Bozeman Board of Ethics Mock Hearing and Training – March 30, 2026
Bozeman Board of Ethics Mock Hearing and Training – March 30, 2026
The Bozeman Board of Ethics held a special meeting on March 30, 2026, beginning at 9:30 AM, to conduct a mock ethics hearing as a training exercise. The simulation involved a hypothetical complaint filed by Taylor Swift against Beyoncé Knowles for alleged misuse of city resources. The board reviewed procedures for complaint handling, heard mock testimony from both parties and witnesses, and deliberated on the evidence before voting to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were received.
Discussion Items
- Procedural Overview: Jen Gatari and Greg presented an overview of the ethics complaint process, including filing requirements, preliminary analysis, and the board's options (dismissal, decision on merits, or formal hearing). Highlights included the burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence) and the hearing rules of procedure.
- Mock Hearing: The board conducted a simulated evidentiary hearing in the case of Taylor Swift v. Beyoncé Knowles (alleged violation of Section 2.03.500 – Use of City Resources).
- Complainant's Case: Taylor Swift, represented by attorney Bruce Dickinson, testified that on July 18, 2025, she observed her neighbor Beyoncé, a city employee, drive a city truck home during the workday, remove a chainsaw from the vehicle, and cut down a tree in her own yard. Swift stated she asked Beyoncé for help with her own tree and was told it would violate the rules. Swift argued this was inconsistent and an improper use of city resources.
- Witness for Complainant: Mick Jagger testified he saw the city truck and heard the chainsaw, confirming the tree was completely removed. He was cross-examined about his sobriety and ability to hear.
- Respondent's Case: Beyoncé Knowles, represented by Clem Clementine, testified that a storm had created a public hazard – a tree limb leaning over a power line. She stated she received permission from her supervisor, Al Green, to use the city truck to remove the limb. She claimed the city chainsaw malfunctioned (supported by a repair ticket), so she used her own personal pink-and-gold chainsaw. She argued the exception for benefit to the city applied and that she acted in a public safety crisis.
- Cross-Examination and Board Questions: Attorneys questioned witnesses on the color of the chainsaw, photographic evidence, and the employee's knowledge of ethics rules. The board struggled with evidentiary objections and chain-of-custody issues regarding photos not submitted in advance.
- Closing Arguments: Complainant's attorney argued the rules were violated and public trust eroded; respondent's attorney argued common sense and the benefit-to-city exception justified the actions.
- Board Deliberation: Board members discussed the evidence, noting that there was supervisory approval, the limb posed a hazard, and the city chainsaw was not actually used. They concluded there was insufficient proof of a violation.
Key Outcomes
- Motion and Vote: Board member Jim Drummond moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, finding that Beyoncé Knowles did not violate Section 2.03.500. The motion was seconded by Mark Bond and passed unanimously (3-0).
- Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned following the vote. The board noted the value of the training exercise for future real cases.
Note: This was a training simulation. No actual ethics complaint was adjudicated.
Meeting Transcript
March thirtieth, twenty twenty six Board of Ethics meeting to what do I call it to? Order. Okay, although. Um this meeting will be held both in person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meeting via video conference, um uh accessing that information from the City of Bozeman Board of Ethics web page or via phone call. Um is there anyone online today? Yeah, okay. All right, today um item B on our agenda is a special presentation. We will be doing an uh ethics mock hearing, and Jen Gatari will introduce that. Yeah, I think before before Jen jumps off, I think what we're gonna do is just a few slides to sort of orient the board to your rules related to conducting a hearing that's based on a complaint. Um and then once that happens, then it's all you right to treat this as if you have a real complaint in front of you. Um so gaveling it in, uh introducing yourselves, running the process. I we gave you a handout that has a suggested process for how the the hearing would run. So I want to thank all these guys because they put a bunch of time in. And I saw through one of the rehearsals, not a dress rehearsal, but now I'm impressed. And so they're gonna have fun. I hope you guys do too, but at the same time we want to make sure this is an experience that you can then draw on at some point in the future if when you have a real complaint that you have to hear. So give it over, Jen. And thanks to Jen, she kind of was the producer of orchestrated. Director. Director, director, stage hand. Yeah, all the other stuff that comes with it. Did you do wardrobe also? No, that was left to the artist. That was left to the artist. Okay. Yeah, who's the producer for this? Executive producer, you know, you're the director. I wore many hats. Or or TRS. I don't know. Okay, are you ready, Greg? Okay, um, so just to give you an overview of um the lay of the land before jumping into the ethics hearing, turning your attention to section two point zero three six hundred A three. This section of our code delineates the board's duties and powers, and one of them explicitly states that uh you have the ability to conduct ethics hearings. Six forty, um, which we'll go over in more detail is the section that governs procedures for hearing complaints. And then finally, resolution twenty twenty-four oh one, which the board passed um in twenty twenty-four. The appendix to that are the uh hearing rules of procedure. So as a um recap, section two point zero three six forty sets forth all of the steps for the filing of a complaint. Um the main steps are there needs to be a complaint, a response, and a preliminary analysis before the board ever steps in. Uh the clerk is responsible for acknowledging receipt and forwarding all documents to all of the members of the board as well as to the parties and to the city attorney's office. Looking at the complaint, any person can file a complaint and it must be filed with the city clerk. The person does not have to live in city limits. They do not have to live in the county, they just have to be a named person. It cannot be anonymous. And that person is identified in this procedure as the respondent, right? So oftentimes in a criminal proceeding, you'll hear the word defendant, but this is not actually a criminal proceeding. So we use the term respondent, which is what is typically used in civil proceedings in court. So the complainant or the person who's filing the complaint has to specifically say what section of the code they think has been violated. So they can't just throw out something randomly. They have to make a specific point to something specifically in the complaint.
openpublica.com