That's what you want.

Yeah, that's right.

Is our phone off?

The new phones you can't tell us much.

No, I can't.

You have to like there we go.

Okay.

Oh, now I see where we're not speaking.

Can't remember my microphone, please.

Could you hear me though?

Yeah.

I'm not very ready, apparently.

I'll call to order the meeting of the Bozeman City Study Commission on March 5th at four PM.

If you're able, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

It will be followed by a moment of silence, and you may be seated for that if you would like.

Thank you.

Is there any public comment at this time?

Good evening, members of the study commission.

My name's Abby Jones, and I am a resident of Bozeman.

Um and I'm here to share a public comment on behalf of the Gallatin Valley Sentinel.

Uh I first wanted to say that the agenda for today's meeting treats the decisions on the executive branch of our city government as foregone conclusions.

You have skipped the vital step of having an open discussion and public comment on the options outside of your learning sessions with Dan Clark and have jumped straight to making decisions.

For example, we shouldn't be discussing how much to pay the mayor until we've had a public discussion on even having a mayor.

Do you believe you have sufficiently educated, educated and heard and heard comments from the public on the role of the mayor?

The feedback we have received through our engagement in surveys says otherwise.

I would offer the same questions regarding your agenda item for the city manager.

Have you gathered enough feedback from the public on this form of government, or are you going by what you desire?

Also, why would the agenda ask the question of professional requirements for a city manager if you were considering other options?

These are examples of you creating a false choice that Bozin residents have to decide between.

The Gallatin Valley Sentinel has the following recommendations on today's topics based on our public engagement and our surveys, which does not include any targeted outreach to nonprofits or special interest groups.

They are links that anyone in the community can participate in.03B of the current charter to eliminate the mayoral election process and replace it with a process whereby the elected commission selects from amongst themselves a mayor who will serve as the presiding officer over meetings and the ceremonial head of the city, just as the mayor does now.

Four, with these changes making the term of the mayor two years with a limit of two consecutive terms.

Five, keep pay for the commissioner for the commissioners and the mayor as a monthly stipend.

If you change the role of mayor to a full-time salaried position, you will exclude anyone who has a full-time career from serving as mayor.

And that and the goal should remain to be inclusive of everyone.

The current pay structure has not prohibited non-wealthy people from being in office.

And the last thing we need is a career politician.

Six, if the claim that there is too much work to be done to be both a commissioner or mayor and hold a full-time job, then perhaps the question should be the efficiency with Bozeman is being run.

Many cities with similar population are able to run with far less compensation and even volunteer commissioners who operate with more complex limitations.

On top of that, the new rules under the Montana Land Use and Planning Act should remain, should mean that the City Commission spends far less time on land use decisions than they have in any years prior.

Further, Bozin residents are already facing rising costs and pressure on the city budget, turning any number of commission seats or the mayoral position into full-time salaried positions with full benefit and would add a massive unnecessary burden to the taxpayer.

Bozeman can't afford to properly staff its police and fire departments, yet you are considering turning civic service into a career path.

Apologize for a little bit over time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Any public comment online, Caleb?

Uh not right now.

Thank you.

All right.

Next on the agenda is the consent agenda.

Are there any items that anybody on the commission would like to pull?

Otherwise, they'll stay in the consent agenda.

All right, seeing none, is there a motion?

I move we approve the consent agenda for the March 5th meeting.

I can't.

Oh, go ahead, go ahead, Jane.

It's been moved by Barb and seconded by Jan.

Jan.

Uh all those in favor, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Correspondence or study commission update.

Any updates or outreach issues, Barb?

Um just that Carson and I made a presentation last week to the Valley Unit Neighborhood Association that was pretty well attended.

Um we had good questions.

Um people were engaged, and I think appreciated that we came.

What were they?

Can you give up all of the report?

Mostly the questions were sort of what were some of the top priority conversation topics that we were talking about.

I think there was sort of general we updated them on some of the changes we've already started to propose to the charter, like keeping self-government powers and the charter form of government, and people seemed like that made sense to them, understanding the flexibility it gives us.

We touched a little bit on the choice that we have voted on to eliminate the deputy mayor process we have now where we elect a mayor for a four-year term, but they serve the first two years as deputy, and there were head nods at that.

That was what you have to add Carson that I missed.

I don't think so.

I had a few conversations before the meeting with people that were a little more in-depth.

Um generally people were in favor of the manager commission approach that we've had.

Um people were concerned about things like um uh how you know the length of the contract, how do you avoid when it goes wrong?

What do you do with that?

Um I think that I think that was the essence of those conversations.

We invited everybody to come and sort of gave them the outline of the meeting meetings as they were coming up as well.

Um it was the annual meeting of the valley unit, so there were other things on the agenda.

And uh so someone with from the city was there talking about um what's happening on Fowler.

Um so that's it.

I'm not sure, Deanna.

Did we report that we were on the radio show at our last meeting?

We did not.

We did uh the radio show with Dave Wooten from 106.9, the Eagle.

The Eagle, yes.

And I thought that went pretty well.

I did too.

Um and then Deanna and I did an inner real interview with the Gallon Valley Sentinel.

Um I haven't looked at it yet, but it's online.

Um Becky.

Yeah, I um I'm gonna apologize in advance.

Um I have an email that I was gonna send out ahead of time, and I didn't, but I wanted to let you know that um Hal Stanley is a resident of Bozeman and had reached out via email about um being able to go to other communities, and so I called him and I said, I think that's a great idea.

Why don't you go do some research for us?

And he so kindly agreed to do so and spent quite a bit of time, so I'm very grateful for that.

But just a few key things, and then I'll send it out.

Um, and uh Mike, if you want to, you know, whatever we do with public comment, kind of put that in there.

But um he met with um Eric King, who's the city manager, and then Kate Schneider from Bend, Oregon, with an idea that Ben has some similarities to us.

Um, and she's the um Kate is the executive policy officer.

Also to note um Melissa Hodnet is our finance director and worked in Bend from 2016 to 2018.

So he said we might be able to learn more from her.

But um, they did a review of their structure and charter in 2018, and they voted down going to wards.

Um they the biggest concern was parochial focus by wards, taking away from what's best for the city as a whole.

So they voted that down.

They also took salary setting out of the charter and made it as part of the municipal policies, which the voters approve as part of the um they increased citizen input with a two-year comprehensive planning and goal setting process, which is laid out in the city codes.

Um, and then um in addition to that, city advisory committees were involved in a biannual goal setting process.

So that's how they engage the city advisory, the city also the city managers reviewed biannually as part of this process and measured in accomplishment of the goals that are in the plane.

Um there's cities divided into 13 neighborhood districts, which are independent entities and not part of city government.

I promise I'm almost done.

Um there's more, but these are the kind of the highlights.

And then the other thing that I thought was interesting for today is there's a required monthly meeting with the county commissioner and the mayor and the city manager, so the three three people to coordinate and manage relations.

And um, and also so that's in the charter, but then the mayor meets with the city manager weekly, but other council members meet every other week in groups of three with the city manager to just help prepare for the council meetings.

Um in addition, the city-county have biannual joint meetings and occasionally set up joint commissions to deal with common issues.

So uh in because of that, he said the city and the county really get along well together and work collaboratively.

So uh again, I apologize and not get this out to you ahead of time.

I will do so, so it's part of the public comment.

And again, I want to thank Hal Stanley for not only putting in some public comment but also raising his hand to help us out.

Cool.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stanley, if you're out there listening, thank you.

If you're not, it's part of the record.

Thank you.

Any other Jan.

Yeah, this is all right.

Becky, Becky and I met on some of the continuing outreach, and we are going to be presenting a program at the League of Women Voters of Bogsman on Monday, the 23rd of March at their regular noon meeting.

So that's coming up, and one of our asks, besides uh participation, um, getting involved public comment, is to actually consider doing a separate candidate or separate public forum on the um ballot measure in whatever form that takes as one of the events that we can include in our outreach um in the fall.

So that's that's we hope would entice them to want to do something along those lines.

The second thing is is that we had hoped to submit a Pachaka Chaw event, but uh Becky and I were both gone during the last round.

So we are submitting one that's due this coming week for April 21st and 22nd.

We'll let you know the status of that and um as soon as we learn.

And then last is um we've also been working with Bozeman professional uh women, and probably we'll do a program sometime in the fall, also as a part of the um voter education, of course, we'll coordinate with the ballot uh education people and all of these things.

So that's my report.

Sorry to miss you all last month, but glad to see everyone again today.

Sorry, one more thing.

Um I ended up meeting a woman from a mutual friend, Sarah Bates, who turns out to be a mutual friend of um BARPS, and she served on the study commission 20 years ago in Missoula, so we had very interesting chat.

No notes or anything like Becky's, but they do have a strong mayor system, and I think I read somewhere we didn't have one of those in Montana.

And I thought whoever our Missoula person was, we each had a city assigned.

If the person is that you, Barb, would you might want to have a conversation with her again about that, unless you have already.

So I haven't I haven't talked to Sarah specifically about it, but we did talk about it.

Like they have a mayor who is the chief executive of their city.

But as Dan explained to us at one of our learning sessions, that he doesn't typically call that a strong mayor because they also then they have a hybrid system because they also then hire a chief administrative officer to basically support the mayor in the chief executive duties of overseeing this organization of the city.

So that was the distinction he made in not calling not using that strong mayor term for Missoula, but saying it was actually kind of a hybrid.

Using that option number one that we've got in our packet.

So great.

So that's my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Maybe I should put it on the record that I did reach out to Ollie to see if they would like to do a follow-up on uh in the beginning.

They did one just what are we going to do?

And uh time for a follow-up.

This is what we've done, and this is what we're voting on uh in coming meetings.

So, but I haven't heard back from them.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's move to the next item on the agenda, which is unfinished business.

First thing up is the draft charter language for sections 2.01, 2.03, and 2.06.

This is an attempt to reflect what the charter language will be that we've agreed upon by motion in previous meeting.

Um Greg has not had a chance to fully review it and has indicated that there might be uh that he might want to make some changes around clarity.

So I don't want to take up too much of our time, but I think we should at least look at it and confirm that that's what we did.

Final review the point of it, the essence of it will not be changed.

And of course, we will see it one or two more times when we get to the initial initial plan, and then when we get to the final review.

So now it just reads that we will have a mayor elected at large at every other city election.

So every four years, the voters of the city shall elect a mayor at large for a term of four years.

So that there would be someone if the mayor had to be absent for some reason.

And it lays out the process for when that appointment would occur and proposes that that vice mayor serve for two years.

Then if you scroll down into the vacancies section, this is reflecting some of the conversation last time about how we fill vacancies in the commission or mayor positions.

And change that, and then the section C, item C is how we discussed and agreed and voted on filling vacancies at our last meeting.

So that's new language there that extends the period of time that the commission has to make those appointments and requires that they hold a public forum with potential applicants for the position.

And so people should definitely check my math, but I think that the direct election of the mayor for four years minus the deputy mayor, the first election that that would be would be in 2029, and that 2030 would be when that mayor took office for the first four-year term.

Um, and that's because we can't um undo the election we just had um where Doug mayor, where Doug Fisher serves his two years as mayor after deputy mayor.

So I think I did the math right now.

I think so too.

You should double check more years from now.

Yeah.

And then under C there, there's a recommendation in bold.

You want to talk about that?

Yes, thank you.

Sorry.

Um so we also discussed in filling vacancies that um one of the issues that has come up is that um that people have offered in public comment is that it's never clear exactly what the criteria are by which the commission is making appointments.

And so we wanted to put a recommendation in our general report that the city commission should adopt a standard process and criteria for appointments to fill the commission or the mayor vacancy so that there would be consistency and transparency about what they were evaluating candidates for those appointments up on.

Thank you so much, Barbara.

Um very thorough and I appreciate that.

And just as a reminder to us and to the public who are listening, um, as we're going through, um we're gonna uh title this um amendment number one.

So we kind of combine a bunch of things, like for example, in the unfinished business, we're gonna be discussing a bunch of things under F two.

That'll be amendment number two, and so all those things would be put together so that we can keep track of what we have agreed on when, and then as Barbara and I continue to write the um remember there's charter language, there's report language, and there's ballot language, and those three are different things, right?

So as we continue to write this up to be able to bring forth to the community um for the May 28 public um uh meeting, then um we can kind of keep track of okay, yeah, we did that then, and we did this here, and we did this here.

So that's just this is number one.

Questions?

I have one.

Um the if you could scroll back up to the word the red word other there.

So uh I think it's clear, but maybe it's not, and maybe we need to think this too.

I think what we agreed upon was everything being perfect, every other election, elections being two years apart, we have an election for mayor for four years.

If the mayor dies in the first two years, the vice mayor takes over as mayor until the next regular city election, which was is less than two years away.

Then you have a mayoral election.

Is that for a four-year term or a two-year term?

Because if you read it as every other, inevitably you get on or off sink with that.

Right.

And uh and I I'm not sure.

That that other word was originally I didn't catch that we couldn't vote for a mayor.

Like I it it would have just read at every regular city election, we'll elect a mayor for a four-year term, which would mean we would have multiple mayors for overlapping.

So I get why that word was inserted.

There may be a better way to communicate that every four years we're gonna have a mayoral election.

Um I'm totally open to that feedback.

My understanding of what we learned over the last couple of sessions about filling vacancies is that the vice mayor would serve until the next regular municipal election, and that mayoral election would be for the remainder of the vacant term.

So they wouldn't at the next election get the full four years, they would get two years.

It's my understanding, but that I might not be understanding that correctly because it's a little confusing.

I have two, and I'm wondering if we just say at the regular city election, or at uh regular city election, the voters of the city shall elect a mayor at large for a term of four years.

Mike so this is one of the the wording things, like um just a quick read through it.

Yeah, to your point, if you say every other election, you could end up off-cycle.

I I think that you're idea is there, but the exact language should be something of along the lines of upon the completion of a mayoral term or something something like to that effect.

Uh because if it's a partial term, the remainder of a term, you would then have the election for the remainder of that term.

So the appointed term ends, you then have a two-year election for a remainder term, and then you would end it so that language could capture different timings of when you may need to have a mayoral election.

Um that was just my first initial thought on that one.

Um yeah.

Thanks.

Just to be clear, and and I did watch the meeting minutes twice, but I just want to be very clear.

We're our goal, and I would agree if this is our goal, is that we would not want the vice mayor serving any longer than what the next possible city election would allow for that election to be completed, so that it would not be serving more than less than a two-year term.

Correct.

Is that did I say that?

It would be serving less than a two-year term.

So it would be only less than a two-year term that the vice mayor would serve the rest of that term, followed by an election at the next city election that would allow for the election to fill that two years.

And then get back into the cycle of a four-year election.

Right.

And I I don't have any hard and fast.

Should it be should you fill the remaining two years with an election or should you just go to four years?

I I think the idea of filling it with two years is better because you you may have commissioners getting elected at different cycles.

And so you you want to you want it to remain a consistent cycle.

I had in my mind, I was thinking it would be the first election would be four years, even though it was after a two-year term.

But I'm thinking I like what you've got, and I don't know that we discussed it.

Um but if that's okay, um that's what we'll do, and maybe you can fashion some language along what Mike said, and then Greg will clean it up.

But I guess what I'm asking is we're clear, someone dies in the first two years, they're replaced by the vice mayor, the next election is to finish the four-year term, and then you're then the other every other city election at works.

Exactly.

I'm sorry.

Is that right?

Okay.

Other comments or questions?

Deanna.

When did we ever get public?

I'm referring now to the um public comment that we got from uh uh Gallatin Valley Sentinel, and I think it's very legitimate to ask ourselves when did we inform the public or uh uh pull public opinion on this part of our decision making?

Because there are a lot of other possibilities that we should be considering here, and particularly in view of the fact that we're looking at warts.

So if we if we did decide to go on wards, um would it not make a great deal more sense to have and if we determined that we wanted seven commissioners, that the seven commissioners would be of equal um what uh um uh would stand as commissioners and representing their particular wards.

And um then we could go uh we could look at some of these other possibilities where then a standing commission of seven commissioners uh chooses among its own uh who to be the president or the mayor or whatever for the next two years.

Our mayor and what we're uh putting back in is little more than a ceremonial position.

And so why does it have to be this big election which then takes away the uh uh possibility of having more representative more representation in our commissioners?

And so I think we once again we've gotten ahead of ourselves.

We're we're sort of um uh just pushing this cart down the road.

We did not get any public feedback about what kind of uh mayor we want.

And um and and there is time for that.

And uh I I just feel like we should once again uh slow down and consider what lies uh ahead of us when we get to that point of choosing uh whether we're going to have five or or seven commissioners and how they weigh in.

So I don't know.

I'm I'm in favor of um of doing a mayor that would be elected or selected by the commissioners to serve this ceremonial position.

All right, we decided otherwise in the last meeting.

This is the proposed language to indicate what we had decided.

We're not going to re-debate that.

We have agreed that we don't have a final document till we have a final document.

And we've also agreed that when we decide about wards and districts, that might change a lot of what we're doing here.

But if you don't eat this elephant one bite at a time, we will never get there.

So we're deciding now.

The only thing we're deciding is does this language capture the essence of what we voted on in the last meeting?

And if it does, it move we move on, it goes to Greg.

When we get to wards and districts, if we end up with a contrary opinion because based on how we're structuring the wards in districts, we can discuss it at that time.

But to say that we haven't had any public comment on this is factually incorrect.

We've had um a lot of people write us uh with a variety of things.

The idea of the um the commissioners electing the mayor.

Um first I've heard of it today when I read something that the Gallatin Valley Sentinel came up with, and then the public comment here.

We've the opportunity has been there.

We know other cities do it, but most other cities do not do it that way.

I can think of a number of reasons why I don't think it's a good idea, but I don't think that's the point of this discussion at this point.

Can I say that I'm gonna I'm gonna move us to the vote?

Uh it's not even a vote, it's do we agree that this is what we've previously agreed upon.

I would like uh to just comment on your comment.

Every step of the way, uh, we have agreed that this is a malleable document.

And yet when it comes time to make changes in it, then it's oh no, we already decided.

So what are we?

Are we are we pounding these nails in as we go or not?

And I made a specific point about when we make these decisions, there are other things that are going to be dependent on them, or that are these decisions will guide.

And uh I don't think that we're following our own agreement that uh uh these decisions were open to change.

And now you tell me, oh no, we already voted on that.

So um I I just think that that uh we need to reconsider.

We did vote on it.

Can I I know but when we voted on it, I've written it down.

Um 28-26, we all voted um f four to one that we should um uh move the remove the deputy mayor, eliminate um the deputy mayor, but write in a uh process for a vice mayor um on, and we also decided that we would that uh everyone would be elected nonpartisan, that was a five to zero vote.

We also voted on that same date, 128-26, that um there were no other elected offices, um, that we should keep it at it as is.

That was a five to zero vote.

On February 5th, we um discussed and and voted that we should write for a process of appointing a vice mayor in the temporary absence of a mayor.

That was a five to zero vote.

We also decided to develop a resolution to have a commissioner job description with a review at least every five years, and that and to write in a transition plan on February 18th, we voted to um develop this language around filling vacancies with 60 days and um had and asked for required public comment, that vote was three to one with one person absent.

So that's just what we've decided so far.

So all on the way, there's been plenty of time since the middle of January to be able to discuss mayor and and manager type things, but well, and I will also say that beginning last year, including at our first public hearing in April, the mayoral position and the role of the mayor, and in fact the system of the deputy mayor every two years thing has been a topic of public comment.

And I and I keep track and I go back and I look and I have a whole in my email public comment folder, and it and it has and it is tied to the conversation about who is our chief executive officer, and so that that's what we're gonna try to make some tentative decisions around tonight.

Um but I but I feel like we are stepwise moving forward to a draft revised charter that we can go back and tweak as we go along if we make different decisions later on that don't make it fall to don't make it hang together.

But we we we were tasked, Becky and I, with starting to revise the charter in pieces so we could look at the decisions that we've made so far and find out where it hitches together, which is why I found section 9.04 where we have to say when we're gonna implement this new mayoral election system.

So all that by way of saying that I I don't think it's true that no one's been commenting on the mayor, um, and no one's been commenting on whether we should elect a mayor, because people have been commenting that the current system is goofy and they want to vote for a mayor for a four-year term and know that they're gonna be the mayor for the four-year term.

That's not what we're discussing now.

We're discussing how that mayor will be uh uh chosen, and is it a is it uh an election at large, or could it not be a decision of the sitting commission?

And we uh you know I I know what it's not on the agenda to have that discussion today.

You can put it, we can put it on an agenda at a later time when it's appropriate, but it won't be appropriate in my mind till we have the ward and district discussion.

Then why don't we at which point we can look at whether there are inconsistencies in doing it?

Yeah, I agree.

This this this agenda item does not say if you're talking about warning the public and the public having notice of it, this does not say we're gonna change a review.

This is the review of the draft charter language that these people did based on how we voted.

That's what the public thinks we're discussing today.

They do not think that we're discussing today anything other than those review and those changes that we voted on.

So it would be um inappropriate to suddenly come up with something different because this is they capture what we discussed and what we voted on.

I think they did.

We need a little legal review from Greg, and then we will get it back when we do the uh initial report, and we can discuss it again.

We can also discuss it again if we decide on doing something inconsistent with what we've already decided.

We we understand that part.

Mike.

So I want to so highlight the um we we've had the the survey data, we've had public comment, we had the public hearing, and no time before tonight did I ever hear that the mayor should only be a ceremonial position.

I haven't either the language that's in the agenda highlights the duties above and beyond regular city commission.

When we had the work session with the city commissioners, you had Mayor Cunningham outline where he saw what he was doing as a full-time position.

You had him uh describe the differences when he was a commissioner versus a mayor, and that's reflective in the duties that are outlined here in this agenda.

So I think it's disingenuous to say that it's only a ceremonial.

You you could go that route if that was the choice, but at this time I haven't heard any conversations about it being ceremonial.

That wasn't my suggestion that it was only ceremonial, but as opposed to a administrative mayor, we don't have.

Our mayor is more ceremonial, and that's the term that we have been applying to as a descriptor for the mayor's job.

Um, but I'm I'm happy to uh suggest that we uh uh table this and put it on a future agenda that we discuss other alternatives which have not been uh presented to the public or or have uh we really solicited public input on this subject.

So please put it on a future agenda.

Jan, did you wish to it was to move us off this conversation unless we were going to make a motion that would basically uh not validate, but but to reaffirm the fact that we are wanting a four-year elected at-large mayor, which I understood from all of the history that I've just heard, the meetings I keep watching at every meeting, I watch me, I watch our meetings to make sure there's so much complexity, so many things that take place.

So I would like to move on in the agenda, and if there is a motion at the end of the meeting, like we have sometimes to do to add something else, then we can take that up if we have time.

But I'd like to finish this piece.

I agree.

Because I have something I'd like to move.

All right.

So do we need a motion to say that this language captures what we've previously agreed to, other than what we've discussed?

I don't think we need a motion.

I think we've we've um captured this generally captures what we discussed and voted on.

The one exception was the question of whether you fill a um person that's left office a mayor that's left office with a new four-year term or a new two year.

We've decided that was the intent.

Let's move on to the next discussion if we can.

Okay.

So may I make a motion um to recommend something, not to change the document in the charter that's being proposed.

What do you what's the motion?

The motion would be on the section called uh section, excuse me, I've got it written down.

Is this the document we're looking at, Jan?

Pardon?

You're making a recommendation about the document we're looking at, or yeah, it's this amendment number one.

Sorry, it's it's to add a add a recommendation under the um item 206 2.06 C, the vacancies, filling up vacancies.

So this is to add a recommendation, not to amend it.

Okay.

I think that's I think that's also out of order.

Oh, I I think when we get to the point of finalizing the document and discussing recommendations, that would be fine.

But right here, we haven't discussed I assume we haven't discussed or voted on what you've said.

So I I think that's not within the realm because you if you want to say let's recommend X here, um, we'd have to have a whole new discussion.

It hasn't been um noticed.

Noticed, okay.

I understand I misunderstood when I can say that.

Hold that for later discussion.

Is it in the scope of what this is, though, or is this something completely different?

It was to simply define as a recommendation how the um the way of of filling vacancies would have a more robust um way of operating with candidate forums and a published um candidate guide.

So it was that I I was following the current recommendation model, but if it isn't appropriate now, I'll wait and bring it up when it is.

I think it's inappropriate.

I think we should have that because otherwise we're gonna have a discussion about whether this needs more recommendations.

I shall withdraw down that and let's move on.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item on the agenda is to discuss the commissioner city manager form of government.

And uh Becky and I have decided to share some responsibilities.

So I'm gonna turn the gavel over to her.

All right, so um we have been learning over the last couple of meetings about city manager um and able to uh bring that forward.

Um we need to begin by um should we keep the commissioner, city manager, former government?

I think we need a motion for that before we go on and talk about how do we oversee the city manager and what are the recommendations that we suggest?

And um just to be clear, these things would go into an amendment document number two.

I'm using my real estate skills here.

Like we've got amendment number one, now we've got amendment number two started here.

Um so before we begin and talk about city manager, um, does someone have a motion to say that we should keep the commissioner city manager form of government?

Can can I make excuse me?

Can I make a clarifying statement here first?

Yeah.

Our current form of government is a charter form of government.

So I don't think it's accurate in your motion language here to keep to use the term commissioner city manager form of government, given that we're a charter form of government.

I don't know what to keep that term form.

What term should be used?

Structure.

Structure will work, I think.

Okay.

But I just want to make sure that we're clear in that that it is a charter form of government.

Okay, yeah, because we already voted to have um uh the charter form of government.

So to your point, should we maintain the commissioner city manager structure that we currently have?

Or do we change it?

And Dan has we've got reams of information that say we could do this, that, or the other thing up till now, this is what we've had.

I believe all those for reference, except for Missoula and Haber.

All of the city only ones that were reviewed are commissioner manager.

Structure, yes, that says structure.

Thank you, Mike.

I will move.

Will you turn turn your mic on?

I will turn my mic on and I will move that we continue with a the structure of commissioner city manager within the context of our charter form of government.

Second.

Okay, we've got a motion and a second.

Further discussion on this.

We've kind of talked a lot about it, but we just need to get it official.

Bob, did you have something?

Yeah, I will say we've we've talked a lot about it since back last summer or fall.

I'm trying to remember when we had our initial learning session about what currently is the form and structure and plan of government.

And we've had more recent um additional education.

I've been reading a lot about it and I have become pretty convinced that this is the best most efficient structure, and that we should retain our uh commission city manager structure for our government in the charter.

Um I think it it has a lot of benefits.

Um I think it feels like also the public comment has shifted since back in April at our first hearing on this topic as well, where we did hear a lot about the solution to the problems we've had in the past with folks like our previous city manager is to move to a mayor as our chief executive officer.

And now, as I look at the comment, that's shifted because we've all learned a lot, and that's been the point of the study.

So I just wanted to add that as we get ready to make this um tentative decision.

Um Yeah, you have uh uh very eloquently um stated what is in my head, so I'm gonna say a ditto on that.

And I think the other thing that I really learned is um when we think about city manager, which is kind of next on the agenda, which we won't get to yet, but it's it's the structure is correct, the way that perhaps the oversight of the city manager could be tightened.

So in my mind, but the structure is correct.

So anyone else have comment or discussion about this before I ask for public comment, Jan.

Just briefly um re-looking at the uh surveys, especially when they were compared between board uh responses, employee responses, and then the community response, this seemed really in agreement and ditto for what you both said.

The other piece is that everybody seems to be most everybody seems to be very aligned that this would be a position that would never be voted on.

It would always be professional, it would have professional standards.

Oversight can always be better for everybody every time.

And I think we can chat about that, but I'd be happy to support it.

Thank you.

Any further Carson?

Yeah, I I think when we when we do this and just methodologically, one thing we ought to say is all right, what is the problem that needs solving and how do we how can we best solve it?

I think particularly this issue came up in the language that uh I like to use was how do we get ourselves from being a stepping stone for city managers who come here last two years and then move on.

Um, and how do we prevent that?

A solution for preventing that was to elect a mayor as an executive officer who because you have to live here to to get elected mayor, and that that might solve the problem.

I think it was we've listened to comment from a number of people uh in government, out of government.

Um it seems like the thing to do to solve the problem is to pay attention to who the people are that you're hiring as the city manager and um make an assessment as to because I I will tell you when we hired um the first city manager that to follow Chris Kukulski, who had been here and a member of the community for quite a long time.

I don't think we were thinking then about will that person become a Bozemanite and be committed to this community.

We should have been thinking of that at the time, and um as the commission.

So uh I I think that's the solution to the problem, more than saying, all right, we're gonna elect an executive mayor who's gonna sit in the position of the um city manager, and um you know, because then you have this thing of is anybody paying when you're voting, are we paying attention to the ability of the person to manage people as opposed to the person to be the the mayor, the the titular head?

Um the other issue had to do with what's the right word, getting rid of someone who's not working, and with the idea of an ex chief executive executive mayor, you can vote them out.

The fact is, as we did some education and thought it through, you can, for want of a better term, I'm sorry to use the get rid of a little crass.

You can get rid of a city manager in less than four years.

And so if it's not working out, there are ways to move on from that rather than wait around till the next election or for a recall vote, which is um particularly difficult um factually.

So I'm thinking that the problems that that we that were identified and the people have identified wouldn't be solved by changing from a commissioner city manager piece.

There may be descriptors and things that we can do about how you hire the city manager which would make a difference there.

So that's my piece on this.

And that's the next part on the on our agenda, so you kind of tee that up.

Um I'd like to uh pause our discussion, ask for public comment related to whether or not we should keep the commissioner city manager structure of government.

Is there anybody in the room who would like to provide public comment on this topic?

Seeing none, Caleb, is there anybody online who would like to make public comment on this topic?

Uh there is, yes.

Okay.

Um you are called up, whoever's online, please state your name and your residence and provide us with some information.

Okay.

Uh Patty, you are gonna go.

Um I'm gonna let you start whenever.

Okay, thanks.

Uh thanks, Commissioners.

Uh or review can study review commissioners.

I uh appreciate the commissioner city manager.

Will you say your name, please?

Oh, sorry, Patty Steinmüller.

Thank you so much.

And I live in Bozeman, sorry.

Um I uh prefer this situation, the uh structure of government.

We have commissioner city uh manager.

Uh and I understand the problems that um have occurred in that kind of situation and that this radio commission.

That's why we have you to help uh get our input and help us solve that issue and and improve our system.

Thanks.

Thank you so much.

Any further public comment on this topic?

Not at this time.

Thank you so much, Caleb.

Seeing none, any further discussion before we take a vote?

Yes.

Seeing none all in favor of maintaining the city commissioner, city manager structure of government, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

With that, the motion carries five to zero.

So now that we have our city manager and we've decided that, um, let's talk about um section 3.01.

And um Mike, can you pull up 3.01?

And in there we've got some information about the um about the city manager and um and we also receive some information that's in our packet from uh Dan Clark from the government center, uh the MSU government center, to think about um how the city manager is managed, should we say?

And one of the there's there's three things that came up, and as we discussed this, remember this we have options.

A, we can do nothing.

B, we can make a change in the charter, and C, we can make a recommendation.

So in the final report, we will have sections of recommendations, and those are just things that we can say, you know, after studying, this is what we recommend, but we're not actually putting in the charter.

Is that clear?

So um, as you're saying, it's like I think this should be a recommendation, I think this should be in the charter.

Um and three things came up at our at our prior meetings.

One is um should there be professional requirements like a master's degree?

Um the second is should there be an annual contract?

And this is where I think particularly in um amongst all the information we were provided, Dan's information was very interesting about whether we should have an indefinite at-will contract or a fixed term of one to three years, or two to three years, should it be an annual contract, which may um be uh a little confining given that people have to move here, or should there be a longer fixed term?

Um then the third thing is um, should we put an annual 360 review as a recommendation or into the charter?

So all three of those things are up for discussion.

And who would like to begin?

And this, of course, is directing Becky and Barb, I'm talking the first person, um, to write up amendment number two for section 3.01.

Who would like to start?

Well, I just want to start.

I want to suggest um that it would be nice if Greg could come up and define the significance of indefinite term meaning an at-will contract, because I think that's significant in terms of how you can terminate um a city manager that you don't like.

And um I hope I'm not putting you on the spot, but uh You are.

I used to practice um labor law, and um an at-will contract meant something different to me than an indefinite term.

And but I was not Montana law, so um this would be helpful to me because the question in my mind has to do with can you terminate the contract of a city manager who's hired for an indefinite term without having good cause.

And that doesn't mean for no reason at all, but um does it have to rise to good cause as opposed to you not doing a good job, good enough job, something like that.

Greg.

Thank you.

So Greg Sullivan, city attorney.

Um in my tenure here, I've worked with one two, three, four, five different city managers have been involved in the recruitment process for all of them.

Um actually for just four, sorry, and the contracting process for four of them.

Um we have relied upon the indefinite term in relation to the process for removal.

So my first suggestion is do not think about the term without also considering the provisions, and I can't remember which section of the charter is it's in that city manager without also considering the process for removal.

So those two.

I my recommendation would be that you think about those two together.

Um I see the benefit of indefinite term and term in relation to uh city managers are a rare breed.

And if you're looking for someone with prior city management experience, that most likely means they're moving from somewhere else.

Uh the current city managers that we have right now, city was incredibly fortunate to have somebody that had city management experience in-house under the current structure.

We do have two assistant city managers, and so when Chuck retires, you may be fortunate enough to see one of them throw their name in the hat also.

Um directly to Carson's question about indefinite term.

I would suggest you just think of this as a contract employee, not subject then to the standards in the Montana Code about firing for at will.

You have to, if you're going to remove, you remove pursuant to the terms of the contract.

Then, because the con the charter has certain standards for how you remove and the conditions of removal, the contract that is ultimately entered into between the city and the city manager needs to follow the terms of the removal provision.

So again, if you're going to think about term, whether indefinite, a fixed yearly term with renewal opportunity, think about it in terms of removal.

Also Carson, is that what is that helpful?

Yes.

Yes.

I guess my only in the removal section of the charter.

Do you have to have good cause or just a reason?

Because I'm reading I'm reading it as a reason.

And that's where my worry is.

So Mike, can you real quickly or somebody find the current city manager contract?

Because I I think it's important for you guys to see the big the whole picture here about how our entire process that we use for removal and for performance evaluation for appointment, how all of that flows, and it just isn't the charter.

It just isn't what?

It's just it is things other than the charter.

Right.

Right?

So it's that contract.

Yeah.

So to ask to answer your question directly, that contract has more in it about performance, about the factors, the the way severance works, um, how they can be removed than just what's in the charter.

Yeah.

And the reason that we do that is there's not a lot there.

And I think that's okay.

And the reason, so the commission gets to establish standards and should for their employee on how they want to remove that employee.

That is a negotiation.

Every single time they've, in my experience, they've hired a new city manager.

So we can get you, and I think you may already have Chuck's contract.

And if you want, I can walk you through how we structure that.

Can you um go ahead, Dan?

Greg, is there any problem with with the the uh the the method that we have right now?

I mean, um it seems to me that it worked, and that the nature of these things is probably better addressed through the contract, which can be changed periodically and adjusted to new laws and what have you, then putting something in concrete in here.

My question is do we need to just move on?

So well, uh that's up to you guys.

I'm not gonna answer that.

Um, but I will, if I can comment on what you said.

So I I do think in drafting that removal provision, and I don't know if that was based on the National Civic League's model charter.

It okay.

Um, you have to realize that these positions need to at will at times be subject to political influence.

And the idea is that that's removal should be performance-based and not necessarily politically based.

So what you see in the charter is a kind of a due process requirement.

So first the commission requests may request the city manager to resign, and they have done that.

The last process that we went through prior to Chuck's appointment, the commission requested the city manager resign.

It took a little while as we negotiated the severance package, but eventually the city manager did agree to resign.

And what that meant then was the commission didn't have to suspend.

It was I can't remember exactly how we did that, but they were put on it was put on administrative leave.

And then you had we didn't have to go through this whole process, which uh resolution is served upon them, 15 days to reply, a public hearing, all of that.

I've never gone through that process of a public hearing because of the effectiveness of how the city commission comes together collectively, and the terms of that contract.

So I will be totally uh transparent here.

When that happened the last time, the things that came up in that the commission was not satisfied with and the public was not satisfied with, we learned about those and we added standards into the contract.

So again, if you review Chuck's current contract, you can see how those things are implemented, those issues giving the commission greater level of authority under the charter to address performance issues.

Deanna, I don't know if I So kind of sort of just one uh follow-up question.

I know that uh a lot of um attention was paid to that last contract and the um severance pay and what came forward in terms of how much this guy actually was making.

Yeah.

Is there uh any way that we could put in the charter some limitations or some uh requirement for full disclosure of what's in that contract?

Uh well the the contract is certainly a public document, it was approved by the city commission at a public meeting.

And if I remember I don't know if there was really any comment when the commission approved Chuck's contract.

I can't remember that.

Um most likely there wasn't much because it was Chuck, right?

And people knew him.

And it's a public document is what you're saying.

But it's a public document, it's a public process.

The negotiation of the terms was certainly you know not public, but once but once it needs to be uh decision needs to be made by the commission, then it's out there in the public.

And I do believe that you can see that through the HR page on the city's website under employment agreements, there's all the union the labor union agreements, and then the city manager's contract is also sitting there.

Thank you, Far.

Can I just one last thing on severance?

So the severance package that the city has been using, right?

And I think is very consistent throughout all of the different city managers that I've worked with.

And so, as I said before, the city managers are a rare breed.

There aren't like attorneys that can go find go hang a shingle, or another government.

There's only what, four or five in the valley.

Bozeman is gonna expect very experienced city managers.

And so term, the nature of severance, those kinds of employment conditions are incredibly important to be able to recruit the best.

And if you do something with severance, you do something with term that all of a sudden makes it unattractive for very experienced and talented people to come to the city.

Um you might not get the result that you're looking for.

Thank you.

Bobby So I appreciate Deanna's question to Greg because I'm sort of in the same place of it.

Feels like the process worked in the last instance.

And as I went through Article 3 of our charter, which is the article that deals with the city manager and thought about what people have been raising in their public comment about this position.

One of the concerns that has come up a couple of times and questions that has come up a couple of times is is there too much power in the city manager job for an unelected employee?

And so I then sat down and looked at section 3.04, which lays out the powers and duties of the city manager, um, which is drawn from that national civic model charter.

And so I wonder if that's a place we should focus a little bit of attention tonight with the same lens that Deanna brought of if it's working, then maybe we don't need to change it at all.

But are there things in there that maybe some of those broad duties we want to balance it out a little bit more with the mayor and the commission?

So that that was my question in looking at that because I feel like the first couple of sections of this article are good.

And have been working.

And I actually personally probably even think section 3.04 is totally fine as is as well, but it felt like that was worth asking the question because that's what we've heard pretty consistent, you know, by some folks raising that question.

Yeah, I will say the more I've learned through this process, I was uncomfortable with indefinite.

I mean, who's got that in their job description?

You have an indefinite position.

Um I know it's in the MCA, and I it seems like it's working as it is, and so at this point for me, um, the entire section three, um I am comfortable with just leaving as is.

I mean, Article III, excuse me, all about the city manager leaving as is, um, because that was the only thing that I was really uncomfortable with.

And it sounds like the um, you know, I I agree.

I mean, I I fess up, I'm the one who brought up the whole should we have a master's degree annual contract or annual 360 review?

Sounds like things are working as is, and so I will withdraw that recommendation from myself, anyways.

Uh yeah, Jan, please.

I'm not sure if we're at this point, but I was um wanting to ask Greg, unless someone else here knows, what allowed the city commission to have a stronger ability after the last previous city manager to be able to provide stronger oversight or stronger um role in in this case removal, and that's related to my part two, which is to really talk about what that current process is and should be and whether it should be in the charter or not.

So um Mike did his magic, I think, and found the contract.

Um May 13th of 2005, um there's the contract.

It's not only you can find it through City's website, you can also find it in the agenda.

So if you keep scrolling down, um duties and authority refers to the charter, full-time best efforts, the term, you can see in the term, um it's pursuant to the charter, and then termination.

Um reflective of provisions in the charter.

Um then there's a provision.

If you guys change the charter and change the structure, then the employee can then keep going down.

It's been a while since I looked at this.

Um grounds for termination, there it is.

Um they don't do a good job, they're not a resident.

And when Chuck was hired, it used to be you had to be a resident of the city.

Like there's nothing in the charter I would suggest you not do a residency requirement in the charter because Chuck doesn't live in the city.

And he said, I'm not moving.

And the commission said, okay.

Um felony conviction, uh misdemeanor, then certain types of misdemeanors you can keep going down.

Um a violation of the ethics code.

And what I also want you to do then is see look at section 4.4.

So if they're terminated for one of the reasons in the termination section, which is comprehensive, this is what they get.

And that's standard and has been that severance package has been standard.

We have been very careful with an added section D.

And Jan, this goes directly to your question.

If they're removed for any one of 4.3a for A through I or pursuant the 4D and 42D, and I can't remember the they're not entitled to severance.

Those are the things that if the commission runs through that entire removal process in the charter, the due process, the hearing, the whole thing, and they have to get to a point where they order removal.

If it's for one of those reasons, then they don't owe severance.

Now with the past city manager, and I think you could ask the commissioners who were um who were elected in an office during the time.

And the ultimate decision was move on and start healing the issues that had arisen as a result of that.

Everything that happened.

So all that being said, we structured this contract to recognize there's going to be times where the city manager doesn't get severance.

Could you scroll back to 42D?

Whatever that if I could continue, go ahead, just part two.

Thank you.

Um and thank you, Greg.

Um the other part, and I don't know if we're ready uh to move into the oversight specifically, but I would very much like to look at um having the 360 um multiple evaluation on an annual basis, and I think that ought to be in the charter.

I think we need to really have a strong way that the community sees and the future commissions know that we want to have this on an annual basis.

And um, Becky, I know you know the 360 model better than I do if you want to speak to that, not that you have to support what I'm suggesting.

Um Mike, could you go scroll back to where the part of annual review was?

I think it's it's in this contract too.

Yeah, let's get that clarity and then I'll talk about what that what that's talking about.

Why don't you keep looking for that?

Oh 360 review, just for everyone's information is where um a review is not done not just by one person to other person, but there's a survey of the people that that person's um supervises, but also the people above them.

So the 360 would be uh the people underneath the city manager and then the entire commission above the city manager um and being able to do that in an anonymous way so that uh it can be bring input to the city manager.

Mike, what have you found?

Yeah, so here's here's the performance review section.

Um it's pretty pretty straightforward that they are just required to do one annually.

Um so I can anecdotally tell you that they send out a survey to staff asking what your opinion is in an anonymous survey methodology, uh, and then the commission has that review.

And we typically schedule it as an executive session.

They go in, they spend about an hour just discussing the written portion.

Um I've I've seen though that those can be lengthy assessments, um, and then the the reviews based generally on our um four core um principles that we have, our core values that are back there, uh as well as the uh implementation of the city commission's priorities.

And strategic plan.

So that though those are um generally the process of the review.

I I personally think that um the performance review makes more sense to me in contract language than it does in the charter requirement.

Um but that's just me personally.

And Greg, it looks like you've got something to add.

You're sitting on the edge of your seat, so much anticipation.

Again, like and I what Mike said, right?

And I appreciate that.

I I just think as you're considering how the charter influences practice, the more you understand about the practice, the better you can understand how the city currently implements the charter.

So I don't think it's a 360 review, like the way if you go to 360 review.org or whatever it does.

But the city commission certainly gains input as Mike had said from at least the director team, I would assume direct reports also.

I don't know how that works because that's not part of what I do.

So there is an evaluation that's not just from the commissioners, but the commissioners gain input from the staff.

And then as part of what the commission does, they're constantly gaining input about everybody on staff from the public.

So I would agree with Mike is that set the structure that they should be doing something, and then let the contract plug in the details.

Thank you so much.

I'm starting to hear a little bit about how maybe this section is written just as it needs to be.

Or want to add something more to it.

Well, I just I will note, and it and I like I'm grateful that it's practice, and and I don't think we should prescribe a 360 in the charter.

However, Section 3.01 does not say anything about an annual performance review.

Um it just says that the city manager shall be appointed solely on the basis of education and experience and need not be a resident of the city or state at the time of appointment, but may reside outside the city while in office only with approval of the commission, and then it doesn't say anything from that.

And so you know, do we want to add a sentence to the charter that to section 3.01 that says the commission shall review the performance of the city manager annually and just leave it at that.

I'd be all for that.

Jay, it sounds like you're saying that too.

I absolutely, and we can tease out whether it's 360 or 180 or whatever it should be.

But I just feel that um the role as we understand it and the desire for this level of executive um leadership, uh there could be some other things that could be added if they don't have to be described in the charter, but certainly the fact that it should exist on an annual basis, and I think be more, but I don't know what more should be, but it should be more than the traditional um internal review with a pro with of course the um personnel being confidential in a confidential setting.

I understand that too.

But I do think we could do a little more on this and would like to recommend that.

And I think you know, all along as we think about this, and that Carson, I see you it's whatever's in the charter um is in the charter, and you you get someone in who is part of the commission, they're like, yeah, we don't need to do that.

It takes away that opportunity, right?

It makes it permanent.

Um is permanent as 10 years ago until maybe 10 years they want to take it out.

But um it's so that's kind of I think what we're weighing at.

Carson.

Yeah, uh I'm I'm in favor of a sentence that says an annual review.

I do think in our recommendations, we should also add, and I'm not sure how to do this, but that it there ought to be periodic 360 degree um evaluations as part of the annual.

It doesn't have to be every year in my mind, but certainly in the first year and maybe in the third year, something like that, so that it's frequent enough, but it but it'd be a recommendation rather than making it part of the charter because times change and um all of that.

So I I definitely f favor that.

On the other points that I made, uh I'm satisfied that what we have in the charter coupled with um understanding that the the market and everything changes and the commission has to figure it out.

Uh I do know the we talked about being a resident of the city.

The charter does say they can be live outside of the city with permission.

So um we don't have to worry about that.

Deanna, what are you thinking?

Leave it as is, add that one sentence, or is there something else you're thinking about?

I I think that would be good.

Will you turn on your mic, please?

Uh I think it would be good to add um an annual review, but I do not think it would be good to uh specify it as a 360 because that's sort of a trendy thing, and um it can go out of favor or out of uh something better can come along.

Okay.

Um so I would just say annual review.

And I appreciate you thinking about longevity, because that is one thing this document recommendations can be more specific.

Uh the charter needs to be have longevity.

So we always have to be careful those special words that we might want to use today, but might be called something different later.

All right.

I sorry, one more clear.

Sorry, Jan, go ahead.

Excuse me.

So we heard from Greg that this should be a contract, contracted position.

Does that need to be in the charter as well?

Or just wanted to make sure we were being clear.

That can be open.

To me, that feels like a given.

That you know, um, of course, this person would have a contract.

Because they're uh the level of employment that they have.

I I don't know that, but that's just me.

I'm just trying to clarify.

So if it's appears to be clear to everyone, then I'll drop it.

Great.

Um the second part, and then I uh I do want to ask for um public comment.

The second part is so Barb and I will work on that language and bring it back to you in amendment number two.

Second part is we talked about a recommendation opportunity where there are um commissioner norms written.

So right now in the charter, it talks, I'm I'm not gonna be able to pull it right out of my head right now, uh about how the commissioners speak with staff.

Um, and that there might be a recommendation opportunity for commissioner that we ask them to write commissioner norms on how they speak with staff in partnership with the city manager.

Um the way that it's written in the charter is very clear and resembles the MCA, if I'm remembering correctly.

Um, but do we want to ask or suggest that the commissioner write some norms around how they speak with are able to speak with staff?

I might be butchering that.

If anyone wants to add more clarity, please step in.

Are you looking at Will you turn on your mic, please?

Are you looking at a specific uh section?

Yes, Mike, can you help me find it?

I think I think what I think what Becky's referring to is actually in Article 2 around the City Commission.

Um how they are Section 2.05 item C.

You're a champion, thank you.

That's interference with I've gotten a hold of the structure.

Actually, rewriting the like the editor is helping.

Um, where it talks about interference with administration, and it says except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations, the commission or its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager.

And we've learned over the last year-ish that that has been interpreted differently and more or less tightly by different city managers.

Um and so the question is do we want to make a recommendation that that there should be a little bit more um clarity in that language, or or just I mean, I don't I don't think what I don't hear you saying is we need to amend the charter around this.

I hear you saying, do we need to recommend that there be some more um norms written, yeah.

Is what I think the language right, Mike, that there's the commissioner and write their norms and that we ask them to review that um to clarify how the administration speaks, can speak with the commissioners or commissioners can speak with that department heads of things.

Uh Carson.

I I would add to the recommendation is that in the hiring process, a discussion we had with the potential city managers as to what that person thinks the norms should be.

So that um you start off with an understanding of what they're gonna be, and you're hiring somebody because you view the city commission think that they have a uh a good attitude towards them.

I I don't have a problem with leaving this the way it is, although you you might want to add something that's said, or as um agreed upon between the city commission and the city manager.

Um the the definite and clear things that are in here that I think are important are the commission or its members shall not give orders to anybody in uh either publicly or privately.

Um and I I think inquiries and investigations are actually broad enough to cover your reading some materials.

Um ex-employee has a sentence in there you don't understand it, you you can call them directly and say, What do you mean by this?

That in my mind is an inquiry.

I'm not sure the current norms would permit that, but um I'm not I don't want to dictate in the charter what the commission and their relation the relationship with the city manager should be.

Um, but I think we should make that recommendation that that get worked out in advance because I do know historically there are city managers come on and they're like, no, you can't talk to anybody except through me.

And that's a problem.

Um and that is a bit of problem when it's happened.

And I I'll just tell you anecdotally when Kokulski was the city manager, he and I did an experiment.

I got a complaint from a um a question, really, from a constituent, and I said, All right, I could call up the person and ask them, or let's try it the the normal the way where I can't talk to them.

So Kokolski called the person up, got an answer, came back and said, No, that's not exactly what the constituent meant.

It took us about five calls back and forth.

Whereas I could have done it, and that was our little experiment.

Um Mr.

Kokolski was actually quite um what's the right word?

Liberal with with his view of what we could say ask people of.

So that's what I see as a recommendation that that get this get worked out at the hiring time.

Whether it's part of a contract or not, that's between the parties.

Before we go on, um, Mike, Commissioner Norms, can you help us understand what those are?

And how you know what what we have in place so far?

As we you know, we we don't need to recommend what already exists.

Yeah, so the city commission in 2019 adopted resolution 5124 and have been operating under those norms of behavior since then.

Um so this was an attempt uh to exactly what you're discussing is amongst themselves determining what that boundary was going to look like.

Um it made it a little bit more operational than the charter, which you know has except for purposes of inquiry um or investigations.

So they uh this is you know, this um clarifying the interference with administration.

Um they tried to uh refer to what inquiries, what their interpretation of inquiries means.

Um this was adopted right before I started as the city clerk.

So this is the framework that I've operated under.

Um now Chuck counting interim city managers, Chuck's the third city manager that I've been the clerk under.

And to some extent or another for me personally, what that has meant practically is if a commissioner reaches out to me for scheduling, I get these all the time, like, hey, I'm gonna be absent this day, hey, I need a remote presentation.

They haven't wanted to be a barrier between that communication and all I've been requested is CC me when you respond back so that they're in the loop.

So practically that's how I've operated in this office is just making sure that you know, if if Mayor Morrison was asking me for something, I would just reply back to with city manager uh Chuck Wynn C seed on it.

I would get um from time to time I would get a phone call from the mayor and be like, hey, I'm I'm running to this meeting and I forgot to bring this.

Can you can you send me this document or whatever?

And sure, I'll have it to you in a couple minutes.

And it was just go ahead.

And the interpretation on giving an order, except through the city commission, how I've had it explained to me is for these routine types of things, if if you can do it, if you can accommodate it, and it's not a big lift, like somebody's asking for something out of laser fees or like, hey, when is this scheduled?

Just do it.

And that's been the direction from the city manager.

The city manager to me is just facilitate this.

Don't make them ask me to ask you to then you tell me to then tell them.

And for me, that works fine.

So in your mind, does this norm satisfy what we're discussing, or does this norm not satisfy what we're discussing?

And you would recommend that we ask for a recommendation that we make a recommendation to make it better.

I think I think the norms as constructed satisfies that.

And when was it written for 2019?

2019.

Okay.

So it sounds like we've got norms that are written regarding city commission interaction with staff in 2019.

We've got some concerns about whether or not we make a recommendation.

So what is the wishes of the commission, the study commission at this point?

Could you scroll up a little bit further?

Maybe it's a little further, maybe it's not here.

There, it's not the dealing with city.

Greg, would you like to add some clarity for us, please?

I just want to suggest that Mike scroll down because we put a lot in this resolution about expectations, sort of the foundational principles of how the city as a government entity works.

And then when you get further down, then we get really specific.

And so I would suggest that.

Are you talking about expectations?

No, keep going, keep going down.

And so what you're gonna see even further, right?

Then you get then there you go.

And if you scroll all the way down, I mean there's over a dozen of those things.

I have uh the way that this is a 10-page document.

Okay.

Yep.

And so we try to get really specific.

And if you remember back in 2019, what was going on?

It was before the city manager who Chuck replaced was recruited.

We had a city manager who had been recruited and came here, and there was interactions between that city manager and an elected official that resulted in a resignation of the elected official.

On the heels of that was a commission desire to make sure that behavior by the commissioners in response to the staff was firmly established and had expectations.

So recognizes the power imbalance between an elected official and a member of staff, um, recognizes the city manager's role as the one employee of the commission.

And so I would encourage you guys to read all of those and just recognize that those are those are in place, and as part of the orientation that is done with every newly elected official when we go over those.

Thank you so much.

Very helpful.

Um I am feeling pretty satisfied that that we got this covered in my mind.

What is the Deanna?

What do you think?

I'm just gonna go one by one here.

What are you thinking?

No, I'm thinking it's well covered in and um, you know, having worked with uh boards and and such, it is uh important that uh the city manager uh not be interfered with uh and that there be a process whereby commissioners can also um get the information that they need to to do their job, but not interfere.

So I I think it's pretty well covered here.

I'm wondering if Mike could send us this uh um uh this resolution.

Yeah.

Yeah, we provide it to you again.

Okay, that sounds great.

Thank you, Mike.

Deanna, what are your thoughts?

I mean, Barb, I looked right at you and I said I I did not say Barb.

Um I I I agree with Deanna having been a staff person working for a board that sometimes hasn't um behaved according to those norms and has reached down to direct staff, it's it's not fun.

Reached down to direct staff.

It's it's not fun.

So I I think Jan.

I agree, and also um Greg addressed one of my questions in terms of how it's really a lot of times an overenthusiastic elected person that can make this very difficult for the person that's ultimately responsible for all of the staffing and implementation of the uh city commission's priorities.

So thank you.

I'm on board.

Thank you.

Mike I said, I I've only operated uh in a position where these norms have been in place prior to that.

The position I was in in the city never interacted with the elected officials.

So for what I've seen with three different people in the city manager's office operating under this form, I haven't had any problem.

Okay, thank you.

Carson.

So uh I stand by my idea that there should be a recommendation of a discussion.

And let me play this out a little more.

And I I don't know what are at the bottom of the norms.

But when I was the liaison to the City Rec and Parks Board, I met with the director of recreation and parks before every meeting, and we talked about it.

City manager wasn't involved, but my idea was I wanted to be on the same page as the wreck and parks person, and I didn't want to be surprised by anything, which sometimes happened.

I I don't know that that's allowed under these norms or not.

Um but but I I thought I felt that was very valuable to be able to do that, which is why I think discussing with each new potential city manager should be looking at these norms or other norms and making sure everybody's on the same page as to what they mean and what they don't mean.

And Carson, is that before 2019 or after 2019?

Before.

Okay, so before these this resolution was developed.

Yeah, and just to um kind of add some color context, we also adopted the higher performing boards resolution, which has a norms of behavior related to board specific, and the communication from the commission to the staff liaison and the board chairs outlined in that resolution.

So that one is modeled on this 2019 one, um, and it carries these same principles to board members, not directing staff outside of talking to their staff liaisons.

So functionally, we took that same model where the city manager is the intermediate between everybody else and the and the elected officials with the board, the staff liaison and the commission liaison pointly are that intermediate between the the board and staff.

So it's outlined in a separate resolution.

Um yeah, that that was an issue that we attempted to address as part of the consolidation process.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'd like to um take a moment, please, before we um sounds like we're getting ready to move on, but I want to pause for public comment related to whether the city manager should have professional requirements, annual contract 360 review, uh put in the charter related to a recommendation of whether these norms should a recommendation should be sent that these norms should be reviewed again and uh regarding how staff partner with the uh I mean commissioners partner with staff and this and the city manager.

Is there anybody in the room who would like to provide public comment on this section of our agenda?

If so, please step forward, state your name and your location, and you have three minutes, and thank you so much.

So I'm my name is Hillary and I'm from Bozeman.

That's your last name.

Brown.

Thank you.

Um, I've been coming to city commission meetings for a very long time.

And uh because a city, the commission is self-governing.

And we were talking about um the contracts and the payouts for severance.

It seems like the charter is like an SOP, and then their contractors of work instruction, and that's my job is FDA regulation.

So we're always regulated.

But we paid out taxpayers paid out half a million dollars to two city managers within four years.

I think that's correct.

And that's a lot of money.

And this people came in here, the citizens of Bozeman came in here.

And I don't think that there was maybe five out of the whole room that agreed with a contract paying them severance.

And the city commission did it anyways.

So I think that maybe I don't know if there's any way to put more control in the charter to control that, because you know, who has a half a million dollars to pay out to people who are non-functioning and failed.

I I think that you need to think more about what you can do in the charter to protect the citizens and not just the um the people that we hire.

Because we're paying the taxes.

Um I think that uh the contract really does speak higher than the charter in this in this instance for whoever uh hired as this as the com uh the city manager.

And that was a terrible thing to go through.

And the city commission still decided on what they were going to do, regardless of a hundred people that stood up here and said no, let's fight this.

They paid them out.

So I think that there needs to be some more conversation about this.

Can I ask a question?

What's SOP?

Uh an SOP is a uh stand-in operating procedure, and then a work instruction is like you know, tells you details.

Thank you.

No, I I just missed it.

And SOP is 40,000 view and yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public comment on these two agenda items.

Commissioners, Gennarino, Bozeman resident.

Can you pardon me?

I said Jen Areno Bozeman resident.

Thank you.

So I agree with Hillary.

Um of the things that was blatantly clear between going through Chris Kalowski and through Mahalik was that the severances didn't seem to be fair to the city or the taxpayers.

Um requested of this city that there be an ethics complaint.

And yet the city chose to move on.

We paid for that.

And I think that what Mahalek particularly did, well, both of them really was such a clear ethics violation.

And I think it betrayed the victims of those crimes, and they were crimes.

And according to Montana state law, Montana code annotated, what they did was illegal.

And when we put our stamp of approval on that by saying, okay, well, we're just going to move on.

I think that doesn't serve the people in this community.

While Greg has the ability to write a contract, um, I think it could be stiffer.

And perhaps the norms might have worked in the day and age prior to COVID and shortly thereafter.

I'm not so sure that's going to work now.

We have such a different divisive uh influx of people into this community that don't know all the stuff that you've put up.

And and as you well know, we don't see them down here at the meetings.

So they just come in with a perceived notion of how it should be and how it should have been.

But I don't know that our current norms are exactly working the way we want them to, because they cost us a lot of money.

And Mike, maybe you know that figure.

I think uh Mahalek's payout was 270.

And Chris Kaloski's I'm sure I'm saying that wrong was a little more than that.

Um I'm sitting there looking at that, going could have fixed a crosswalk on Oak Street with that.

So perhaps that's something worth considering is tightening up that language, whether that falls to Greg or whether that falls inside of the charter, that you risk losing your severance, and I think that could and should be tightened up so that there isn't those loopholes for them to commit crimes and then walk out of here with a quarter of a million dollars in their pocket that just smacked everybody as wrong in this community.

Um maybe some of the policies for legally looking at that.

Um maybe the study commission could look at that with Greg and see if there's a way to tighten that up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public comment on these two agenda items in the room.

Is there any public comment on these two agenda items online, Caleb?

Uh there is none.

Thank you so much.

So we'll close the public comment portion.

Any further recommendations for the city manager article three.

Can you remain up again?

No, sorry.

Go ahead.

Could you summarize where we all at this point?

What we've got is that under 3.01, we're gonna add the city manager shall be provided with an annual comprehensive performance review.

That's it.

And that we have discussed professional requirements and annual contract, and there will be no changes, and that we are satisfied with that that there will be no recommendation on commissioner norms.

That's where we're at right now.

I had a friendly amendment based on Carson's uh wanting to include a discussion in the uh hiring process of the city manager around norms.

I'm wondering if we ought to have that as something that goes into the contract in whatever comes out of that conversation as part of the recommendation.

As part of a recommendation, not a change in the charter.

Exactly.

I agree with that.

But could you repeat it?

Would you repeat that, please?

Yeah.

Um, in other words, when we were looking at how each manager uh might have its own their own leadership style and in the way they want to incorporate the norms in their in their management style will say.

Uh Carson suggested that we use the hiring process to ask the question what what in what ways do you want to utilize these norms as part of your management direction?

Do I understand that correctly?

Yes.

Thank you.

And so therefore, I'm suggesting as that discussion takes place, whatever the outcome of that discussion is, and this person does become hired, then let's put that in the contract.

So we're all on the same page regarding what those norms should look like.

I think the public comments were very helpful.

And I'm I'm not, I'm I'm inclined not to add everything to the charter as you're as you're helping me remember, but it should be in writing somewhere, and we've all agreed, I believe, that the contract is the best place to have anything that we want to tighten up being there.

Mike, what's the number of that resolution, please?

5124.

5124.

Well, and we need to add the uh the board amendment to the norms.

That's a 5323.

Right.

5323.

5323?

Correct.

Okay.

So right now we've got that second edition, if that's what we want to maintain.

I'm gonna walk down all five of us and just see if that's where we are, if there's anything else, and then um after that we're gonna move on.

Carson, right now, so for clarity, in 3.01, we've added the city manager shall be provided an annual comprehensive performance review and um for our recommendation for sec for article three.

We have the contract of the city manager includes a review in the contract of the city manager, includes a review of resolution number 5124 and 5323.

Where are you article for?

We're looking at article number three, the city manager.

Yeah, you just said article four.

Oh, I'm sorry, article three.

Oh, okay.

So yeah, thank you so much, Deanna.

Carson.

You lost me there.

We're gonna add a sentence that says annual review.

Yeah, under 3.01.

And nothing else?

There's gonna be a recommendation outside of the charter, just a recommendation that the the um contract of the city manager includes a review of the resolution 5124 and 5323, which is what you and Jay would just discuss it.

The numbers lost me.

Sorry.

I'm fine with that.

Okay.

Um Deanna.

If we put that in the in the uh charter and those resolutions change, that will be a recommendation in the report, not a change in the charter.

Does that help?

Yep.

Okay.

But uh well, I have another clarifying point too, because also if we put them in the contract and the resolutions change, that that's a little odd too.

So what I heard Carson asking for was that we recommend any hiring process for a city manager, included discussion between the commission and the candidate about implementing those two resolutions and what that would look like for the candidate.

Because I'm not sure we want to I I mean, I don't know again, I'm sort of looking at Greg, but like it feels a little funky to me to write res to write resolutions into a contract when those resolutions might change over the term of the contract.

So how about how about at this point we're words nothing?

And we don't want to word spent with a group of all these people.

So I feel like Barb, do you feel like you have the concept of what we need here?

And that we can then you and I can because of course this amendment number two will come back to all of us at a at a future meeting, and that we work on this the wordsmithing and then we come back.

And is that reasonable and agreeable for everybody?

Yes.

What are you referring to?

Amendment number two.

Number three or number three.

The the first page that we uh approved tonight.

Earlier, the document that we approved.

I'm calling amendment number one, this whole document that we're working on right now, this list of changes that we're making, Barb and I will be putting together as another document that we'll bring forward.

Yeah, look at look at what this is.

That's what we we approved a bunch of changes earlier tonight.

That would be the first set of amendments.

This would be the second set of amendments.

And so how about we work on that and just bring it back to you so that you can see the language that we come up with?

It's good.

Is that good?

Okay.

Let's move on then.

Um Carson, you're gonna take this, the status of the mayor for section 2.03.

Okay.

So again, um we're building on the mayor, but now it's kind of the mayor in the position of mayor when we have a uh commission manager system.

So the primary executive, the primary person that's executing the policy of the commission is the city manager, not the mayor.

And the the questions that we came up with over time is is the position of mayor a full-time position, and should we say that it is?

And if that's the case, should we by way of recommendation or again in the um charter create a um rubric, a standard by which the mayor is paid.

There is a um uh there is a provision in the charter that basically leaves payment up to the city commission, um, but basically says the city commission um can give raises to the commissioners and the mayor, but they won't take effect till after the next election.

That's the current status of it.

Um so uh um uh um the I'm gonna introduce it um uh again.

I like us to think about what's the problem and um how are we um how is what we might propose gonna solve it.

So um I open it up to any of you.

Barbara So we've decided that the mayor will remain the leader of the legislative branch in effect, right?

Because they will remain a member of the commission.

And right now the charter is silent on whether that is a full-time or a part-time position.

And I I personally think that that's the way it should stay.

Um after thinking about this a lot.

Um I'm I'm a believer in citizen legislators when we can do that.

Um I also feel like the needs and demands of our mayor um will change and evolve over time, and there may well come a point where um the legislative head should be full-time.

I'm not totally convinced we're there yet.

Um so I feel like I'd rather leave it ambiguous.

Um, and I think the the process laid out in the charter for deciding on um the compensation for commission and mayor seems like it is working.

Um, there are there are increases.

The mayor gets paid somewhat more because it's recognized that the um job entails more than a commissioner, an individual commissioner.

Um so that's kind of that's kind of my thinking at the moment.

Um and I just I also don't think that we should be that prescriptive in the charter about salary and full-time or part-time.

Um I could see us making a recommendation that they consider that the commission consider making it a three-quarter time job of mayor and and paying accordingly, um, especially given the increasing amount of intergovernmental relationship responsibilities and partnership responsibilities.

Um those are those are my initial thoughts.

Um I'm looking forward to where everybody hearing what everybody else is thinking.

Others, Deanna.

I think that we've heard plenty of public comment uh on this uh subject, and that um uh most people are uh thinking that uh uh they should not be full-time positions, and I think that there is uh something to be said about the fact that with the uh legislative changes in regard to how much input the city commission will have on building projects and such, that the work of the commission is greatly reduced, and um part-time should be sufficient, and um uh I don't know that uh leaving it totally ambiguous in the charter is what we want to do.

Um because I I think that we want to make the point that uh we want people to be working in the community, and is it enough just to keep the stipends low so that most people will have to have other jobs?

Um I think that's a point of discussion, but I'm in favor of uh um keeping it citizen legislators.

Becky, I think that the way that it's broken out in the agenda is important.

Is the position of the mayor a full-time position is number one, and number two is a discussion if they're paid a full-time salary, which kind of leads to what you're saying, Deanna.

And one of the things that's hard for me, and whether we put in the charter or not, is that it seems pretty clear it is.

You know, Mayor Cunningham made it very clear he spends you know more than 40 hours a week being the mayor, taking the calls and doing the thing, and you know, going to meetings and all the things.

Um Carson, I've heard you say that you know, back when you were mayor, which was what year?

Uh it ended in January 2018.

2018, that it was it it took more than 40 hours.

Whether you call that full-time, we're not talking about a full-time position, we're not talking about a full-time job.

We're just talking it takes more than 40 hours.

It's not a 10-hour a week situation, right?

And so that's the only thing that kind of stumbles me a little bit.

Like it is.

Now, we could ask the mayor to, you know, really limit when the mayor shows up for stuff.

I want them, I want the mayor to come represent.

No, I want the mayor to do this.

No, we could do that as a city, and do we want to do that?

I don't know.

Just it feels like we've heard it's full time, and maybe there's stuff I don't know, or maybe there's things that we want to change in the, you know, it says the um things that they're supposed to do.

Maybe you just want to cut that in half, have not do all those things.

Um I don't know.

So that that's just what I'm curious about is that everyone says that they spend a ton of time at it.

So I don't know.

Okay.

I'm so glad we're talking about this.

Um I also feel um that the mayor should be um fully able to accomplish the agenda that they and the city commission determine is best for the city.

And we've seen with growing complexity, growing the literal geography of the city, the kinds of multi-c uh multi-agency and multi uh government relations, they're all growing because it's a more complicated time.

There's so many more people in our valley.

Um conditions are very challenging right now on many levels.

I want somebody who is passionate and dedicated and smart and committed to be elected under whatever term we would call, not full-time, but but certainly I'm expecting a robust leader in that position.

I also believe people need to be paid their fair share.

And it is not for me to have career politicians as some people equate this with, but it is to deepen the pool of talented people we have in our community that require a fair wage.

And we're not on the wage, but I think it is part of being able to pay people at whatever we're calling, not full-time, but 40 hours a week, let's say, 40 to 60 is the reality.

So I think these things, as Greg pointed out earlier, we want the best in a city manager.

I also want the best in our legislative body, and that is led by a mayor.

So I'd like us to pursue that direction.

I don't think we can cover the pay decision tonight, but I think one or two of us might be willing to take that on and see what would make sense to equate what we decide tonight.

But that's where I'd like to go because I do think representation is more than geography.

And if we do want someone to live in the city, which I believe I read that somewhere, that they'd have to make an exception to live outside of the city.

Pardon?

For the manager.

Oh, far, sorry, for the manager, not for the mayor, excuse me.

But we are electing people that have to live in the city in the city commission, including the mayor.

And it's not an inexpensive place to live.

So I would add all of those things up and support this.

I also wondered, we don't have qualifications for this job, but we are really putting a lot of stock in the job description.

And so I think somewhere that needs to be tied in this section as well, whether it's in the charter or it's part of carrying that recommendation, which is something we passed earlier, right?

But the mayor's just elected.

So but there, I thought there was a 18.

Forgive me, but I thought there was something which required the city commission to come up, yes, with a job description.

For the mayor?

For the commissioners.

For the commission.

So section 2.5.

That recommendation, we've already approved that.

Exactly.

So I want to tie that into what we're doing, of course, with the mayor, who is also a city commissioner, but on superpower.

So thank you.

So do you want to weigh in Mike or do you want me to hear from me first?

Oh, I'll hear from you first, but I don't have to.

What's the right answer there, Mike?

It was a uh compound question.

You could just sit yes or no, and I wouldn't have known what it meant.

Um I I believe what's full time, let's start with that.

In my mind, it's 40 hours a week.

And um I I believe that I don't know about Commissioner Andres, but I imagine certainly for me, it was 40 hours a week that I was putting in.

I could do it because I um had um retired from my regular job.

I was a mediator for many years.

And the deal that my wife and I made was if you're gonna be the mayor, you can't be a mediator anymore.

And um, so I gave that up.

I could afford to do it.

Um I could and the mayor in those days, I think I got $10,000 a year.

Now it's up to 30,000, which is a little bit more reasonable.

Umingham had another job, but he put a good 40 hours, my understanding, uh, into this job.

And to do it right, I think you just need that amount of time.

I checked in with uh um Mayor Morrison just to see where he was at, and I got the same answer from him.

He absolutely is working 40 plus hours.

It involves ceremonial acts.

It involves um meeting with people around the city and organizations around the city.

He's now part of an eight-mayor group that's meeting on a regular basis.

Is it monthly?

Do you know, Mike?

I think it is.

The big monthly, and it's not here, so he has to travel to where it is, or maybe it comes here.

Maybe it shifts between the cities, but I know there's one coming up in Helena that he has to go to.

And I I think that if you want the job done right, um, and you know, right into the job description is represent the city in intergovernmental relationships already in the charter.

Um I I saw some public comment that said that kind of stuff should be taken out, that intergovernmental governmental relationship should be taken out of the mayor's duties, and it should become part of what the city manager does.

I disagree with that.

I think the elected official is the right person to be doing this kind of work, and um that it's really important that it be that person rather than the city managers or whatever.

Where do you go with the county?

The county has three full-time paid commissioners.

Do you want who do you want to meet with them?

Um is it our city manager meeting with the commissioners, our city manager meeting with their county administrator, or is it the mayor meeting with them?

And and I would I would argue that it should be the elected officials meeting together to develop plans and work and how we work together.

And the truth is I think we have a siloed system that is slowly getting better, and it's slowly getting better because of what the mayor did and has done.

Um I went out of my way as the mayor to do things with the ag community simply because I thought we really need to build that relationship with the county.

I went to some of their um events, like um they do a school event, sort of a couple days on the farm.

Al Leen, um, wonderful person that uh uh that that I knew invited me out to that.

I went to that, um, took the whole day, but I learned so much about what goes on in the county.

All of that stuff really makes a difference in the in the long run.

And if we could work harder at building relationships with MSU, the school district, um, and the county just here, the the right person to do that, I think is the mayor.

Similarly, in the state.

So I think unless you want to elect older people who have retired as the mayor and not pay them because they can afford to do it, then I then uh I think that's okay.

But I think we want to give this opportunity to anyone, um, not just old people.

Uh I shouldn't use that word, not just people who are able to be retired, would be the better way to say it.

So in my mind, one, it already is a full-time job, and um two, uh, we ought to find a way to pay it, and I'm just getting a little bit ahead of us, but it would be great if you had some objective way to pay so that it it just got it wasn't up in the air, no one had to vote on it.

Um I was on the commission, we were very shy about voting a raise for ourselves, even though it didn't necessarily accrue to our benefit, because you would vote for it at a time when you weren't gonna be uh benefit from it.

I think the current system doesn't work, um, and that the uh commissioners for a variety of reasons have been loath to give themselves raises.

So when we get to commissioners and that issue, uh I would also think some form of an objective standard would be helpful.

Commissioners in my mind are different, and I I appreciate the concept of having people who are engaged in the community in other ways as part of the commission as opposed to the mayor.

Um so that that's where I'm at with it.

Mike.

Yeah, so I think um short answer what we've heard and what we've seen demonstrated.

The answer is the position full-time yes.

I mean, that's the work that's being done.

Through no changes in the charter, the simply the requirement of being intergovernmental relations has been dictated to the city changes that have increased the workload on the mayor.

For example, the legislature required the governing board of the city county board of health.

The MPO was created as an intergovernmental agency.

Those are two additional requirements that have been added to the mayor, just in my term of being the city clerk that increases their workload through no decision of the city whatsoever.

So that role in and of itself, yes, I agree with Carson that the mayor should be the person who is that representative.

That role is only going to increase as the city becomes more regionally active, more collaborative when we enter into interlocal agreements.

That I know Douglas Fisher was aware of.

So that increasing requirement is going to always be there.

What is it?

So yeah, I'll get there.

The new man, the new Montana Land Use and Planning Act.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

So that revise that was a drastic seismic shift in the way that land use decisions are made.

Where it does remove the sum of the requirements for site specific project review.

It does shift more of a burden to the elected officials in the planning, the upfront stage.

You have to do these issue plans, whether that be affordable housing, whether that be your transportation plan, your utility connectivity plan, all of these large scale plans that feed into a growth policy that is now called a community plan.

The work just shifts what it is.

I don't think that it's reduced because they're now not reviewing as many site-specific projects.

So I don't think that I think that's a net neutral.

Like I don't think it changes the workload.

And then just briefly, I I agree with Carson on the on the pay, that there should be some objective standard.

And a um optional merit increase.

So there's something objectively built into that structure.

I don't I don't know what we should say that is.

Do we tie it to median income, the way all of our housing incentives and other things are attached?

I'm not sure, but having some sort of objective measure, the growth of the the city's revenue is tied to the rate of inflation.

That's that's in the way tack property taxes are limited in Montana.

So I I think that having an objective standard, and so that once it's set or reset or baseline adjusted, however that happens, I think a recommendation that there is some objective mechanism to where it's not dependent on bringing an ordinance and adjusting it ad hoc.

So those are my thoughts.

Um do we want to take public comment on this issue?

Um if you two want to talk first, and then we'll do public comment.

Barb, you have a question.

Yeah, I I have a question because I'm I'm looking at the ordinance for salaries that you shared, and and I it does say um, in addition, commencing with the first commission meeting in January 2025, the above salaries shall be adjusted annually based on the U.S.

consumer price index.

So I interpreted that as meaning there is a cola built in.

Is that right?

Am I understanding that correctly?

That it that is what are you reading just for that?

That's the ordinance where they adopted their increase in pay.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

But they choose to put that in the ordinance.

So there that is part of the ordinance process.

That's where I'm saying that it shouldn't be dependent upon an ordinance to adjust their pay.

A clarification, please.

And that is we've also had this living wage calculator for Galton County.

And I think that would be another source to look at because at some point we're talking about a baseline, right?

For this full-time salary if that's what we decide to recommend.

And I'm going to suggest we have a lot of people.

If we get to the first part, then we can get to that part and figure out where we want to go with that, whether it's a recommendation, whether it's in the charter or what.

Deanna.

I I would just like to point out that uh the work of the mayor uh in terms of these memberships on various boards, the health board and the whatever, um, it does uh it doesn't have to be the mayor.

It's the city of Bozeman uh shall be a member of these boards, which means that um anybody could that could be delegated to another uh individual.

It could be the city uh manager or it could be another commissioner.

And in fact, um it would be a way of spreading that work out uh among the commission, and it might be a good uh way to develop a more collaborative form of government if these duties were not concentrated in the uh hands of one person, but were delegated out among the uh commissioners.

And I think uh that's something that we need to um uh uh make sure that that the mayor um uh realizes that he can delegate these duties.

Thank you.

Um try not to get into a quick back and forth, but when we get to commissioners, we'll also talk about what their delegated duties are.

But I'm just saying not doesn't have to be a full-time job.

And and and our public comment is very strong that it not be a full-time job.

And so I'm saying that the mayor doesn't have to make it a full-time job.

Okay.

Um let's take public comment on this.

Is there any public comment on this issue?

And and if you want to talk about how the mayor should be paid, feel free, because we've gone in and out of that discussion.

So should the mayor be listed as full-time, and then if and then should should the pay be increased to a full-time salary?

That's the question, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Jenna Reno, Bozeman, city resident.

Um just a comment.

Instead of reacting like with the bad performance we've had from city managers and burdening just the mayor, because I know that Mayor Cunningham did an awful lot.

What about some sort of a ambassador program that could maybe take some of the ceremonial duties that would be a volunteer position, because there's been several people I know, like from the Historical Society and whatnot that have come up here and said, tell us how we can help.

And there might be a vehicle which we could use as opposed to increasing a salary, although it's it I mean, that certainly should be part of it.

But maybe there's something we can use that doesn't cost us anything.

The students are always wanting to get engaged.

They want to be a part, they want to have a voice at the table here.

Maybe we need some ambassadors that are not really employed by the city, but um with scripted counsel or with uh um you know, uh a mentorship program that they are able to take some of that off the mayor's plate.

So just a thought.

Thank you.

Uh Daniel Cardi Bozeman resident.

Um I'd like to lead with term lead with uh term limits.

I think that um if we limit the mayor to two full-time terms, two four-year terms, and limit commissioners to two four-year terms, and that would be a combination.

So if you're um four years as a commissioner and four years for mayor, that's it, you're out.

Then I think you could you could do a 40-hour mayoral paid position.

Um that would keep career politicians from running forever for mayor.

Um I think that would be maybe a compromise.

I think there's a complication for whoever would be interested in being vice mayor, because if commissioners are only paid part-time and the mayor is paid full-time, then there might be a certain high level of competition to become vice mayor so that you could step in if the mayor leaves and then all of a sudden you're being paid full-time.

In addition, if you are vice mayor and you then are become say the mayor is in capacity incapacitated for some reason, and then you step in and you're becoming acting mayor, then do you get that full-time pay?

So there's certainly um a lot of devil in the details here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hillary Brown from Bozeman.

You know, not all mayors are the same.

We have people that came out of the commission and that moved into the mayor position that don't even know how to buy a house, and they're making decisions on building apartment buildings downtown.

So I think that there needs to be like most jobs, you don't just get to get in the job and get all the money.

There has to be some sort of um, I mean, you're talking about old people.

You know, I know I'm old, I've been there a long time.

I've been working, I've been working a long time.

I didn't start out at the top.

So maybe it's deputy mayor if we're still doing that.

Are we still doing deputy mayor?

No vice mayor?

No.

No, we recommended against that.

Okay.

So then it would just be a mayor for four years.

Yes.

And he's voted in.

And you're gonna have seven commissioners?

We have no idea.

We're not there.

Okay.

I just don't think that the all mayors are equal, and it should be based on what you know.

Yeah, because you know, the older you are, the wiser you are, but then there's a lot of younger people that have new things.

So, you know, it's it's a tough thing just to say, okay, here's your pay, because that's what the standards are.

Yeah.

Because a lot of us don't start out that way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mike.

Nobody.

Okay.

Can I add something?

Uh so we'll bring it back up here.

And Becky.

I think what's interesting is for the first question, is the mayor a full-time position?

I think it's pretty clear that it is.

Now sure.

Are there other people that could do the mayor's pieces of the what the mayor does?

I don't know.

If I open a new business and I call up and say, hey, can the mayor or anybody else who might be available come and represent.

I kind of want the mayor.

You know what I mean?

If I'm gonna hold a mayoral uh uh committee with the mayor of Helena and the mayor of Missoula and the mayor of Billings, and then whoever comes from Bozeman, that's cool.

I don't know, I kind of want the mayor.

You know what I mean?

And so we have a mayor, there's this mayor system.

Um whether we pay this person, that's a different question, but I think us pretending like this isn't a can of can of beverage, it is a canned beverage, and the mayor is a full-time position.

It just shy of us changing.

Like, for example, it says the mayor shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes.

If they aren't the mayor, we should say they should take out the word all and put ceremonial purposes only when available.

You know what I mean?

It just kind of seems like a weird conversation because for as far back as we can go, the mayor's kind of been full-time.

Um that's just kind of what it is.

So I hate to be practical, but that's how I'm feeling.

Other comments, thoughts?

You know, listening to this and thinking back on our journey so far, I I can I can believe that the mayor is a full-time job.

So my next question then is what do we do about it?

Right.

And do we prescribe that in the charter?

Right?

Or do we um recommend some new way of setting the salary that's not dependent on ordinance to get there because I I still am not sure that we should prescribe it in the charter.

Um if we get somebody who's a superhuman and can do it in less than 40 hours a week.

Do we want them to just you know like you see what I'm saying?

Like I different people are different and can have different capacities.

So I'm I'm I'm just not sure we want to, and and looking at other charters.

The other charters we've looked at don't say one way or the other either.

They don't know.

Okay.

Even the Missoula one doesn't.

Janet and then Deanna.

Yeah, I certainly have said why I agree that it should be full-time or at least 40 hours a week.

I do think that where I was trying to make the connection between a job description for commissioners.

I know we have these powers and duties, but they are not really a job description.

I think there should be a job description for a full-time mayor.

Um, so that in my mind, while there's the ceremonial role, the work I've done with just about every mayor, and you know this to be true, Carson, on a lot of really important projects and policies for the city.

You spend so much time with us, and you do a lot of extra work.

It is not going out and having dinner and spending most of your time doing ceremonial.

This is hard stuff, and it's important that people have the time, the training, and the sensibility to do this well.

And we've been fortunate in the last four years, and we were fortunate with you, Carson.

But I um I I really would like to see this um added at least that there will be a job description if we are going to say it is full-time that there is a job description that is that it is based on, and that certainly um we've had mostly older white people that can afford, and not everybody can who is older and white, uh, that have been in these jobs and are able to um support themselves at a very minimal stipend.

We don't want that.

I don't want that anymore.

I want to see the full diversity of our community as represented in positions at the table of decision making.

We've got so many talented people, and we've got a group of folks coming out of the university that can be in a better pipeline situation.

I love the ambassador idea, women over there, but I do think it takes time and energy and staffing to even have those volunteers be in whatever roles that might complement and extend.

So I don't think it's a money saver, but I think it's important somebody look at that idea.

So I would support um putting those minimums in the charter um and then figuring out where we want to be with the um compensation.

Okay.

Um I think we need in the charter something that says the mayor is a full-time position.

Um I don't uh I don't want a mayor who has a 40-hour a week job somewhere else.

Um and um is trying to balance all of that, and you might say um, well, the voters can decide that uh when it comes up, but I I don't think that's the question that ever gets asked.

And um, and I think it's really important.

If you want to think of uh this is just this maybe this is a silly way to look at it, but the population of Bozeman is about half the population of the county.

The county has three full-time elected officials, and they're paid accordingly.

The city has no elected officials that are paid at that rate.

So I I think that should be in the charter.

Um and then I would suggest that we um come back to the issue of compensation, create a subcommittee to look at possibilities to how to do that, but I don't think the compensation system should be in the charter because whatever system it is, it could change how things are.

CPI may work maybe um AMI.

There's just a whole variety of possibilities.

And I also agree that there should be a job description, but again, I think that could be done the same way we're doing the commissioner job description.

Um, because there's enough in the powers and duties to to cover um what what we're talking about here.

Um so that that's where I stand on this.

Deanna.

I think that uh making it a full-time job uh would discourage truly uh qualified people from um even thinking about running as a mayor because they would have to leave their uh full-time employment, and it would open it up to uh a lot of young enthusiastic kids out of MSU and what have you, and that's not what we want uh either.

I think that they are welcome, such as our current mayor who was young and enthusiastic and no experience, and he got elected.

And that's fine.

Um that's the process, but to uh uh stipulate that it's a full-time position and then eliminate those who actually would come to the position with uh the experience and knowledge to do a really good job.

And uh Carson, I think you know that uh people who have the capacity for this kind of a uh uh uh uh executive leadership are accustomed to 60 and 80 hour weeks.

And um I I think that we need to leave that part of the position ambiguous, and let those who are able to come forward and bring their talents and their experience from outside and current employment to impact city government, it's very important that they not be excluded because it's labeled a full-time position, and they would have to leave the positions that we're in.

I think we get a much greater chance, and uh experience shows that um the system we have in place does allow for a variety of people to step in and take the uh executive leadership of the city, and I think it's really important to leave it wide open.

Uh and we've had a lot of public input uh in in that regard that um it remain um ambiguous in the charter.

Mike.

Yeah, so I think I mean the question of is it a full-time position?

Yes, to Deanna's point.

I don't see how the fact that it's a full-time position precludes somebody with another full-time job, especially to your point that some of these people in executive leadership are used to 60 to 80 hours.

So it's a balancing.

Carson, you anecdotally said that in order to balance your life, part of that was you were retiring from your profession to do the elected service.

That's an individual choice.

I I think yes, it's a full-time position.

We're acknowledging that.

I I think that the duties and the requirements of the job necessitate that level of time.

And I think the the question that we're kind of getting around, and that Barb had mentioned is should it be a full-time position.

I personally think yes, that this should be something that requires somebody's dedication, the same as a career would in a full-time role.

And I don't think you have to define that in the charter.

And to the point of qualifications, that's for the voters to decide whether or not a person is qualified to do that role.

The state of Montana says what the minimum qualifications are.

It's be able to be an elector of the city, live there for 60 days, I think it is, and be 18 years old.

Right.

Becky.

I got an idea.

Because I think for me, and what I hear you saying, and many of us sayings that let's at least acknowledge, it's not required to be a full-time position, but it's at least acknowledge that, right?

So whether you choose to have four jobs or whatever your thing is, you never sleep, whatever your thing is, you at least know, right?

And so I'm wondering if under powers and duties, section A, right now this says the mayor shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes, blah blah blah.

I wonder if we add the mayor has been demonstrated a full-time position and shall be recognized as head of city government.

Like it's history's shown that it's a full-time job.

Let's just that we just acknowledge it, but we don't require it.

Or to Barb's point, we fully acknowledge it, fully understand it, and we're just not gonna do anything about it.

Which is you know that that's another option.

You know, should the then therefore part of that, Barb, right?

That you were saying is that what you were like okay, we acknowledge it, but maybe do nothing.

What I'm what I'm thinking about is maybe we make a recommendation that we develop a job description for the mayor that defines the the actual day-to-day tasks of the job inconsistent with the powers and duties, and in that job description, lay out the full-time nature of the position.

And then I I like the idea of having a couple people dig into what are the options to pay that position accordingly.

Um because I I feel like when I you know when I did the math on what um we currently pay our mayor and our city commissioners, it is like 162,000 a year for all of them out of a very large budget.

So I feel like our budget can probably support an increase in pay for our elected officials so that they can serve um in a way that's reasonable for their duties.

Um and try to do it that way without enshrining it in the charter and therefore writing it into a document when it it has to endure.

Does that make sense?

That wasn't particularly eloquent.

I I think I understand what you said, Jan.

I think I'm trying to think about a friendly amendment to that, and that's why I um have been advocating the job descriptions, but I'm thinking that we can put in that there are job descriptions in each of these two sections, and that the job descriptions can take care of the um level of work and the fact that it does represent full time or 40 hours, however, we decide that.

So I think the job description needs to be flexible, but I think it needs to just state that we have them, and that that would be in the charter.

Mike, so point of clarification.

There may not be job descriptions, no matter what this body recommends.

So unless you put it a job description in the charter, there may never be, because you make recommendations to the governing body of the city of Bozeman, they do not have to follow those recommendations.

They're not legally prescribed to follow them.

Right.

So that's the word recommendation, right?

So I don't think it would be appropriate to say there are job descriptions in the charter if it's only a recommendation to make a job description.

Well, did we did we not just approve a job description for commissioners as a piece of the charter?

Exactly.

That's what I'm trying to know.

Um it's a recommendation to recommend the city commission adopt a job description.

Right.

Thank you for that clarification.

I'm reading by resolution, the city of Boseman must have a commissioner job description, which should be reviewed every five years.

Am I on a so that's a recommendation from this body to the city commission?

You cannot mandate that.

We don't say the word on here recommendation, like we do on some of the other sections.

That's all I'm trying to clarify.

I'm not just you have to show me what document you're looking at.

It it's the draft article two, it's the it's the sentence that I flagged as not being sure whether we were putting it in the charter.

Oh, whether it was a recommendation.

Okay, got it.

But it is in the charter.

It says city shall have a resentment soil resolution with a job basically.

Yes, it was it was drafted for this agenda as if it were in the charter.

And then the discussion that happened earlier, as I recall, was that it was going to be a recommendation and not language.

Oh, yeah, it is in section 2.01.

So you're saying that should be a recommendation, not a by resolution.

I think I think so.

I I think that's that's what I remember the conversation was back on February 5th, but I know Carson isn't sure either what that conversation was.

So we can discuss it and then we should be clear on that one.

I I do see the city attorney, our attorney squirming.

So let's invite him to the podium.

So listening to your discussion, I just want to try to be helpful.

Thank you.

So I think I've been hearing over the past few sessions about job description.

And I think I would just suggest you be very careful about how you think of the roles and responsibilities, the duties, the obligations of an elected official in terms of describing that in a document.

And the reason I say that if you look at the charter, it begins with, after the preamble, it begins with a statement, all powers of the city are vested in the city commission.

So all of the powers that are conferred upon the city of Bozeman, both as a a legal entity as a component of the state of Montana, as a municipal corporation, as a self-government entity are conferred upon the city commission.

Except as provided in the charter, and then it says, okay, you got some things that the mayor does, and then you got the role in the structure of the city manager.

So I would just be very cautious about sitting back there thinking, like, okay, I'm gonna be excuse me, I'm gonna probably be asked to help to write a job description for a city commissioner or the mayor.

And it's gonna be really high level.

I think if you guys are very interested in trying to uh communicate to the city commission that roles, responsibilities, expectations, obligations, I think there may be a way to do that that doesn't bind an individually elected official from being able to determine how they are going to do the job they were elected to do.

So if you look back at the charter report from the study commission 20 years ago, I think you can see how they structure that, and there's findings that are made.

You can not only consider things in the charter recommendations, and I do want you to be cognizant of the statute that talks about the scope of the recommendations you can make, but also how you make findings about sort of the how the city government structure provides the services and meets the expectation of the citizens of the city.

So putting that all together, be careful about job description because that's a HR term.

Right.

It's not a term that's for elected officials, right?

All powers of the city are vested in the city commission.

And for me to sit here and try to think what is a city commissioner supposed to do.

I need to look at every obligation that's imposed upon them under state law.

Every obligation that's imposed upon them as a holding their office as a public trust, not just a job description as we would draft for my position or Mike's position as employees.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Are we ready for a motion on this issue?

And I kind of liked your formulation.

I don't know if you backed off of that.

Um Becky, if you could read it again.

That in the in the charter that we what I had said was the mayor has been demonstrated as a full-time position and shall be recognized as head of state, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But that was the only thing that was added under Section 2.03A, powers and duties.

So I I would say has been demonstrated to be a full-time position.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

Period.

Regarding recommendations and any of these items.

It seems to me, just listening to Greg that in our original recommendation to make a job description for commissioner, that we could also say that we recommend that by resolution the city of Bozeman, have a commissioner and mayoral roles, responsibilities, obligation, and expectations document or document that lays out the roles, responsibilities, obligations, expectations.

I would second that.

And that we take away that job description line.

So that's that's one thing.

And that is a recommendation you're suggesting.

As a recommendation.

And you know, because to Mike's point, we can't say it's there when it's not there.

Um and then so that's one thing.

The second thing could be that we at least acknowledge that the mayor's been demonstrated to be a full-time position.

And shall be recognized as head as head of the city government, blah blah blah.

And that we leave the pay to the way the city does things already, and that they decide that.

If that's a motion, I would or a combination motion, I would second that.

That's exactly what I would want to move.

You make it hard for the chair.

Is it a motion or is it not a motion?

Sure.

Just to get us going.

You can amend the motion.

The motion is to do three things.

To do three things.

One is to take the job description regarding commissioners out of the charter.

And make it a recommendation to Commission and combine it with a recommendation that the City Commission create a job description for the mayor and the city commissioners.

What?

We're not going to use the term job description.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Whatever.

A document for roles, responsibilities, operations.

And expectations.

Okay.

And so that's two things.

And the third thing would be to add after the and it has been demonstrated to be a full-time position.

And that and shall I don't know how you did it.

You did it beautifully, and I lost it.

I'll say it.

I'll say it again.

It's okay.

Has been demonstrated to be a full-time position and shall be recognized the rest of it's all there.

Voting member the city commission, is that what you know the that the mayor has been demonstrated to be a full-time position.

Okay.

So just adding that into what's already there.

And the and shall be a voting member, etc.

Yeah.

Got it.

Yeah.

Everything else is still there.

That's the motion, and Jan, are you seconding that?

Absolutely.

And that we leave the pay out of it.

Leave the pay to the commissioners.

Totally, or or do we make a recommendation as to pay as well?

I think that would be a separate motion if we're had to have a question.

So that's not in the motion.

Pay is not in the motion in any fashion.

All right, discussion on the motion.

Deanna.

I think that there's uh in my mind a lot of problems with uh that that verbiage.

First of all, it has been demonstrated.

Demonstrated by whom and why would that need to be in the uh charter?

And full-time, full-time, what does that actually mean?

Because uh clearly um uh for some people uh 40 hours is a halftime job.

So I I don't think that though those words have enough meaning um uh to even be in here, and there is enough ambiguity about it that it could create problems.

Someone could step up and say, hey, this is a full-time job.

You can't be owning that ice cream store on the corner, um, because I'm sure that's a full-time job too, and people can't hold two-time full-time jobs.

So I think that it's a I think it's dangerous language, and I I really would hope that we would see it as such and leave it as it is, and um if people want to step in and and work uh uh and make it 40 hours, that's great.

And if they can see a way to make it less than 40 hours, that's fine too.

So you what's your recommendation?

My recommendation is that we leave it as it is, and that we not specify full time uh in the language of the charter.

Further discussion.

Go ahead, Barbs.

I just to clarify in question.

I want to make sure in that first part of the section 201 that the um recommendation for creating the rules, responsibilities, and expectations were going to apply to both the mayor and the city commission.

Yes, I wasn't clear in hearing that.

And I think therefore that can include the language of full-time position if we want to insert it there in the mayor's position.

That may not be unanimous, but that's a place to put it, and then we could take out the demonstrated as a full-time position in the charter.

Okay.

Bob.

Yeah, and I'm again I'm going back to what is the problem we're trying to solve.

And at some level, I think we're trying to create the opportunity for more people to step up for elected office.

And so I I hear what Greg said about it's tricky to be prescribing in the charter how a duly elected official fulfills the job that they've been elected to fulfill.

So I I am still reluctant to define it as full-time in the charter.

Okay.

I'm I'm more inclined to flesh out this recommendation around the city commission laying out rules of responsibilities, duties, and obligations, because they actually asked for it too in our meeting with them.

They they're the ones that brought it up, um, some of them.

So I guess that's kind of where I'm going with it.

But I but I do I do understand that that it is a 40-hour I have a question, and I don't know if we have the answer to it tonight, but this the every county has I think three commissioners that are elected and that are full paid full-time and are full time.

How does the state law define that?

Because it's done by state law, it's not done by charter.

Does anyone know?

So I believe with county commissioners, it's very different than municipalities.

They define like so the way I understand it, maybe Greg can correct me if I'm wrong here, that the state law defines what the compensation rate for county commissioners are.

And then they define what their full-time equivalency is going to be.

Are they going to be halftime?

Are they going to be full-time?

Are they going to be three quarter time?

And then their salary is adjusted accordingly.

So if salaries in statute say it's 100,000, and they say in our role, we're coming together our first meeting, we're only gonna work 30 hours a week, we're three-quarter-time employees, their salary gets reduced to that rate.

That's the way I believe it operates for county commissioners.

I'll just add that not every county commission has three full-time county commissioners.

Ours does, because it's Gallatin County, but some of the more rural counties, they're they they don't, they're not full-time positions.

That's interesting.

Greg, do you have insight?

A little bit.

Um Gallatin County is a general powers county government.

Right.

And uh months ago I came and talked about the difference between general powers governments and self-government powers.

So the county, Gallatin County has never chosen an alternative form of government other than that which was established back in the day when the county was established.

They've never made that shift away from like the basic statutory form of government.

So when I say that, if you look at the forms of government that are in Title VII, Chapter 3, there's not like general powers government in that form in those that list.

There's all kinds of alternatives, including charter, but there's nothing that's like if you're a general powers government, this is what you are.

If you look at Title VII, Chapter 4, which is nothing to do with like local government study commission and the alternative forms of government, there's a part in there about a part of that chapter that's about county government.

There's a statute 742107.

That's compensation of county commissioners.

And it says subject of section two.

Each member of the Board of County Commissioners saw receive an annual salary equal to the annual salary established in 742503.

And that's uh establish the county compensation board.

And then the county compensation board, I think if I remember this correctly, is folks that are appointed.

I'm looking at Mike.

And maybe even some of the elected officials, and they go through this rigorous process and then they establish what the count the compensation should be for the county commissioners.

That's statutory.

And then I'm gonna go back one.

And then 742107 says each board may elect to serve on a part-time rather than a full-time basis and receive part-time annual salaries based on the annual salary established by that compensation board for the clerk and and then for the clerk and recorder, and they kind of like set the benchmark with the clerk and recorder.

So I guess the point of that is the counties are very different creatures than cities.

Or at least any other local government that's chosen to adopt an alternative form of government.

And so my suggestion to you is you think about this form of government, this organization, and you determine how this organization operates, and then that's what the basis would be rather than sort of thinking about it in terms of full-time county commissioners versus part-time county commissioners versus full-time city commissioners or full-time or part-time commissioners.

Thank you.

Can I change my motion?

Um if the second agrees or we could vote on the motion.

I want to change my motion.

I want to recommend a change of my motion.

This seems to be complex enough.

I keep thinking about what are we trying to fix, what's broken, what are we trying to fix?

I don't know that we know.

And so I'm more apt to leave it as is, and for now, you know, we're not gonna be able to make this charter 150 percent of what we want.

That right now we add that resolution about how they should make a document describing the roles, responsibilities, applications, expectations for the mayor and the commissioner position, have it reviewed every five years, and then we just leave the full-time thing out and we don't touch the pay and kind of see where it goes between now and 2020 2036.

Second.

Is that amendment okay with the second or I I'm just I'm so sorry to keep asking clarifying questions, but I understand I'd already said myself, let's take that one out.

Um that would add the language of experience tells us these things.

But I'm still wondering if we are if we're trying to keep the recommendation in.

The recommendation, yes.

That would cover the fact that we want the the city commission and mayor to create these rules responsibilities.

Yes, that's still there.

So that's all that's there.

That's what I just suggested.

So I am keeping second on the case.

Second.

Okay, we've got to move a second.

Mike.

Just for simplicity's sake and record keeping.

Becky, please withdraw your original motion.

I withdraw the original motion.

I'd like to make a new motion.

New motion.

As I understand it would be to add a recommendation about rules, responsibilities, obligations, expectations.

Thank you.

For both the mayor and the city commission.

That's correct.

For both the mayor and the city commission.

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Um discussion.

Should we say further discussion?

Excuse me.

I I will I'm I'm gonna support the motion.

I like where it's evolved to.

I did want to lift up the suggestions somebody had about the pay issue that we have a small subcommittee.

See if there are options to create a system that pay that is sort of independent of commission action and is actually tied to something real.

Um again.

The problem we're trying to solve.

If if we want to have more people able to serve, is can we pay a mayor more something that more approximates a full-time wage?

And you know, maybe we don't want to do that and don't want to pursue that idea, but I just didn't.

I wanted to make sure that if we were tabling it, we were explicit that we were tabling it.

Does that make sense?

We're gonna I my understanding is that that will be a separate motion for the discussion on this motion.

All right, I'm gonna oppose it.

I truly believe the state statute refers to full-time.

As to county commissioners, there is nothing that gets in the way of us referring in our charter to a full-time position because it is a full-time position.

And I think if we leave it to recommendations, we will end up with the commission doing whatever it pleases, including rejecting it because they have too much else on their plate and they don't want to uh do anything about it.

There's no um there's no way to make them do this.

I do I am attracted to the notion that if you paid what a full-time position got paid, you would attract people to do it.

Um my fear is two things would happen.

One, that might work as to a certain populace, but then there'll be those who try to get elected and hold a full-time job and benefit from both of them and don't do what's important, and even having a expectation of what the job is is doesn't create an enforceable situation.

Um this it's an important thing to me, but I I get um I get the ideas that came from the public that some of what the mayor does could be um um what's the right word?

Can we delegated to other people?

I don't think that's realistic.

And I think that if we want to have a mayor that is actually doing the job that we expect, it's a full-time job, and there ought to be some somewhere, someplace that that's acknowledged in the charter, just like it's acknowledged in state law as to county commissioners.

And um in fact, I could live with the language that said um it's well, maybe I couldn't live with the language, something like the way they've got it.

You you decide whether it's a full-time job or a part-time job, and and then you you work from that compensation.

But um I I think that there is a incredible reticence of city commissioners and the mayor uh of paying themselves what they deserve because they're worried about the reaction of the public, who I think doesn't really know what's involved and what's entailed in the job.

So I I would put language like Becky's uh into point 203.

Um maybe I would be even more forceful.

Uh I would say the mayor shall be a full-time job, and the mayor shall be a voting member, something like that.

But that's that's my stance.

Um other discussion before we could we make that a friendly amendment, Becky.

I I no.

It would need a separate motion.

It would have to be a separate motion.

Okay.

Let's vote then.

Because the motion at present just deals with the recommendation.

That's right.

All right, so let me think about how I'm gonna vote therefore.

Okay.

Can I say something?

No.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Okay.

All right.

Voting on the motion.

All those in favor, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay.

Motion carries four to one.

Is there another motion or I'm gonna pass the gavel?

Is there another motion?

I would like to make a motion.

Yeah.

I move that we amend 2.03 to read under 203a powers and duties.

The mayor is a full-time position.

Second.

I'm trying to figure out how to make the language flow.

The mayor is a full-time position and shall be a voting member.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's my motion.

Second.

You're now running the meeting.

Discussion.

Didn't we just vote contrary to this?

No.

What would you um the the motion was to um make a recommendation to write roles, responsibilities, obligations, expectations for the mayor and the commissioner?

Just as a recommendation.

Becky with the remote.

I withdrew this portion of it to have to be a separate motion.

And so are we going to have the same discussion about the mayor being full-time or not full-time?

I think we just have the question.

The question is, should it be in the charter?

That's that's we've we've discussed whether we believe the mayor is a full-time position or not.

We've we've discussed that.

The question is kind of what Barb had said, that then therefore, and Pan Carson has made a motion and Jan has a second to say it should be written in the charter, or should it not be written in the charter?

So different than is it a full-time position?

We don't need to discuss that right now.

Do you see what I mean?

We don't need to discuss that right now.

Should it be should this language be included in the we just voted to that it not be included in the charter and that it be in a resolution or in a recommendation?

And I and I feel like we're we're going right back to our original discussion of should it be in the charter or not?

And we just voted that it would be in a recommendation.

No, we made a recommendation that the um that the city um write a document with roles, responsibilities, obligations, expectations for the mayor and the commissioner.

That's it.

So I think I think we should just discuss and vote on this motion.

Yeah, I understand.

And and I I actually don't think it should be that prescribed in the charter, so I will be voting against this motion.

I really agree with Carson's points, and I want I want it to be clearly understood for all kinds of proactive reasons, as well as the worrisome ones that it is a full-time position, and we have expectations, roles and responsibilities that the mayor must live up to.

Thank you.

Please vote yes.

What are you saying is uh what do you define as a full-time?

I think it's a very ambiguous term.

Full-time in most circles is 40 hours.

Yeah, and so now are you going to have a list?

Does the mayor have to clock in all morning?

The state uses the language in its statute.

If they can do that and it has meaning, then I think we can do it and it will have the same meaning.

And again, we're just saying should it be in the in the charter?

And honestly, working for the state through the university when you're full-time, you're working 68 hours a week, you're never paid for that, there's no overtime.

You do it because you love it, and that's what we want here.

Not that extra level of exploit exploitation, but it is very common in terms of these jobs to have that kind of language.

I'm personally conflicted by it because I believe strongly that I mean it just is.

It is a full-time position.

If you're gonna be the mayor, don't expect it's gonna be a 10-hour a week situation, just not um in a different lifetime it might be, but in this lifetime, it has demonstrated for the last 10-20 years that it is full-time.

Um so naming it what it is seems very much a good idea, and I'm also thinking about Barb and DNA both saying don't put in the charter because it's too prescriptive.

So I I'm just not sure what to do, to be honest with you.

Shall we table it?

Pardon me.

So shall we table it?

We don't have time to table it.

It's not gonna change, I don't think.

Can I ask a clarifying question, Carson?

Yes.

In your opinion, would that rule be eligible for overtime?

No.

You don't define that.

It's a salary, it's a salary position.

Same way the county commissioners are across the state.

Where do you define that?

Where do you define that?

Where do you define what?

That it's a full-time exempt salary position, that it's a salary exempt position.

Yes.

So we it's exempt from overtime.

It's exempt from overtime.

As a salary position.

Right.

So logistic full-time salaried position.

I'm I'm just if that language is going to be used to Deanna's point, is it exempt from overtime?

If it is to be considered exempt from overtime, how do you define that and where do you define that?

So I would suggest that when we we use the language that I used when the the salary amount and the standard for it, that's where you put in that salary position, though overtime, and this is how it's calculated.

Okay.

I actually think you like the idea that you use the same number that the um the county commission salary people.

That might be a good standard, whatever they do.

But the the definition beyond anything other than full-time is done in the determination of the salary, and it'd be defined as salary, not no overtime.

Perfect.

Thank you.

I'd like to just make one point here that you know we by putting that in, we may be putting something in that the public so um uh rejects that it would reject uh more important things that we're doing with the charter and what we're putting on the ballot.

And and I just don't think that this is uh uh the battle that we want to lose uh the the war on, so to speak.

We could decide later when we sort of see all of the amendments that we change, whether we want that to be something that gets voted on separately.

Well, my experience has been that we don't revisit those votes.

Okay?

No, no, no.

That's not the qu that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that at some point we will decide what the amended charter is, and then whether we have any suboptions and what they are.

If if you're concerned about that, then we can argue then about whether it's a sub-option or not that we put on it.

I don't want to start talking about what suboptions we're gonna do now because we only have three and we don't know where this is going.

But there will come a time when we're gonna have to make that that choice as well.

Procedurally, I'd also say that once there is a final draft of this, it'll go for public comment, public commenters could inform you that except for poison pill X, Y, or Z, I would support this.

That is a viable comment that would likely be taken into advisement.

You running the meeting, remember?

Oh, sorry, I'm running the meeting.

Any further discussion?

Yes.

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Um uh opposed say nay.

Nay.

Nay.

So it uh fails three to two.

Two to three.

Two to three.

I don't know.

So um with that, then we've got uh one more thing on the agenda today.

And um, yes.

We also have the question of uh whether we make a recommendation about the salary.

That's what I was just about to say.

Okay, because there's another thing on the agenda.

Yep, yeah.

Sorry.

Um more thing this part of the agenda, I'm sorry, is that should we say anything about the salary right now?

When we look at section 2.04 compensation expenses, it says that the city commission may determine the annual salary of the mayor and commission members by ordinance, but no ordinance increasing such salary shall become effective until the date of commencement of the terms of the commission members elected at the next regular election.

The mayor and commission members shall receive their actual ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties of office.

That's what it says right now.

Um so the question, there's two questions.

Should it say something different in the charter and or should there be a recommendation?

Who would like to either begin discussion or make a motion?

I would make a motion that the salaries remain a small stipend, and that we take uh into account uh even our nearby neighbors.

Uh Belgrade pays their commissioners 700 or no $500 a month and their mayor $150 a month.

And there are many municipalities the size of Bozeman that are paying very small stipends.

And um uh and I think that we have heard from the public that um they are not interested in um career politicians taking these positions, and that they're satisfied to have commissioners and the mayor assume duties on a um uh uh uh on the basis that they understand what the duties are and they they know whether they have the capacity to fulfill them or not, and that they accept uh small stipend because they view it more as a public uh service and civic duty rather than a career.

So Deanna, I'm gonna ask you to um think more about that.

Wasn't a motion, that was discussion.

So if you're if you're thinking you want to make a motion to make a change, look at the charter.

Do you want to make a change or not make a change?

Stop it.

Think about that for a hot minute.

I'll come back to you.

Comments from Jan or Barb.

Nothing from Jan Barb.

I I would at this point leave section 2.04 the way it is.

Okay.

Right.

Carson.

I I think the way it's worded creates the problem that has existed, um, which is they're underpaid, and therefore the it's not a either as a commissioner or as a mayor.

It's not a job that everybody can afford to do.

And if we're looking for talent, we need to find a way to do it.

So I I would change this, but I don't know how I would change it, but I would change it to create um some form of uh of looking at the salary for the mayor, which becomes something of the that someone could take this job and do it.

Um I also think it's a different discussion for city commissioners because I think at least in my mind, I'm thinking that I'm going in the direction of not having full-time city commissioners, um, but having them realistically paid for the time that they're expected to put in.

Um and I think this just doesn't do it.

Um I'm wondering if you know, I'm I agree.

I personally have been asked a million times if I'm gonna run for city commission, and I can't.

I personally can't.

I need a JOB and a salary.

Right?

And so I can't I I could not put the time needed into being a commissioner, a good commissioner, yet alone the mayor, until I'm a whole lot older and retired.

Plain and simple, right?

So I'm fully agree.

But I'm given that what you're saying, Carson.

I'm wondering if we should table this piece, because you're saying that there's some creative ways that we could make some changes to this section that could be helpful, but we might not know what those are right now.

Is that fair enough?

Yeah, and maybe the time to take it up is um when we've finished the discussion about wards and districts, so we have an idea of how many commissioners we're gonna have, and we um leave open the discussion be not only about commissioner's salary, but the mayor's salary.

And then my suggestion would be that we task a couple people with researching what some other options would be to this process because the the only reason I don't want to change it now is because I can't think of how to change it.

Right.

So um so then we should just leave it for now.

Um, how about we add that and just move that right along to new business, which is the future education discussion needs for March 25th, you know, and we add that right there?

Um because something that um would be helpful is maybe some information like we got on the manager city manager from Dan, etc.

But I think we have even more time on that one because I agree with Carson.

We need to come back to it after we make whatever recommendations and decisions we're gonna make about wards and um neighborhoods, neighborhoods and how we elect so is anybody opposed to tabling this for now?

Do we need it to table it to a specific time?

Do we want to try to be more um strategic and find the date after those or at that meeting?

Whoever could be tasked following that at that after those decisions are made at that meeting to then come back with a recommendation so that it gets into the plan.

Greg, what are we doing?

Well um the only thing, Mike, can you put that charter back up?

I just want to maybe broaden your just make a suggestion to broaden your discussion.

Um you've been talking about salary.

And certainly.

So the the charter talks about compensation, not just salary.

So if you look at the most recent ordinance that was adopted, it talks about incidental expenses.

It talks about their eligibility for health coverage from the city, health care coverage from the city.

Um so it's not just like what they're paid.

Uh so it's the whole sort of package of if you're going to do this work um on behalf of the citizens with the city, here's what you get.

I think there's probably a reason.

The 2004 study commission chose compensation to talk up in as the header.

There is a provision about the annual salary, but that ordinance provides more compensation than just the salary.

And it needs to go with the ordinance that does talk about it specifically.

So those two should be hand in hand.

So the the question is uh I've forgotten who's got the gavel, but are we tabling this to a specific date, or are we just saying we'll find a place to put it in?

I mean my gut would be to table it until the third meeting.

Until the April 15th meeting?

April 5th team meeting.

Okay.

Let's just do that.

With an understanding that we may not get to it then, or we may still be caught in discussion, but it'll be um in the parking lot.

I like Barb's idea that whoever the people are to come up with some options, have it ready for that meeting.

Yeah, and I'm less concerned about um the date and more concerned about who the people doing the doing are, because I would rather not.

Could you say that's what I'm more concerned about who the people doing the research are into what we pay and what the different process might be.

Well, I'm certainly willing to be one of the people since I've been hounding you all about this.

I'd be the other person.

I I don't think we can do it, Deanna.

I I don't I don't think there's a chance that you and I can do it.

Well, I think if I think the idea is that we're going to come up with um uh we're gonna do research and bring it to the to the commissioners, uh uh colleagues here.

Um it doesn't mean we have to collaborate.

We just do we do our research and bring back a report that says, well, here's what's going on in Boulder and whatever uh we're not gonna make a it's not necessary to make a recommendation.

I'd like to suggest that maybe we ask you know to that point.

If we asked uh the um uh governance center, they would probably be able to give us all kinds of information about you know what's what's common language, what's the common pay?

We can see a whole list of things.

We've gotten a little bit of that, but I know we can get more if we just ask, and then from there we can just have we can all have time to think.

Also would agree that we need to agree on what more specifically we want because we are hearing a range of opinions about compensation and what what is needed, and we also haven't so we've agreed already to even have a um the beginning discussions around what the city commission could look like and all that's involved in that role and scope.

So but I do think that um the local government center could at least get some some of that out there.

There they could definitely do some research for us to do that.

Right, exactly.

And then that to me is different than the proposal as to how or if we should change the what is it, 206?

The chart.

2.04.

2.04.

2.04, sorry.

Whatever it is.

Yeah, 2.04.

Um, okay, so we table that until um March, uh April 15.

We asked the governor's center to provide us with some information in the meantime.

Like if we have some time to think about what some ideas are around what might be added or proposals, like you said, Carson.

Um we are jumping into March 25th, April 2, and April 15.

The topics are advisory boards, neighborhoods, and wards.

What educational needs do we have?

Can we just back up one split second?

Sure.

Um, Mike, could you um get to us that um resolution that describes a compensation?

What all that includes currently?

It would it was provided on the agenda.

Oh, it is and okay, thank you.

Um I tee up how I'm thinking about how we enter this next phase.

I would love that.

Um so it in thinking about what we need to learn and the conversation we need to have about wards and district wards and or districts, neighborhood associations and advisory boards.

This is where I really gotten to thinking about what is the problem we're trying to solve.

And we have pretty consistently heard from the public in a variety of ways, whether it was surveys or at our April hearing or in the October listening sessions, that people without placing value judgment on it, they feel they don't feel heard, they don't feel represented by the commission, they don't feel like they have someone on the elected body that understands the the breadth of experiences and concerns of residents across our geographically expanding city.

So to me, that is the problem we're trying to understand and solve in this next phase of our of our conversations, and and so the question becomes uh what are the mechanisms that we can increase representation by, both on the commission and just in terms of participation in our governance, and so that's kind of how I went at trying to identify what I would what kind of information I would like.

And it starts to me with wards or districts, and um one of the first things I would like to get some more information on is what is the difference?

Um because we've been using those terms wards and districts interchangeably, and I think there is actually a difference, and so I want to understand what the difference is, and then what have been the challenges and benefits of using those different systems to elect broadly representative commissions?

Um is there a hybrid of the two?

Because Dan seemed to indicate that there is when he touched on it.

Um then you know if we were to move to wards or districts for electing our commission, um, what's best practice for doing that?

Do you elect two people from each ward or one person from each ward?

Um and if the functional size that we've learned through a number of sources of the city commission is somewhere between five and seven, that that's sort of best practice.

How do you get there?

Um, how do we get there from where we are now in a way that increases representation?

Um, and then last, you know, the biggest question, if we were to move to a system of wards or districts, um, how do we draw the lines to ensure balanced population numbers in the wards or districts, especially at a time when the city is growing very fast and unevenly, right?

Like our our growth is not happening the same in every part of the city.

So those are some of the questions I have about the first phase of this sort of how do we increase representation chunk.

Like it seems pretty clear to me we have to figure out a way to get more participation in our neighborhoods program by neighborhoods, so that more than 28% of the city is included in that, if that is expected to be a mechanism through which people communicate their concerns in their neighborhood to our elected officials.

So how other people have how other cities have tackled that is my big neighborhood association's question.

Yeah, that's just me.

That kind of leads me to my thoughts too.

One is all those things about wars and districts, yes, please.

And then when I think about neighborhoods and advisory boards, I feel like we know enough about the issues, but I'd like some sample language.

Like if if you're gonna make our current charter better for citizen representation or or resident representation, what would you do to our those two sections in our charter to make it better?

Like let's just see some examples here.

That that's kind of where I'm at.

Um but what could actually make it better?

What's the language we would we would recommend?

So I'd like to see that.

To me there are distinct functions of advisory boards versus neighborhood associations, and if they aren't both met, we end up in the situation where we are today.

And the advisory boards um of the past, when I was on the commission, and I I'm hesitant to go this way.

Are you sticking with the what information do we need?

Are you jumping into the issue itself?

No, I I'd like to hear what other cities do other cities for advisory boards, but I'd also like a presentation on what the advisory boards were like before the change happened.

And I I'm not sure what the best way to do that is because I don't think it should be me.

Um, but I do think there are people who lived with the advisory boards and who felt um totally um disenfranchised by the new system that's come in.

And no disrespect to anybody that was involved in that.

They were sort of told this is we want to move to a different system.

But I I think and I'm loath to make any generalizations because every time I do someone, but but there is a way in which um the citizen involvement in government went down when we changed the advisory board system.

And and I don't want to make a pitch for what I would say and why at this point, because we're not having the discussion, but I do think who who can who can talk about advisory boards and how they worked and what their benefit was.

Um and I don't know, do we want to ask someone like Krauss who has indicated that he thinks that was a better system to come and talk to us?

Or um I don't know.

I I think we need to to figure that out.

I also think perhaps Dan Clark will have some information on that as I really hope he comes in with neighborhood association um information and the the other piece that I'm interested in is is there or can there be a correlation between neighborhood associations and wards?

Meaning um i is there a way to sort of connect all of them and uh has that been done in anywhere in the state or anywhere else.

Um that would be really valuable information.

I wrote a note to um Dan on behalf of um Deanna and I basically saying the the dates that are coming up are I've lost track the um into March 25, April 2, and April 15.

I I gave him the first two dates.

Okay.

Uh and told them what the subject matter was but it was very general.

Um it just said, you know, the same system you've done.

What are the benefits?

What are the um I hear more um specific questions that I think we need to apprise him of promptly?

Um and um and uh and I also want to say that um we did talk when we started out about saying about looking at has this been produ a a productive relationship.

Do we want to continue it?

And my response to that now is in particular, I can see a number of things that would be very helpful to us, particularly if we were able to get the information that we need to the government center now so that they have plenty of time to get it together for us.

If we need them for the third meeting, we should do that also.

So I will um I've written down everything you just said, and so I can I can email that to you so you guys can reach out and get them to do that.

In addition to that, I just want to remind everybody that when we had that meeting with Inc.

eight million years ago, months ago or weeks ago or something like that a long time ago, um, they sent us an email with suggested language.

So I will get that included into the agenda as well on the day that we're talking about neighborhoods.

Um and from there, Carson and I will work on the agenda for the next meeting, which is March 25th.

Is it would possible to add to your discussion of recommendations right now?

Sure.

I haven't got a chance.

So sorry, I didn't see your hand up.

Sorry.

It's okay.

Um I was thinking that maybe we ought to think about panels rather than looking at the um number of advisory boards that Carson was talking about rather than one person, Jeff Krauss.

Maybe there's a panel that might be a couple of people from before and a couple of people now, in terms of how we um how they're experiencing the advisory boards and their stated goals, and I think there is a bit more diversity of people currently on the advisory boards, maybe more younger people, so some multicultural people, all of that.

And so it might be interesting just to get some of those impressions.

And I think also from the people I've talked to that share those boards, there's a variety of impressions about how well the onboarding is going, how well the advising, how well the making a plan of action each year is going, and so that may be some of the other areas that we want to look at.

But also, Carson, I was gonna say the research we did that you included those three um cities from outside, all of them had um wards, and we could go back to them the research that we did uh to also ask them some of those same questions.

And I had a whole bunch of links that Carson didn't have a chance to transfer into your material, but it gives you a deeper dive into those areas really easily because they've got a very um robust website for their city that seems pretty clear and direct to find information.

So that would be one thing, and then I think um thinking about how we want to link the um uh neighborhoods with the wards and getting a few concrete questions.

What are what are those links?

What should be those links?

How are we trying to avoid, in my opinion, duplication of people thinking that they're basically an extension of their neighborhood association as a potential ward person would be important because I think that's that's an area I'm concerned about if if we even go down the words road?

And then I think the basic concept of the um districts where people where we can talk to people in this in the county commission, because their system is based on districts where they have to live in three different district geographies, but they are elected at large, and I frankly lean toward that myself as a bridge between whether we go to wards or not, but um, or a hybrid of some combination, but that might be an interesting conversation uh to circle back to the county commissioners and talk to them about it as far as representation in that way.

And is it even bringing them the representation that they perhaps wanted by having a district system rather than some other way of cutting up the county and having everybody reside in a word system?

So just wanted to see if that could be included.

So who's gonna do this?

Would it would it be helpful to type up these notes to get them to Dan Clark?

I mean, I guess I don't know the answer to who is gonna talk to Dan, but I can you want to type those up?

I can give up mine, and if other people want to send you and I are working tomorrow night to do some writing, maybe we can just combine our our notes that we just took and send an email to Deanna and I, and then we'll prep something for Dan.

Yeah.

Do we want to continue with the MSU government center?

Yeah.

In my mind, he's he can the email he sent about um commissioner manager from a government.

I mean every community just can you know in pulsing is what happened.

Here's in West Yellowstone, and you just throw this stuff out on top of his head.

I don't know anyone else who has that kind of base of knowledge in my mind.

Um just what he does for a living.

Can we seek salary information from him?

That's what I'm thinking.

I I I've found him to be helpful.

Compensation.

I'm sorry, you're totally right.

The word is compensation.

Yeah.

But let me let me just say one other thing.

I'm good for about three more days.

And then between getting ready for surgery, dealing with my own complete neurotic, I can never remember whether I'm paranoid or neurotic, but it's one of them.

Same thing.

And um and then what happens after that.

So I've got three or four days I can do some stuff.

Um and then from I don't know, the 11th to whatever, I'm done.

Yeah.

Um I hope to be able to get here in person to the meeting on the 25th, but if I can't, I will attend uh from home.

Um and um so if you all could get me something after tomorrow, Dan and I can fashion something to get to Dan.

Um, but some of this other stuff um is gonna be harder for me to do, or it's gonna turn out to be easy because I'm in bed and I can't stand being there and I have plenty of time to think about it.

Um let us know, Carson.

We'll get the we'll get that to you tomorrow evening.

Okay.

And then um we can kind of go from their houses.

That sounds good.

Let us know how you can parcel off some of whatever you can't do, or you and Deanna are doing plenty.

And so let us know.

But I'm taking the gamma back.

Mike.

Yeah, I'm gonna get yeah, if Dan needs a different point of contact.

I I'm happy I'm around, so I'm happy to help um with Dan getting ready for the meeting on the 21st, 25th in the interim, if that's cool.

Uh the problem I have a little bit is we have all these different ideas.

Who's gonna effectuate them?

Uh, are we gonna invite Jeff Krauss?

Are we gonna invite the um someone from the county commission?

Um are we gonna invite um present members or past members?

You know, just all of those little pieces.

I thought of Jason Delmu too as someone who's stayed involved with the city stuff and who was uh very involved in some of the board.

Um maybe he'd have some or maybe he'd say, no, I'm not coming near this, but um I would ask him at Krauss if it's all right with people.

I wonder uh I wonder if Mike doesn't have access to all these people and can put together a little panel for us.

So I I can't assure a panel, but a couple of a couple of thoughts.

Jason Del Meo is a voice, uh specific individual that I was going to recommend as well as he served pre-consolidation and he is also serving post-consolidation.

Uh I mean I can certainly reach out to Jeff Krause if you'd like and see if he wants to come talk about the previous advisory board.

Uh for current.

Um I can talk with Cola, our Cola Rowley, our newest um uh assistant city manager, has been undertaking a review of the current board structure.

So she's been she's interviewed every um every one of the board chairs on the consolidated boards.

She's talked with Chuck about interviews he's done in the past.

So she's coming in, fresh eyes, new new uh thoughts on it, and is in the process of just the staff um review of our board structure currently, so I can send it.

I want to raise your hand if you choose Mike.

I can just task.

So I can I can talk to those three people.

I can't I can't assure you anybody other than that.

That's cool.

Yeah, I think that sounds great.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And that would be can you last if you ask any microphone too?

I asked if there were any women who were chairing the um advisory boards now that we could include one.

Uh I can find one, or I can ask.

That's what I and then just as thoughts on the education, what we're trying to hear, what we're trying to learn.

Um everything that Barb had brought up about wards and districts, yes.

Um to the point of how do they connect, um, and the idea of what problem are we trying to solve.

Where's the overlap between neighborhood associations, boards and districts?

Are they trying to affect the same solution?

Um specifically looking at the purpose statement in neighborhood associations 406A, and then uh to that same extent with the with the boards.

What's the purpose of these boards that that isn't defined in our current charter?

Um so it has left different interpretations over the years, whether it was the previous version, the current iteration.

Um so just some of those thoughts of what we are looking at when you look at other communities, anybody who's diving into those or has looked at others, like what do they use them for?

Um, and then obviously there's statutory boards that we're not gonna be able to do a whole lot with.

So just to be mindful of those and just some just some thoughts on how these kind of blend to each other.

So wards and districts, how they play with neighborhood associations, how neighborhood associations and boards are similar or different, you know.

They're I mean, not to get into the issue, but geographic versus subject.

Um then for the March 25th meeting, um, just logistically, I gotta get on the right mouse here.

Um we'll have to publish that on the 19th of March.

That's spring break week, and a lot of people are not around.

So the earlier we can put requests out to individuals, the better, so we have that information as early as possible.

I'm um I'll talk with Caleb.

I'm likely going to be out of the office Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday that week.

So it would be um dealing with Caleb to get draft stuff into the agenda for uh 18th or 19th, whichever day I have to confirm with him.

Um but just want to make sure that that's uh Wednesday.

Make sure that that's um understood, and then just lastly, in this timing, um the uh RFP draft, Carson.

You got me that back.

I'll take a look at that tomorrow.

Went off the rails pretty quickly.

Um, so that we can get that timed out for April 15 also.

Um so that would be it's not listed on here in the education process, which is something to be mindful of on our dates that are coming up.

Cool.

That's good.

That's good.

So the next day so we 25th of March, the second March 25th, April 2, April 15.

And the 30th.

So our upcoming list, um, we had April 24 and April 30 also identified as meeting dates per our um plan.

I'll just keep it on the calendar and see what happens.

Okay, thank you.

April 24th is a Friday.

Yeah.

Did we really have that?

Yes, we did.

Okay.

It's not on my calendar either.

Yeah, I I'm just we have a lot of work to do um to get this together.

Um, and I this is the for the good of the order comment.

Uh I think that um in it well in advance of August 10th, we need to have all the amend all the changes to the charter so that we have what the amended charter is gonna look like.

Um we need to have decided about what if any sub options they're gonna be and how they're gonna be decided, and if there's anything that can happen after the 10th of August, it's more writing the report and talking about recommendations and that kind of stuff.

All the uh I's dotted and T's crossed on anything that we're going to submit that that we're going to be asking people to vote on.

And the sooner we do that, frankly, the better from an education standpoint.

Because if we're really going to get out into the community and talk to them about this, it's really important that we have plenty of time to do that.

What about the discussion on mayor the uh options for electing mayors other than uh mayor at large um that was not part of our plan?

I think if what we decide on district and wards suggests that we need to relook at the mayor um how the mayor gets done, that would be the time um once we've made some choices about that to talk about whether we want to amend the mayor discussion.

For instance, maybe it's something that we should um ask uh Dan early on to uh research as well.

I think I think um we could ask more from him, but I think he laid out um where the mayor is picked by the commission.

I think that's in that compartment.

It's in that comparison chart that he gave us a few minutes.

Could someone get the final version of that and print it for me?

Because when I get on my computer and end up printing it, I can't read it anymore.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's too little.

That'd be great if you do in that.

And I can send you the question.

All right, we went four hours without a bathroom break.

Um good job, everybody.

Do we have anything else to discuss?

We're acting like we already adjourned.

Yeah, Mike, could you get could you get print out his big you you did us a great printout for us that was on super long paper?

Yep.

Okay.

And we can come by and get it from you.

Yep.

Anything else?

Nope.

This is perfect time.

With that just adjourned eight.

Definitely, nope.

Thank you.