That'll turn off.

That's probably a you thing, Jan.

Okay.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

There you go.

Okay, thank you.

It's always a me it's always a meeting, Becky.

What can I say?

I don't know if you're not screwing up.

It's a you thing.

You guys shouldn't have gotten dressed up for us.

Well I had to.

I was running in the rain all day.

So I had to do something.

We're waiting on uh Deanna.

It's not time yet technically.

I'm going to keep my screen pretty small unless I need to uh ask to speak or speak because I have all these tabs open so I can look at the different areas of our agenda.

Feel feel free um because there's two of you, right?

Hopefully I'm looking up there.

But feel free to just interrupt and say, I want to say something or whatever.

Um just say excuse me, maybe.

Yeah, that might be a little politer.

Yeah.

And uh Jan, I for me, um, I'm on my phone, and then I can use I can access all my documents on the computer.

So I just I lean my phone up against the computer, and that kind of works.

For me, just if if you wanted to do that.

Kind of works out well.

So I can see all the documents and I can see everybody and they can see me.

Right.

Let me give that a quick try.

Do I need to leave?

Yeah, just leave and then come back in.

They disappeared.

My name's Becky.

She was actually good.

And I don't know whether it's you.

I'm trying to figure out how to leave.

You know, I when I put that thing in my calendar, it sent out invites to everybody.

Yeah, around two.

I don't I thought only my golf timing thing did that.

But no, this doesn't.

So thank you for responding.

But something else.

Yeah.

I'm gonna leave and come back.

Great.

So do you question?

Well, maybe it's just on the calendar.

Yes.

Yes.

Right.

Yes.

I've done everything I can with the stuff.

Actually, I think it's changing the data.

We lost Caleb here.

You want to go get a hard copy for that?

I don't know if you got that email that is sent.

Just before I can, but I don't know.

Oh, I see here.

I mean, I made copies.

But if you could get the cable will be able to get it on the screen.

Do you have one?

Okay.

Okay, I'll just add that.

Do you want me to I mean I have five?

This is the one.

He he'll put it up for us on the screen.

At like 340.

Alright, are we ready?

I think yes.

Oh, it's the concept.

You ready?

I was looking for I saw you wouldn't go.

Caleb, ready?

You are ready.

Yes.

I'll call to order the Bozeman City Study Commission meeting of May 13th, 2026 at 4:02 p.m.

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

It will be followed by a moment of silence, and you feel free to sit down for that or whatever, and uh then we'll get into the agenda.

And to the Republic for which it stays one nation.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

First item on the agenda.

Well, second changes to the agenda.

Are there any changes?

All right, seeing none, we're gonna start off with our first round of public comment for anything within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

We will also have public comment when we're making decisions along the way.

So we intend to get towards the districts today and decisions on elected mayor.

Um so if you have comments on them, I would prefer if you hold them till that time if you can, so that we have a chance to consider them right when the issue is right in front of us.

Um comment on anything on the agenda if you want at this time, but you can't do it twice.

Um then afterwards, after the end of the meeting, we will at the end of the meeting, not after, before the end of the meeting, we'll have another round of public comment as well.

So now, um, when we're hitting various issues in the unfinished business and technically on the consent agenda if anyone wants to comment on that.

Um you have three minutes.

Please state your name and address.

Um, and uh we're happy to hear from you if anybody has any public comment at this time.

All right, seeing none, Caleb, is there any comment at this public comment at this time?

No, next item on the agenda is the consent agenda.

Does anyone want to pull any of the items on the consent agenda?

Is there any public comment on any of the items on the consent agenda?

All right, it's the consent agenda, uh, which means we don't have we don't discuss it, we just vote.

Is there a motion?

I move.

We approve the consent agenda.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

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

I motion carries five zero.

Next item, correspondence or study commission update.

I'm gonna sneeze in a minute.

I'll try and turn off the mic for that.

Any uh reports from anyone?

Carson, I'd like to make a report.

Go ahead, okay.

It has been uh brought to my attention that um uh we made a mistake on the crafting of Article Four.

So when we started this whole thing, Barb and I um instead of rewriting the entire charter and then following the edits and everything, we asked Mike Moss for a copy of a word document of the charter, and he provided to us very kindly uh the um 2006 report and inside that was the last time the charter was made so it it said draft on the front or but we thought it was kind of the final and so we just copied it and then pasted onto another document so that we could have a word version of the of the charter and not have to and because it's really important that we track all the changes.

It was brought to our attention that in article 4.0 one under personnel system the draft had two separate um paragraphs that talked about the fit of the personnel and the final charter did not have that so once this was brought to my attention a we changed that back to what it originally was in the charter and then B I went through it the entire thing word by word to make sure that there were no other places that there had been a change between the time of the draft and when they when they did the final uh charter so um I have made that change in article four um I've asked I sent it out to all the commissioners I asked um Mike Moss um one of the things he's gonna do is uh put make a folder on our website home page of our website here here Caleb and then we're gonna put all of these worksheets in there so people can see all of the changes in edits and so I asked them to put that in there so that the public can also see it.

But I wanted to get it to the um to the commission right away and uh thank you Deanna for um drawing that to our attention so I just want to kind of put that out there.

Great were there any other changes that you found very few um and none that were substantial um so it was really just this that had that those two paragraphs instead of just one paragraph so then it was very obvious otherwise there's just small things um nothing that we have discussed that was of any interest at this point.

Cool thanks anything else you bet.

Actually I was going to mention that but yeah it's done.

Anything else uh Becky and I met with the Boseman Daily Chronicle editorial board yesterday um and it was um I don't know we updated them as to where we were basically and we um indicated that um you know we're not finished we will be back in touch with them when we are um and um we're hoping that they'll um make sure that we get uh as much publicity as they can give us they did suggest um that they would be open to um relatively frequent op-ed pieces um and and I sort of was every week well maybe for a while so um that that's open to us and I think we should utilize it.

I know that Jan and Becky are working on the next piece um but um I think we should consider taking advantage of that.

Anything else?

I would just like to add Carson that um when we do the op-eds going forward after Chan and I um put ours in we talked with the the it we were at the op-ed board or the editorial board with the a couple county people uh Krauss and EJ porth um and so we didn't provide all all the details of what we're doing or anything like that nor was there time to do that because we didn't get to talk very much.

So as we go forward and once the the Dane Geld folks are on board, which should be in the next couple weeks, it it will we it was discussed that it was so important if um someone asked us if we're gonna advocate for the public to sign or to vote for the uh amended charter or the existing charter and we said no we we can't do that we can only educate and so we we talked about the Dan Geld folks maybe helping us with this effort to think about which pieces can we educate at a time, but this will be a great platform in which to do so, but that we'll have to be very careful to follow the laws of engagement.

Good.

Anything else under this agenda item?

I just I just have a couple, yeah.

Um so I want to let everyone know uh it was brought to my attention that we had an issue with our website and the link for the upcoming meetings was we were seeing on the back end didn't match what was publicly out there um for these May meetings specifically.

Um so I went through reviewed that this morning and got that error corrected, so we have the upcoming meetings in that process.

We we lost our little links document that Caleb had given us before for um the February and March time frame.

Uh he came in a little early and recreated those for us so we can get those up on the website tomorrow.

Um so that that's been uh yeah, I got that on Monday or Tuesday morning.

Uh so got that corrected today, and then um excited to start the process with Dane Geld.

Uh, been in contact with them.

So now that we've officially approved that, we'll look at scheduling a kickoff time uh to talk with them.

Um, so it's it's positive to work with somebody that's um worked in Montana and is familiar with the educate versus advocate um restrictions, and um so the uh further discussions with the with this body will be on the engagement um methodologies and how we want to go about that.

Uh so right now we're just on board with them to to help us start creating some of these educational materials.

It's great to hear that op-eds might be an avenue for some of that to go out.

Um, looking forward to them helping us get some some new information to to go on our um social media posts, and then um I've talked with uh attorney Sullivan on our reporting requirements, and so he and I are starting down that that process with the Commissioner of Political Practice also.

So just kind of want to give an update on that.

Um and ready to get started with Daniel, and I know they're ready to meet with us and get going too.

Cool.

Anything else under this agenda item?

All right, and let's get into it.

Unfinished business item F1, review further edits to public engagement article.

Frank Sistero.

Becky, you're gonna take this.

Yeah, yeah, and I want to start with um j just a little bit of uh overview for a moment that's even outside of this.

So I want us to think about for a second.

Um the idea here's an idea, and then we just need feedback and to agree whether we want to do this or not.

Um on the 20th of May, we meet again, and on that day, uh Barb and I, uh God willing, we will have a uh a draft charter that is an amended charter from the existing charter.

So those are the terms.

We got the existing charter, we got the amended charter.

The amended charter, just in looking at this one article, it will have a lot of edits, and it will be hard, it in my opinion.

It'll be hard to really read a a charter that's got all the edits in it.

So here's a proposal, and then I want to walk through this one.

Uh the proposal is that we um we have one worksheet for each article.

And so Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, each one will have a worksheet.

Even those that have no edits, zero edits, we'll still still have that.

And each of those worksheets can be made into one document, or they can all be separate on the website, or both, so people can see all the edits that have been made.

And then we'll have the twenty two thousand six existing charter, and then we'll have the twenty twenty-six amended charter as a clean document.

So does that make sense?

We've got the 2026 clean document.

We've got the 2020 2006 existing clean document, and then all these worksheets that people can open up and see all the edits that were made.

Is that acceptable that we bring that forward on the 20th?

So Becky, can I to be so to be clear the thing that would come forward next week with the agenda would be the draft amended charter as a clean copy?

And people would have the ability to go back into all of those worksheets and look at track changes, but the agenda item would be the amended charter and clean copy without all the track changes.

If you wanted to look at the changes, where would you go?

Mm-hmm.

Caleb, where would we go?

And we're hoping there's a one folder click on the front page of our website.

You open it up and you can have the clean 2006, all the edit worksheets, and the clean clean amended charter is what we're thinking.

Is that possible?

So it's super easy to find.

Yeah, so we we can make that easy enough to find off the main site.

One of the as you're talking about this, I appreciate the individual worksheets for each article.

If you have a clean 2026 version and an original 2006 version, we can put those into Word and generate a comparison document that would literally overlay what that is.

So we can we can have all of that available.

So the worksheets, a clean copy of the current charter, a clean copy of the amended charter, and a comparison document between the two.

So how would the okay with everybody?

And I and I think from the uh the published agenda, we can just link to those in the agenda as well.

So the attachment that will be as I'm understanding it, the attachment that will be so when we um so when we look at an item, it'll say draft charter, and this attachment will be a clean version labeled as such, but in this background, we can link to where those worksheets and where the comparison document are.

So you can navigate to them from the agenda item if you want.

And it'll be great.

So Carson, yeah.

Yeah, one of one of the things I did that you can see on the document here on the article seven, uh, which I have changed to the public engagement article, but see the draft.

I put draft on all the worksheets.

Um it's in the watermark.

Oh, right.

You see that?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I added that for that exact reason.

I put the watermark on all of the all the edited, and then the um, so that people will know, and also it's it's it there's red, right?

Um, but I can also put a a heading on there too.

So if someone opens it, they can see clearly that this is this is the worksheet with the edits.

I can add I can add that to each of the documents.

And then I'll get them all to you, Carson.

Um, so if that's okay, I want to ask one more.

I want to give one more update on the general editing.

Hang on, hang on.

So if I were a member of the public and I wanted to see this, I'd get the agenda for the next meeting.

I'd go to the agenda item which talks about the amended um charter, and there will be a link there to the clean copy of the amended charter and to uh the charter through all of its edits that gets you to the clean copy.

Correct?

The worksheets, yeah, there'll be worksheets for each article that was edited, yes.

Okay.

So it's done by article.

Cool.

I think that'll be.

If I could add or interrupt here, um, I just want to also see if we can add a little bit more of clarity.

I think it's a great idea, first of all, thank you.

And second of all, if we could add a little bit more right up at the top of the description of what those attachments and links mean, so that people actually see the connection between what they're going to read that you just described, because sometimes I think when we see a lot of content in one link, if that is the case, um, but if they're we're talking about maybe three links that have the uh clean 2026, clean 2006, and then the um articles as uh proposed drafts with the changes in all the ways you've talked about.

I just think it's been really uh sometimes we've missed something, and I just want to make sure, given the importance of this particular uh cover sheet and document that that that could be possible to just add a little bit more language and then make sure people understand it's linked with number one, two, or three, however, it looks best.

Thank you.

Yeah, we can do that.

Okay, and before we give back to you, Becky, Deanna.

Well, I have a um I have a concern that um we're moving so fast.

Um I'm wondering if we should add uh a meeting to our agenda or our schedule, because um to be able to actually look at what we got for this meeting, which came to us what on Monday, um, and do the work that is is required.

Um and get uh uh public input.

It's just there's not enough time.

And so I'm thinking that we should get the information for changes and edits and what have you out to the public and then schedule the meeting not in two days but in um at least a week.

So I I think we need to just add another meeting in somewhere so that we get more time to uh work with the material between the time that you send it out to us and the time that we make um uh public discussion and final votes.

Because in this case, two days wasn't enough.

I get that.

Um let's take up that issue when we get to the agenda, future agenda items when we when we can look at the calendar and see what we have and what we can do and what we can't do.

I know some of us are out of town in the beginning of June for, well, in my case for granddaughter graduation, but um, okay.

Um Becky, you had one more point.

Um yeah, so uh the other thing that will happen, and and uh Deanna, I understand that this is moving quickly, and unfortunately the legislature, the MCA requires us to turn these things in at a certain time, and we need to release the full report.

We haven't got to the report yet.

So the charters on the 20th, and then we're meeting every week.

Um, and then the full report would be the 28th released to the public so that they have two full weeks before the public hearing, which is the June 18th.

So um, and then we have meetings in between.

We meet on June 14, June 4th.

Um, and so uh yeah, it just kind of, you know, tick tock.

Things things are moving along.

The other thing that will that is happening is that uh attorney Sullivan is uh has reviewed all the articles that we have so far.

Barb and I just got those.

So we will be um uh adding more of those kind of more legal edits into the documents again.

Everyone will be able to see them on the worksheets, and uh they will be incorporated into the final uh draft or or what the MCA calls the tentative, the tentative uh amended charter and then the tentative report.

Um so that's coming too.

Um so that brings us to this chart this article, and you know we moved and made a whole different article called public engagement.

And so going forward, this is gonna be called the public engagement article because we kept all the numbers of the articles the same as 2006.

So that's one thing, but um, so this is round two of the edits.

Um, this is the only uh article that has round one document and a round two document.

Um and in here you can see that we kind of cleaned up in 7.02.

We cleaned up it and just call them all city boards, um, and and we define that.

Um, and then uh we moved the principles of public engagement up higher as recommended by the public, actually.

Um, and then we we uh cleaned up the language with inclusion, transparency, accountability, accessibility, and collaboration.

So that kind of sets the stage now for the rest of it.

We need to and we okay?

Well, uh Becky, you're you're you're you're talking um from here to there, the other place.

We can't follow along.

What I am suggesting right now is that we take this article seven and we go through it uh from top to bottom, one paragraph at a time, and uh talk about it.

Um for you to give a report.

We did this here and we did that there, and we did it.

It's not giving, in my opinion, it's not giving us enough opportunity to give you real feedback and input.

And and I saw a lot of language in this article that reflected um uh in the beginning, we talked about this document was going to be uh charter language.

We were going to discuss structure and form.

We would not engage in ideology or policy in the charter language, and I see a lot of places where maybe we better take a second look uh at that language.

And um, in order to do that, we're gonna have to go through it paragraph by paragraph.

And um, unfortunately, uh I was working on this until 20 minutes before this meeting, at which time I managed to shoot a document off to um uh Mike, who um it will be able to get it up on the screen, but I don't think uh the two of you got it.

And um I I'm suggesting some rather um extensive uh um edits to this edit, and we can't and we have to do it slowly and paragraph by paragraph.

So Becky and Barb, what was your intention for this meeting?

Because I understood it to be you're gonna go through what you've done and what the changes are, and we were gonna give you general input, um, and what's right.

What Deanna said was certainly fell into the category of get general input, and and then we're gonna have to decide what we need to do beyond that.

Um, I would suggest we let Becky finish her summary.

Um, and then we gotta decide what we're gonna do.

I had two things that I wanted to talk about.

And the only question I had is do we talk about it now or at some later time?

Um but my two things were minor, and one of them was not minor, um, but had to do with um I listened to some public comment, read some public comment, started thinking about it a little more.

So, uh what's the best way to go about this from your perspective?

Because I know you've been writing like crazy.

I think I think just pointing out just a couple of the the changes.

Mike, you can if you could move the screen as I'm talking, and then um, and then yeah, each person can say, you know, these are some things that that we don't like.

We're trying to get, you know, we need to come up with a a document on this and and to finish it up.

So if that's um sounds good to you, Carson, that's what I'll keep doing.

All right, let's let's go with it that way, and then we'll see where where it takes us.

Can I make one additional suggestion, Becky?

Sorry.

I can we um we have some other important discussions and decisions we need to make tonight and we sure do.

Becky and I are meeting on Sunday afternoon to try to work through like everything we need to make in terms of changes so that we can get everybody the full amended charter to start that walk through that Deanna just described with the whole thing at our next meeting.

And so I'm wondering if we should set some specific time windows on each of our chunks today so that we get through it all because in order to do what we need to do on Sunday, we need to get the commission's decisions around the mayor and wards right because that's charter language too.

So let's let's have Becky go through and then um let's think about how long uh I can do what I need to do in about um three minutes, and that'll give us a flavor for where people are.

Deanna, sounds like you can't do it in three minutes, that is way more than that, and that's fine, but it may be that we're gonna end up saying, All right, well, here are the general issues, and we'll have to find another time to go through it in the paragraph by paragraph in the depth that it needs for us to uh feel like we've all had our input on it.

Okay, and if I could interrupt Carson.

Sorry, um, I had an amendment to suggest as well around the neighborhood associations that I thought would be helpful.

So, but I can use only three minutes for that.

Thanks.

Okay, all right, Becky, we're back to you where you were.

I'll be quick.

Yeah, 7.04.

Um you can see we just made some edits around public education that was recommended.

When we get to number B, with the recognition of the of a neighborhood association, we clarified some language around the clear geographic boundaries, developed in partnership between the neighborhood, the inner neighborhood council, and the city neighborhood liaison, so that it was more directed that it was in partnership.

We took out the nonprofit organizations and just have organizations.

We took out the inclusion of all residents in the neighborhood association, and then um, and then added a neighborhood association must meet and continue to maintain conformity with the minimum standards established by ordinance uh in order to be recognized by the city and be eligible to elect members into the interneighter council.

Um we moved the city liaison up and clarified some of the language there, and then when we got down to the interneighborhood council, um you can see that we took out in number four address citywide concerns, because uh that uh you all thought that was too broad, and then in number five, um added things that affect neighborhood associations.

So trying to narrow it down into neighborhood associations, and then number eight, we added the city of Bozeman neighborhood liaison staff member shall work with the interneighborhood council to grow participation, develop boundaries to include all votes of residents in a neighborhood association without any neighborhood having more than one voice or the other.

I really like um what uh Barb did here under responsibilities.

So who's who's responsible for what?

We took all that other stuff out and just left it that the city of Bozeman's gonna be responsible for this, and the neighborhood association is gonna be responsible for this.

So that's it.

Um when we get down to city boards, we cleaned up language.

So city boards are when we use that term, it's boards, commissions, agencies, and committees.

Um we clarified the purpose just a bit, and then under the um the powers, we uh clarified that language around city boards shall establish be established by city resolution, and include the purpose of each board, the number and desired skills and necessary experience of its members.

Um and then in the appointments, same thing.

We just kind of clarified the language, took out all the extra commissions and committees and things, so that it is easier to read.

And then in the recommendations at the very bottom, um we took out that 50 percent.

Instead, we have a substantial portion uh with geographically in the neighborhoods, and that there's a review of existing ordinance, and these are just recommendations.

Remember, recommendations are not in the charter, they're just recommendations, and then that at least uh someone made a recommendation or an idea that at least once per year the city shall hold a town hall meeting with the community um as another less formal mechanism of public engagement.

So this whole article is set up to enhance public engagement.

So that's the main uh edits that we um made given the content of information at the last meeting.

Great.

Whoops.

Great, thank you.

Whoops.

Yeah, there you are.

Okay, um.

Should we take public comment on this now?

Sure.

We should do our own comments or that they could comment on our comment.

You're right.

We'll do our own comments first, and then if anyone wants to comment on I I had two spots.

Um one at the very top, section 701, the second paragraph.

The shit city shall treat public engagement as an integral part of effective and trusted governance, and uh I just think it's sort of odd to then follow it with not just as an occasional process or activity, that as sort of like a uh a critique of past history that we may or may not uh and I don't think it clarifies anything, the strength of the sentence, um, is the first part of it, not the part after the comma.

So I would take it out.

I wouldn't vote against it if you left it in because it's not that important, but I think it I think it matters that it's the beginning of the document, um, and then my second point um page three section what 704 D, um six and seven.

Um just uh looking over public comment on this, I I wonder if it's not too rigid, a requirement, and I'm just telling you, I'm thinking about it.

I I don't know um where I go with it, but it it puts in a position where it can require stuff to be on the city agenda.

Um, if of course um we have a good balance between Inc.

and the city commission, then it wouldn't be a problem.

So I I don't I just want to think about that a little more, and that's what's going on in my head.

So that's all that's all I have.

The rest of it I really liked, and I think you captured most of our uh the rest of our conversations, and I think it it really is a um dramatic improvement over what the present charter has.

So um Barb, you have nothing, right?

Yeah, okay.

I'm just listening.

So and Jen, you have one thing.

You better unmute it.

We won't get it.

Yeah, I I I'm fine.

Thanks.

Um, I had one that I found um going back to that same section, Carson, that you were referencing on page three.

I found the concept of the community impact statements very compelling.

And thought there might be a way to add that either to that section.

For those of you who read the example of the Harbor City and the LA City Council governance system, that it would be a way I think to institutionalize the both the transparency, and I've got my notes somewhere else here, but it it has a chance to both make the transparency and accountability institutionalized, which I think a lot of us have been talking about, and it also provides a format and uh accountability for both parties, the the either the oversight body such as Inc.

for us uh as well as the um city commission itself.

So I would like us to consider adding something like that uh community impact statement because really that's what we're talking about is what are the policies that affect or impact uh our neighborhoods and the larger neighborhood association.

Jen, can you say specifically where you're talking on the document?

Yes, number D, number something.

Yeah, absolutely, Becky.

Thank you.

So under D Interneighborhood Council item uh I think both six and seven, um, but then I also thought um under E responsibilities under E two, which talked about the neighborhood associations are responsible for reporting, so under that would be in my mind um either making it optional or mandatory.

I know we don't like those words, but um mandatory when the neighborhood associations and or Inc.

wish to have um a proposal to the city commission, then it will be done through a community impact statement and the process that accompanies it.

Okay.

Thanks, Jen.

So there's a marker at least two of us want to have a little more discussion there, but um, and are you all right with the rest of it, Jen?

Yes, Carson.

Uh well, there was one word where uh it said uh under the uh advisory boards, the city boards under B, item one, where the word resolution is used, um, and I was thinking it should be in the word ordinance should be used.

Where is that?

I'm just heading down to advisory boards or city boards, whatever we're calling.

7.04.

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, thank you, 04v1, where it talks about the boards shall be established by city resolution, but I believe we've established ours by ordinance.

Is that right, Mike?

Most of them are by resolution.

Oh, are they okay?

Then leave it as it is.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm done.

Yeah.

Well, in regard to that section that we were just talking about, which is um uh 70, let's see, 704 D or 704 D number uh seven and eight.

Um in number eight, we use the language shall, and I think we have talked about this previously, uh, that that's kind of a top-down thing.

The City of Bozeman neighborhood allies on staff members shall work with the interneighborhood council to grow participation and develop boundaries, and we were looking for a bit more of an organic development of neighborhood associations and boundaries.

And um, so I think that that language uh needs to be uh adjusted and um let's see.

Or uh important change is that in um section 701.

Um we include structures that the uh city of Bozeman can formally um well, I'll have to read the whole thing.

Uh section 702, the city of Bozeman shall formally recognize neighborhood associations, the interneighborhood council, and city boards as essential partners in the municipal decision making and public education process.

And or establish new institutional structures to oversee support, coordinate, track, and measure engagement on an ongoing basis.

That's a really um troublesome phrase.

But these structures, then you'll go on to say, these structures can include and in number two, you add authorities.

Authorities are quite a different uh animal from what we're talking about in terms of public engagement.

And I would suggest that uh we remove authorities, and if we're going to give the uh commission the uh ability to develop authorities, it should be done only uh by the uh with public uh vote.

Authorities, you know, uh are a whole new level of governance.

Um they can tax, they can um do eminent domain, they can um they're really completely separate form of government and they become an animal quite unto themselves, and so I do not think we should include it um casually uh here, and if we do um want to use that language, then it needs to come with a voter approval.

Um I thought someone asked to have it added last time, so that's why we added that.

So if you're saying we should take it on, I'm fine with that.

If everybody else is, yeah.

Yeah, I I use the word ad hoc committees.

Um in addition to committees, I'd never use the word authorities.

Maybe that came out differently, and uh probably commission committees are covered cover ad hoc committees as well as regular committees anyway.

So I see no okay, you know what I see I'm missing.

Go ahead, Deanna.

Um honestly, Becky.

I I have so many um so many um uh edits.

A lot of the language that I see um is uh I it includes uh vague terms and ideology, and I know that we can only meet two at a time, but I'm wondering if uh you and I or Barb and I should meet and go over some of these edits that I'm concerned with.

Um because otherwise I mean do you want to submit it?

I have I have it in writing.

Yeah, I do.

Uh and I I submitted a c I I was working on this because we had such a short time to to do this.

Um there is uh Mike, is it on?

Can you send it to them?

Um I had Caleb pass it along to everybody so you have a written document.

But I think I think we need to have a sit-down and um and uh and I know or another meeting.

Uh what can you give us one example so that uh can I can get my arms around what you're talking about?

Can I get uh can I just make a suggestion here?

Since there is a lot of crafting still happening, there's the incorporation of city attorney Sullivan's edits to language.

I would just request that we take the language specific word terminology, wordsmithing, and save that until we've put together a comprehensive document with those changes, and then if these terms, language usage, subjectivity, whatever else you see in it comes up then, I think that would be a better time to address it than trying to do it now while we have so much of it in flux.

I was gonna I was gonna suggest that and say I can get together with Deanna maybe Friday afternoon to go through it.

I will say when Becky and I met with Greg Sullivan and he started going through stuff, he also was very attuned to adjectives that create vagueness and and things that so I have a feeling that between all of the stuff that Greg has sent us and us sitting down that that that will give Becky and I what we need for Sunday afternoon to turn around a complete draft that we can then go through because um because we are continuing to find those words and say, yeah, that is pretty vague and squishy and let's get rid of it.

So why don't we um find a time at the end of this meeting for you and I to sit down um before Sunday afternoon and um go from there?

That'd be a good start.

If that works for everybody.

Yeah, the other thing that everyone needs to be understanding because of our timeline, which you know, it's just happening.

There's there's nothing we can do about the the days going by.

Um, just know that Monday morning that's our goal to post the agenda every week because we're meeting every week, and so uh we all need to book our time Monday and Tuesday for a Wednesday meeting, or Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday for a Thursday meeting, so that we can be as prepared as we can, and and I know that that's a strain on all of us, but we just need to do it because we don't have any options, right?

Um we can only get the agenda out as fast as we can get it out.

Um, but thank you for meeting with Barb on Friday, and then Barb and I are meeting on Sunday.

We have all of Attorney Sullivan's uh edits as well.

So, and you'll have those on, yeah.

Okay, um just to further educate us, is there any public comment on this section?

The further edits to public engagement article, so that's the the section, the new Article 7 that we've been discussing.

Hi, good afternoon, study commissioners.

Thank you for your service.

Um my name is Angie Kachelek, I'm a homeowner, a business owner, and I'm the Northeast Neighborhood Association representative to the INC.

Uh just a couple hours ago, I sent my own suggestions and edits for the charter language.

Um you hopefully we'll have a chance to look at that within the next day or so.

Um my comment sort of overlaps some of the stuff that's addressed in the charter, but also your next agenda item because I need to go home and make dinner.

I grew up in the ironbound section, part of the East Ward of Newark, New Jersey, and we understood what it meant to go on the wrong side of the tracks.

It was parochial at best.

And this age of inclusion, wards are not the direction I think we as a city want to go.

Having considered the advantages and disadvantages of the at-large ward and hybrid models of electoral systems, I'm convinced that the city of Bozeman, a medium-sized city without large concentrations of minorities, is best served by the at-large model that we currently have.

However, according to the MSU Extension Local Government Center, at-large models pay less attention to geographic specific or neighborhood issues.

Therefore, it is imperative that the BASP, the at-large model, also acknowledge and commit to the importance of the neighborhoods program and their interneighborhood council, the INC.

As some of you are aware, the INC is experiencing a rebirth of sorts.

I'm speaking for myself, I'm not speaking on behalf of the whole INC.

I'm speaking from my lived experience.

While we stand on the shoulders of giants before us, it feels like we find ourselves striving for a rightful seat at the table as a city ordained entity.

I've heard criticism that the INC doesn't yet represent the entire city.

I agree that's a problem.

And it shows that the city grew too fast for its bridges in recent years.

The neighborhoods program and the INC are playing catch up, just like our police and fire departments.

On a high note, we have grown from 12 to 15 formally recognized neighborhoods in just the past year.

In my notes that I sent, I I make a recommendation to not have INC play a role in developing boundaries and that sort of thing.

Um because I'm much in favor of an organic self-assembly ground-up process when it comes to neighborhoods.

Um but getting more neighbors engaged in neighborhood associations is not enough.

There needs to be the promise on the part of city officials to continue to support resource, listen to, and collaborate with the interneighborhood council for true public engagement to occur.

So in a nutshell, I encourage you to support at large elections and ground up from the ground up, neighborhood associations, and the city ordained INC, which is a board that exists to advocate for and advise the city on issues affecting neighborhoods and the city as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you, Angie.

Just a couple things.

So under neighborhood associations, 7.04 D1 under purpose and role, it references the role of the interneighborhood council as neighborhood level and citywide issues.

So those terms are both in there.

If you drop down to number four, this current draft suggests deleting citywide concerns.

So what I would suggest is leave in the phrase address citywide concerns, but change the word concerns to issues so that it agrees with number one above.

If that makes sense, and that agrees with Angie that um the INC deals not only with neighborhoods but citywide issues, especially the UDC.

So I think citywide has to be in there.

And the only other thing I have is on.

So on the draft 70 section 704 is labeled neighborhood associations.

But on page four, it also says section 704 city boards.

So my question is.

Yeah, so that should be section 705.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you, Dan.

Yeah, and that's all I got.

All right.

Thank you, Dan.

It's nice to know we have conflicting 7.04s.

Thank you very much, sir.

Any other public comments before we move to wards and districts?

Okay.

Next item on the agenda is decisions on ward and districts.

And uh I thought we'd organize this somewhat the same way.

We organized the last discussion, which is the five of us talk about where our thoughts are, then we take public comment, and then we move into the discussion.

And you know, maybe no one's thoughts have evolved in the last week, but I certainly feel like I've done a lot of reading and um reading public comment as well.

So I I have a few thoughts that have what's the right word, concretized, and so it's worth talking about that and then getting people's comments on it.

Does that make sense?

Who wants to start?

All right.

Mike.

So I just have to go ahead, Mike.

Thanks.

I just have one, so just broad thought.

Uh looking back at the purpose statement in MCA on the purpose of local government review or study commission, and in there it says it's to study the current form and other permissible forms.

So uh one thought is um that we keep coming back to is the the tension as I see it between the the public sentiment or the independent uh or the um idea of what's quote unquote best for the city.

Um so I I just want to to frame things in thinking of when we're looking at these recommendations and what we want, are we tasked, are you tasked with um just passing along public sentiment or in the study and your continued work and research and diving into this if your opinion is to lead um so it's a follower-lead type of debate, and I think that's where we keep seeing the the differences in um our public comments.

I would hope that there's a good balance between following and leading, um, which may sound weird, but um I definitely think that uh part of our function is to study, reach conclusions, um, listen, and understand what other people think, not only up here, but what the public thinks, and in that context of understanding all the points of view, we can come around to coming up with the best possible solution in language.

Um I always used to like to say to my law classes, if you don't understand all points of view, you don't understand the problem, and or therefore the solution.

So it's somewhere in that balance.

Um, and um that's what we're here to figure out, and I'm hoping that between what we hear from the public and what we have heard from the public, and what we can discuss amongst ourselves, we'll come to the best of all possible solutions, uh, to the extent that we can.

I don't know if that answers the problem, but I definitely totally understand the tension that you're talking about.

I was gonna say, why don't you continue?

Because I think you've started some important referencing that uh could just be built on, and I'll be happy to follow you.

All right, so um where I've been, I think in the last meeting I said I was thinking about having wards, um, with at-large elections, or not making much of a change at all and relying on expanded neighborhood associations for the kind of um what's happening on the ground, um, in um in the neighborhoods.

I see what we've done with engagement as being really an important piece of creating structures for people across the city through the boards, um, to talk about citywide issues and give input to the city commission that way and the neighborhood associations to be effective at um what's what's happening in your neighborhood that needs help reform, whatever.

And um while we have it here, and that's always the question.

I I think it would be helpful to have theater neighborhood council and neighborhoods talk about citywide issues as well, because I think that's part of dealing with citywide issues is garnering the support and understanding and education of everybody uh across the city on those issues.

So the the question is is that enough to create uh the kind of city that we want.

And it's also clear to me that um we will ultimately move further forward, but that maybe we should be taking small steps forward rather than large ones in our, as Dan Clark said, in our experiment.

So in the last meeting I talked about my worries, and that there are worries with going to districts, um I call them districts, going to a system like what the county has, meaning you have wards uh that are drawn out, the um representative uh of the um uh the commission representative has to live in the area, but it's an at-large election, and I think that's uh a tiny step forward in that it gives um the commission a broader range of experience because people are living in different parts of the city, um, on the one hand, but on the other hand, the commissioners that get elected are responsible to the whole city, which I think is generally what we need in at this point anyway, i.e., what is what are the common needs of the city across the board on the various issues.

I do think that the optics of four members of the commission living in one area of town, what would probably be one ward, um, are troublesome.

And what happens when you have um growth going in a specific direction in a part of the city where most of the present commissioners don't live, the optics of that are sort of like, well, they don't care because no one's building a I'm gonna get you hyperbole here, so I don't get, you know, no one's building a 20-story building in my neighborhood, it's somewhere else.

And so um I I think that we'd be dipping our toe into what may happen in the next 10 years if we created four wards, and I think four is the right number, but I'm open to that discussion as well.

Meaning the commission, uh a commissioner would have to come from each of those four, but it would be an at-large election, and that creates in my mind a good balance of responsibility to the entire city, but also creating a familiarity, which is the second point.

Optics is one.

The second point is familiarity.

There's no question that if you live in an area that's changing in ways that are appropriate or you don't like, and no one else does, um, you're gonna have uh a little more insight about it.

And so, um, you know, the question will be is four enough.

How do we create them?

I I know there are systems in place to do it, but the other piece is if you elected by, you know, only the people in the ward elect the person in the ward rather than an at-large election, you tend to have people who are then responsible to a uh quarter or a sixth, depending on how many wards you have of the city, and not feeling that sense of responsibility to the entire city.

Um that's one of the pieces that suggests to me that um we're not ready to go to the traditional ward situation, similar to what Angie was talking about earlier today.

Secondly, you avoid the problem of gerrymandering, which these days is like otherworldly.

Um, and because everybody's getting elected at large, you don't have a gerrymander situation, but you do have people who are commissioners who are spread around the city.

So that's kind of where I am right now.

Um I've been thinking the other way, um, but that's where I'm at.

Barb.

I can go next and build on that.

Um, because as I've been thinking about this as well, um that's kind of where I'm at too at this point.

Um I feel like we need to have mechanisms to ensure there's more geographic representation on our commission.

Um I think we've heard very strongly that that folks prefer a more organic um neighborhood association piece, which is gonna mean that it's gonna take longer to have all of Bozeman included in a neighborhood association.

So it's going to take longer for that to become a voice for the entire geography of the city, um, and so I I feel like that is still a really important and essential program that we need to invest in strengthening and making more robust, and I think we would be well served by a ward system.

I also believe we should still elect at large.

Um for all of the reasons you said, Carson plus, I still think we're small enough that if we elect by ward, we are gonna have non-competitive races in some wards.

Um, because we are still it seems very strongly in favor of a citizen um model of elected leadership, um, and people don't want to pay more for people to serve on the city commission.

So that is going to remain a barrier for the kinds of people that can run for election.

And I think the end result of that is that we'll end up with some wards where you only have one person running, and I don't think that's good for representation or democracy.

Um, so I think maintaining the at-large voting where you have to live in a ward, but you're still voted at-large, um, maintains that accountability to the entire city, and it it creates a little bit more likelihood that there will be competitive races, I hope.

Um, and I may not be thinking about that right, it's just one of the things that I'm trying to wrap my brain about.

So that's kind of where I'm leaning as well.

We should talk about are we big enough that we should expand the size of our commission and then therefore have a couple more wards.

Um we may not be there yet, but we might be, it's a lot of work.

Um I do continue to support uh the ideas of wards because they do strengthen representation, and that's what um uh we're looking for, uh, along with responsiveness and accountability.

Um the MSU local government study uh acknowledges that ward systems improve responsiveness and uh uh uh participation and uh and it certainly lowers the barriers for candidates to run, and um I think it's important to remember that most of us ran on uh the fact that we were tending toward wards, and I think that we have a lot of public um comment uh in favor of wards, far more um in favor of wards than than not, and um if I think we'll have a lot of splaining to do if all of a sudden there is this 180 degree uh turnabout.

Um people are feeling very disconnected from city government, and one of the ways that they anticipate uh connection is through uh the ward system, and we are mistaken to think that a strong neighborhood association in any way replaces the um uh uh the election of commissioners by wards.

Um they they are two very uh separate issues, and uh neighborhood associations do not replace or give the same representation that election by wards would give.

And um system is perfect, we know that, but an at-large system does remains uh a system that concentrates a power among a few uh voters, and um a way to break up that kind of uh unfairness is through wards, and um, and the MSU paper uh also notes that at-large systems weaken neighborhood responsiveness, and I think they say uh tend to align more closely with elite or citywide economic interests than with localized concerns, and that is the very thing that people are reacting uh against, and um I believe that wards would not divide the city, it they would um ensure that every part of the city has a clearer voice at the table, uh, it would reduce the cost of campaigning and would bring far more people into the race for city commission seats than having to wage an at-large campaign.

So I'm still very much in favor of wards.

Um the discussion between four and seven or five and seven uh is one uh that you know remains, but I think our first decision is uh to uh really clarify our understanding, uh how we are going to answer people's uh uh demand for better representation in the government, and not to confuse that with good neighborhood associations that many people do not even uh have at their uh um don't don't even have one to participate in.

So I'm all for wards and you want to go next I can go um I'm I'm leaning away from wards more and um so that's the end game but let me tell you where my thinking is um you know we've been a task and asked along the way to think about what's the problem and then is the solution going to fix the problem um and I know that in the a couple things have come through clear in public comment one is that we are um while we're a growing city we we are not you know it's not big pockets of diversity in certain places that that means that we have different populations living in different places certainly neighborhoods are unique for sure um but um the fact that a lot of our um commissioners are from uh one neighborhood for me is much more about the ec the economics of it of running not that that no one in other neighborhoods want to run for commission so when s when people want to run for commission it's open to the whole city and right now we have a we have a system that makes it so that only people who can afford to not work can be on a commission if we solved that problem I would guess that we would have people all over the city running for commission.

Drawing lines and making wards or districts cannot force people to be able to run for commission when they can't afford to do so.

We don't pay a living wage to be on the commission and if we keep it that way um there are a lot of people who will never run for commission no matter where they live no matter what boundaries are drawn.

And so if we're looking for more um if we're looking for better and and more diverse representation I don't think geography is the problem I think finance uh fiscal uh issues are the problem.

Um I've seen public comment that's very mixed um in our survey that we received that was very mixed.

When we look at the documents and the and the information we got from the MSU um public uh um MSU governance center there's a lot of pros and a lot of cons.

I think wards are um could make people more focused on just their tiny little neighborhood um versus I really want the commissioners to be thinking of the big picture of the whole community.

So I think that people have been asking for public engagement and we have done a really good job of enhancing public engagement with our neighborhoods and our and our city boards and I'd like to see how that pans out.

And I also would like to see you know right now that the the existing charter and then the amended charter leaves compensation to the commission and they could decide to have a living wage for commissioners and if they did there's I think there'd be a lot more people to run.

But if we leave the finances the way they are and just say okay I would someone from the north north side uh neighborhood, y'all someone's got to stand up and run.

I worry what Barb said, which is, you know, like one person might go, all right, I'll run since I'm the only one in this neighborhood kind of thing who wants to and can afford to.

Um so I think we've got a problem that's a square and we're trying to put a round hole in it by putting, I mean a around peg in it.

And I don't think wars is the answer right now.

I would be if if we wanted to do wards and we could um word it correctly, and we wanted to make it a sub-option, I'd I'd be open to that, um, particularly if it's still at large voting.

For if, you know, and then we could see what the public wants, and they could vote.

So that's kind of where I'm at.

Thanks you all.

Um I went back and watched my own testimony last time, two weeks ago, to see where I was, in addition to reviewing more information, talking to more people, and thinking more deeply again about issues of democracy and representation, which uh many of you have covered already in very important ways.

I also thought about the last election of 2025, not that long ago, of the candidates and who ran for three positions.

We had nine candidates, I believe, and we had some wide variety of diversity and choices among those candidates, and the people at large spoke for those three people that were elected, and I think that's the trend that we need to continue.

Um, I would like to see us keep the four at large.

I'd like to see the four positions and the fifth, the mayor, of course, um, be paid according to the capacity that they are expected to work for us, livable wages and opening up others who would be able to be further representing the kinds of um socioeconomic folks that we have living in the cent in the city.

I think we need voices of renters.

I think we need voices across the um lifespan.

I think we need single parent moms who cannot afford uh in both time and uh other support, and that all of these are really about the pipeline that both um looking beyond these structural solutions, which I know we cannot do in the charter, but if we consider the fact that those structural uh beyond the structural solutions are part of the goal that will help us meet it, we can't put all of our eggs into the ward basket and assume that's going to give us greater representation and um and the democracy that we deserve.

I too have continued to be concerned about the level of people voting and the level of candidate quality if we were to go to a ward uh type of system that would only be people who live in the ward and vote in the ward.

Um I just don't see that as right now needed for Bozeman.

Like uh Becky, I would be open so sub-option if it considered uh just ward districts, if you will, with at-large, but right now I think we can do better by again looking at some of these structural issues, and I do have a recommendation when we actually get to compensation today that I think might be very helpful to that part of the discussion, but I also think too that um we we really need two things.

We need the the job descriptions that we've recommended, which is again not a structure, but yet it will have an important part of that structure, and then I also think we need um uh make sure I'm looking at all of my notes here, that um that we need to have uh the larger number of people voting in our elections themselves to really say this is what people want.

Um, and that oh sorry, I just remembered excuse me.

The the recommendation I made earlier regarding the the uh I want to call it an environmental impact statement because I think it's as powerful as an environmental impact statement, but a community impact statement actually embedded in the charter so that it really puts more power in the hands of the neighborhood associations, and I don't think we have anything else in all of the elements of the uh section of of public engagement that would allow that to happen.

And I think with that, coupled with an at-large system that strengthens our democracy, we have to protect also our voting itself.

Voting itself is under threat.

We all know the Save America Act is designed to be voter suppression.

And so we would have even fewer people actually potentially voting in our in our neighborhoods in our in our city if we do not have robust voter protection.

And of course, we cannot write that in the charter, but I'm only making these examples to say that again, geography is not destiny.

I don't think it's going to solve the problem of a number of these other areas that are making less voter engagement happen, and that we need to be addressing those kinds of issues, not necessarily in the charter, but perhaps in the recommendations.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

On the issue of wards and districts, and the language is just for clarification.

One is change nothing.

Two is create wards but at large elections.

And three is create wards and the elections are the people that live in a ward vote for the person that's running for the ward.

And I think that's all that's out there by way of possibility at this point.

But Natsuki, if you have a better idea, I want to hear it right now.

Hello, Natsuki Nakamura, Bozeman resident, member of the economic vitality board, but not speaking on that behalf.

Um I've already expressed my concerns about wards.

Um, just the the third option you gave of wards elected by with the ward.

Um but since some of you expressed openness to the district idea of wards selected at large, I guess I'll just highlight some concerns about that.

Um I think in terms of access to running, there have been two people at least that ran last election that expressed that it would have been a lot easier and more financially accessible if they were just running in wards instead of uh like an at large race.

So if it was something that if you ended up going with wards that are elected at large, I think that just does not make it any more accessible to people who would now have still have to campaign across the whole city.

Um the concern about not having competitive races is still one because if you still have to live within the ward, you might only have one person there, even if it's elected at large.

Um, I think one of the cons that Dan Clark had also brought up is that when districts are awards are elected at large, um, the voice of the ward can kind of get vetoed, even though if there's a strong support within the ward, if the other rest of the city votes against that person, then that actually kind of weakens the voice of the ward who has a very strong neighborhood advocate but didn't get the maybe enough exposure in the rest of the city.

So those are some of my hesitations about that idea.

Um, but I do acknowledge that the in the early survey and a lot of public comment was in favor of wards, so I do think if the ward option happens, it should be a sub-option to let voters directly vote on this issue.

Um, to really figure out, you know, so they can think about the pros and cons without tying up the rest of the amendments you're trying to make to the charter.

Um I wonder, I don't know, this is just something that popped in the head.

I don't know if it's actually possible, but um, I wonder if those could be a sub-option that could require like a further investigation of the idea of the words before the 10 minute the 10-year option of the city create another study commission, maybe sometime within that 10-year window, could have a more thorough discussion just about the ward idea or reassess it.

Um I think again, going back to the Gallatin County Study Commission, they actually mocked up a map that helped people look at it.

So having some potential maps, especially if you're not sure if you want four words, six words, five, um, which is I think help people have a more concrete and more informed discussion.

So I don't know if that's an option of kind of narrowing the window, maybe not waiting 10 years, but kind of requiring a reassessment of this idea sooner might be an option to put to voters.

Thanks.

Do you know who they got to do the mock-up of the of their map?

They asked the clerk and recorder office or Eric Zimmerad in the office, his office actually did like an official based on populations.

Okay.

Do you I don't know how much it costs, but then I don't know if it would do it for they would do it for us.

I think I don't know how long it takes, I don't know how long it costs, but I think you could ask for sure.

I'm gonna tell them you said that that they would that they would do it.

Yeah, that'll be enough.

Thank you very much.

Can I start?

Hi.

Hi there.

Um my name is Emily Kelly.

I live on Ferguson in the Baxter Meadows area.

Uh I'm here to comment on the methods of representation that are being considered for the new city government.

I understand that mandated neighborhood associations are being favored over elected ward representatives.

These two things are not equal and cannot be considered as an either-or choice.

Neighborhood associations as proposed would be advisory only, and I think that alone is a non-starter and does not need further explanation or exploration.

I also understand that neighborhood associations will be mandated, and there seems to be a lot of questions about how how that mandated associations be defined and established.

Most of the current associations grew organically from nominally delineated neighborhoods that have shared open spaces or homes of similar size and style, and often have been brought together by shared history of growth or issues.

By their nature, neighborhood associates will have hyper-localized asks the city will not be prepared to address.

I assure you, you will spend way too much time talking about who should be picking picking up dog poop.

On the other hand, elected representation is supposed to provide some level of equality established to the number of residents per district or ward, whatever you want to call it.

A neighborhood association does not have that criteria.

We would end up with hundreds of associations of varying size, and if we wait for organics to do its thing.

Wards or districts are the only way to level the representation.

From my perspective, the lion's share of the commission's time is spent on downtown issues.

I get it, downtown is the driving force of this valley, but the west side of town has different needs and character that are not going to be addressed by more tips or the NCOD.

In fact, what I feared that so much energy was used to modify the UDC for the sake of downtown that the rules were not robustly tested for what it'll mean for the properties west of 19th.

I think I seriously believe that the driving force behind the approval for this study commission was for residents to have more direct representation with actionable authority within the city commission that result in better responses to the community's concerns.

So my recommendations, similar to what um Carlos Taylor's talking about, is to have sufficient number of wards to allow for fair representation and ease of management and have additional at-large seats or seat to represent the city in its entirety.

Um if there's one more comment I'd like to say, I would ask that uh we get rid of the elected mayor in training at least once.

I have voted for a deputy mayor who ultimately failed my expectations, but I had to be reminded of my bad decision for another two years.

Um that's I guess I'll leave it at that.

Emily, thank you very much.

And you you did point out one thing that I when I told Natsuki the three choices that there is the fourth choice of a combination of wards and then at-large commissioners being run as well.

That's not off the table either.

Okay, and just to further this at-large issue, only one candidate representative came to our home during the last election.

I think we only got one piece of material.

You know, we're on that far edge of town, and people just don't come to see us.

So if that's a comment about at large, then I'll just say that.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comment?

Please.

I'm Mr.

Emily Kelly.

So uh Bob Muldowney, uh Bozeman resident, Ferguson, and uh as I said, Mr.

Emily Kelly.

Um, you speak of the microphone.

So I'm sorry.

Wards, wards to me are just more formal.

Neighborhood associations sound like a bake sale.

Um it we need structure.

And I think also with geographically, I live we live in the Northwest.

We have a lot different problems than you guys down here.

We are even actually geographically different in that the physical layout of the city down there is long straightaways that over uh basically outlining farm boundaries.

Come into my house on a Friday night, we're gonna put out some chairs and we can watch Daytona Speedway.

People down there just racing, they're the streets have burnout marks on them.

I know that's not the issue here, but I think it goes back to the idea of representation and people, you know, representing the four, let's say the four areas of the city.

I also agree with my wife's idea, then having a fifth representative that would actually come back to the board itself.

So I think wards are just a lot more of a formal organization to do that.

Having at-large elections, I don't see why anyone on this side of town is gonna care who's running on that side of town.

And even if someone's elected from that side of town, they're gonna elect, and if they have half a brain, they're gonna, you know, represent the people who have elected them, but they're also gonna, you know, follow and and work within the city bounds, let's say, or the bounds of government.

You know, other than that, I mean you're just not like electing someone who's responsible, I would think.

Um, you know, then it comes, it does come back to, you know, when we're paying our taxes and stuff, Northwest, we're not we don't get TIFF money.

We don't have anything held back from our taxes.

The full boat of our appraisals goes to the general fund.

This side of town, that doesn't happen, as you guys know.

Um, and then money's put away to either entice developers or this and the other thing.

We don't have that.

Right now, the um the chief of police has said we're so short on police, they don't even respond.

I mean, I'm I'm I don't call the police anymore for you know the Daytona Speedway stuff.

Um it's it's cuckoo.

I mean, we are having people killed.

We had a person on oak tragically uh killed by a kid a kid in the morning.

We had a person down on uh by MSU on a motorcycle.

You know, we need more police.

We have different uh concerns on the Northwest side.

We need we need to put the mills through so we can actually get the pri the money to hire police.

I mean if you look at DOJ or FBI, uh they both say we have too few.

I'm going off topic, I'm making it up, I apologize.

Um, so yes, there are different geographic interests or there's different interests in the various parts of the city determined in a sense by geography.

Here we have very urbanized areas.

People can't really drive as fast for as long.

My side of town, you know, putting up speed signs without without you know uh enforcing it.

That's like saying, you know, don't think of pink elephants.

I bet you everyone's thinking of a pink elephant right now.

Bob, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Carson.

Carson?

Yes.

Can I ask that gentleman uh a question?

Yes, I missed his name because I didn't hear him at the microphone.

But do you mind answering a question?

Sure.

I can make that up too.

Um, if you'll come back and I I want to ask you just uh a very respectful question because I I understand hearing you say and what I could be wrong, but what I'm hearing you say is that um you want representation on the northwest side of town.

Right.

And my question is what is stopping you and your neighbors from running for commission.

I never if you want representation, why is it?

But I thought the question right now is whether we have neighborhood associations or wards.

So on that particular question, I think you know we would we would want to have geographic representation.

I mean, are we now throwing out the idea of wards and neighborhood associations as well?

I'm not sure you understand.

No, I'm just asking, I'm just asking a question.

If if people in your neighborhood are looking for representation, have they run for commission?

And if not, why are they not running for commission?

Because nothing right now is stopping um someone from your neighborhood from running from commission.

Okay.

Right.

I don't have an answer.

Um I've never surveyed folks, I've never thought of it.

Uh what have you?

But I mean, honestly, what's really just getting my goat is this this traffic issue, the policing, the traffic issue, the you know, people are I understand that.

But again, so that that sort of it brings front of mind, you know.

Suddenly now there's there's there's uh you know, flashing lights on a crosswalk on oak.

We can't have that that someone has to, you know, unfortunately give their life for crosswalks on all the streets.

Um, Bob, I understand that what you No, I know I'm not sure.

But who's who's on the commission and where are these people coming from?

And I'm just I was just curious if it's such a strong need to have someone on the commission.

Why isn't there someone running on the commission from your neighborhood?

And I'm just wondering what the barriers are, because that's we're trying to fix barriers.

Right, but uh, but it sounds like you're not sure, so and and I I appreciate that.

And maybe, if you know, but maybe a war, maybe wards are the first step.

Maybe it's the idea of the first step of pushing the government out further from just this side of town, so to speak.

I I have nothing against.

I mean, I love this side of town.

This time this side of town is very nice.

Um, you know, maybe people have the resources over here, as I think you were alluding to earlier.

People have the financial resources, they can do this sort of a thing.

Um I don't know the answer to that question now, but I think wards okay.

Thank you.

Are possible to sort of inject push start to push this out to the community because the this as you guys know, the city is getting bigger and bigger every day.

The northwest side and also the taller buildings here.

We we all know this.

So thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Bob.

I'm sure I'll be tossed out.

Um, joking.

No, we're not tossing.

Don't judge anything.

No tossing again.

Any other public comment by anyone else present in the room?

Caleb.

Uh not right now.

All right.

All right, it's back to us.

So I you know, it this is a complex problem, and I think we need to acknowledge um that there are good arguments on all sides of this.

I I get the um it's cheaper to run if you're running in a neighborhood of 10,000 versus 40, or 15 versus 60, whatever it is.

Um, we could divide into six districts and make it even more accommodating.

But to me, the the selling point for an at-large election is that it forces a focus on citywide issues, which which I think are the um the most important ones.

Growth, um, climate, um, historic preservation, parks, uh I'm thinking of all transportation.

That's where police coverage for that matter, and and having a police force that can cover the whole city.

They're all citywide problems.

It does not mean there aren't specific neighborhood problems.

There absolutely are, and so I came around to the idea of um you need to have someone living in you need to have your commissioners living in different parts of the city for that.

There are problems with that idea, though.

One is let's say you have a renter, you're kind of requiring a renter on the commission to stay in the same rental property for four years, or if they rent another property, is to stay in the same section of town.

Otherwise, they've left their ward.

And so that that's a potential problem that that sits out there.

Um I don't think can I rec make a recommendation?

Go ahead.

I just thought we'd have a conversation here.

So I'll stop there.

Uh I have other points to make, but um let's talk a little bit amongst ourselves and then we'll get to what the process is gonna be.

Barb.

Um I just want to address a point that came up a couple times tonight.

We're not talking about either or neighborhood associations or wards.

We're talking about both.

Um we will have a robust neighborhood program that we hope will grow and expand and cover more parts of the cities.

And we may include on the ballot a sub-option to vote for ward-based elections.

From my perspective, um looking at all of the public comment and some of the perspectives that have changed as we've gone on our learning journey together about the pros and cons of these different systems of electing our commission.

Guarantees that each different part of the city will have a voice on the commission and can bring that perspective to the deliberations about all of the issues, and um addresses some of the downsides around um or potential downsides around parochialism and sort of competition for resources, and candidates not having enough candidates for um competitive elections, gerrymandering, um, so that's kind of where I have been leaning toward as this first step in experimenting with a ward-based system to go to having requiring candidates to run from wards and but still voting at large, like the county does.

Um, Barb, um, Barb and everybody, I'm wondering if if we can make a recommend if I might make a recommendation.

And the wards districts would again public comment, everything seems to be so up and down, up and down.

And um I think it was uh Natsuki who said that if we put wards within the amended charter, um, where we have other things like we have uh suggested that we uh stop having a deputy mayor, like the woman in purple said.

Um and all the other changes, the positive changes with public engagement that I wonder if we don't decide to put wards or districts on uh as a sub-option.

Um so uh for clarity, we can have we have the uh existing charter versus versus the amended charter, and then there's up to three sub-options, and we could have one of these as a sub-option, and I wonder if we wanted to do that, if maybe Deanna and Mike might write the ballot questions for uh award op award or district option, okay?

Especially given our time capacity, then the people could decide.

Could I ask um Becky if you could clarify?

Would they be a ward option of the traditional type I'll call it where you are required to live and owe in your ward, or are you talking about all different variations of this theme, plus the fact there could be a combination of wards and um at large.

So I'm just trying to get a sense of what would be that suboption to make it really fair and work.

Um and I think there's other issues, Carson.

Can I add on to why things need to be at large, including health in addition to safety and fairness?

Which has not been our hap uh been our results in the previous wards that we tried before the 20 or 2006 charter.

Thanks.

Um that's a great question.

I think that what I was thinking about, Jan, was since um Deanna seems to be the strongest person, because all those options, like, yeah, so what does the ballot question look like?

What does it say?

What are we asking, right?

Um, and so since Deanna is really strong, probably the strongest of all of us for wards, and then Mike understands how ballot questions are written and how the, you know, because it's very specific language we have to use, that maybe the two of them bring us uh something that we can edit, just like Barbara and I are working on documents that we can then look at and edit that might get us to a place where we can actually make a decision.

I don't know.

Well, are you are you proposing Becky a sub-option which says leave it the way it is, or divide your wards and at large elections, or um divide into wards and have elections only within the wards?

You can't I don't think you can do that.

We can't we can't do that.

Had to be either this or this, and then sub option two is this or this, and I don't know how that all is written.

That's why I'm I'm wondering if maybe Deanna and Mike can bring, you know, really cluster that all together and then come forward with some suggestions.

Because exactly what you're saying is yeah, I don't know, that's the problem.

Essentially it's an either or choice.

So you you have a for lack of a better term, a blank, the city commission shall be elected by this, B, that's the exact wording of what those two choices are, it's gonna be um you're not gonna be able to do wards elected within the geographical boundary of the ward districts where somebody has to live there or they're elected at large or at large.

So you're gonna have to make the decision of whether you want the choices to be between geographical representation or at large, without requiring them to live within a boundary, before you can even start crafting a question of either or so you could say they must live within a geographic like this they shall be the city shall be divided into geographical boundaries that your representatives are elected solely from the residents within that boundary, or they're elected at large, but must live within that boundary.

You can't have the third choice of there's they don't have to live within a boundary.

So at some point you have to make it down to one of the an either or two choices, and right now I'm hearing three, so I don't think we can give you language.

I think would you two be willing to cluster it?

I would be willing to have some conversation about it and see if we can arrive at something to bring back to the commission to take a look at.

Well, uh based on the research that we've done and what I've seen.

Uh I'm open to the two of those options.

And the third that I would be open to as well is um wards at large elections, um, and someone else and people that are just elected from anywhere, in other words, increase the commission by two to have two at-large people.

Um but I I don't think at this point that I'm ready, um, I can be persuaded to put on the ballot the only option being um wards elected by people within the ward, um, assuming everything else can get worked out, like who draws up the uh districts and all of that.

Um, primarily for me because of the gerrymandering issue, and because I think at this point with a city our size, we need citywide issue focused, as opposed to what they call in the reading parochialism.

Um, when we're a bigger city 10 years from now, we will have laid the groundwork for that, because we'll have the boundaries of the wards.

Um, we'll see if the neighborhood associations have reached the potential that they have.

The people that live in the various wards, in my mind, would be responsible for um being the liaison to the neighborhood associations and and create some level of tightness there, uh, and the the argument that it's cheaper to run, while that that has some legs on it, I'd much rather pay commissioners for their work and a living wage than worry about how much it costs to do the election.

Because, you know, and and I've run for election four times in the city, and um, you know, I did not get to every door, but I got to every neighborhood, and I went out of my way to do it.

Some neighborhoods filled with people that would never vote, trailer parks being an example of that, but um that's not true.

There, there is there are some candidates that are look at it purely from efficiency.

They go to the places where most people vote and they don't go anywhere else, and that's a shame.

That is a shame because part of what we're about is commissioners that understand the problems and the issues across the city in each of the neighborhoods, and um, you know, 28 percent of the people in the city being represented by a neighborhood associated, that's not good enough, needs to be better than that.

Um, but if that's what you talk about, Deanna and Mike doing, meaning um at-large election of people in wards as an option.

Great, I'm good with that.

But if it's more than that, um, I don't know.

So I do know that it has to be either keep it the same or do XYZ.

So there's just two options.

Um now that there could be another sub-option that says we want instead of five commissioners, we want seven.

Um, and then that would mean that the ward would be more, right?

Right now we'd have four wards, but if we had um six commissioners plus plus a mayor, then we'd have six wards.

Um, and so that could dictate the number, uh, but I think the the the question has to be either what we have or something else.

So, not to be Debbie Downer here on this discussion.

We have a heart out in seven minutes.

What?

The 28th is our meeting with no heart out.

Uh okay, because the we have we have meetings after us.

The schedule said we had till seven.

The agenda said we had till seven.

Then that was a typo, my apologies.

Someone said we had till seven.

Doesn't matter.

Debbie Downer says we have seven minutes left.

Yes, Becky.

Do we want to ask um officially uh Deanna and Mike to work on what we were just talking about and then take um a vote on the elected mayor?

Mike and um Deanna, do you want to try and work something out for the next meeting?

Maybe we could uh, yes, we'll do something.

Maybe we can bring more than one uh option back.

Um that would be nice.

We'll we'll see what we can work on.

Yeah, I mean, I also like Dan Clark provided us with some possible charter language for moving towards some level of wards, and um the not the last study, but the one before that, actually did include um ward-based elections in the charter that got voted down, so it was not adopted then, but that that report in our binder has some language as well for the charter piece of it.

So Becky and I could bring a couple of draft sections of the charter, so some worksheets around how we elect our commission.

That works for me as well.

Um, Barb, I think you and I have enough to do.

Um that's what I was thinking.

Maybe hand this off to um Mike and Deanna.

Okay, but we I mean, at some level, we have to put it in the charter if we're gonna vote on it as well.

So that's fine.

We have a plan, it'll get to you at some point.

Um do we want to move to decisions on the elected mayor?

We've made this decision, and the question always has been are we making other changes which make the decision that we've made um untenable or something we need to rediscuss?

I think we I think I think we need to determine the ward thing before we make a final decision on the mayor thing.

I don't.

I don't.

I don't either.

I guess from my perspective, moving towards only solidifies the decision we made to move to directly electing the mayor for a four-year term and doing away with the deputy mayor, third two year service.

Um, because I feel like in a ward-based system, we need to have somebody that's elected at large and responsible to the whole city.

So I think the subtext of all of this is do we want citizen representatives, or do we want um people who have the time and ability to um do the work that needs to be done?

So um when I talked earlier about we need to pay the mayor full time because it's a full-time job, um, we're creating a system where more there's more and more work that commissioners have to do.

Um, whereas I think Deanna's approach, and I'm telling you what you're thinking, which is not right, but you you can respond, is a much more relaxed um people that are have full-time jobs elsewhere in the community, uh a mayor that um runs the meetings but doesn't do much else.

Um that's where I think not at all exactly.

Okay, so I don't think this is uh I don't know there to make this decision.

I don't think we can make the decision now.

This needs to be first up on the next agenda, or I thought we had sorry, Carson.

I thought we had voted five-zero to have the full-time mayor um at a previous meeting.

Um I wasn't sure why we were bringing it up today at all.

So did I misunderstand?

I Deanna wanted to take it up.

She said she did, and um I think I've been clear that you can't take it up till we have it, and I think you're right in that sense.

Let's see what happens with wards before we have this final discussion.

Um, but I think we've all stated what our opinions are.

Um, except for me telling everybody what your opinion is.

I would like to definitely clarify that in this last one minute, and I I put some thought into this.

Go for it.

Um, so the best argument for a commission appointed mayor is that it preserves accountability to the full governing body while avoiding the creation of a separate political power center in a commission manager form of government.

The mayor's primary role is leadership, coordination, and public representation.

It's not operating as a separate executive branch.

Okay, so selecting the mayor from among the elected commissioners reinforces collaboration and keeps authority grounded in the commission as a whole.

Okay.

An a mayor appointed by the elected commission for a two-year term would provide stability, while uh uh if the mayor does well, then he would be reappointed for another two years without forcing the city into uh two years of uh dysfunction or political division.

So this an approach like this ensures that the mayor has the confidence of the governing uh body uh that they have to work with every day, and a directly elected mayor may campaign independently and claim a completely separate mandate from the voters, which can create unnecessary conflict in the commission when it's a commission manager form of government, such as we have.

So a mayor selected by the commission reinforces the um form of government that we decided to have, which is commission um uh manager.

Um, so and and in total, it does a commission appointed mayor does encourage teamwork, um, and I was, you know, uh I I had I didn't mean to be facing uh Carson in that way, but he uh needed to know exactly what I was thinking.

In any case, uh uh such a such a uh structure encourages collaboration and teamwork, rather than creating a separate executive branch that could work very much against uh the wishes of the commission, and that's why I feel so strongly about this um this form, which we have not given very much consideration to, and I hope in the next uh between meetings that you will consider this argument.

Thank you, okay.

Our next meeting is on the 20th, and uh we will have some sort of a writing with options from Deanna and Mike.

Thank you very much for doing that, and we'll pick up this agenda uh where we where we left it off, putting the ward district proposals first.

Is there any other um public comment at this time?

Caleb.

All right.

This meeting is adjourned at 602.

So if you'll email the corner's office, I can get you through the bar.

Yeah, I just email uh Bozeman Clerk's department and we'll get to it directly.

Yes.

Yeah.