired term and the and the regular seats that are up that election.

Okay.

Let me see if I can put a a little bit better explanation with the real scenario that we had not that long ago.

So Commissioner Walner had resigned in the first half of his term.

So the appointment process for him was until the next general election for a municipality, which was an odd number here.

He resigned in the spring of 2020.

He his replacement was appointed until November of 2021, at which time there was an option on the on the registration for somebody to register as a candidate for the expired two-year term, in addition to the regular four-year terms that normally in sequence were on that election.

It's my understanding that already exists in Montana Law, and you don't need to have that charter.

We we operated under that process because our charter just says pursuant to state law, and that's what it is.

Okay, thank you.

And then my second question is for Greg.

Um if we did an AG request um for uh what is the typical timeline for an AG opinion?

For you to write it, submit it, and then typically for I know you can't speak on behalf of the the AG, but what's the typical?

Is it like a week later we get it or a few months later or a year later?

Or how does that work?

Uh I thought it'd make you laugh.

It wouldn't be in a week.

I kind of guarantee that.

Um I do not know how long it would take them.

I do not know how long it would take me to prep it, then submit it and have them review it and then issue it.

Certainly we would ask that they do it in a time frame that you guys could still make your call before your final report in the charter was due.

Um so I hope that helps answer that.

I don't I can't give you a time frame.

Um if I if I can, I want to make an observation about the language in option A.

So if your option A is sending the appointment to the next general municipal election, which that's the way it's written, that is the way that it works now under state law.

So the and you have provisions in there about holding a forum.

That is the way that it has been conducted for the five vacancies that I have participated in helping the city commission fill.

There has always been a public forum.

So the only thing that I see that is different than current practices.

Well, of course, you would be putting the requirement for a forum into the charter.

Then they would have to, recognizing they already do that.

The only thing that is different is that you're extending the 60 the the current 30-day statute to 60 days.

And if we go back to another time I was standing in here where I said, what happens if you miss the 30-day deadline?

There's nothing in the law that says anything about the ramifications for the city commission mission missing the deadline.

That sort of thing that exists about under the current law would still exist under the charter because there's no issues.

And it still will not address what happens if you pass 60 days.

So I think what you have there is very similar to the current practice.

The only thing that I'm seeing is you're extending it and giving the city commission more time, thus also giving the public more time.

And frankly, giving candidates more time to make it.

Right.

And like the what we've we've done now, it's certainly a very expedited process.

As soon as the vacancy is effective, sometimes we knew in advance, other times we didn't know in advance, and we kind of run pretty quick to get notice out and start talking about it with the public.

Um then we give them like two weeks.

And then we schedule a commission meeting and we try to we've I think we've met that 30-day time frame every time.

You could give more time for the public to understand and contemplate.

Do they want to put their name in the hat?

You could give more time for the public to you close the deadline after say three weeks or four weeks.

Then you could have uh all of those applications sitting there for a couple weeks for the public to digest them before the commission had to make its decision.

Thank you.

Barb.

So I being mindful of time and conversation, I was gonna make a motion so that we can continue to discuss that.

Um so I move that we adopt option A as our proposed amendments to the charter for filling vacancies on the city commission or in the office of the mayor.

I would like to second that, Barb with uh one suggestion that we take off general municipal election, and instead we say this appointment will be in place until the next scheduled election pursuant to state law.

So that if the state law changes, it doesn't debunk our charter.

Would that be okay?

Well motion I was I was assuming that we would discuss whatever edits we still wanted to make in discussion about the motion.

Okay.

I don't I don't know that we're gonna second okay the motion's been moved and seconded comment.

What happened to our discussion about AG?

Are we going to um that because I think I think that that uh would precede uh uh adopting option A.

Um that motion has not been made at this point, and there is a motion on the table.

Um boy, it it's a can of worms.

Um I'm calling this discussion of the motion.

Um you guys actually you made the motion.

Why don't you start the discussion?

Becky you'll go next, and then Deanne and I will I um so I've been thinking about this one a lot since our last meeting, and I am not um persuaded that we I I'm not sure we need an attorney general's opinion at the moment.

Um I definitely hear the public and the desire for special elections, and was um sort of as we were learning, kind of contemplating that maybe that was a good idea for the situations where we had somebody resign a week after they started serving their term, but now I have been um persuaded that uh there is a lot of altering of election procedures that would go on if we were gonna do that, and statute says we can't do that.

Um I I hear um Mr.

Blank's point about trying to democratize the process of filling vacancies, and so I think adding time, um putting in the charter and making it explicit and transparent that the commission must hold a public forum is trying to get there in lieu of being able to hold a special election.

Um I feel like the one addition I might make to this filling vacancies option A language that we have is to add in an explicit opportunity for public comment so that the public would join the commission in evaluating any candidates in a public way.

Um then the last thing I've been thinking about a lot is this concept that an appointment then gives somebody the power of incumbency, and I don't dismiss that that's real being an incumbent.

Um, but as I observed our last municipal election, and as I know a lot of people in the community have been very have been upset about decisions that the commission has made.

Um my observation was that it was kind of a 50-50 crapshoot as to whether the power of incumbency in our last municipal election would have helped or hurt um those two appointed candidates because there was a lot of um upset about and criticism about some of the votes that they had taken during the term of their appointment.

So I feel like that cuts both ways in terms of being an incumbent.

Because I don't feel like I like that just doesn't sit right with me.

People should be able to declare themselves a candidate and compete in the electoral process based on their ideas and their campaigns, and it's not for us to put a limit on that in this.

So I'm inclined to move forward with some minor edits with this language as our amendment to the charter on this topic.

Becky.

I'm gonna um save time and say ditto to everything that Barb has said.

And in addition to that, um I agree with with uh the gentleman who spoke on you know, it seems like this working pretty well, and we've had some written public comment on that as well.

Um we elect our city commissioners to do all kinds of things.

Um to uh make appointments in a vacancy is one of them, as directed kind of by the MCA.

Um we also uh uh uh elected them to approve the budget, and we elect them to uh hire and manage the city manager, so so many things.

And this is one duty that the public elects these people to do it, and I think there's a lot of democracy in that.

Um while I very much honor what Greg is saying, and it could be redundant, but I like it that we have in there that the commissioners must hold a public forum with potential applic applicants because we do want more time and we're giving that, and we want to be directive in the fact that they must get the public input.

And so I think we've got that in there, and so I think it's a great improvement over what we had, and I'm I I'm all in favor of option A.

And I am not in favor of an AG um request on this particular thing.

Uh it seems pretty clear to me that you know, like Barb said, there's so many bumps in the road of should we have a special election, just keep saying we shouldn't be able to allow that right now, and that if the public does not like that, they should go talk with their state legislators first over the next 10 years, so that then maybe those changes could be made.

But right now, the MCA is limiting that pretty clearly in my mind.

So I would not be in favor of an AG uh request at this time.

Deanna, I'm still looking for creative solutions.

And um, I'm wondering if it would be possible to add in to this something to the effect that there would be um a public forum and uh an open uh public straw vote uh during the time of this appointment period, and that the results of the straw vote would count as you know, like one and a half votes in the final determination of the appointment.

Just an idea.

And it would uh I mean I I I see the limitations of Montana law, and I still would like to see um the attorney general weigh in, and I think that would give the needed uh satisfaction of an answer to the public, but also would give them the impetus to do what Becky suggests in the next 10 years to do the uh advocacy work that needs to be done to get elections in this uh event.

Mike.

The only thing that I would add, uh in our recommendations to the city commission, so not in the charter, I think uh it would make sense to recommend that the city commission adopts a standard of criteria by which they would judge vacancy appointments.

That's it.

That's an interesting idea.

Um maybe this is out of order and maybe this is unfair since I hold the gavel, but if we did if we said to you, let's say we got an opinion from the attorney general that you could do a special election.

And we said we want you to do a special election, but do it exactly the way you would do a regular normal election.

And let's make it stupid.

Eight people filed for the position.

How long would it take from the moment we told you to do it to we till we had someone elected?

Right.

So you'd have to have that filing period in there.

Yeah.

That it would go to up to 90 days prior to the primary election.

Uh if there's the possibility of a primary, yeah.

Um then you'd have the you know a space between the primary and the general election equivalent to what it is for for our regular elections, which is a little bit less than two months because I don't believe that the September date is the first uh Tuesday.

I think it's the second Tuesday.

Um so add all that up.

Uh it looks roughly like uh 150 days.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thanks.

So I'm totally torn about how we could go about doing this in a way that meets everybody's needs.

Um and uh I'm thinking and I'm kind of following what um Dan Clark said to us earlier on.

Um you have a problem, you come up with a solution, and you see how it works.

And if it doesn't work, you change it again in the next 10 years.

And um I know that in my eight years on the commission, if you subtract one month, there were no in the seven years and eleven months that I was on the commission, there were no resignations at all.

And it does seem that in the last five or six years, there has been way more than one would expect.

Um, but I I don't like the odds of creating an election where um someone could win with 30% of the vote.

Is that more democracy um than something else?

So if I was going to create the election that I thought would be fair, it would either be rank choice, which we can't do, or it would have a runoff where the top two vote getters, so that someone ends up with 50% of the vote rather than a very low amount.

Um and so uh I think that I'm gonna opt um for uh voting for the motion in the 60 days.

I do think um another recommendation uh that might go into the report might be that when the commission has a um uh a vacancy opportunity that they use it with the with the idea in mind that they're filling that space till the next election when people can vote the the way the county commission seems to have done in the past, although we'll see what they do this next time um this next time around, and and that might be another piece.

Um I'm struggling with this draw vote idea, Deanna.

Um we'll have one more round if we want to, because uh as I've watched um public opinion in a variety of instances, I don't think that um particularly when there's um how do I say this tactfully there's sometimes special interest groups that um for whatever reason get a certain small sector of the population interested in something, and what you end up with is as a either a commissioner or otherwise, trying to determine am I hearing from all these people what is the public will, or am I just hearing what a very small portion of people who are active in a very limited area want me to hear?

And um I'll look sometimes at um public comment, and I'm referring to when I was sat on the commission and in here, and I hear the same message, sometimes quoted directly, um, and I I wonder um what the rest of the people are thinking, and my guess is they're thinking, well, they'll do the right, they will do the right thing, we're not gonna weigh in on this.

Um and I I wonder um what the rest of the people are thinking and my guess is they're thinking well they'll do the right they will do the right thing we're not gonna weigh in on this and so I don't know how you would do a straw vote in a way that you got the will of the people that's what election offices are for and um it's what they're um meant to do is run elections where as many people as can uh be enticed to vote actually do it so I'm gonna vote for the motion um uh at as it is understanding that it's an increment that it is a problem and we'll see if we are are going anywhere close to fixing it or not but I think all the other options um end up with um in addition to everything else if you if you did end up with an election that that took four months you what you're trading is 60 days two months um of no you know now now we don't now we're into the question how many commissioners are there but if you use the present numbers what's it like to have uh two months without um one commissioner voting versus double that amount of time with nobody uh in office to vote so uh I'm going with that um Diana persuade us otherwise well I think that we are uh maybe a little bit putting the cart before the horse because we're also talking about uh wards and having seven wards and in that event a vac a vacancy would of course have to be filled and that should be in any language that we write by uh someone from within the ward and when we're looking at wards we're looking at a great uh fewer number of people um than a whole uh at-large election and there I think there would be room for example the law says it will be filled by appointment does it actually say appointment by the commission could it not be an appointment by the ward you know by calling a special convocation of the ward or the neighborhood council if it if uh that is how we end up uh dividing our wards I just think there's room for some uh some thinking here that is not expressed in the in option A and therefore I I'm not in favor of this and um uh uh I I think it's jumping the gun I I think the motions on the floor we're gonna vote on it um I would not dissuade you from when we make decisions about districts and wards from re raising the question as it relates to whatever that new format may look like if there is one any other discussion all right let's vote all in favor of the motion so indicate by saying aye aye aye aye opposed aye nay nay the motion carries three to one I have a motion deanna and I I would like to move that we ask uh uh our city attorney to and uh to ask for an a G opinion on uh the options that we have for filling vacancies there's a motion is there a second the motion fails for lack of a second okay we have do we have eight minutes left yes okay so I'm gonna suggest that unless someone has something on the agenda that they think we can uh solve in eight minutes that we um push these items to the um next meeting which will be March 5th is that right Mr.

Chair are we excused what are we excused no no no you're you're here till March 5th you got work to do yes you are excused and thank you very very much for coming thank you for having us thank you Carson I think that um that that's kind of where we're at right now given that now we have eight minutes left and because there's another meeting um with that though I would want to know um you know there was quite a bit of information provided in our packet around the mayor um and uh and uh city might move the agenda hang on a second let me look at I got it up here um hey Becky I might be able to help yeah thank you go ahead so yeah yeah yeah the the mayor and city manager and I'm just wondering uh is there more information we would like to request at this time because we will be making decision about that on May 5th I mean March 5th go ahead Barbara right I was just gonna say that

And city Mike moved the agenda.

Hang on a second.

Let me look at it.

I got it up here.

Hey Becky, I might be able to help.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Bar.

So yeah, the mayor and city manager.

And I'm just wondering, yeah, is there more information we would like to request at this time?

Because we will be making decision about that on May 5th.

I mean March 5th.

Go ahead, Barb.

Right.

I was just going to say that that March 5th is the date where we're slated to make preliminary decisions about any changes to executive leadership.

And so I see that as the time when we're going to finalize whatever changes we're making with regard to the mayor and those roles and responsibilities and any recommendations we want to put in the report that aren't charter level changes as well as the city manager.

So you know, I feel like all of the stuff that we've gathered over the last couple of meetings.

I don't have anything new to ask for at this point personally.

So I'd be interested if others do, but I I feel like I keep rereading it and finding new nuggets in it.

So no nor do I have anything in addition.

But let's let can we agree then that we're gonna jump into item F 2 with the idea that we're gonna make some choices and decisions, and that the other discussions uh as to number of commissioners, etc.

Naturally falls within the discussion of wards and districts anyway.

And um full we can get into that discussion if we have time on the next meeting.

Um but otherwise um we're gonna focus on the the city manager mayor structure um in the next meeting.

Does that work for everybody?

A plus.

Agreed.

Okay.

And I'll I'll remind everyone we don't have a meeting after us March 5th.

So for a meeting topic, that's a great day to have it.

Say that again, Mike.

There's no meeting after us on March 5th.

So for the meaty topic of mayor and executive balance, we can take a little bit more time.

Yeah, I I think uh I I don't like to say this, but I think we should count on meeting for as long as it takes.

And I don't like six-hour meetings, but I think we should not schedule um something for um seven o'clock.

We should have the the uh flexibility to go till eight or nine.

I I I don't think we should get into the point where we're so tired that we don't know what we're talking about, which has happened, not us, other groups that I know of intimately.

Um but um that's that's where we are at in the next meeting.

Thank you, Greg, for coming and helping us out.

Um thank you to all the public who are still here for being here.

And um this meeting is adjourned at uh 556.

Oh, I forgot any final public comment.

This meeting is adjourned at 557.

Um just make a brief statement.

Regarding the um the the next election.

Can you say who you are?

Oh, sorry, Roger Blank, uh assistant boysman.

Oh, thank you.

Um regarding the next um if if we go with the option A, which sounds like that's the avenue that that is is going down.

Um the next election to be held or the next municipal election.

I believe um uh you've recommended that the municipal be taken out and that just the next election that is held in the city of whatever type that that seat would then be placed on that um electoral ballot to be filled.

I I think one they're gonna work out that language, but the intent of it was the next regularly scheduled city municipal election, not a municipal election around a uh uh levy or um or anything else.

It's meant to be that two-year segment.

Yes, something I would ask is that um the commission consider if it if allowable, according to the MCA, um that the vacancy just be put on the next available election of whatever type of election that may be.

Understood.

Thank you.

We were adjourned when we were adjourned.

Uh Roger's comments may or may not have gotten in the record.

Thank you.

I'm not gonna re-adjourn.

Thank you.

How is uh how you