Bozeman City Study Commission Discusses Advisory Boards and Representation – April 2, 2026

The Bozeman City Study Commission met on April 2, 2026, to receive public input, discuss city advisory boards with a panel of current and former members, and explore potential charter changes regarding wards, neighborhood associations, and board structure. The meeting spanned three rounds of public comment and included detailed analysis of board effectiveness, the "one‑body one‑voice" resolution, and civic engagement strategies.

Consent Calendar

• The commission approved the consent agenda (motion by Carson, seconded) with a 5–0 vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Abby Jones (Gallatin Valley Sentinel) argued that the city's representation problems are systemic, not isolated. She stated that at‑large voting creates a geographic monopoly on the commission, Resolution 5323 ("one‑body one‑voice") prevents advisory boards from offering independent advice, and the Inter‑Neighborhood Council (INC) lacks real influence. She urged ward‑based representation for both the commission and advisory boards.
• Gracianne Caldwell advocated for public campaign financing via a voucher system, proposing two $5 vouchers per Bozeman resident (total cost ~$600,000). She pointed to Seattle's Democracy Voucher program and noted that vouchers boost voter engagement and shift candidates' focus from large donors to ordinary residents.
• Dan (Bozeman resident) recommended adding a statement of intent and purpose to the charter's section on boards.
• Mark Campanelli (Bogert Park Neighborhood Association) lamented the city's loss of civic soul, warned against excessive "consent," and suggested ethics training should teach how to disagree respectfully.
• Pam Bodie praised the idea of legitimate advisory boards and urged the commission to consider Great Falls' model where neighborhood‑council officers are elected in general elections to increase turnout.
• Mary Bateson advocated for retaining at‑large voting so citizens can vote for the most qualified candidates regardless of address, citing the risk of uncontested elections in ward systems.
• Online – Amy Hoytzma (Northeast Neighborhood Association) stated that consolidating many advisory boards into fewer "big five" boards reduced participation because smaller, topic‑specific boards were more inviting. She supported restoring multiple boards.
• Online – Zara Osman (West Bozeman; Valley Unit Neighborhood Association steering committee) argued that neighborhood associations are a better alternative to wards because they organically represent local interests. She called for more city investment (e.g., using utility‑bill email lists) and recommended a community‑engagement board.
• Online – Amy Hoytzma (second comment) described the tension between being an arm of the city vs. a neighborhood advocate, noting that her association was formed in opposition to a city transfer‑station plan. She also recounted unsuccessful attempts to split the large Northeast boundaries due to internal disagreements.
• Online – Zara Osman (second comment) elaborated that neighborhood associations should not be treated as mere advocacy groups; she explained how her association uses polls and surveys to ensure representation and urged treating them as legitimate partners.

Discussion Items

Panel Discussion on Advisory Boards Panelists: Jeff Krause (former mayor/commissioner), Danielle Rogers (Chair, Economic Vitality Board), Jason Delmu (Vice Chair, Community Development Board; former bike‑board chair)

• Jeff Krause contrasted the historical proliferation of specialized volunteer boards (e.g., bike board, climate action board) with today's consolidated "big five" structure. He argued that the earlier informal, peer‑to‑peer atmosphere encouraged civic entry‑level engagement and provided a "watchdog" function (e.g., the now‑defunct Audit Committee). Krause criticized the barriers now faced by citizens – lengthy wait times and intimidating formal hearings – and stressed that boards should be a bridge between the public and government. He advocated for re‑creating more volunteer opportunities and for a charter that explicitly states the purpose of boards: "broaden and deepen" public participation.
• Danielle Rogers described her board's substantial review work. She noted that the "one‑voice" rule (Resolution 5323) does not limit debate within boards but applies after policies are adopted. She identified participation barriers: meetings from 6–8 PM with no hybrid option, lack of child care, and inadequate onboarding regarding ethics, safety, and conflict of interest. Rogers recommended better training and more accessible meeting formats.
• Jason Delmu supported board consolidation for fostering a system‑wide perspective but suggested periodic joint board work sessions on overlapping issues (e.g., land‑use and transportation). He stated that board input is generally listened to by the commission, but boards could proactively raise topics. He echoed calls for more accessible meetings and improved outreach.
• Commission interaction: Commissioners queried the panel about board selection processes, term limits, and what charter provisions are needed. The discussion highlighted the need to codify the purpose and intent of boards rather than merely permitting them.

Presentation on Wards, Districts, and Neighborhood Associations (Consultant Dan)

• Dan presented a comparative analysis of Montana city charters (Helena, Great Falls, Billings, Butte, Missoula) and academic effectiveness criteria for neighborhood councils: (1) two‑way communication, (2) increased resident input into planning and budgeting, (3) acting as a legitimate advisory body rather than an advocacy group, and (4) building neighborhood‑level leadership capacity. He offered sample charter language incorporating these elements.
• He cautioned that Helena's experience shows how unclear purpose and perceived "independence" can lead to friction between neighborhood councils and the city commission.
• Commissioners debated whether to adopt wards, the relationship between ward boundaries and neighborhood association areas, and the risks of gerrymandering and frequent boundary adjustments. Some argued that a ward system could improve geographic representation; others defended at‑large voting as more open.
• The group discussed whether the charter should mandate full city‑wide coverage by neighborhood associations, or retain the current organic approach. The need for mechanisms to adjust boundaries over time was also raised.

Follow‑up Discussion on Next Steps

• Commissioners agreed to review Resolution 5323 (the "one‑body one‑voice" resolution) at the next regular meeting and to consider including recommendations about it in their report.
• An additional meeting was scheduled for April 24 to continue working on charter amendments and to respond to a survey request from the Gallatin Valley Sentinel.

Key Outcomes

• Consent agenda approved 5–0.
• Next regular meeting: April 15, 2026, at 4–5 PM (regular business), followed by a discussion with County Commissioner Zach Brown from 5 PM on topics including commissioner compensation, vacancy filling, district representation, and redistricting.
• Additional meeting set: April 24, noon–2 PM (potentially til 3 PM), to deliberate on charter language and address the sentinel's survey request.
• Staff directed to distribute copies of Resolution 5323 to commissioners for review before the April 15 meeting.
• No binding votes were taken on substantive charter changes; the commission will continue fact‑finding and deliberation ahead of issuing final recommendations.