Yeah, I mean you're told it's that very strong.

So that's the important do that.

So yeah, let's get a couple of coffee and somebody checked.

What's really it isn't oh sure.

Exactly.

I maybe less not the issue.

I think I've told the ICOS.

I don't know actually.

One time I thought I didn't ask you.

Well, it's ten minutes before bedtime.

No, five minutes.

Dan, have you had any fun church tomorrow?

Call to order the Bozeman City Study Commission meeting of March twenty-fifth at four p.m.

If you are able, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a moment of silence during which you may sit down if you would like.

Next item on the agenda is are there any changes to the agenda.

I'm just looking it over.

It looks like we'll get to um Mr.

Clark fairly quickly.

I'm gonna suggest though that we move the unfinished business to review and discuss suggested edits of Article Three till after Dan, if that's okay.

All right, other than that change, are there any other changes?

Seeing none, this is a time for public comment on any items relevant to the city study commission.

We will have a time at the end of the meeting for public comment.

And if we vote on anything today, and I don't think there's much of substance that we would be voting on, there would be public comment at that time as well.

Please state your name and your address, and you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Dan Caveney, fourteen ninety-six Boylan Road Bozeman.

I want to start by thanking you all for doing this work.

That's gotta be gnarly, and it's important and it's needed, and I appreciate it, and a lot of other people I know appreciate it too.

So thank you.

Um it may have been Carson, maybe it's somebody else.

I I can't remember the article clearly, but but somebody at least expressed a sentiment that maybe that's because people are satisfied with the way the government is going.

You know, I tried to you know, it's hard to get anything scientific here, right?

But I talked to a whole bunch of people, and zero percent of them are satisfied with the way the you know the Bozeman City government is working.

I mean, that may be a function of who I come into contact with, but maybe it isn't, you know.

In my own personal life, the reason I personally haven't been more active with you all, is because I'm too busy testifying and working and trying to get the Bozeman City government to be a little more responsive to the people that live in Bozeman.

It takes up all my time.

Well, not all of it.

All my time I'm willing to devote to something like this.

And frankly, I'm a little bitter about it.

I'd rather be doing things like helping you out and not trying to persuade the city to follow its own rules about not cutting down trees and you know respecting the NCOD and all these other important things that aren't happening.

So I just wanted to offer that alternative point of view to you, which I think you know, there's no way to know whether or not it's right or wrong, but it ought to be considered.

And um and I'll reiterate, because I have been active, you've heard from me before, and I really think that the city government is woefully insufficient uh in responding to the citizens who live here.

It bothers me that the commissioners frequently uh invoke this absent majority that they appear to be representing.

I see no evidence that this absent majority exists.

Um I think they need we need a structure that makes the city government more accountable to the people who live here.

And I hope that's something you'll keep in mind as you do this difficult work.

So thanks again.

Uh appreciate you.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you for your comments.

And uh I I get um the the concept that just because no one shows up doesn't mean everything's all right.

And I I certainly didn't mean to say it quite that way.

Um but um thank you for that, and you're not the first person to tell us and me that, and uh I'm taking it in, I assure you.

Well, thanks.

And it wasn't meant as a harsh criticism of you, I guess we can have a dialogue at this meeting.

I you know, I I I just wanted to make sure that all of you were aware of that alternative point of view, which I think is more likely the correct one, but again, I can't say for sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Cabin.

I appreciate it.

Is there any other public comment?

I just have a question.

Can comments about wards be done after the presentation on boards?

Um you can comment about wards now, after the conversation at the end of the meeting, and um when we reach the point of making decisions as well.

But I think the sooner we hear the better.

Oh, not not the sooner today we no.

I got it wrong.

After the conversation is probably the right time to do it, be f but not right before we make a decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Any comments online?

We do not so I had the uh this is totally off the uh occasion.

My my son-in-law was testifying in front of the board of water, the water board in the state of California a couple weeks ago, and my daughter, proud of him, sent me the link so I got to see him.

And the chair of the water board commented very thoughtfully at the end of each comment.

And didn't summarize it, didn't you know, didn't spend a lot of time, but probably gave everybody about 20 seconds of feedback.

And I started thinking, you know, that might be a really good thing for us to always do so that um people know they really have been heard because you you're telling them something about what what they've said.

And um so I'm gonna try and do that, but we'll see how it goes.

And I and I don't know what I'm gonna do if someone stands up and and says you guys are complete idiots and you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what you do with that.

Um my daughter said that that this person was really skilled at doing that and had always done it.

And he even had responses to when he got that which she was gonna send me, but I haven't heard it yet.

So I'm not ready for that.

Um so if someone gets up and says we're idiots, I probably will say thank you and be done with it.

But anyway, we'll experiment around with this because I do think that it is important when there's public comment that um people know that they have been understood.

And that that's kind of what we're after.

Okay.

That's the end of public comment for now.

We will get back to it.

Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda, which is the only item is the approval of study commission minutes.

Does anybody want to take that off the consent agenda?

Seeing no one, let's maybe have a motion.

I move.

We approve the consent agenda for March 25th.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Since there's no discussion on the consent agenda, let's go to a vote.

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

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Hearing none, the motion carries four to zero.

I note that Commissioner Franks is Becky Franks, is going to attend by phone, and she may be out there.

She may be listening, but I am here, and I vote, I vote yes too.

Uh-huh.

Thank you.

Then the motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next on the agenda, uh item E final survey report for community engagement.

That was simply informational, so no discussion.

Okay.

And then the next item is the new calendar plan.

Which we have up in front of us.

Uh Barb, do you want to tell us what this is?

Yeah.

So Becky and I got together a couple weeks ago to start um updating the draft charter language with decisions that we've already tentatively made and start sort of figuring out how we were gonna bring the draft report together.

And we realized that we needed to do another update to the calendar update in order to have everything ready in time to keep moving forward to the next step to get to the place where we can send ballot language to the county election department on August 10th.

So what you have before you is the um process to get our draft tentative report and final draft charter language ready to release to the public for that second required public hearing where we gather report gather public feedback on it.

So we'll have to have a draft of a new charter for us to work through and review and don all the I's and cross all the T's May 7th, and then get it to Greg for legal review at that point.

Um hopefully, and then we can have a conversation about a minority report and getting that prepared to insert into the draft report.

Approve the final draft charter language on the 13th, approve the draft tentative report and release it for public comment at the end of May.

Um and then have the public hearing on that draft tentative report June 17th, and it will include that draft new charter.

Um and then it goes from there.

So hopefully that is the right timeline to ensure that we have the draft ballot language ready on August 10th.

Becky, do you have anything to add to that?

I do not.

That sounds just exactly right.

Thank you.

Is there any other um uh correspondence or study commission update info that anyone wants to add?

I know there was a legal woman voters presentation.

Becky, do you want me to cover the few things we've got in the pipeline?

Yes, please.

Okay.

We did have a really successful meeting with the league League of Women Voters and um one of their larger events and many questions.

We're hoping that they lead to public comments and other ways that they get involved.

We feel um from our own experience when we go to the people, whether it's neighborhood associations, legal women voters will be what the business and professional women, and we have been tentatively approved for a Pachaka Shaw in September.

Um we have to do a few things differently, but it'll probably be as part of ballot education.

So we're looking forward to all of those and very happy that we've been able to do that.

And thank you, Becky, for working together on this.

Great.

Thank you.

I noticed it uh in today's chronicle.

There was a guest editorial by Deanna Campbell and Barb Sistero.

I'm looking at her.

Barb Sistero, thank you all for doing that.

Anything else that's come up in the last since the last meeting.

Mike?

I just want to note that the RFP for the ballot education proposals went out live on the 14th, and it closes at 3 p.m.

on April 3rd.

Thanks.

Sure.

Jan.

I know we have a part of our agenda later that looks at the month of April and the first two weeks.

I'm wondering if you could remind us what sorry, what the next steps are in the process of reviewing the RFP.

Is there a meeting that we actually will be interviewing or approving the selected consultants, or if there's a different process that you have in mind?

Thanks.

So it was discussed before was that Carson and I would review those submissions and bring a recommendation to the April 15 meeting.

All right.

Any other comments and anything?

Um does Mike reviewing the proposal go beyond the bounds of his um responsibilities on the commission to me.

That seems like a commission responsibility and not um a non-voting member.

So I I'm thinking the commission responsibility is to approve whoever it is that gets hired.

And um I think the way we set this up is when Mike and I look at this, um we'll make a determination is the best way.

In other words, if there's two strong candidates, we might come to you with two.

Um we might come to you with the idea of interviewing, or we might come to you with a one solid recommendation, depending on what it looks like.

And if there are five respondents, you're gonna bring us two.

That would put Mike in a position.

Totally depends.

Well, that would put Mike in a position of voting for something.

Which she is not a voting member of the commission.

So I'm I'm really questioning the processing on anything.

Pardon?

I would not be voting on anything.

Well, if you'll eliminate three of five uh respondents, that's pretty much a vote.

Well, I'm gonna agree to disagree on the voting aspect on that, but when the when this task was assigned to me and Carson, this body assigned the RFP task to me and Carson.

And when the time comes to approve or not approve, those that object can um make an objection and change the process if if uh enough of you want to.

And will we see all of the replies to the uh uh requests for proposal?

Uh we'll take a look at that and figure it out.

If there's a hundred, probably not.

That's the lawyer way of looking at it.

If there's one, two, probably yes, I would think.

You know, it uh my view is I'm not gonna give you completely frivolous things.

You know, if my uh 13-year-old granddaughter applies for the position, I'm not gonna bring it to you.

But uh I I'd like to have uh Greg weigh in on this because I I I really think that um there is a problem here.

Okay.

Any other items under correspondence or study commission update.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda is we're skipping unfinished business, and we're getting to the learning session for wards and districts.

Mr.

Clark, we made it to you in 18 minutes.

We've only wasted 18 minutes of your time.

That's a record, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Uh thank you uh Mr.

Taylor and the study commission for the invitation.

And I think this this uh session, you were wanting information on the the advantages and disadvantages of wards versus at large and a hybrid, uh the hybrid option.

And so I've I prepared and sent to you some of the uh papers, uh academic papers and research and uh uh what do we call it practical uh practitioner-focused uh kind of uh materials that has looked at this uh uh these options and weighed and and uh provided some in insights into the advantages and disadvantages.

So I prepared a four-page document.

I think it's four pages, I don't know, maybe seven pages uh for you for review.

Oh, and I think you got that plenty of time to take a look at it.

And uh what I found interesting is I was reviewing some of the the content of the original uh final report provided by the 1976 study commission, they were wrestling with this very same issue.

Uh and then on that uh proposal, they uh they proposed to have wards where uh commissioners were nominated by the ward, so they would have some local focus, but elected at large, uh, which would give uh uh require them to kind of look at the big picture as well.

And so that seemed to my uh a very similar challenge that that you you're looking at is how do we how do we find that uh that balance between a broad focus on the needs and issues that represent that are uh facing the entire municipality, but also have some connection uh to your local uh jurisdiction or your local ward, your local neighborhood.

Um if I recall in that uh that first uh 1976 election that that uh the issue of wards did not pass.

I think it just stayed with the uh at-large.

Um so uh yeah, there's there are the options, and I'll just briefly review with you there's the options of having thing uh the elections as they are at large, and you saw the advantages and disadvantages of having at-large elections.

Um the uh the ad or the uh uh elections by wards, uh, and I did have a little handout too that came explained the difference between wards and districts.

Um and there was a typo in there that I've I've fixed if you're interested, but it was a statutory reference.

Um I used the wrong reference, but um so the elections uh by wards uh and I just took some general numbers uh depending on how many uh commissioners that you end up wanting to have, whether you stay with five or with uh, or in this case would be four with a at-large mayor, or if you had five.

Anyway, you'll you'll have a representation uh you know, between uh what was it 14, 15,000 people would would be your what you'd be representing.

So the more commissioners you have, then the number of representatives that you represent goes down.

And I compared that with uh what the uh House of Representatives in their districts, what they're representing is a similar number.

Always find it interesting when commissioners and legislators are talking.

Oftentimes the city commissioners are representing more people than the representatives that they're engaging with, you know, because they have more uh more constituents that they're responsible for.

They don't like to have that brought up to them though.

Uh and then I find fascinating that this idea of the mixed or the hybrid um, and you know, we talked about that with uh the 1976 uh election, and it's similar to how uh county commissioners are elected primarily around the state.

There's most of the counties are elected the same way that the uh commissioners are nominated by a district and then they're elected at large.

Uh and you could do something similar to where you have uh city commissioners are nominated, they have to live in the ward, and then they're elected at large.

Um so you can you can look at all those different uh variations as you consider your options uh and how they overlay with your considerations of uh selection of the mayor and the number of commissioners.

So briefly that's I guess I I'll be happy to respond to questions or engage in discussion.

Um I don't know if you're expecting more than that, Carson.

No, that's the written materials which we also provided um with the agenda, um, so that people in the public hopefully had an opportunity to read it as well.

Um but um I I think we could go with questions.

I know I have a few, I don't know about the others.

So um let's end you want to ask some questions.

I could start with would you like one question each and then we'll circle back around just and run the room and when we get to Danny can ask himself a question?

The room and when we get to Danny, can ask himself a question.

I'll stump myself.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Um thank you very much, Dan, for all of this information.

I am interested, as you know, on everything about how do uh cities in Montana and elsewhere we've studied, how do they measure effectiveness?

And in this particular case, how do the Montana ward representation cities do that?

And specifically, does that mean did they vote for the local government reviews in this last election?

Oh, in other words, we voted to review our study our government.

Did any of the ward cities that have that representation, did they vote to review themselves?

It's not a trick question.

No, no, it's an interesting question.

Uh so I'll I'll say that the the default for municipalities in the state are with those that have the commission executive form, which is a majority.

Uh the default is wards.

Yeah, I know.

That's the default.

There has been a movement uh amongst the smaller jurisdictions to shift away from the wards to at-large.

And they can do that in two ways.

One is by ordinance making the city one ward, or by changing their form of government by going from wards to at-large.

The reason why the smaller municipalities are doing that is because they're finding it difficult to to get anyone to in a small part of the town to that would be interested to serve in the city council.

So they'd it's a struggle to just get enough people to serve.

And that's the that's primarily the motivation.

When you get to commission manager, the default, so that's we're taking dealing with 14.

The default in the statute is at large for the commission manager.

Uh but I'm trying to think of those uh that in their charter have opted for, and I should have brought that, it's in your chart there, that the charter, how many of those that have wards?

Yeah, and and there's a handful of them that opted to go to wards.

Um I'm just you know, to be really direct here.

Um, if you have that information at your office, I find it very interesting to see which of those cities that have in our majority in the in the uh state with the ward representation if they have elected to review themselves.

It seems to me that's one of the few ways we have to evaluate the effectiveness of the different structures in our in our state.

And my parallel question would be are they all voting at large?

Or are they all voting only by district with words?

You uh flip into a second.

The parallel question I'll come back to.

Appears to be a second question.

I'll come back to that.

Don't answer it, please.

That won't be hard.

I don't want to, I don't want to be unfair.

So no, I'm trying, I'm trying to figure out sort through your your question.

But we'll come back and see if yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Barb, question so I I'm curious.

There are some of the cities that have a ward-based election system that aren't just a single representative from the ward.

They have two representatives from the ward.

And I'm wondering if you have any research or knowledge of why they made that choice to have.

And obviously, that would make the commission a lot bigger potentially, but I'm just curious.

Either bigger or smaller war or fewer wards.

Um and it there hasn't, I haven't come across anything in the review, and if any of the past work that the center has done has done a deep dive in trying to determine that aspect, if and it might come back to your question as well.

If there's so I haven't in all the the stuff from Ken Weaver, Jane Jelinski, and myself, that's it, it either seems to be something that they uh adopted and haven't either revisited, because it's not something that really comes up much, uh, other than the small communities trying to find representation, or in your case, trying to figure out how do we improve representation.

Um either having fewer wards and having two per ward, uh, and I believe uh billions, I want to say no, so billions they have five wards, two from each ward.

Um so some of the ones that have the large words, Missoula.

Six wards.

Yeah, and so they're Belgrade also has two.

Two per ward.

Yeah.

And so so part of it can you you can look at is is how many how how do we want to divide up the city?

How you know when I look at billings, there is a unique needs in Billings Heights that are different than South Billings.

So if you were to be in billings, having an elections at large, you may get people similar to here, concentrated in the particular geography that may not have the lived experience of someone coming from South Billings or from the Billings Heights.

And so the ability to create the wards that provides uh, you know, we don't have a diverse ethnic or racial, but we have a socioeconomic diversity in the in this uh community, and so there might be opportunities to get representation from people that uh live in those unique neighborhoods that have unique lived experiences that someone else and so I think there is a case to be made by by having that geographic location uh or representation would provide a more robust discussion amongst the commission.

Thanks.

Deanna?

Well, I guess uh in regard to what what you were just speaking to, um I'm wondering if different parts of Bozeman um have very different needs.

Uh is it democratic to have representatives uh elected at large?

Because even if they're even if they're uh selected by a ward, if they're elected at large, it more or less overrides any um strong voice as a representative of the ward.

So um I'll use the counties as an example because they're the only ones that do that in the state that I'm aware of, where they have elections representing you know representation from a district or ward and elected at large.

Um it's interesting because it it it cuts both ways.

Uh in that discussion, and what we have been finding, this is a discussion we've had both in Madison County and Gallaton County, uh, is that uh the representative uh that's coming from that particular district, if they only were interested in that district, there's and there's one case in one county that that is the that is the case where they are elected from that district.

Uh and they only are nominated, elected in that district.

So we do have one case, and the frustration is is that has created some feudalism between the different districts.

Does that make sense?

Where two commissioners would gang up and say, hey, we can we can lock this other district out and we can take more resources to share between the two of us.

Well, I think there are a lot, I don't know.

Well, I'm just I'm telling that's that is what they have been finding in those communities.

Uh however, you flip it the other side, is when you're elected nominated from the district but elected at large, uh there are people that are representing a district that they said there's no way that district, the person was not elected in that they did not prevail in the election within that district.

But because the other two districts did not or were not aware of the the character of this individual, they were carried in the other two districts.

Does that make sense?

So the other two districts do you mean in an at large?

Yeah, they they are nominated from a district but elected at large.

And so the other two districts were not aware of the character of this individual, and so they were elected in primarily because they got a majority vote from the districts that were not the district they lived in.

So they said, so we don't like this person, we don't think he'd be good there, but he's not a familiar, you're not as familiar in the other parts of the of the county to this individual.

It's a big geography, right?

Big mountain ranges that separate those things.

Um I don't think there's a uh a panacea in any of these options.

And what you're looking at is what is it we're trying, what issue we're trying to solve.

If it is if we're trying to increase the the and democratize this process, will this work better than the alternative?

But with that, what are the trade-offs we're going to be accepting by going this direction?

And are those trade-offs we're we're seeking, the advantages we're seeking outweigh in your mind the trade-offs on the other side.

And this is the challenge that you're facing, you're probably looking at each of these issues, is there's no one like perfect answer.

Each one of these is going to have a trade-off.

And you have a history of what you've been doing historically.

Yeah well a follow up follow up no to not when it comes around to you again she tried what did you call it you call it a follow up she called it a parallel question um Becky do you have a question of Dan Yeah yeah Dan um my Yeah can you hear me?

Yes yes you can hear me yes okay um Dan what are you know I look at Missoula I look at billings and they both have wards and if both gonna say we have a problem to solve and if we had wards it would solve the problem what do you see as what does wards having wards solve that that we might have and or how how does Missoula and Billings benefit by having wards that we are not um because we don't have them yeah yeah I think the one of the advantages is you're gonna have a a uh voices from different parts of the community that will be in this chamber uh that that historically haven't right if you look at the history not that the opportunities weren't there but uh for whatever reason they they hadn't people hadn't been participating in in the process um so I think it I think by I think it would allow more or different voices uh and I think that's what Missoula uh will say is I've heard comments from them is they like having their districts because it it allows uh I'm trying to think of the word it I don't think it was eclectic but you think of you know some different eclectic voices uh and it allowed some some alliances to be formed because uh there's common interests that might be uh felt within a in a particular ward or wards that they can find an alliance and say let's move some some legislation forward or some some change forward because we have this common interest that is unique to our wards and people that are elected at large may not feel that does that make sense right and so it's that it's this is my lived experience that we're you know whether it's a traffic issue or whatever might be a parks issue this you know it's not going to be fit felt as acutely by someone lives you know if you've got four commissioners that all live in one side of town on the other side of town you're not feeling that traffic snarled the the whatever right and that lived experience I think is important representation to bring in the room and by spreading that around the the forcing that voice to be spread around the community I think is the benefit that Missoula or Billings would say.

Mike and for a literally have a follow-up hang on to that follow-up I may regret making this decision you can blame me blame it on Carson go ahead Mike do you have a question uh so one of the uh just considerations that's stuck in my head with geographic boundaries and where we have information now I know the the process of whether or not we're deciding to do wards or districts doesn't necessarily need to go into the depth of how do we draw those but how do we reconcile with the imprecise information that we would have for geographic boundaries for example school district boundaries don't follow city limits census tracts don't follow city limits so our our data sets are incomplete so how how do you feel that affects the consideration of geographical representation I I don't know how the what what the city has access to uh but I'm sure you've got a a GIS department within the city that has uh I'm assuming that has some demographic information to it that that uh that can be used you use it for emergency services and some of the other services that the city provides so I think there's that the information exists and if not at the city level the county level should have some of that stuff again to the emergency services they know addresses they know how many people are there for for that uh that uh response um I'm assuming that that's what they do um and so I think it's uh an administrative function uh to be adopted by a uh a future commission is you give the criteria we'd like to have the city divided in X amount with representation as equal uh geographically and population is is possible and I think I propose some some potential language in here that that also included be say you have a huge annexation uh between the two decennial uh uh

Um I think it's uh an administrative function uh to be adopted by a uh a future commission is you give the criteria.

We'd like to have the city divided in X amount with representation as equal uh geographically and population is is possible.

And I think I propose some some potential language in here that that also included say you have a huge annexation, uh between the two decennial uh uh census, and you annex another 3,000 homes or whatever into the city.

Uh it the the language allowed the opportunity for it's like okay, now we're out of balance.

Uh we've got one ward now that's got you know a third more than what we were expecting, and allow mid uh decennial uh census to do uh another uh ward changeup.

I don't know if that's answering your question, but I think I think for the at the level that this the study commission is operating at is you create the expectation in the charter, and then it's up to the city administratively to figure out how to implement that.

It's I don't I don't think it's necessarily your responsibility to create the map of the of the wards.

You might want to have some samples, uh but that would I think that's what uh Galton County is did.

They looked at some potential if they went to five commissioners, what would that look like, particularly for representation?

They're trying to solve a representation issue, and could they do that with with adding two more districts?

And I think they were finding that even if we added two more districts, it still wouldn't solve the representation issue, particularly for those rural outline communities.

So my question is uh it it appears in most of the cities that if you live in a ward and move out of it, you're out of office.

And I'm wondering if there are any examples of cities across the state which allow some um flexibility in that, and I'm thinking of wanting to have renters, for instance, on the city commission, it's a four-year term.

Um maybe you don't end up in the same rental, or I'm thinking of growing families.

You start off and you're in a small house, and before you know it, you have three kids and you need a bigger house, and the best bigger house that you can afford is in a different ward, bam, you're out.

Is it in the realm of to sort of create some I don't know, some kind of two-year rule?

If you've been there two years, you get to stay on the commission, and then when your term runs out, or how might that work?

So currently in the state statute, it doesn't make an allowance for that.

The beauty of having a charter is you can you can put that in your chart, that we recognize the the fluidity of our community and wanting to make it accessible to all, you can write something into the charter, allowing that when you're elected in that ward, as long as you're in the city boundaries, language similar to this, right?

As long as you live within the city limits and you're elected to a ward, you'll retain that seat until the expiration of your term, regardless of where you end up at the end of the term.

Something to that effect.

So you can write that in, and that would uh the the charter would have supremacy over the state statute.

Nice.

Thanks.

Jan your parallel question or another one.

Yes.

It's another one, but it's all related, of course.

Um I'm interested again, as you know, with not only geographic representation, but some of the larger socioeconomic, as you've already said, and I appreciated the fact that you highlighted the fact that women appear to do better in at large getting elected elections as compared to the smaller wards.

However, I'm also interested in what our cities that have words have in the socioeconomic representation.

That may be a question I'd ask you to go back and look at if you don't have it, of course, handy with all of the cities that have the words, but I'm very interested, particularly around um issues uh as Carson just referenced about renters versus not in contrast, but as compared to owners, and certainly uh if we have anything about an age, much in addition to anything around ethnicity and and race.

Yeah, so as far as I know, there's nothing in the state that uh that I'm aware of that has studied or looked at those those impacts or relationships.

Uh some of the other uh uh papers that I included in the uh in the evaluation touched on some of those aspects, but they're in in and I tried to limit uh my review, my literature review to you know, we're not looking at Minneapolis and Dallas and Los Angeles and New York because you're not that where there are, and I think there's more of an interest in looking at the uh ethnic and racial issues.

There's a little bit that was being touched on on the socioeconomic.

Um that's you know, I don't have much more or wouldn't know where to look that would be Montana-centric on that that conversation.

And I could go back to these cities and look them up myself, which is what we did for our extra cities that we added on to.

So thank you.

Bob I'm relieved to understand that it's not the expectation we draw the map.

That actually is a relief to me because it's making my head hurt.

Yeah, but I am wondering how and and maybe but how would a how does a city like Billings deal with the fact that they are rapidly growing and and not um growing at the same rate in different parts of the city, and I'm thinking like we could draw lines now, but that southwest corner is being built up, but there's nobody really living there yet.

So, how do you address that kind of thing?

Is it just this annexation language or I don't know how how do you yeah, and no, you could maybe put some triggers in the charter language saying if any if any ward uh gets a certain percentage out of balance with the other wards, uh that would trigger a recalculation of the wards.

And and again, the caveat again written into the charter being that no uh uh elected representative would lose their seat because of a redistricting or re rewarding, if you will, uh right.

So that if you re draw those wards and it's happens to get somebody out, there's there they can still serve out their terms, similar to what you were saying before, right?

Is so that's uh that is common language within the the uh within the state statute that uh and they'll often say that it won't be implemented until those seats or if you were to make a change here that we're gonna go from five commissioners to three, uh, if that's adopted by and ratified by the voters, uh those two commissioners would still serve out their term.

They wouldn't say, oh, now as of today, you're done.

Um so they're respectful of that.

Uh so I think you you have the flexibility to to put triggers when it would make sense for you to recalculate it.

I would you know look at what are what would be a percentage, right?

And if you're looking at 15,000 people and suddenly the ward gets up to 18,000, that you know that might be a trigger that we need to re-look at that.

And I don't know where that number is, and that's something you can kind of think about.

What would be a percentage of growth that would trigger uh a need to rebalance the wards?

The 10%, 15%, 20%.

I don't I don't know what that would be.

And it would be interesting then to look at you know the the growth rate over time, if it's particularly one particular side of you know, I don't see us growing much to the what to the east, so it's really gonna be that those maybe two wards or maybe three wards that might interface with that part of this the city limits.

Yeah, yeah, uh yeah.

I I appreciate the work you put into this, Dan.

Uh, but I do feel like you left out a possibility that we could be considering, and um that is if we were to divide the city into seven uh districts elected um per district, which would preserve uh the um uh elected uh excuse me, would which would preserve representation and it would also keep it open to um many people running uh because it would be so much cheaper to run a campaign just in the ward, 9,000 people compared to the whole city, and um uh excuse me, then after having elected seven commissioners, uh the mayor and the deputy mayor could be seated by or elected by the seated commission, which is a common uh practice in many cities, and and such a an arrangement, and I'm gonna read here because um uh I don't want to miss anything.

And in such a an arrangement, and I'm going to read here because I don't want to miss anything.

Sure.

So the advantages of that would be real clear accountability to the residents because the commissioner would be representing those people within their ward.

And it increases the representation in smaller districts.

Lower campaign costs and broader participation in the electoral process, balanced government via internal mayor selection, and reduces the influence of money and strong neighborhood representation with citywide decision making.

Okay.

And I believe that it is possible for elected officials to represent the best interests of the entire city, even while maintaining the representation of the district that or ward that they represent.

So I I think that is not a great problem.

And it encourages collaboration within the commission.

And this is a model that I think we should consider going forward as we consider all of these models.

And you know, it's my uh opinion that this does answer the people's desire for better representation.

And I would like for you to um comment on this.

Yeah, yes.

Yeah, I'm not to add.

So yeah, that wasn't, I guess maybe I didn't understand the full scope because I didn't, I wasn't clear to me that I was going to be should also be thinking about the the mayor aspect of it, other than yeah, I guess I could have added that to the to the conversation.

But yeah, I think I think the default, the statutory default for the commission manager form of government is that the they don't have a well, they have a presiding officer, right?

Not unlike, you know, we just call it a mayor here, but they're still part of the legislative branch that's selected by the the commission.

So that's that is a common, that's the default.

Um and it's it's in the charters where we're getting more unique representation around the the mayor uh in how they're selected in uh in some of those things.

So uh I think I think the the points you made are are all valid and and and appropriate.

I so I think those are all the things you should be considering.

Uh what is the commission look like and who is going to be the head of that commission and how or how you select them, whether it's elected at large for that person or whether it's uh selected from the body, those are all relevant uh options for you to consider.

And what and what is it that you're trying to, you know, I I think some of the challenges you're you're recognizing is if you're presenting an alternative to what exists, the either the the there's gotta be a clarity for the public why they're not happy with the existence, the the the status quo and why there's a need to make a change, or we see a need to make a change, and we feel that this would be an improvement over what we currently have.

Uh and I'm not sure what kind of feedback you're receiving relative to the selection process.

I'm sure you're getting some feedback that it's like kind of a technical political science term of squonky.

We've got a squonky method of how we select our mayor and deputy mayor and how that all that works.

It's kind of a unique thing.

And can we clean that up?

And in an attempt to clean that up, I think having a more direct, like what you're proposing is uh very valid.

So the question is yeah, do we want to have that selected from the commission, or do we want to have that elected uh from an at large position or that large role?

Yeah, I think those are good good good conversations to have.

I know that I know that I was just waiting to make sure he was finished.

I didn't want the answer or the answer or to come up with one more line just as I stepped in.

Becky question?

Yeah, yeah, I do.

Um when we talk about citizen representation when you talk about what problem we're trying to solve.

And one of the things that's come up very clearly is that citizens say, I don't feel represented, or I don't feel like I have a strong enough voice.

And um when I think about that, I I think about wards, I think about neighborhood associations, I think about neighborhood associations and wards.

Or and so my question is how does that problem get solved by having wards, or how can that problem be solved by having strong neighborhood associations that's represented across the the community?

Like so if we kept the same all the commissioners at large and the mayor at large, uh, but then we had really great neighborhood program.

Could that be a better way to solve the problem called I don't feel represented?

Or is it not helpful?

So that's a big question.

But there you go, Dan.

Yeah.

Thanks, Becky.

No, it is a big question.

And unfortunately, I had some I I had been working parallel with this on the neighborhood council discussion as well, getting some lit review and and getting my head wrapped around that and and what currently operates in the city and what are some alternatives and what are other cities doing.

Um and I think you're I so I think it's appropriate when you're getting the feedback that people don't feel like they're they're getting the representation they want, and what levers do you have in a study commission looking at the structure of government that you can pull that might add value to that?

A lot so that could there's a percentage of that representation is gonna come possibly through the structure.

But we can't uh we got to acknowledge that there is a a portion of that representation based on the people that we elect.

Right?

The government is only as good as the people we put in place to run the government.

So some of that is going to be dependent upon who we place in those positions, who we elect and choose to represent us, and are they doing that to the level that the public would like to, you know, and require and demand of them.

Um but but that's not the discount, there is some structural things, and I think having this conversation, I think you're right, Becky.

If if uh in in looking at the literature, it seems like there's a representation issue here that could be addressed or enhanced with the local the local wards.

Um likewise, I think the same discussion could be had with the neighborhood councils, and that's from my review of of what's been going on and where there's been some really successful neighborhood councils.

It was an intentional investment by the city or by the municipality to say we want this to work well.

This this grassroots engagement and let it come from the bottom up.

They and I'm I'm thinking of Minneapolis is one that made a tremendous investment, I believe, in 2007, and spent a tremendous amount of energy and treasure on that model, right?

So part of this is you can write the coolest thing in your charter, and it can be adopted.

The part the other part of it is is the implementation and the commitment that both the public and the existing uh city is going to want to, you know, if you want to you if you're expecting them to implement it at a 10.

There's nothing required of them to implement it at the level 10, right?

They could do it at whatever level they feel like they have the resources and time and energy to put to it, or the commitment to.

So I want to balance some of that.

That some of this stuff is what levers you can control as a study commission, looking at structure to enhance representation.

Uh, is there something you can do to enhance that through the structure that would be I think wards, and I think it would be looking and examining like the neighborhood council model, and is there something could be improved there?

Uh and I think there is some language that you can put in there to improve that, uh, but it still comes down to the commitment of both the folks in the neighborhoods to engage.

I live in a neighborhood, I don't engage, and I doubt there's gonna be much that neighborhood council is going to do to get me to engage.

That's just the reality.

I'm just you know, that's just how my life rolls right now.

Um so some of that, you know, I'm and I'm willing because of my apathy, I'm willing to take what you give, right?

Because I'm not involved like this gentleman here was saying, he's like super involved, and he has great expectations, and good for you because making it better for all of us.

Um I don't know if that answered your question, Becky.

Was that helpful?

I think it is.

Um for now I'll say, because I know on April 2nd, for those of you listening to, we're gonna be learning about neighborhoods, neighborhood associations.

And it's for me, it's the balance of both.

You know, like okay, what is what does it mean to be representative?

Um because I also think about if we had a ward or a district.

What if no one wants to run from my ward or district?

Or the only one who wants to run from my ward is like a small, but he's like the last guy to actually do it.

And so now we have the lesser person versus two two streets over, it was somebody who really would have been amazing with a lot of skills and talents that they would have shared, but uh that lived in the wrong block.

So I I'm kind of thinking about all that put together if I if I may, uh Taylor is that and I don't want to steal all my thunder for April, it's April 2nd, right?

The next one, you know, there are some neighborhood councils that are uh a disaster in the state.

But they they are a huge sink of energy and time for the city.

Um and part of it is because of the again, as I've I've you've heard me say this before, a lot of this is an experiment.

And we're and and so the study commission in 1976 in this municipality thought, well, what about this?

Why don't we create a neighborhood council?

And they they created this structure and that was it.

And the city didn't make much investment.

Anyway, it's become a really challenging uh environment for the city.

Um and it's become an adversarial relationship between the neighborhood councils and the city.

Um so we can talk more about that, you know, cautionary experiences where we don't want to go there.

And and I think in your charter, the neighborhood council structure is not bad compared to others.

Uh can it be improved and enhanced likely?

And and so you can take it so far, then it's gonna take it comes back then to those that live in the neighborhoods, and I think the the commitment of the city to really make the investment to, you know, if they've got to have the desire to say we want that grassroots bottom-up kind of relationship.

Um I think it would be helpful for future commissions to have a good framework to operate from.

And maybe that's what you're looking at is how do you set the table for you know, and so if if more people that are really keen on this representation and coming with that mindset to the electoral process, and they have the tools available to them in the charter to make that happen beyond just being elected from a ward, I think that's that's an opportunity.

Cool.

Thank you.

Do you have any data on voter turnout rates in at large versus wards?

Boy, no, I don't.

That's an interesting question.

I'm sh there might there might be data on that.

I did I did put those in my search parameters.

Is it important to find out?

Or can we do some please do some digging?

I don't I don't think in any of the material that I don't recall anything in those those uh uh papers that I looked at and and pulled out, talked about that.

Mostly it was about the representation, but I'll I'll look and see.

Good question.

So my question borders on where we were.

Are there any cities in Montana or anywhere that you know of where there's a I'm not sure what the right adjective is, but I'm gonna say formal or structural connection between a given ward and the neighborhood councils that are within it.

In in what way?

I I want to say yes, but I want to qualify that.

I'd want a little more.

I'm thinking unpack what you're thinking.

I'm uh I get elected as the person from a given ward.

I live in that ward.

There's five neighborhood councils within the ward.

And um in my mind, if that were the case, I would want to be meeting regularly with all of them and probably all of them together to sort of coalesce that.

Yeah.

Um, but I know that some of the cities that we've looked at across the state have neighborhood councils and they have um at-large commissioners or whatever, but there doesn't seem to be that sort of structural connection.

Yes, that uh from from my experience in in looking at these, there seems to me to be in Montana, I can't speak to Missoula, but but from the other communities I'm thinking of, there is a disconnect that they're almost operated in two different planes.

Right.

Like I said, it's it's uh it's almost like this is an annoyance that exists, and we've got to spend the resources here uh and they're not seeing the value of that and making that connection.

So some of that is is structural.

Some of that's the way the the lack of specificity that's in the charter that allows that gap to exist.

Uh and and we're working with some of these communities right now in helping them frame and develop uh ordinances and resolutions that that create the connectivity that didn't exist in the charter.

So now we're from 76, what is it, 50 years later?

They're still struggling with that the lack of connection.

And so we're we're saying, look, you can either continue moving on with this this disconnected and this energy sink, or provide structure and provide guidance and give them purpose to say we need your engagement at this level to inform us at this level here.

And right now there's a big gap there.

And and either that and I think this in the in the city I'm working with, this commission is at that crossroads trying to decide what is going to be our relationship moving forward with these neighborhood councils.

Um and how to how do they uh define that relationship to where it informs and enhances their ability to make good decisions for the city and how they use the labor councils as a tool in that process that currently it's not.

And so I think there's a desire to have that happen.

And and I think I think as we look at the language of the existing language of the neighborhood council of the city of Bozeman, and look at what are other communities doing, what's been their uh spark of success?

Uh and it and like I said before, part of it could be structural, but a lot of it's uh the commitment and the investment and the the treasure it's gonna take to make that happen, to make it relevant uh and and create the pathways for that grassroots engagement to filter uh to the decision making level.

And that's it, it is it is a huge effort.

And I that's why I think it's that's why I think it's difficult that it's an idea, it's a as an idea, it's great.

In practice, it's very challenging.

It's like collaboration.

Way more difficult to collaborate than it is to just make decisions on a you know, and find consensus than it is to just majority rule.

Right?

And so there's a commitment that the the community has to have, and the you know, say how do we find consensus around some of these things in the community, and how do we work within the community to filter that up with with whatever the the issue might be?

Uh that's a whole different approach to governing and the investment it takes to make that happen.

So thank you.

I'm gonna suggest we go around one more time with questions so that we have time to finish the agenda, and I'm and I'm gonna suggest to the public that at the end of this discussion, we'll welcome public comments on what we've just discussed, um, so we get that in before we uh move on to other business.

All right, so be ready.

Jen.

Thanks, Carson.

I was gonna suggest the same.

Um I'm interested also in um who votes for what structure, what elements of the structure?

Um in other words, how many of the cities that would be equivalent to our size who have mayors.

Do people elect those at large?

Or we've heard another alternative, that's why I'd like to compare that.

And then secondly, with that, how many then are electing city commissions, city councillors in terms of at-large versus only by that either district or by that ward.

I just want to clarify when you say electing their their mayors, are you saying that as the chief executive that that does the the operations of the city as the mayor or as a member of the commission who is the figure head and facilitates the meetings with no executive authority?

If they are actually in that legislative role.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

On your chart, I guess we can look at the chart, it answers some of that.

Like I said, the default.

So if you're looking at I know Livingston and Livingston and thank you.

Livingston Lewistown, they both uh they're selecting their uh presiding officer.

Uh they don't call them a call the person a mayor from the commission.

So it's being selected internally.

Uh Callispel is electing their mayor.

I'm I'm I'm sorry, I'm not asking the question correctly.

I'm interested in the cities at the similar to ours that would have a mayor that is we've we've made a policy decision recommendation of having a full-time mayor or someone who is equivalent to that.

So are there cities that have equivalent to that?

Are they elected directly by the people, or are they selected by city commissions or city uh councils?

Or maybe I can simply address it.

Yeah, so billions they elect their mayor.

Great Falls elects their mayor.

Helena elects their mayor.

These are separate positions that they're they're running for.

It is it is unique position.

Um their mayor is the chief executive.

They are the executive, they don't have a manager.

So it's a different structure of government, to just be clear there.

Uh and I think that's billings.

Oh, Helena, did we say Helen?

Oh, yeah.

So I think I got all the big ones.

Is that yeah?

So I don't so I believe all the big municipalities are electing their mayors directly.

If there's an office that they run for.

The other part was, and it's not a second question, but it was the part of then who is electing the folks that are elected in wards or districts.

Are they all only elected by members of that ward or um district, or are there any at-large models?

I'm not aware of any of them that are that are that are the hybrid where they live in a district but elected at large.

If they have a districts, they're elected in the districts, or it's an either-or in those similar-sized communities.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That was the tough one.

Yeah.

No, I'm just trying to remember all the all the bits.

Yeah.

Bob.

So I want to I want to come back to the hybrid option of having some commissioners elected by wards and requiring them to live in the ward, and then having a mayor and or a commissioner or two also elected at large.

Reading all of the I actually read all of the papers as well.

Wow, I totally nerded out on this because it's important.

Um it seems like that that hybrid idea of having a couple of commissioners that are elected at large as well as a majority of the commissioners elected by ward is fairly new.

But I so I'm wondering if you have thoughts or information on why that innovation seems to be emerging, and is it emerging to solve a problem itself that we might want to avoid as we think about changing?

I'm not getting a sense necessarily that it's emerging as a problem.

I'm I'm I'm feeling that the there it's uh the the charters are becoming more common.

Uh that as as municipalities across the country are are in other states they call it uh home rule, which is different than Montana.

But so is as they're getting into that space of the home rule or states are kind of providing that opportunity for the for municipalities to have home rule, and then they're creating these charters, and and I think it's part of that, I believe it's part of the model charter, they give you those options.

And I think so now it's just becoming in the in the lexicon of ideas, and I think that's one of the reasons why they're saying, well, let's try this.

I'm not sure, I'm not aware of any the problem they're trying to solve, particularly, or one that is created by doing it.

But I think it's I think it's back to let's let's try this.

Let's try this uh to where we have people on the commission that are really thinking about the whole big picture, while others are really, you know, and it allows that tension, that healthy tension to exist uh without having to switch hats in the same seat.

And so just to be, I mean, the reason I asked the question is it seems like moving to a ward-based system.

One of the trade-offs is that you can create this parochial conversation at the commission, and there there isn't necessarily anybody with the role of looking out for the whole city, and that that can create more conflict on commissions and it can create one paper, even suggested it as I understood it, creates higher spending on infrastructure.

So I I just I wonder if that might be an option to consider to avoid some of those downsides of a strictly ward-based system.

Yeah.

It's it's easier to get focused to have a lot of discussion at this table about my pocket park.

Right.

And I'll I'll if if you help me on my park park, I'll help you on your whatever, and you you know, and this so there's there's more of that to bring home the bacon, so to speak, that old school, you know, and that's and I'll tell you, things get done.

It's it just costs you stuff, right?

Um it's gonna it has a cost.

And so those are the things that uh you've got to balance pocket parks.

Deanna.

Well, I don't uh have a question right at this moment, but I I do think that we need more data uh on um uh some of this because I think that the data that we see in the the reports that we uh were attached um are coming up with this uh hybrid um uh look at um uh uh having wards but electing them at large.

And I am not satisfied that that isn't uh uh kind of an oxymoron, because uh if you're going to have uh wards representing uh the people that are commissioners representing the people that live there, and then elected at large, it just seems to me like uh that is a huge giveaway of the whole purpose of having ward representation.

And I would really like to see more data on this.

And I don't know, Dan, if you can bring us more data um uh on that, or if we need to individually um go to work and bring it forward at the next meeting.

So let's ask the question of Dan can he come up with more data and then defer the rest of it to our discussion about future meetings and what else we could do.

Okay.

Yeah, and and there's it as Barb said, it's an emerging thing.

There's not a lot of data on it.

And I think we are able to collect as much research on that.

So I think a lot of it is just you know, wetting your finger, putting it in the wind and trying to figure out, you know, is this going to give us something it's it's an idea.

Uh this is an opportunity.

I think what makes it helpful for Montana is you can revisit this and evaluate over the next 10 years.

You can try something, you've got 10 years, you can come back and fix it, or if it's not working at any time, the citizens can by petition or whatever say, let's change that.

Barb, are you asking me to break the rules?

Well, I am.

I just have a point of clarification.

Okay.

Point of clarification.

I I am not proposing we examine an option of having people run from a ward but elected at large.

I am proposing that we examine this hybrid option where the majority of the commission would be elected from if by ward.

We'd have four commissioners by ward.

We may have one at-large commissioner and an at-large mayor, so that we would have some of both.

We would have ward-based representation commissioners who are only voted for from the people that live in the ward, and we might have a position or two that are elected at large and are accountable to the entire city and are accountable to the big picture.

Okay, Becky.

Do you have any more questions?

And I got a big question.

So in 2023, the the legislature said that uh city commissions could no longer um review and vote on building.

Um, as long as uh all the building and zoning requirements were covered.

Uh things just got covered.

So then at the end of last year, the city of the B.

Well, it's been created the UDC, and now building projects are no longer coming before the city commission.

So given that, does that change the needs of neighborhoods where before that their voice as a as a commission was that that the commissioners need to be aware of different issues in different neighborhoods because they needed to be able to vote on all these building projects.

Um does that change the recommendation or the benefits of having awards at all, or does it not?

Um that's a good question.

And just think Boom.

Yeah, thank you.

Another mic drop for Becky.

Uh I'm thinking that it would change how right.

We have a we have a process that we make these decisions now.

Um what what's happening with that legislation from 2023 is it's shifting that process.

So we've got to find a new way in which we engage, and basically what it's from what I understand is the decisions and the the legislative discretion is done first, you adopt that, and then as things come to the city, uh then it's just put through that uh the lens of that previous decision-making process, if that makes sense.

So you're instead of saying bring it to us and we'll make a decision at the end.

What we've done basically is we flip that and say we're gonna make the decision how we want the city to look at the front end, and then as things come through, it's just administratively uh uh uh decided.

Right.

We already made the decision what we want to look like, you just feed it through the grinder and it comes out as being a building.

So that could, thinking about it, that could give more purpose to those neighborhood councils as they think about how do we want this uh code to look on the front end, because that's what it's gonna look like at the back end, right?

We make the decision today that's gonna be effective over the next five, ten years, versus well, let's just see and we'll try to make a decision case by case, which is very inefficient.

And I think that's one of the reasons why most other states have gone that direction, and we're one of the last to adopt that that strategy.

So that could thinking about it, that could be a uh a mechanism to engage those neighborhoods to have this come these conversations to define what that looks like on the front end in a different way instead of at the back end when it's were the stakes are higher.

Oh, it's a good thought.

Um pressing up against time.

So, Mike.

Uh my final question is Are there systems and how do we access them that prevent gerrymandering in the future as things go on because that seems to be fairly popular politically across the country these days, and it doesn't feel good to me.

Yeah.

Um the language that is common is a portion by population and e uh and uh uh geography as equal as possible.

Okay, so that means so many square miles or whatever needs to be within each of those those wards.

Uh and I'm thinking about it, it doesn't prevent them from saying, okay, it's just gonna be a long skinny you know wraparound ward.

They could still as long as it maintains the same.

So that's a good so uh let me would that be helpful to think about or try to find language that could be used to minimize gerrymandering.

That'd be great if you could.

I wonder if anyone's come up with that.

Okay.

Cool.

All right.

Uh I'd like to move up to the public right now because we do have a hard stop at six.

So any public comment on this conversation or this issue in any way.

Thank you.

Um, Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak about what I call words for Bozeman a solution in search of a problem.

Certainly I'm not entirely satisfied with our current city commission, but I am in favor of at-large elections.

Please carefully consider all the disadvantages to wards and the advantages of at-large elections that are pointed out in the uh document that Dan Clark presented.

Um I would like to counter the four advantages to wards that are listed.

To the first and second advantages.

Bozeman does not have a sufficiently large and geographically concentrated racial or ethnic minority.

Also, lower income and renter neighborhoods are not sufficiently concentrated, with many renters living in what are traditionally considered higher income neighborhoods.

Wards would not increase any of these groups' representation on our city commission.

The third advantage, stronger neighborhood responsiveness.

Please reread my comments from your January 28th meeting.

I won't repeat them.

We need citywide perspectives for the Bozeman community.

I want to vote for the best candidate, sharing my views, not be forced to vote for a near but mediocre candidate.

The fourth advantage, lower campaign costs for candidates.

This may be true.

But a more important barrier to candidacy is that commissioners are not adequately compensated for their work.

That is going to keep low-income people from becoming candidates.

Who bears the cost of creating and maintaining wards?

If wards, compact and equal in population and geographic area could be drawn, who does this?

And how often would these lines need to be adjusted as Bozeman grows?

Are the people who live near the edges of the ward boundaries going to be constantly thrown into different wards as Bozeman's boundaries change?

How about the commissioners themselves?

If they move out of their ward, are they made ineligible to run again in that ward?

This exact issue of changed boundaries has eliminated a county commission hopeful from participating as a candidate this year because of errors made in determining her district.

Please do not add this level of complication to our voting.

The level of voter participation is already embarrassingly low, 31% this November.

The complications of wards or hybrid systems could make this even worse.

Please let us continue to vote at large for our city commissioners.

And I thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mary, and I appreciate the comments about wanting commissioners that have the needs of the city at large in their minds as things grow.

And I uh the cost of creating wards and following up on them.

And I I know I sat on the school board, and every time we try to create neighborhood schools and then but they also had to be equal in size, or you tried to create it fill them, um created problems for people that lived on the fringes.

So I think that's an important point as well.

But thank you.

Next comment, please.

Good evening.

I'm Terry Quatrero.

And although I don't live in the city limits, I've been involved on an advisory board for many years in the past.

Some of the questions, concerns I have, and Mary did a good job of explaining things, but I'm more inclined to wards because if in the criteria that you set in establishing wards, you also set a criteria for those who can run in those wards.

In other words, someone who's already been involved, someone who whatever the criteria is set, and a handbook provided for potential candidates so that they can review what currently is going on and an opportunity to explain in detail what they would really stand for.

And a handbook can be created.

I don't think that's a big problem and should be created for everyone that sits on any commission, mayors, et cetera.

They need to be knowledgeable about what the goings-on are already.

But the ward issues, I think what we find out when we do it at large, we really have the people who can afford it and the people that are wealthier running all the time because they can't afford to send out flyers to the whole city.

That's really expensive.

And to concentrate it, I do believe that if they do that, I think more of the neighborhoods would become more involved and be more likely to vote.

But they do have to set a criteria and some kind of not passing a test, but at least showing that they reviewed the handbook so that they know what they're getting into.

Another question I have with changing the charter or having a charter is I know we have a mayor, we have a city manager, and we have a city attorney.

And right now, it seems like there's a lot of uh power in one of those three, and I won't mention which one because I don't want to sound political.

But um how right now are those, and you don't have to answer me right away, but we I know how we elect a mayor, and then the city manager is elected by the city commission, I assume, and then the city attorney.

So uh those are just questions I'm wondering about.

Um and I think it would another thing I would like to see put in the charter, if it could be, is a cap on spending when elections come around.

Um and maybe that at a large system would make it more equal, um, so that everyone is starting on the same playing field, literally.

So um that's my input.

Oh, I did it on time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Uh I hear the idea of a handbook and criteria for running.

I think that's really interesting ideas.

And um trying to figure out how to make um running for offices affordable enough so that we all can do it, whether it's the cost of doing the running or the cost of uh doing the serving as well.

So those connect up.

Thank you for that.

Uh Natsuki Nakamura, Bozeman resident.

Uh I'm a member of the economic vitality board, but speaking as an individual.

Um, I agree a lot with Mary's um previous comments, so I'll just um embellish a little bit on some of the points that she made.

Um I do worry about like what is the problem that we're trying to solve with words.

I am not I'm not convinced that words solve the problems that um people feel.

Um one of the you know pros of wars is trying to get more diversity on the commission.

Boseman is 87% white, so I think what and the non-white population doesn't live in a certain area of the city, so I don't think we're we don't get that benefit of race like we get in what other get in other cities.

Um as Mary mentioned, I don't think low-income people only live in one area either, so we're not getting that socioeconomic advantage as well.

Um I think there's the reason people have this feeling that like a lot of the commissioners has come from south of downtown, that kind of that area.

Um, but I think it's because people do have to be retired or have a job that pays them well enough or has enough flexibility to be on the commission.

Um it's just a lot of hours and even just for meetings and being available is just it's just a lot to ask to be on the commission.

Um I'm I fear that having wards does not reduce the amount that each commissioner would have to do, even if you're only representing fewer people, you still would have to do all the same work to make decisions on the budget, capital improvement plan, um, annexations, these are citywide issues that you would still need to do the same amount of homework to be able to make an informed vote on those things.

Um the issue the idea that we get a better advocate for geographic specific issues.

Um I think on the north side, there was recent issues that have come up, or the urban camping issues I was having primarily on certain streets or other parts of the north side have seen a lot of high rises that have come up.

These are, you know, both on the north side, but so how small would the wards have to be to kind of feel that these issues are being represented properly by someone on the commission.

I think you would have to cut the wards in an interesting way to kind of feel that people were being more represented.

Um I think in other cities are kind of clear geographic boundaries that make sense for wards.

I think it would be a little bit forced in Bozeman to try to decide which areas need a certain the own representation.

Um the idea that wards are would be more democratic.

Um if in my word nobody chooses to run or there's only one candidate, then my vote essentially becomes useless.

I don't have a choice of who to vote for, it's already determined my whether I vote or not.

That's that's set.

So I think that actually makes it less democratic if it's an unopposed race.

Um meanwhile, in other words, if there is a contentious race, a loser in our three-way race could lose with fewer votes than someone who, in my word, that was unopposed, they can win by not having anyone vote for them, basically.

Um I think this is a pretty obvious issue that can happen in Words, especially if we are getting them pretty small.

The Montana state legislatures solved this issue by letting people from outside of the district run for these races.

That was the obvious solution to having unopposed races.

But then I think we have the issue of are people getting represented by people in the neighborhood.

So I think I'm not convinced that Word solves these issues that we're concerned about.

Thanks.

Thank you, Nansukian.

Um I I think the point I take from what you're saying in in particular is before we um define the solution, we should be very certain to understand what is the problem that we're trying to solve.

Uh and because there's a lot of variation in what people perceive as the problem, but also a lot of variation in the nuances of the problem as we do it.

So I I feel quite confident we've heard that and that we will be looking at what's the problem.

Let's define it better, and then let's look at the solution.

So thank you for that.

Is there any other public comment?

Is there any public comment online, Caleb?

There is not.

Okay.

Then let's move back to the review of the suggested edits.

Barb or Becky, who's gonna who do you?

I can start.

Barb, go for it.

Okay.

Um that sounds good.

So at our last meeting, we um decided that we want to retain our city manager commission structure.

And the only edit then we made to Article 3 of the charter was to add this sentence at the end of section 3.01 that you see here in red, that the city manager shall be provided with an annual comprehensive performance review.

Um and then we had a recommendation that will go into our draft report that we wanted to make sure that in the process of hiring a city manager, the commission must discuss the resolutions related to the norms of how commissioners and city employees communicate, which is an attempt to make sure that as we hire a new commissioner, we are addressing um what has under previous city managers been perceived as a a barrier to the commission getting information from staff about decisions that they're making.

So hopefully I captured that, Becky.

Yep.

Okay.

Comments on this language?

Anything need to be changed?

Does it reflect what we discussed?

I mean, I I think it's it should be clear that the comprehensive performance review is done by the city commission, or uh not done but um supervised by the city commission.

It's it's their um the city manager is their employee, and therefore they're giving them the performance.

Um the rest I think captures it.

You know, Carson, um, to that point in reviewing it, nowhere does it say that that the city uh manager is supervised by the commission, which it feels you know, like obvious.

So you know it could feel obvious, maybe it's not obvious.

So I wonder if it wouldn't hurt at all by saying in the red part, the city manager shall be supervised by the city commission and provided with an annual comprehensive performance review.

Since it's the reality anyways, put it down for clarity.

Somehow I thought that was somewhere else in the charter, but I could be wrong.

I thought so too, but I don't think it's there.

Oh, good.

It is Barb and I can look.

It is.

I found it.

Um section 3.04.

Okay, great.

Section 3.04 that outlines the powers and duties of the city manager begins by saying the city manager shall be the chief executive officer of the city, responsible to the commission for the management of all city affairs placed in the manager's charge by and under this charter.

So okay.

I think Barb, that's why we pay you the big bucks.

Yeah.

Good.

Mike.

So uh just kind of a minor thing, but in the recommendation, I don't think we should use the word must, given that it's a recommendation.

Well, it's still a recommendation.

I'm good with the word must because it's a little uh forceful, even though it's only a recommendation.

Yeah.

We recommend that you must do something.

Uh that's I'm willing to think on that bit, but um I there may be other recommendations where we suggest and um maybe, but um this one this one I think is important.

Okay.

Anything else on this item of the agenda?

All right.

Next item is future agenda items.

Let's talk about um Deanna, you had some uh more in info that we wanted the way I look at the schedule.

We've got the next two meetings are learning sessions, and at the end of the the second learning session, I I think we need to decide at that point whether we can in one discussion, one further meeting, make all the recommendations and um proposals that we need to or whether we need uh yet another meeting.

We we at some point in the schedule reserved the 23rd and then it got shifted to the 24th, and I don't know if the 23rd is booked for something, yes.

Well, uh in my mind, we'll cross the bridge of how many sessions do we need to finalize when we get there.

But um what what else do we want to hear?

Who else do we want to hear from uh and how?

Jen.

I don't know if we want to look at each of these dates separately first on April 2nd, but I do um have a proposal for the April 15th meeting.

Just Mike right put it out there okay.

I'm sorry, what is happening?

Didn't we already start work on the advisory council?

I think we have a proposed panel together for the advisory council on which April 15th.

So we we set out the invite to former Mayor Krauss, our current economic vitality board chair, and uh member of the community development board that also served pre-consolidation for the April 2nd.

Oh, that's for April 2nd.

Correct.

Well, I'm sorry, I thought it was uh and two of those three we have confirmations on.

That's actually very helpful because I um have been speaking with um Galton County uh commissioner and chair Zach Brown about a variety of different things, but some of them have uh been to me very interesting, particularly with a number of things that are happening with the county commission, and so I think it could be very helpful to have him come and spend some time with us because we've got some overlap looking at issues of compensation, perhaps filling vacancies, districts, some of these things.

So I did see if he had any time on his schedule, subject to our agreement, and he does have the April 15th at 4 o'clock, would have that hour or up to an hour if we wanted to involve him in looking at some of these issues.

So I'm putting that out because I think it would be very useful to us.

We we also need to have our learning session on neighborhood councils with Dan coming with some more in the And that's A from the second also, is it not?

Yeah.

It is also the second.

Okay, yep.

That's what I have planned is the second.

Did you also want I don't recall and maybe that you wanted me to deal with the uh advisory boards?

That was not if you can talk about advisory boards um across the city across the state, uh I think that would be helpful to us.

That's a mixed bag of cats.

It'll be a big um hopefully we won't have anything else at that meeting.

And April 2nd is what day of the week?

It's a Thursday next Thursday.

So it's a longer meeting.

I think we can fit all of this in.

And and Deanna, can you remind us what you were talking about in terms of more data on well uh more data on um what Dan was presenting in terms of the um uh uh outcomes that he was uh recommending in his material?

Can Danna, can you be more specific?

Because it's um there are reams of papers that that was provided, and if you're looking for something like that.

Well, I that wasn't provided like like I'm questioning the number of voters or the number of okay.

I'm questioning the range of papers that were used to uh come up with a recommendation that at-large uh elections uh were uh recommended.

And I didn't know it wasn't clear that recommendations.

My paper had a recommendation, it was just information.

Um in the um summaries you're pretty uh strong on at-large, and then um uh I was just giving options.

I don't I wasn't making recommendations, but just what different ways to to slice and dice, but not I to be clear, and if and if this is coming off as making any sort of recommendation on my behalf, it is not intended that way.

I I did not hear it that way.

Yeah.

But I but I did I did give some different options, different ways to look at in a in a scenario applying the the concepts of either the at-large or the hybrid or the wards and how that might look, but that was purely for uh uh for consideration.

I would like more information on the possibilities that uh uh an alternative that I uh uh suggested here that the mayor be selected in the seated commission.

And uh what do you find out there in communities that have done that?

And uh what is the impact in terms of the um collaborative effect of that kind of a system over and above the um elected at large?

I'll I'll see if I can find any any research or that's been done on something like that.

But at the risk of opening up the discussion that we don't have, I'm curious as to the effect of cities where um one ward has the mayor and the rest of the wards don't have the mayor, and how that works out in the long run as well if there is any data on that one.

Where you're electing out from wards and then they are then selecting the mayor.

So now you have the mayor who's uh also uh only that one ward gets the mayor.

Well, that's the case in any election.

Yeah, and what I'll say is typically the mayor good point.

Yeah, that in in most cases the mayor has limited authority the virtually zero executive authority, they may, depending on what is extended, they might say you can appoint with the consent of the council or the commission uh boards.

Right.

So there is a little bit of that flavor, right?

That you have some influence on who's gonna be considered.

But by and large, they're figureheads and they run the meeting.

And that's all they do.

And so really it's not having much of an effect.

Some I'm not asking you for the data now.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to get into that, but thank you.

Does that make sense for the data?

For the info.

Yeah.

So what I'm getting, Deanna, is in the model that you're want more data on, the mayor is basically uh figurehead and runs the meetings and doesn't have a lot of other power.

We could keep the mayor's uh uh just the position described just as it is um uh yeah, the the mayor's uh duties would remain as we have described them, but he would be selected among uh his peers.

Okay.

Thank you.

Jen, do you want to say something?

I yeah, I don't want to go down that road, but I think it would be helpful if we knew more about what you've proposed and if we could get it in advance, it would really help me a lot to think in advance.

But my question to um Dan is Dan, would you be able to summarize?

We've made a several requests for you to bring back things to us.

Would you have that ability to summarize what you see your next steps on this particular topic are and does that maybe help align with some of the other things that people are interested in?

So what I have on my list is uh voter turnout at large versus wards.

Uh gerrymandering language, how to prevent that.

And I just did a quick search, and there's stuff.

So yeah, that there's I think that's gonna be a very easy one.

Um then uh mayor selected by a commission versus elected at large.

Is that is that the scope?

Yes.

I think that's scope.

Can I add a wrinkle to that, Dan?

I I also had a question about the representation issue that can be larger for the cities in Montana if you have any opportunity to know that.

Say it again.

The representation that is more than geography, if you have any data on that for cities that are similar to Bozeman.

So in other words, looking, we we have a policy here that we want our electeds and our appointed people to be as representative as our community.

So do you have any of that that might be available?

And and any what any data on how that works in other cities?

Okay.

Thanks.

Anything else?

All right.

Uh Mike Dadrinkle, like I said, Dan, can you get this to us tomorrow?

We have to publish this agenda because it's next week.

Well, some of it has to be.

Probably not.

I've got two trainings tomorrow, plus I've got to get Galton County uh their stuff for their meeting Friday.

So probably Mike, we've got it so that ideally ideally it's seven days, but it can be four days or three days.

So um I just sent you agenda things.

Um Dan, when could you get it to us?

No.

I know this is a fast turnaround.

Yeah.

How about Friday or Saturday?

I'm gonna make this a little simpler for you, Dan.

Please get it to us as soon as humanly possible.

Yeah.

Some of these might be easier than others.

And so those that are easier, I'll try to pull something together for you and I'll as I get it done, I'll shoot it out to you.

And if you can't, I think this lends to Carson's point of we also have the 15th as a learning session.

So if we don't have the information necessary for that, we can push it to there.

I'll make sure I put that session on the 15th as a must attend as well.

Otherwise, it will be just a suggestion.

Um of these are just may not be any information.

I'll I'll look and see what I can find on on your question.

Uh and I just may not be able to find anything.

But uh Yeah.

Ben, thank you very much for your time, energy.

Thank you to the public for coming and giving us your thoughts.

I feel you I feel like I learned something from every public comment.

May not be a good thing, may not be whatever, but um it's a learning process for us up here every day that we sit up here.

So thank you very much for coming.

And um final public comment in the last eight minutes.

Uh Daniel Cardi, I'm a two-on-three North Third.

Just want to make uh small point.

Um, Mr.

Moss's comment about um being careful with definitions, must versus may.

Um I think his point was well made.

So the Montana Bill Drafting Manual, you can Google for that.

You can pick up the 2024 edition, 2025 edition.

It has specific definitions for shall, must, and may, and at least in the 2024 edition for may not.

So I would ask this commission to be very careful about mixing terms like recommending someone must do something, because that's gonna create a lot of uncertainty, and that's gonna create problems down the line.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

Lesson in English, which is always very important.

Yes, Mary?

Mary Bateson.

Um this is comment and question, and I don't recall the date that uh Bozeman switched their election method and way of choosing the mayor.

In my past, the method for choosing the mayor was to have an at-large uh election for all members of the commission, and the individual who obtained or earned the most votes was then uh named as the mayor.

And to me, that is a pretty simple method, and I kind of liked it.

I kind of dislike the uh uh issue of having to choose between mayoral candidates that I'm not really happy with, whereas I have a lot of commission uh candidates that I would love to vote for, but I can't vote for all of them.

So the 2006 charter change.

That part of the mayor thing.

Yeah, so from my perspective, I like the old method.

So thank you.

Any other public comment?

Good evening.

My name is Gracie Ann Caldwell.

I'm a student at Montana State University studying environmental sciences.

One day I want to run for city commission, and that's really scary.

Um, however, I have heard a lot of discussion today about having campaign spending limits.

I would like to ask a question if there's been consideration for um public financing of campaign.

Um some states have already implemented some form of public financing either through voucher or matching programs.

Uh states such as Arizona, New Mexico, New York, Florida, and a handful of other really small states on the East Coast have implemented programs like this.

One program that I think would be of importance to Bozeman is the voucher program.

In this program, every resident in Bozeman would be given a voucher worth a certain amount of money.

They could then donate this to a candidate of their choice, which could then essentially be redeemed for um approved campaign spending.

This would be a massive deal for voters.

Um I know cannot afford to donate to campaign election finances, and this would actually give many residents of vote of Bozeman a new voice in the election season.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Very interesting idea of creating vouchers and um funding campaigns with it, taking at least some of the money out of the campaign.

I appreciate it.

Any other public comment?

All right.

Seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 556.