Loc That's a very good thing.

I have a thing.

I did too.

I'll call to order the continuation of the May 20th, 26th meeting of the Bozeman City Study Commission.

And since this is a continuation of the meeting, we're gonna jump pretty much right back into where we were in the last meeting, with the following exceptions.

One, we don't have name tags in front of us.

Um the two people that are out there probably know who we are, but um on the far right, on my far right, on my far right is Diana Campbell.

Sitting next to her is Jan Stroud.

In between me and Jan is Barb Sistero, and um Carson Taylor on the left.

On the screen is Becky Franks appearing from um, boy, I'm not even gonna go there.

Long way away.

Nice to see you.

Um so we're gonna jump back in, and the way we've set this up is we're gonna alternate amendments to the existing document, starting with Jan, who's already partway through hers.

Then we'll go to Deanna, then me, and I'll pass the uh um gavel.

We should avoid anything that's a typo, something like that.

We can do that um without having to make a motion.

Um, so hopefully we're we're focusing on substance here.

Um at each step, uh where there's a motion that's seconded, we will have public comment.

And um with that introduction, I'm gonna start us right off with where we were, which was Jan had made a motion to add human rights to the preamble in between the words representative democracy and professional management, as I recall.

And um, I think Jan, you had spoken to the um amendment.

Right.

I just thought I'd read the amendment in my rationale one more time for people who maybe uh weren't there last week.

Okay, we'll open it up, and your second after that.

Um so uh within Article 1, the preamble and move the addition of the words human rights to follow democratic representation in the last sentence of the preamble to read.

By this action, we secure the rights of self-governance and affirm the values of democratic representation, human rights, professional management, strong political leadership, public engagement, and regional cooperation.

Human rights are the fundamental framework of our Montana Constitution and state laws, the backbone of the City of Bozeman's charter document contained in the first sentence of our preamble.

That's why the state of Montana has a human rights bureau responsible for enforcing the Montana Human Rights Act, Title 49 MCA.

Montana's human rights are also referenced in the charticle charter articles, second, third, fourth, and seventh, among others, as rights to democratic representation, strong political leadership, and elections through the election of a mayor, city commissioners, and justices of the municipal court.

These are some of our fundamental political human rights to vote and elect these positions and to hold them accountable.

Thank you.

So Jenna, I think you misread the preamble.

It doesn't say democratic representation, it says representative democracy.

Oh, thank you.

Please make that correction.

No worries.

All right.

Now I think the normal course should be we go around and say what we initially are thinking.

Then we'll take public comment.

It was seconded.

Oh, was seconded.

Carson.

Yeah, I seconded it.

And actually spoke to it.

So I'm not going to speak further than what I said in the last meeting.

Could you could you please remind us?

Yeah.

I think really we it's been a while.

I said that I thought human rights.

Well, it's gonna be different, but I'll tell you what I'm thinking right now.

Human rights I think are important and um to be stressed, and I think they are a value that we all aspire to, and um I think they fit very well in the right in between representative democracy and professional management.

Um so um I I'm in favor of that moving forward.

I know that it was taken out by the city attorney, because he said you really don't have anything in there about human rights.

I would argue that the the entire um charter is about human rights uh as it relates to representative democracy, and um certainly um there are other things that are in there that are not um spoken, um, but that are equally important, like regional cooperation.

I think is mentioned once or twice in the um in the document, um, but without much substance.

So I think human rights belongs here.

So that's sort of what I said, and what I'm believing right now.

So we're gonna Becky, you're gonna be in the order, Carson, Barb, Jan, Deanna, Becky.

That's where you sit, if that's alright with you.

Good.

So Deanna, comments.

Well, I would agree with uh uh our city um attorney who we uh selected as our legal uh advisor on this project, and uh I think it's redundant because we um we uh uh already talk about the laws of the state of Montana, and um uh I just don't see the need for it.

So I would be voting against this.

Okay.

Becky.

I um am completely following uh what Jan has proposed.

Um I think it's important that we have our values in here, and that could be because the entire charter is about representative democracy and professional management and civic leadership and public engagement cooperation and understanding the depth of what human rights means.

I think it it does it absolutely does belong here.

So I'm gonna vote for it.

Yeah, I mean, I we had it in there originally.

Becky and I took it out after hearing from Greg as to his questions around if there's nothing explicitly operationalizing it later in the charter.

Um is it necessary?

Um that said, it's I you know I believe in human rights and I think it's important.

Um, so I'm not gonna this isn't a hill I'm gonna die on.

Okay, uh let's take public comment on the current motion.

Is there any public comment?

Mike, is there anyone online?

Okay, further discussion, all right.

All right, seeing none, let's vote.

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

Aye, aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Nay.

Motion carries four to one.

All right.

The floor is yours.

Deanna.

And I'm thinking make the motion, and then a few sentences, two, three, whatever, so we get to it right away.

Unless there's an immediate second.

There's immediate second we're gonna have conversation anyway.

Can I make a request?

Yeah, that you clearly say what section, what article and section.

Of course, yeah.

And are we following this?

Yes.

Okay.

But you can do it in any order you want.

Right.

I actually have to the preamble.

Um I I have several um amendments.

So I move to amend the list of values in the preamble of the draft charter to explicitly add back the term citizen participation.

Would you like the reason?

No.

Okay, and the reason is that it represents a distinct legal um and democratic concept that is not synonymous with public engagement.

Public engagement and public participation are clearly two separate things.

And so it needs to be added in.

Okay, that's the motion.

Is there a second?

All right, the motion fails for lack of a second.

Shall we take out Article 8 to public all we've done on public participation since it's one at a time, no?

I'm just suggesting that I mean I just find it ridiculous that we would not have as our value in our preamble public participation when half the work we've been doing has been about public participation.

Public engagement is not participation.

I I I'm you know I'm finding your anyway, next one.

Um I I trust the public will come forward on on much of this.

And I so I move to amend.

No, now it's my turn to make a motion.

Oh, excuse me.

I'm sorry, but no, right.

I pass the gavel.

So sorry.

I would move under section 2.02, parentheses, small a close parentheses, eligibility, to change that to read only registered voters whose principal residence is in the city of Bozeman shall be eligible to hold the office of commission member or mayor.

This was the proposal.

It was the language that was in the previous charter, and uh Brian Close came to us in the last meeting and explained that the purpose of this was to prevent people who live elsewhere from claiming residence in Bozeman so that they might get elected.

And I think he had a few examples from the past, and apparently the present language as amended, doesn't do that clearly enough.

And so I'm making um that motion.

I'll second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Um I think I've explained enough what it's about.

I will say I have talked to the city attorney about it, and um he'd like to do a little more work on it.

Um my suggestion is we pass this, and um when he does more work on it, if he thinks that what we've written isn't good enough, uh he can come back to us at that point.

Um but um I think he wants to do a little research, and I think I get the impression that um, and this is my impression that what what we're trying to get at is um for many purposes, voting, for instance, you have to have a principal residence, and you have to live in that principal residence more than six months in one day.

It mostly comes up for tax purposes because people who uh winter in Arizona and summer in Montana or whatever.

Six months and one day and one, that's where they have to vote.

Um, and they can't vote in both places.

Um that's the uh the concept behind it.

Um second.

Carson, can I ask a clarifying question?

Yes, so uh it took me a second.

Um, when everybody says this section, this this number kind of thing.

If I if you could just pause a moment so we could find it, because I was trying to find it and then I'm sorry, um, I missed a little bit.

Um how are registered voters?

It says only registered voters.

How is that defined by Eric Femrid's election department?

Don't you have to be a resident?

To your point, like I I can't vote in Arizona and in Montana, so if I'm a registered voter, aren't I isn't this my primary residence already?

That that apparently is a subject that Brian had discussions with the state about, and didn't have a um, a resolution that made it clear, but the concept of principal residence makes it clear.

So you want to take out registered voter and put in what?

Tell me that again.

Can you stop talking?

Only it would say it would have both concepts in, so that we don't run another way.

Only registered voters whose principal residence is in the city of Bozeman shall be eligible to hold the office of commission member or mayor.

Thank you.

Okay, and so in the rotation, unless it's a point of information.

You're right, Becky.

Just as a point of clarification based on your question, active duty military would have a primary residence wherever they're stationed, but they could be registered to vote in the county, got it.

Is it my turn?

So motion it would go to Deanne.

No, Jan, you seconded it, so I'll pass okay.

Now I presume that we're talking about uh section two uh eligibility.

Okay, and um I would suggest that we use the word domiciled.

Uh, because domiciled has a much fuller and clearer meaning in terms of uh connection to the um community, and it's a word that is frequently used in this uh context, and I think it would be uh clear and um represent what we want in terms of people really connected to the uh community.

So domiciled is a word I would add.

So right now it refers to Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution, as it's further definition, which reads any citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older who meets the registration and residence requirements provided by law is a qualified elector unless he asserting a sentence for a felony in a penal institution or is of unsound mind as determined by a court.

So I guess that begs the question of what does the law actually say about registration and residence requirements?

And do we know the answer to that?

Mike off the top.

But that's where that's where Brian was like the law doesn't clearly say it.

You have to be domiciled.

Right.

And oops, I'm not running.

So I am I understanding that correctly.

I think so.

Yes.

Okay.

And then to respond to Deanna, I'm not wed to the word principal residence or domicile, and I would leave that up to Greg to tell us which is the legally clearer.

Brian, the lawyer thinks the principal residence is legally clearer.

I have no uh I don't have a horse in this race between domicile and principal residence.

A current charter reads principal residents, so it's just reverting back to the current charter.

Jan, you had.

Thanks.

Um, just just to be further clear, um, we're talking about eligibility for office holders, right?

And I thought I might have heard in that section, which I love our little constitution here, that it sounded like who could actually vote was our misunderstanding what you read.

The constitution is referring to um the definition of who can vote.

That's right, but it refers to state law to further define that.

It doesn't actually it's it is not prescriptive.

Got it about who can vote.

It says as provided by law.

Um, great.

The other point I want to make, and I mentioned to Carson earlier, is I wanted to make sure this also did not feel exclusive to renters if it had more of the tax implication in the in the definition that we wanted to make sure that was inclusive of all kinds of people who live and own or rent and meet the other requirements of longevity, so just maybe as part of what Greg is looking at.

So thanks.

Becky, any further discussion?

Yeah, yeah, I might be showing my um lack of intellect and education, but I am I don't understand the word domicile as well as I understand the word whose principal residence is in the city of Bozeman.

So I think that you know, asking Greg to look at those words, and I think one of the things we've done well is while this is a legal document, while this is important to use language that um uh is legal ease.

I think we've done a good job of making so when people read it, they can understand it.

And I think adding domicile in this particular thing versus the the motion right now says whose principal residence is um I think that's a better way to do it, just to make sure that people are understand it.

Um so uh if that that puts me into eighth grade, that's fine.

Um, other than that, I think it's a I'm understanding uh Mike when you say the military thing, that that helps me get that, you know, we need to say pursuant to you know registered voters pursuant to article four, section two of the Montana Constitution, and whose principal residence is in the city of Bozeman.

That makes sense to me.

So thank you for uh that clarification.

I'll I'll be voting for this, and let me know um shy of public comment.

Any further discussion up here before we take public comment?

Just a point of order, a point of order.

We've been doing we all comment once, then get public comment, and then we have further discussion.

Okay, so then is there any public comment on this amendment?

Seeing none in the room, Mike, is there any online?

Okay, we'll bring it back up here is further discussion among the commission.

I would like to know.

Are we making a motion that um would would we be making a motion then that uh the word domiciled um is reviewed by Greg?

Because just an off-hand comment uh doesn't really uh hold us to anything.

And uh if we're concerned about the meaning of students, residents and military residents and so forth, it isn't a matter of using a word that is convenient or common.

It's using a word that is precise.

And our I would hope that all of us would want to walk away from the work that we've done, knowing that we have been precise.

And so I'm much in favor of domicile, but if we're not going to um take another uh motion for it now, I'd like a motion to be assured that Greg is going to review it.

So Carson, would are you willing to amend your motion to include that word as an option?

Certainly, certainly in leaving it to Greg to decide between principal residence and domicile.

I accept that as the secondary.

And the point is to prevent people from claiming, and that's why domicile might not work.

I'm domiciled in Bozeman.

I actually live out in the county, but I have a bed in my office in the city.

That's that's where it comes up.

But that's fine with me.

And then I have more to say before we vote if I will say that at least from my experience since this charter came in, and the language that was written in the charter, there has not been the problem that had previously occurred that I know of.

What problem previously occurred?

People who who lived in the county but had an office with a bed in it in the city, claiming that they could run for city commission.

Okay, that wouldn't be domiciled.

That's why we would protect ourselves from that.

Okay.

Okay.

So are we clear on the motion that we're gonna put this back into the charter?

Greg's gonna review it and tell us which word is best.

Um seeing no more comments, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

The motion carries five zero.

Okay, next, Jen.

Okay, second of my four amendments, which is at the kind of thank you, Mike, for uh making sure all of these got into our uh packet, but it's at the very last page, uh, the very last item of the supplemental materials.

And this is um this is this is an amendment.

There's another one that if we get to it today, it'll be a recommendation.

But this is regarding um section 804, recognition of neighborhood associations in the draft charter.

Section 804B, the recognition of neighborhood associations.

I am moving to amend this to add the word nonpartisan before organizations in number two to read membership and neighborhood associations is open to all residents, property owners, business owners, nonpartisan organizations located within a neighborhood association's boundary.

My rationale is this, that when we remove the word nonprofit in front of organizations, I wanted it to be clear because I thought nonprofit was the better word, but I wanted it to be clear that we really um uh would like to ensure participating membership organizations are non-partisan, and that is according to Miriam Webster, free from party bias affiliation or designation.

This can help facilitate constructive trusted neighborly relationships as part of a community building role of neighborhood associations, as described in um I don't know what it means to say number seven of the neighborhood associations recognition, but again, the the actual amendment says to add the word nonpartisan before organizations, that's the motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

It's been moved and seconded.

Jen, have you given enough of a uh description as to your point of view or do you want to add to it?

I feel I have I'm open to questions.

Becky, would you like to speak as the second?

Um the only thing I would say is that I think that does help to clarify and um and I think it's important because our commissioners are voted nonpartisan as well.

Um and so for all the things Jan said I won't belabor.

Okay.

Uh I have nothing to add to it.

I think it's fine.

Barb.

I have nothing to add either.

Deanna.

I don't actually see the need for it.

Uh so if the uh if the Democratic Party had an office in that neighborhood, uh they could not be a member of the neighborhood association, even though the traffic and building um and uh land use and such would impact their office, uh just as any other office.

Why would they not be included in a discussion about their neighborhood?

I I think it it's uh it's exclusive in a city that we've not that you have put forth should be inclusive.

So why would we exclude the democratic uh political office from the neighborhood association?

Okay, um, I'm gonna get public comment, then we'll come back for further discussion.

Thank you for that point.

Is there any public comment on this issue?

Seeing none presently, uh Mike, is there anyone online that would like to comment?

Okay, we're back up here for discussion.

Jan, do you want to respond to Deanna's thoughts?

I think that we're we have been before and we are in a highly partisan time, and I think that we want to give neighborhood associations all of the support we can to ensure that no one is prohibited from participating.

It is a question of membership and a question who of who gets to vote, and that is what I'm trying to distinguish with this amendment.

Um, so you're excluding someone on the basis of their political affiliation.

I don't think that's constitutional.

I no, I don't think that's true.

It's you're excluding an organization.

First of all, it's an organization, not a person.

Um, and secondly, it's uh based on partisanship.

Um and I guess the question would be you can't have a neighborhood board that doesn't have a human on it, so that's not a problem.

But I think the concept is let's have neighborhood associations that are dealing with neighborhood related issues, not political issues, and that's seems to be the purpose of this.

Further discussion.

If not, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, opposed, opposed, nay.

Motion carries four to one, and I'll try and remember that we have to hesitate because it the speed of sound apparently is not quite as fast as we would like it to be.

All right, um, okay.

Well, as long as we're uh looking at um section eight oh four B.

Uh I would like to make a motion uh that we add the following text to the at end of the sentence that only residents of the neighborhood association may serve on its leadership board or on the interneighborhood uh council.

Um that's the same section section eight oh four B.

Well, this would be uh in regard to Article 8, uh at the bottom of page two.

Oh, remember there's two 804s right now.

So the first 804, I assume.

8.04.

Yeah, because we have uh we have a city board section that's entitled 8.04 also.

That's but we're 804 D.

Barb, can you I mean Deanna, can you repeat that?

I'm sorry.

Okay, I move to amend section 804 B number two.

Thank you.

And it's recognition of neighborhood associations.

Yes, yes.

And and I would add the sentence, but only residents of the neighborhood association may serve on its leadership board and on the interneighborhood council.

And if you want to look at what a what that article actually is, and do you want to give us a few senses as to why?

Yeah, uh the reason is that um uh um it establishes an essential uh firewall against conflicts of interest while allowing local businesses to remain active, members of the uh neighborhood association.

It ensures that any formal leadership roles and votes in the INC are strictly reserved for actual residents, and this prevents outside commercial or special interests from creating an association and packing leadership on the board to manipulate neighborhood policy for private financial gain.

All right, that's the motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Um Deanna, do you want to say more than what you've said for the initial go around?

I think I that's that's I've said it.

Jan, do you want to speak to it as a second?

I really um glad to support this.

I think it's very similar to the goal I had around uh partisan uh organizations and it centers the leadership and development and recommendations going forward by and for the residents.

Thank you.

Um Becky.

Um I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, so I want to um we're talking about who on the on the neighborhood association gets to serve on the intern neighborhood council.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Well also on the leadership of the neighborhood.

Also the leadership of the uh of the neighborhood association.

Okay, I'm I'm curious as to where it fits, just for starters.

I'm I'm I'm supportive of the idea, but can we look at D like Dog?

Interneighborhood Council.

In that first sentence, there's hereby established.

An interneighborhood council can it's B is asking I I hear what you're saying.

What I'm saying is I don't think it belongs there.

So if I if I could talk for just a second, explain myself.

Maybe it'll make sense, and maybe you'll be like, yeah, Becky, you're not making sense at all.

That's okay.

But let's look at let's look at Diaz and Dog.

Interneighborhood Council.

There's hereby established an interneighborhood council.

To be composed of representatives selected by each formally recognized neighborhood association.

I think there is where we say uh members of the inter-neighborhood council must be, and then uh fill in fill in the language that you are recommending.

Uh because up in the neighborhood under B, like boy.

What we're talking about is how you form a neighborhood association.

There's no there's no mention there of who's the leader.

I don't see it.

Yes, number two, uh number two of B.

Membership of the neighborhood.

Membership of a yeah, that's who's in the neighborhood association.

That doesn't say who is leading the neighborhood association.

Um, so if we want to make a number three, or you know, add another one to say who's leading it, but nothing in there saying who's the leader.

The only place is the leader is when we get down to D like Dog, who gets to be on the inner neighborhood council, that's when we're talking about leadership, uh opportunity.

Um and so maybe to add there to identify who that is.

But in B like, boy, there's no leadership conversation.

So it doesn't maybe fit there.

Precisely why I made the motion.

Okay.

Okay, Barb.

Um I actually think it does belong where Deanna is suggesting we put it, because in the next number three, we do get into in your bylaws, you have to ensure democratic voting procedures, continuity of governance, and provide the ability of the neighborhood association's selected representative to vote on ink.

Um, so I I think it works to either make to add it to this list or to add it to the sentence in number two.

I would just delete the butt so that it would read only residents of the neighborhood association may serve on its leader may serve on its leadership, or on the inner neighborhood council.

Um, yeah, I wonder, uh I actually like that if you put it in B3, Deanna.

It would say adherence to established bylaws that ensure democratic voting procedures, continuity of governments, and that only residents of the neighborhood associated may serve on its leadership board and on the interneighborhood council.

Uh I have no objection to that.

To uh adding that to three, and then the second, do you agree to that?

I agree, thanks.

Um I I thank you for bringing this up.

Um I'm taking it as my turn to speak now.

Um, I think it's interesting.

I I do think there are ways to deal with conflicts of interest, but um, the the truth is it's very hard if you had someone who was a major business in um the middle of a neighborhood, and they uh got to be leadership, it would be very hard to separate out choices and decisions that were being made.

So I think this is a good ad.

That will go to public comment.

Is there any public comment on this issue?

Mr.

Cardi with no mick in front of no mech.

Uh Dan Cardi, Bozin Resident.

Um I'm good with this uh amendment.

Whether it goes in two or three, that's certainly up to y'all.

But um, one question I have on the language where it says, but only residents of the neighborhood association.

So I don't know that you can be a resident of a neigh of an association, but you can be a resident of the neighborhood.

So maybe it should read, but only residents of the neighborhood may serve.

And that's just a suggestion.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Could I make a suggestion since there are only two people in the audience?

Could you just sit a little closer to the podium?

Sure.

Then we don't have to wait quite so long.

Uh Natsuki Nakamura, Bosan resident.

I'm part of the economic vitality board, but not speak on that behalf.

As a midtown resident, I think Midtown's the one that really prides itself in the business owners as being part of their neighborhood association.

So I'm not sure if they would necessarily want to disqualify a business owner from being on their steering committee.

Each neighborhood association has their own charter for their neighborhood association.

So I would maybe leave that up to the neighborhood if they want to have businesses on their steering committee.

I think Midtown can have up to 10 people.

So maybe they would want one of those people to be a business owner.

But maybe for Inc., maybe if you want to put that delineation, you could put that in the ink section.

I don't think Midtown would disagree with that priority.

Each neighborhood association.

Thank you.

Mike, do you have anything to weigh in here?

We have an online public comment.

Oh, from Emily Twego.

All right, go for it.

Hi everyone, Emily Twego speaking in my capacity as a Bozeman resident.

Um I will just second what not Suki said.

Uh Midtown is is a very much mixed-use neighborhood.

And generally speaking, I I do really appreciate the sentiment of where this is coming from.

I'm trying, I've been pressure testing it in my head for the last you know six minutes since I've heard about it.

And um, but uh but I will say that I do think because each neighborhood association does create their own bylaws, um, you know, it's a balance there to not get that granular um uh from a midtown perspective.

Um it doesn't matter if you're a renter, it doesn't matter if you're a short-term renter, doesn't matter if you're long-term renter, uh homeowner, business owner, leasing place for business, um, or a mobile food truck.

If somebody wants to be involved and and step up to help uh lead the neighborhood association, we want them there.

Um, so I I just wanted to share that perspective that I I understand it.

I think I would agree with Natsuki about the the ink piece of it.

I think that that could probably go, but um just a mixed-use neighborhood perspective that that's really granular, um, and would it would cause us to need to restructure how our own bylaws and and and things like that.

So thank you.

Any other public comment?

All right, back to us for discussion after hearing the public comment.

Can I throw my thoughts?

Sure.

Um I um first of all, Dan, uh uh thank you for that um language organization.

That's that makes a lot of sense.

Um, and then hearing both that's Siki and Emily, um I'm curious as to if the motion might be um offered to change.

Um, so I'll I will turn that back to DNA.

I think Jan second is it to and I'm because I I am curious, yeah.

Businesses to be able to serve on the as a leadership position with the uh on the neighborhood association, but not on inc.

So to edit it to say only citizen residents of the neighborhood may serve on the inner inner neighborhood council instead of may serve in a leadership position, because perhaps a business owner who have who also is in the neighborhood might want to be a secretary on the steering committee.

And I don't know that I don't know that that makes I think that makes sense.

What I'm concerned about is the possibility of a group of businesses, for example, in some of the areas that do not have neighborhood associations right now.

There's a stack of uh businesses right in the middle of it who could get together, form an association, and elect themselves leaders of the association, and direct the neighborhood, not in the best interests of its residents.

And I think that the idea of neighborhoods is uh the people living in uh their homes there, not uh just the businesses, and so I I think it's a precaution and a protection that we want to uh take.

So uh I the place where I think this comes in is what is leadership, because inner neighborhood council, sure, but I I think the problem goes, the potential problem goes deeper than that, and that is let's just say the president of the neighborhood association was a person that had a business, and they wanted to talk about changing street patterns in a way that favored their business.

Um I can just see maybe that's too innocuous, but certainly other things as well, and um you know, I I came up in a time period when we didn't have a board of ethics, and these kinds of things weren't very clear, and I think I've told this story, I'm only gonna tell it quickly.

The chair of the uh cemetery board when I first got on the cemetery board in the 1990s was the guy that made monuments, um gravestones, and there were two of them, but he was the only one that was on it, and you know, in front of us is a motion at some point to give him more money for uh a job that he had done, uh and he apparently had underbid it and wanted us to recommend to the city commission that we pay him more money, and um that seemed to be the classic conflict that you wouldn't want to get into on the advisory boards, but there are similar things around businesses as well.

I would think, whether it's parking lots close to the business or whatever.

So I don't know if there's a way to define leadership more narrowly, um, because you certainly want business people in a neighborhood, particularly when there's it's very mixed use, to have the ability to speak on subcommittees and committees, um, that to me is not leadership.

Um the leadership is the president, the secretary, and the Inc.

representative.

So I don't know if there's a way we to change the leadership language.

Well, it says leadership board, and I think the board usually is the president, secretary and treasurer, um as opposed to a broader group, okay.

Jen.

Yeah, I'm uh very sympathetic about the uh bringing so many different parts of a neighborhood together as well as the conflict of interest, and appreciate that additional um public comment.

I was wondering if we could simply remove the word board from this so that each neighborhood defines what its leadership structure is.

It could be a board, it could be a steering committee, it could be a handful of officers.

I'm in all those kinds of organizations, and that therefore there can be roles, especially again in those kind of mixed neighborhoods that allow more participation but are not in control of the decisions.

So that would require that the the bylaws define leadership, and that would take care of it, yeah.

Barb.

Um I think I lost my thought.

I was gonna sort of hearing Emily's um suggestion to not get so granular that businesses couldn't serve on Midtown's steering committee.

Um I had a different I I had a different thought, and now I've lost it that only residents of the neighborhood um crap.

I totally lost it.

Hopefully, it will come back.

Yeah.

Maybe we could uh uh uh put in language about the majority of the leadership has to be residents.

Um I would live with that majority of the leadership as defined by the bylaws must be residents rather than businesses.

Did that work for the the motion maker and the second?

Yes, Becky, more comment on that.

Um I think that um I I'm I'm good with that.

I think that's a great idea, Deanna.

And um I think at this point too, um given uh we vote on the concept and know that Barb and I will kind of move some of the words around just to make it fit.

We can bring it back because now we're getting, but I I like that.

I like that a lot, Deanna.

Thank you.

And I I'm now in favor of voting on this.

So thank you.

Barbara, your last chance to bring it back today.

That's all right, all right.

All those in favor, just Mike, for confirmation that the new motion is now that a majority of leadership as defined by the bylaws must be residents of the neighborhood.

Yes, could I just add one thought?

I think it's as defined by the bylaws of each neighborhood association, is what I understood.

That's the concept.

They're gonna put it into the right, but just to be clear, that's where the bylaws is reside.

Is it possible that a business could claim to be a resident?

Well, some businesses may have people that are residents.

No, I I don't know that, but I mean, uh, no.

Okay.

I mean, what am I saying?

No, it's not, but people can claim anything they want.

I think the point is made.

Okay.

All right.

All those in favor of this amendment so indicate by saying aye.

I the motion carries five-zero, and I'm just laughing because the the I from Becky took longer than usual, and I wasn't.

Okay.

Carson, I'm on the other side of the world.

I understood.

I'm not gonna ask you what time it is.

It takes time for travel.

I'm not gonna ask you what time it is there.

Okay.

Um that brings it to me.

Um, and I move to change section 2.05, subsection C by deleting the word solely.

And um, what section again?

2.05 C.

What's the name of the 05C?

That's prohibition, it's the City Commission article, prohibitions, interference with administration.

And then what's your what's your motion again?

The motion is to just delete the word solely.

Um I gotta find it in here.

I'm sorry.

Basically, having the word solely in there is contrary to the recommendation that we're making, which is that um the commission and the city manager work out um what the relationship between the commissioners and the staff are, and um that should take if that recommendation is followed, then the language solely um for the city manager um is not what we had in mind.

Why am I not finding it?

So 2.05 C.

Yes, so it would read um the commission or its members shall deal with the city offices and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager through the city manager.

You cut out the word solely.

And neither the commission shall give orders.

The rest stays the way it is.

And I just I think if you don't cut out the word solely, you give the city manager some argument that no, this is not a discussable item.

So that's my motion.

Is there a second?

I can second it.

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

Oh wait.

Does that I can't second it?

Well, you can pass it to let Jan run this part of the meeting.

You second it, and I'll run the part of the meeting.

Okay.

A second.

Since I did it so brilliantly the last time.

Carson, do you have anything?

I don't have anything more.

Jan, do you have anything you want to?

No.

Becky, any questions or comments on the amendment?

I don't just feel simple and a good idea.

Deanna, any questions or comments?

Okay, through uh no.

Okay.

Any public comment on this amendment?

Seeing none in the room, Mike, is there any online?

Okay, bring it.

Any further discussion on this amendment?

To delete the word solely from section 205 C.

Okay.

Well then we'll take a vote.

All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay, motion carries five zero.

So sorry.

Okay.

Jan.

This is a recommendation.

Do you want me to wait on that and go through the um amendments?

Yes.

I would ask Mike please to put up the um two amendments.

Well, actually, just one amendment and a sub option.

Great.

Thank you.

So uh actually scroll down, Mike, if you could, to the second one, which is the actual amendment, and that is in Article 8, public engagement, section 805 city boards.

I move to amend city board's appointments under C2 to uh add two things.

One is under, I'll I'll read it out loud, just follow through, to ensure that city board members represent the community.

The city shall encourage participation from residents with a diversity of relevant expertise, knowledge, experience, and perspectives.

And to add the following sentence, every three to five years, the city shall review city board membership and report on how well the boards represent the community.

My rationale for making this uh amendment is that our city values input and feedback reflecting the representative representation of the community to inform and advise our elected officials and needs to know how well these appointments are doing to achieve this goal.

Thank you.

Is there a second I'll second for the purpose of discussion?

Can I get clarification?

Okay, go ahead.

Clarification.

Yeah, so um sorry, just takes me a second to wrap my head around things.

Um so you're you wanted to add that every three to five years they have to review the makeup of the board?

Yes, essentially, can you have can you share how that one of my thoughts is that it might get too granular for the charter?

Is that too granular for the charter?

I mean, doesn't that happen regularly?

I'm gonna defer to Mike on this if you don't mind, because I know you have done this before, but I'm also thinking just on my own part, that if unstated in the charter, we could have future commissioners and city managers who would not see the value of at least every three to five years assessing what relevant experience, knowledge, experience, and perspectives are serving the city.

Thanks for asking that good question.

So we've done this twice in my time.

We did it before we before consolidation and after consolidation on the reflection of the community demographics at the direction of the city commission.

And is it too granular?

I think yes, it's too granular for the commission for the uh for the charter.

And is it written, is it written anywhere that it happens at all?

No.

So it's could be completely forgotten in a new city manager or commissioners.

So the well, the um high performing boards resolution where they define how they want the boards to operate, has language about reflective of the community.

So I I think this is a policy question.

This would work, in my opinion, as a recommendation to the commission.

I don't think this should be in the charter.

Thank you.

I'm not sharing the meeting, but back to you, Carson.

Yeah.

Umstensibly, if you they're doing the city boards right, everything that we we've changed and I seconded it should be being done, particularly some assessment.

And you know, every few years, depending on what the board is and what the circumstances are, there's a change.

People change over, and you would think at that time that uh the commission and particularly the commissioner liaison would be going.

Um this is you know, the board's reflective of, or I think we should add so and so, because that person would add a different perspective to the board or whatever, and at least endemically some of that assessment goes in whenever you change personnel on the board.

So I don't know that we need it in the charter, um the um changes of diversity and perspectives um adds a little bit more depth to um to the situation, but is it totally needed?

I don't know.

Okay, I don't know where we motion maker Deanna.

That's right, that's the order.

It was seconded.

For your thoughts for my thoughts.

My thoughts are that on a on an advisory board, we're not looking for diversity, we're looking for expertise.

And um uh I would not be in favor of adding diversity into um into this uh description, and um I think that pretty much the language as we have it um to ensure oh let's see uh, just to add it.

In any case, I I don't think diversity is what we're looking for in the and the appointment of boards, and um uh I don't know if we have strong enough languages to uh relevant experience or expertise and knowledge, experience, and I don't think perspectives is uh necessary either, because uh if we have uh experts, um uh they're going to have perspective on the topic of the advisory board, and that's what we're looking for.

So I don't think a review every three to five years would be necessary.

Um Becky.

I um Mike, you made me think about um first of all, I think this is uh it's not getting done.

Um every nonprofit and board should do it.

It's it's a it's standard procedure.

If you're gonna be a high performing board that you that you do it actually annually, so every three to five years is pretty simple to me.

However, um, Mike, when you mentioned the city resolution 5323, it made me think about the um uh recommendations that we've already all looked at that there's a whole list, there's three um things that we've already kind of talked about in terms of in the recommendations, the official recommendations that we make on behalf of this body to the city commission, and I think adding this.

I'm wondering, Jan, if you'd be interested in changing your motion, you may not be, that's okay.

Um but that we add it as part of that we add the language to reflect that every three to five years, the city board would will review the expertise, blah blah blah blah.

But we put that under the list of city resolution 5323 edits that we're recommending.

I would be happy to do that instead of in the charter.

Right, I understand.

No, I think that makes sense, and it was helpful to learn what actually is happening on this level.

I would just also uh say that for me the experience and perspectives come out of life experience, and in addition to knowledge, expertise, uh, other areas, um, those add valuable, valuable insights that I would not like to see that language changed.

I only added the word diversity to expand the fact that we want a whole lot of different kinds of relevant expertise, knowledge and experience, and those lived experiences of perspectives.

But I would uh very much uh accept that this could be a part of a recommendation.

Thank you.

Bob.

Yeah, I I don't support adding the every three to five years in the charter.

I think that's too granular and too perspive um for a charter because it it like Becky said, it may make sense to do it more often than that, um, or not.

So I would I would rather that show up in our recommendations.

Um the word diversity is one that Mike on his initial or that Greg on his initial review suggested we remove, because it doesn't like our in this context, we are defining diversity as relevant experience, knowledge, experiences, and perspectives, and if we get all of that on a board, we have a diversity of input and ideas, and and that we don't want to add extra words that make things more ambiguous and squishy.

This is what I understood to be Greg's feedback on that.

Um so I I do think perspectives plural is a typo that makes sense.

Um and I'm happy to add the S doesn't matter, but but that's I would not um support adding diversity or the three to five years to the charter.

So you would support adding an S.

I don't care about that.

Um let's take public comment on this.

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

Um I agree with Barb's comments about not needing the word diversity and adding the S perspectives.

Um I do have a support in the having a recommendation of suggesting a review every three to five years just to kind of put that in the commission's head.

Um, but maybe not just a city board membership, just maybe the city boards, like do we need enough of the board?

You know, are we do we need to add different boards?

Um, I'm a little worried about trying to say representative of the community.

Does that mean you're trying to get a certain quota of renters, gender, like uh yeah, just not maybe not the representative in that way, but kind of is it meeting the needs of our community?

So thank you.

Thank you.

And I'm gonna say this one more time.

If you don't sit in the front row, you're not gonna be allowed to speak.

We don't want to be on camera in the front row.

Uh Dan Cardi, Bozeman resident.

Um, the every three to five years sentence certainly uh could be a part of resolution 5323.

Um I do like the term uh diversity or variety.

Um, but I don't think that's gonna pass.

So anyway, thanks.

Thank you.

Is there any public comment online?

Okay, do you just vote on the motion and then change it to a recommendation if it goes down, or what would you like to do?

I'd be happy to amend it so that we can have one motion that would say um I move to recommend to resolution 5323.

Do I have that correct?

Yeah, no, okay.

I you're gonna make a recommendation from us that regarding city boards that every three to five years the city city shall review.

Oh, okay, so I'm making a recommendation from the study commission that every three to five years the city shall review city board membership and report on how well the boards represent the community.

And you withdraw that portion of the motion, and I withdraw that portion of the motion.

Then did I second uh as a second, I agree to that.

Um, what do you want to do with the words diversity and perspective?

I'm okay with taking out diversity.

We talked about variety, we talked about a number of ways, but I think if we still say from residents uh with relevant experience, knowledge, experience, and perspective is perspectives plural, it'll cover what we want.

All right, so you want to leave you wanna add the yes.

Pardon?

You want to leave your motion with adding the s.

Yes, it was basically a typo.

All right, as the second, I uh agree to drop diversity and leave the S.

So the motion now is to add an S to the word perspective in section 8.05.

Two.

Plus the the whole addition is the motion.

And then that's right, and that we will recommend that every three to five years the city shall review city board membership and report on how the boards represent the community.

As a recommendation, thank you.

That can work for me.

All right, so are we ready to vote?

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

I opposed motion carries four zero or five zero.

Five zero five zero motion carries five zero.

All right.

Next it didn't change except the yes, right?

That's right.

Well, and made a recommendation.

All right, uh Deanna.

Okay, I you know I have uh uh I'm I'm gonna go back to the preamble.

Uh so um I would move uh to amend the list of values in the preamble of the draft.

Um this is preamble.

Right.

Okay, and the and the bottom in the list of uh in the list of values at the very end.

Actually, you know what?

Um I'm going to suggest that the public comment that we got from uh uh Katie Adams uh kind of summarized and it would it could uh okay so I'm going to move that the preamble uh as we have it be replaced with the following.

We the people of the city of Bozeman under the constitution and laws of the state of Montana, the preamble.

I know that I'm the list of the okay, this is not here.

This is not here, no, because I'm gonna combine all these.

I'm gonna shorten up our conversation here.

And the the uh uh we got public comment that incorporates most of the um most of the motions that I was making on the preamble uh were incorporated in this public comment.

So save us some time.

So go for okay.

So here we go.

So I'm suggesting to listen very carefully.

Uh I am suggesting well it's in the public comment if you wanted to look it up.

Which public comment uh from Katie uh um uh Katie Adams.

The comment we received today.

Pardon, yes.

Thank you.

Received at 1154.

Okay, pardon.

Received at 1154, is that was received.

Okay, so it would read.

I'm sorry, I put that on vibrate.

Um, okay, so it would read we the people of the city of Bozeman under the constitution and laws of the state of Montana, in order to secure the benefits of local self-government, and to provide for an honest, accountable and responsive commission manager government.

Do hereby adopt this charter and confer upon the city the following powers, subject to the following restrictions and prescribed by the following procedures and governmental structure.

By this action, we affirm our commitment to representative democracy, professional management, collaborative leadership, meaningful public engagement, active citizen participation, and regional cooperation, and the reason I like this is that it does spell out uh the uh both meaningful public engagement and as uh uh public engagement is the reaching out to the community um by the city, and uh sit an active citizen participation is the response to that in uh engagement.

Um anyway, I think that this uh uh summarizes what we are striving to do in our charter very nicely, is there a second?

And it very it differs very little from the uh except that it's better grammar and add in um uh uh meaningful or excuse me, active citizen participation into our preamble.

I'll second, I'll second for the purpose of discussion and to parse some things out.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Do you have anything else to say before Becky II speaks?

Uh no, I think you know uh it flows better, it uh it includes uh participation.

Thank you.

Becky, I um I want to be able to discuss this, and I want to be up front about the fact that with the motion as it is to replace the preamble.

I would be opposed to that.

However, I as you're reading, most of it's the same, so I just want to look at the edits and see if perhaps you want to amend your motion to include actual edits, and so I think you said in the first sentence for an honest and accountable, responsive commissioner manager.

Is that correct, Deanna?

Uh yes, it's the addition of responsive.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

I like that a lot.

When I'm thinking about some of the meaningful, active, one of the things that uh our attorney has shared and that we've really worked hard in.

I think actually you provided quite a few um edits and we've received some public comment.

Meaningful, what does that mean?

Active, what does that mean?

So we're trying to take adjectives that are loose out of the charter, and this is adding some of those into the charter.

And so I think like when we have um, and even right now strong political leadership, strong is a word that maybe we should take out.

Um because what's that?

Just political leadership, right?

Um, so I don't know about that last sentence.

I'm I'm not sure that I'm there's anything in there.

I'd be more understanding if you could say in the last sentence, add these words, kind of like Jan did add human rights.

Okay, we did that.

Um what which words you want to add?

I like the responsive, um, but I guess I'm asking to narrow down your motion in the second.

Okay, well, I'm I'm suggesting that we delete strong political leadership because that is not what we want, and it suggests uh strong political leadership, um, might even suggest to people that the mayor would have some kind of uh um, you know, the strong mayor position.

What we're looking at is collaborative government.

We have chosen a commission manager form of government in order to get away from a strong political government.

And so I think that deleting strong uh political leadership is is very important.

In the preamble, we are stating our values.

This is where we have the um luxury of being a little bit loose because these will be defined.

These will be defined by the articles of the charter, so that uh it is known what we mean by meaningful public engagement.

I think uh I think that our uh uh Article eight um is getting there on that, and active uh active citizen participation.

I think that we're uh laying that out in the charter, um, so in the in the preamble, we're stating our values, and I think that it's important that we're very careful here, and I do not think that we have the value of strong political leadership, and we're not uh advocating that anywhere in the charter, thank God.

Okay, now we're gonna continue.

Um I get the thing about strong political leadership in the sense that that maybe those aren't the right words.

I could live with leadership.

I do think the commission leads, and that that leadership should not be something that um doesn't happen at any level.

I like the word collaborative, uh, the mediator for 30 years.

I did all sorts of collaborative, collaborative um processes, but I'm not sure you need the word collaborative.

Um I think the word leadership alone is good enough.

In my mind, and you know it's funny if if someone wants to interpret this um document, they can go back and look at the history of it and listen to what we discussed.

And so I'm gonna say something for the political history.

In my mind, meaningful pull up public engagement involves active citizen participation.

And so that those three words encompass the others in my mind, and so as a matter of history, that's the reason I voted for it the way I did.

Um so I can get behind getting rid of strong political, um, but I think the rest is good at good, um, and uh the other um adjectives that are added aren't all that um aren't all that important by way of understanding how we get into this.

So I'm not saying change it, um, but if it doesn't pass, um I would say I would support um deleting strong political leadership and just leaving leadership, Barbara.

Um I want to be clear that those terms are in the original charter, so it the original charter's preamble says strong political leadership, it just is a matter of of history.

That's wasn't something we came up with.

Um and I take your point reflecting on it, it sounds a little funny um and a little authoritarian.

Um so I I'd be happy taking out strong political, I can go either way in terms of replacing it with collaborative or just leaving it at leadership.

Um like Becky, I like the idea of adding responsive to the list of an honest and accountable commission manager government, which also is the way it's written in the in the current charter is just honest and accountable.

Um then I hear your point, Deanna, about citizen participation being the citizenry's response to public engagement.

I I feel like public engagement covers it for me.

Um but like Becky said, those adjectives that define public engagement as meaningful and active, in addition to not being clear what actually they mean, it's also very subjective as to who gets to define what they mean.

So in whose eyes is it meaningful or active.

Um so I don't think we should add those adjectives at all.

Um, so I guess I also don't want to just wholly replace it.

Um so I guess I would be supportive of an amendment that would add in responsive strike strong political, and I can go either way on citizen participation.

I'll I'll amend my motion.

So I would amend the emotion then to uh strike uh strong political in the last sentence, add responsive to in um the first sentence, and um and add um uh citizen participation to the last sentence.

Active citizen participation or just uh um uh I'm good with just citizen participation and um uh uh public engagement, as as a state as we have it, so not using meaningful or active, although I think in the preamble we do have the uh the luxury of those kinds of words uh because we're going to define them later on, but uh if we define them well enough later on, they will be meaningful.

So, and then the last question is this procedural is we voted on putting human rights in.

Um is it understood that we're not voting human rights out?

Uh yes, okay.

So we know uh you've changed your motion.

Do you want me to second that approve the second?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um do you accept that as a second and then uh go to Jan?

I'm so sorry, Jan.

Not quite yet.

Uh Deanna, I want to, or to all of us, and then Deanna, I want to ask you about I I I'm not opposed to citizen participation.

I mean, certainly that's what we're doing.

I just don't, and let me finish if I could.

I don't get that we need to add it because I I of course looked up public engagement.

What does that mean?

What's how's it defined um and so it's it's long and I won't read the whole thing but public engagement refers to the process of involving the public in decision making and problem solving activities.

It encompasses forms of interaction between policymakers and community members.

It includes clear and accessible communication to inform the public involving the public in decision making processes providing information and resources to enhance public understanding public trust I mean collaboration building trust and engagement and dialogue to address public issues.

And it I don't know where I mean to me that is public or civic citizen I'm sorry citizen involvement.

So I I feel like if we added I'm just wondering Dan if we'd be willing to add responsive take out strong political if we want to add collaborative leadership I'm good with that.

So those three edits is what I would support as a second all right.

Yeah I have a number of concerns with this basically by the time we get to the last sentence I would like to see us continue to use the word affirm the values of those following qualities and then I'll tell you what I think about the changes to those qualities.

First of all of course I can't vote for anything that would not include human rights in the preamble.

Because I want it to be clear we have three branches of government and that is the portion which is elected to lead the city commission.

I would definitely remove the active citizen participation I agree with Becky I think it's contained and she and I had many discussions about this earlier and I learned how much public engagement was inclusive of all of those things I also don't want the word citizen in there.

And um I think that's it I could I could I'd like to suggest those friendly amendments in language in order to support this and otherwise I could not thank you.

All right where are we?

What's the problem with the word citizen?

Well let's stop for a second have we have we taken public comment on this one?

We don't have a clear motion yet so I asked I asked yeah just have we taken public comment we haven't I'm just trying to get my we don't have a okay so um I it seems to me that between the five of us we all we have a number of changes some of which we could agree upon and I'm wondering if we could list them vote on them and then if someone wants more we'll vote on what the more is um but it's going to be complicated to figure out how to do this.

So a suggestion from Barb.

Confirming if I'm wrong but what I understand is Deanna is amending her motion to replace the preamble with what she read and instead changing the motion to add the word responsive to the first sentence of the preamble of the preamble.

Delete the words strong political in the preamble as it is currently presented.

And then we've, and that's the parts that we've gotten to agreement on.

And then we've been talking about whether or not to add citizen participation on top of public engagement, and we don't have consensus there.

Um, but that's and so everything else including human rights would stay as it's currently drafted.

So it would also still read that we're affirming the values of, because that's how it reads now.

Plus the other suggest the other areas, which is to bring back the words affirm the values of we never took them out because she's scrapping the motion.

Never took them out, Dan.

Pardon?

We did not take them out.

They're still in the we're working.

I didn't see it in her substitute motion, I'm sorry.

Um, and then the word elected in front of leadership, of course, adding human rights.

The motion that we're asking Deanna to make, is to amend her motion to take the existing preamble as amended previously by Jayan.

Add the word honest accountable and responsive.

So add the word responsive after accountable and before commission manager, delete strong political in front of the word leadership, and that's it.

On the assumption that we would all vote for that, and then if there's more, we would continue with that and move forward from there.

Does that make sense to everybody as to a procedure?

If you could read what it actually said, so it would say we the people of the city of Bozeman, under the constitution and laws of the state of Montana, in order to secure the benefits of local self-government and to provide for an honest, accountable, and responsive commission manager government, do hereby adopt this charter and confer upon the city the following powers subject to the following restrictions and prescribed by the following procedures in government structure.

By these, by this action, we secure the benefits of self-governance and affirm the values of representative democracy, human rights, professional management, leadership, public engagement, and regional cooperation.

Sorry, sorry, I thought I saw a different in the yellow copy, but that's what we're looking at on the screen with those with those additional words you've added.

Additional and subtraction.

All right.

And I'm asking the maker of the motion and the second second up there.

Is that alright with you, Deanna?

For now.

I'm not saying you can't then make a motion to add some of the other things that you wanted to.

And that was what I am ended in my motion.

Okay.

And can I can offer a clarification?

Jan, what you're looking at in the screen right now is the language of the drafted charter as currently written.

Exactly.

So it's not what ignore the yellow copy that we saw before.

That was a suggested replacement.

So now we're just adding the honest after accountable, and we're striking strong political.

Your previous human rights.

That's the motion.

Yeah, yes.

All right.

Is there any public comment on this motion?

Is there any public comment online?

Is there any further discussion?

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

Aye.

I motion carries five-zero.

Okay.

Is there anything else you want to add to the preamble, Deanna?

Well, I would make a quick, uh very quick motion that we also add um uh uh participative uh active cities in particular.

After public engagement, that we would say uh public engagement and participation public engagement and active participation, okay.

That's the next motion.

Is there a second for that?

Okay, motion fails for lack of a second.

Next in order, I hand the yeah, well to Barb.

I move that we um change section 4.01 of the general provisions, and this is the one that involves the court, and uh to read as follows.

Pursuant to the hang on a second.

4.01.

Okay, go ahead.

4.01.

Pursuant to the constitution and laws of Montana, the court exercises judicial authority on behalf of the city.

The court shall operate independently and separately from the legislative and executive branches of city government.

Um I think I want to add one other thing uh to make that clear from what I had written in advance.

So it would read the court, the second sentence would read the court in exercising its judicial authority shall operate independently and separately from the legislative and executive branches of city government.

I'd like to second that motion.

If I may continue, Madam Chair, so this was what the judges had suggested.

Um it was taken out because I think the city attorney was concerned that um, for instance, the clerks are employees of the city, the court clerks, the import the court personnel are, and did not want to get to the um the point where no, no, that someone interprets this to say they're separate, and therefore it would create all sorts of bureaucratic nightmares for everybody.

The judge uh and judges when they were here basically were talking about assaults on judicial authority across the country, and so I thought if we add in exercising its judicial authority, and maintain the independence and separateness as to the judicial authority that that would do the trick and um Greg will get to review this one more time anyway, so Becky.

Becky, you seconded it?

Jan seconded it, so do you have anything to add to that?

I I would just agree, I think we had thought that was a very important addition, uh, in addition to the fact that this is now a separate branch in the charter itself, which I wanted to thank the uh commission for.

Deanna?

Well, I actually was going to be making a motion that we adopt uh in a whole uh the language that the judge gave us when she was here, and I thought I had that printed out, uh but I'm sure that Mike could bring it up.

So I I um I would not vote on this motion because I would uh I'm making a motion to adopt her entire suggested language, as she wrote it.

Well, except I thought when she was here, this with the addition of what Carson had was what she what we came to agreement on.

Well they can uh she she submitted actual language.

Can you well I I think what I said And I don't have it in front of me, I I somehow I didn't print that out.

What I submitted in writing was her language, but then after talking to Greg yesterday, I added the words in exercising its judicial authority to what her language was.

I think it needs to be clear that um they don't operate independently and separately as to their staff, and the hiring conditions in the union negotiations and all of that, and that was the reason I made it the way I did.

So it's but her language isn't in this uh motion that you've made here.

No, it is, I think.

There was much more to it.

She, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.

Like originally, way back probably a year ago, she did submit much more extensive language, and then we had the meeting with them, and we came to an agreement on this as being what was appropriate for the charter, because some of what was in that much longer document was much too granular and not sort of charter stuff, um, for lack of a better way to describe it at the moment.

Um, and so this short section as a new article was what we agreed when they were here.

Um I mean, I'm I'm not I'm just that's my memory.

I didn't go back and rewatch that meeting, but that was my intention too was to settle on the language she proposed when she was here in front of us.

I would also I would also add Carson and I had uh an extensive meeting with she and her staff about exactly what she needed and wanted, and that's what we brought to you all because we wanted the same thing.

And I think she was she is in her thank you notes to me, she is very pleased with what we have.

Can you show me the in entirety?

This is the these three lines are it in total.

Well, there is also a amendment that we made to our to the uh section one, I think, and that's in here.

That's right.

Yes.

Yes, maybe would it be helpful to look at that um section of that chart for just a moment.

So in section one point oh one powers of the city, we added the sentence the city exercises legislative, executive, and judicial powers coming out of that conversation as well to make it clear that there are three separate branches of government in our city government, so your motion.

My motion is essentially to restore what um Greg struck for reasons that I previously explained, and then to add um six words in exercising its judicial authority.

And this was uh the result of a conversation that you and Jan had with her.

That was the substance of what she was saying, we want to be independent and separate in the exercise of our judicial authority.

That was not the language she brought to us, but that's the the clear, even the readings that she brought to us, that's what the thrust of them were.

And that's what she discussed at the meeting when Judge Harrington and Judge Tierney and their administrator whose name's escaping me at the moment were here.

So back in October of 25, Judge Harrington submitted a much lengthier text in her public comment, and then when we invited them here during the during a meeting, they were agreeable to parrying that down to essentially what's the motion language here with the additions that Carson is saying in the um judicial authority in the second sentence to alleviate Greg's concerns.

That's the history of how we got to the two sentences instead of the one short sentence that's in the current chart.

So Becky, I know I'm way Becky.

Do you have anything to add to this?

Anything you want to um I would add that um when we originally struck the language suggested by the judge, uh independently and separately there were concerns around just like Carson said, um that uh the court utilizes the HR department for the city and interfaces quite a bit with the city.

So it doesn't act independently in every way, but I really like what you've added, Carson, and in exercising its judicial authority.

I'm all behind that.

I think that's a great edit, and so I will be voting in the affirmative.

Okay, why no?

Don't I get to talk first?

Quit back seat driving.

Um I also have had a bun, I had a bunch of conversation with Greg about this knowing this amendment was coming, and he was encouraging us to ask questions about what it would mean in practice and in terms of human, you know, the HR department, the city commission's authority over the budget, um, and so I think by adding those words and exercising its judicial authority, that to me seems to add the clarity that um that within that lane of judicial authority, the court operates independently and separately.

So I'm good with that amendment as proposed with that addition.

Now, is there any public comment on this motion?

Anything online, Mike?

Okay, any further discussion among the commission?

Okay, then we will take a vote.

All in favor of amending Article 4 as proposed, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries 5-0.

Okay, we have 14 minutes left.

Um, on my list, I have one thing, it's not that important, and then something that's important, but it's not on my list anymore.

I've deferred to Barb who wrote something up on it that has to do with the wards, and um uh and what uh how you draw awards, and so that's in the the the drawn up version by Barb is in the uh in the supplemental things.

Jan, do you have any more?

I also had something about the wards uh as well as a suboption, and um what do you have what do you have left, Deanna?

A whole page of things, all right.

We're gonna have to figure out a way to do that because apparently we have a hard stop on Thursday as well, and we need to be giving um Barb and um Becky some good input on the report that they're writing.

Um, and uh I haven't read it yet, but it's in the materials for the meeting tomorrow, and uh I suggest we do that.

Um so how do you all want to proceed?

I don't want to spend too much time talking about how to proceed, but um Jan, do you have something you want to offer?

It's your turn, okay, and then we'll just keep going until we can, and then we'll have to figure out a plan for how we're gonna um get through um tomorrow's meeting.

Do you need to do that first, Carson, to figure out that plan?

I I I don't have a plan, so I I'm suggesting we persevere with this okay and then we'll start where we left off that is in the uh notice of the agenda that we would um take up anything that we didn't get to finish today.

Can I jump in real quick with late breaking news?

Yes.

There is no quorum for the transportation board that's scheduled after this meeting tonight.

Oh my gosh, we can go on so we can keep going.

Yes.

Well, then I won't visit.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Mike, can you bring up that um same memo for me at the top of the page?

Perfect.

And I don't, I'm trying to go back and forth between computers because I did not want to write out the entire option B methods of this is Article 7, uh elections of the city methods of electing city commission members, and um again our option B of the sub options.

I have a motion to basically remove um the B section, which starts with following each DCnial census, but I don't have it in front of me that I can read the rest of it.

I'm trying to pull it up in the long list.

It's in the materials.

I know it's it's in the long list of supplementals, and I'm just trying to get to that.

What are you looking at?

I'm I'm looking at the sub-options.

7.01.

It's it's but it's in the sub-options.

Can I at the very end?

Can I help?

I would.

Becky, it's in the supplemental materials.

It's the sub-options article seven that I created, yes.

So it's it's past the charter.

Oh, so we're looking at we're not on the charter anymore.

No, this is the sub-option.

Yeah, thanks.

Um, it might help if I um if you'd like to read that.

Well, I can read it.

Do you would it also be helpful to for me to explain what I can before we sure well and Mike, can you put it up on the screen?

Well, he's trying to set up my my amendment.

But I have it right now, but please I think that would be fair to um speak to this section then out of 7.02.

Would the option B then?

Becky.

Um so we're moving off the charter now, and we're moving on to the ward document.

Is that what we're doing?

Well, this is for clarity.

Presumably would be language in the charter.

Yes, it would be it would be what Article 7 would read in the charter, but it's it's not in the charter now.

It's in the later, it's later in the packet.

And it's one of the words 27 of the supplemental materials document.

Yeah.

Okay.

So, after our last meeting, when we decided we wanted to put this before the voters, I realized that we needed to create the um language that would go in the charter, and I looked at the last report from the last study commission and how they presented their sub-options within the charter.

And this is what they did.

They very clearly in the charter said here are the options.

This language at the top that says for convenience of the voters, the sub-option choices for selection of the commission are included below.

The method of selection approved by the voters at the time of adoption of the charter shall remain in the charter.

All other language shall be defended deleted following the election.

And then I laid out the three choices.

Option A is the existing charter language where we continue to elect our commission members at large for four-year term.

Option B is an attempt at the ward option with commissioners having to live in a ward, still being elected at large.

And then option C is the choice of commissioners are elected from a ward, and only the people that live in the ward can vote for that candidate in that ward.

Based on the education materials that Dan Clark provided, we needed to put something in the charter around how we would create wards if we go that way.

So the second paragraph in option B and option C is the same.

And I think I'm understanding you, Jan, that is the one that you want to amend or whatever.

And it reads, and I took this straight from what Dan Clark provided.

So I didn't, this is not my original language.

And Carson basically offered the same thing with some edits.

And so it reads following each federal decent decennial census.

Four or six, that's a slab option.

Ensuring that the wards are compact and as equal in population and geographic area as practicable.

Reapportionment may occur at any other time for the purpose of equalizing population and area among commissioner wards.

However, a ward may not be changed in a way that affects the term of office of any city commissioner who has been elected.

Additionally, changes to the boundaries of any ward may not be made between the date that is six months prior to a city commissioner primary election and the date of the general election.

Commissioners must reside in the ward for which they are seeking election and forfeit their position subject to the provisions of this section if their principal residence changes to a location outside of the ward from which they were elected.

And so those two paragraphs are exactly the same in option B and option C.

So with that, I'll can I offer just a little bit of my thoughts.

So I was I wasn't here last week.

Briefly talked with Carson before the meeting today.

Indicates that there is a sub-option for wards or no wards, if wards reside within the ward or still at large, and then the third A B choice is if wards, four or six.

The way the language was adopted, there is no consideration for the potential of six commissioners if you do not accept the ward system.

Is that what we intended?

So there's two things going on.

Technically, this language has not been adopted, so maybe Jen, you're premature on getting rid of the at any other time or at any time.

That's part one.

Part two, we do need to clarify.

And I don't I think we the all the conversation was in the context of wards.

But we need to clarify that because in my mind, the ballot language was four or six commissioners.

And then the wards followed from that, but we didn't really have that discussion.

So maybe this is a time to have that discussion, and maybe we should start with that the four or six, and then we can get to Becky's language.

Becky, Barb's language and Becky's.

And then see where we want to move from there.

So can I start?

Yeah.

So I'm really I'm really glad the transportation um authority has given us more time.

I don't have more time.

Um I only booked it till 6 p.m.

So first of all, I will be listening, but I need to get ready for another meeting.

So I I want to say one thing and then know that I'm not going to I'll be listening, but I won't be in engaging with y'all.

Um secondly, I will not be present tomorrow evening because I it conflicts with my other volunteer situation as a board member for Bozeman Health, and I gave up that a month ago, so I need to attend to that.

So I but I will listen to the entire recording tomorrow night.

Thirdly, is I I'm pretty sure that we intended during our discussion at our last meeting that we intended that we could that the public was voting as a sub option for four or six commissioners, whether we did uh wards or not.

I I because we did talk about that at length, I think, in my recollection.

We talked about that we intended it.

So if the sub options are going in the wrong direction and are confusing, then we can rewrite them on the ballot.

But for me, I think it was pretty clear we wanted to give the public the option to say four or six despite wards.

Okay, other comments on whether there should be four or six commissioners, regardless of whether the wards section option is chosen.

That we have four or six, regardless of whether we continue at large or whether we move to wards.

Having tried to write this and communicate it though, I am concerned that it is hopelessly confusing, and and am questioning whether we want to ask uh in this same ballot about expanding the commission if we are also asking about moving to wards, and so I'm wondering and I and I don't think we should just write a larger commission into the charter because I think that's a terrible idea for a number of reasons.

So I guess I'm wondering if we still want to ask that question, having just had the the mental exercise of trying to communicate it to the public.

Um I think it's gonna be hard enough to communicate the two ward options, let alone adding in a third one about expanding the commission, okay?

I I in uh definite agreement about our intention at the last meeting, and certainly was my intention that we wanted to know from our community whether they would support four or six commissioners, however, they were elected.

So I would like to keep it in.

Perhaps it could be put at the top of the page following.

I guess the current the first option would be I'm not sure what I'm talking about now in the sub-options, but if the first option is to keep the at-large system, we have the second option could be the um expansion of four to six commissioners, no matter what system we have, and then we move into the third, which would be the very specific detailed around the um the wards.

But I would like to do that, if at all possible, Deanna.

Yeah, no, I would like to include that in the sub options.

Um we need to spend some time on um wording those options so that they are the public can understand if we write it clearly.

So can I jump in here?

Sure.

But I would what I would have suggested on the sub-option discussion.

Numbers comes first.

So I've got the draft 2.02 C composition.

The commission shall be composed of option A, four.

Option B, six, members elected by the voters of the city.

Option A, or C in this case, option C by wards, or C at large, D by wards, in accordance with provisions of et cetera, and then as elected, and then under uh election, you would put the um whether it's only by residents within the voters within the ward or without the ward.

So the composition is the composition is the question of whether or not you have four or six and whether their wards are at large.

So structure.

Sorry, let me get let me get back up here so I'm not trying to do drive and chew gum and walk at the same time.

So the the composition question is four or six, independent of wards or at large.

Wards or at large is a separate question right here in this same composition.

If the at large is the leading vote getter, the further question down of elected by wards residents within or without is moot.

So structurally, the way that this ballot will look, you will have keep the current charter, adopt the amended chart within the amended charter is sub-option A or B, four or six, C or D, at large or wards, E or F only by residents within the ward or still at large.

So I I don't think between now and June 18th, it's impossible to get that in clear language.

Based on what was in the motion language, I fully agree and understand that the intent was the four to six outside, but based on the motion language, it was divided in four or six wards.

And I'm totally in agreement with that.

The first question is four or six, and then you work your way down from there, but it's not that complicated if you do it that way.

Yeah, the the way they were adopted and in that order is backwards.

Yeah, so that I think causes some of the, and that I think gets to the three questions in a easier to explain, and I think when we talk to Dane Geld uh June 4, I think they'll be available to be in the room, um, and we could and they're paying attention to these things, so they know that this is gonna be the focus of the education component is these three sub-options, and what are those mean?

That's gonna be like okay, this is the it's gonna be like an eye test.

Which one looks better, number one or number two, number three or number four, number five or number six, and hopefully by the end the voters will make the decision that's the clearest vision for what the community wants.

Can you make that clearer for those of us that don't wear glasses?

I'm just kidding.

I'm sorry, can we just just any public comment on this?

Online.

I'm not seeing any requests.

Do we need a clarification motion or do or are we agreed upon what it's gonna look like?

And now it's just a question of writing it, and then we can talk about it.

That was gonna be my question because I I at least I think I have enough okay that I can reorganize and rejigger what I did.

Um I guess the question is should I just put it right in the amended charter or continue with the separate documents?

Do we need to vote on this again to be able to then put it in the charter that way?

The draft charter.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

Oh, sorry.

Do we need to vote on the change that uh Mike has recommended that we appear to agree on in order for that to be put in, as Barb said, into the draft charter?

I don't think we need to.

I think you should just do it.

It will it's it's goes into the the report and the language that are going to be the sub options along with the amended charter, and um then we can discuss the piece about how you um every 10 years how you redraw the wards if that passes, and whether you can redraw along the way, and that's a discussion that we have to have, but I I'm not sure that we need to have it now, and I and I think just conceptually saying bring this back in a in a reconfigured format, knowing that we're gonna have a meeting on the fourth to talk about this, the public hearing on the 18th, the ballot language, the final report, there's gonna be multiple opportunities before it's finally adopted in its form.

I don't think I don't think it's out of line to say that like we've clarified the intent, and we will bring it with actual language for more um scrutiny, can we put a date on that?

So people that are interested in this, which is a lot of our public comments, um, they know that, so they'll see it too.

In other words, is it going to be June 4th?

Is it going to be June 18th?

Um, can we can we set that kind of deadline?

So our current schedule of future meetings, June 4th is the full release of the tentative report, June 18th is the public hearing on that tentative report, and by our um upcoming schedule July 15th is the start of the um voting on what the final report will contain with the August.

So let me jump to this real quick.

I think the goal is to have it by June 4th.

That was gonna be my recommendation if that's possible by our authors.

So June 4th, a week from tomorrow, will be the full report, including the updated draft charter language for additional discussion.

June 18th is the the noticed and advertised public hearing on that on that tentative report, July 18 or July 15 and July 30 is when these things have to be negotiated the final little tweaks, and August 6 must be the adoption of what the ballot language and final report are.

This is our last date that would meet the election deadline.

And and then when does the um if there is a minority report, when does that have to be done?

In the final report adoption.

So also if someone's gonna write a minority report.

Um the handout that we had for the last meeting is worthwhile, but the timing on that is the minority report, and the good news is we don't vote on the minority report, the minority agrees upon it, and it goes in.

So, if there is a non-unanimous recommendation from this body in that final report, we're required to do a minority report, it's not optional.

Oh, good, I'll write it.

No one cares, do you?

If I write it, I'm just kidding.

Okay.

So I'd like us to continue with the amendment process to get as far as we can today.

I don't know what other people's times are.

It happens that I can't enter my house till 8 p.m.

So I'm I'm good.

Hard stop just before seven.

All right.

Jen, do you have any more since we sidelined your?

Well, let me let me put it this way.

I have one more, um, that is a recommendation.

And if you want to stay within the charter right now for a little bit longer, I can wait.

All right.

Why don't we do that but promise it will get to your recommendation before we're done?

So Deanna, you're next.

I have a question about um the ward language and so forth.

Um would we not put in the charter uh the language about um how the wards are are defined?

I mean, people are gonna want to know that.

You mean what's the process for defining them?

Right.

Yes, yes.

That's what Barb has been working on, and I think that needs to go in.

And I noticed that in the uh um the uh input that we got at 1134 today, um, that there was reference to a uh a commission to draw the boundaries.

I couldn't figure it all out, but that might be helpful to have that as well to look at that as an option.

Yeah, I I would suggest that you look at that because I think it's uh quite uh comprehensive.

Yeah, I had a little trouble following it.

That's all.

I'm I'm I just took the language that Dan Clark provided because in looking at the other charters of cities that elect their commissions on wards, none of them are very prescriptive about how that process happens.

They just say it happens, and and I don't, you know, I don't totally understand why that is, but none of them have a very detailed prescriptive process for how it happens.

So I've just picked the language that Dan had suggested and wordsmithed it so it read a little bit better and added some stuff that Carson sent in as a first step, but but it doesn't, it just says that we're gonna do it every 10 years, and we can do it more often if we need to, and the city commission will do it.

So I don't know how much more specific we should get or what we should do about that.

Um so I appreciate ideas.

I have one.

Oh, but I'll wait.

Yeah, I don't think we should have this discussion now.

Let's save it for tomorrow.

Oh, for tomorrow.

I'll wait.

Thanks.

Okay.

Um, so let's continue with where we were.

Deanna, do you want to make your next?

Okay, let me just see uh okay.

This should be this should be a quick one.

Um, in article one, powers of the city, and um that's on the first page of our uh um I move to amend um let's see, wait.

Page three or page two.

What are you looking at at my document or the oh okay?

My in my document, it's page two of motions to amend the preamble and article one and two.

Okay, so um I move um to amend section 103 intergovernmental relations.

Um by striking the word shall and replacing it with the word may, so that the sentence reads the city of Bozeman may participate or contract or otherwise, and the reason is that shall creates uh an obligation that strips away choice while May grants permission, which would preserve local discretion and autonomy recover uh regarding governmental participation.

So by changing this to a May, it gives the city commission the legal tools to cooperate with the county, city, and other cities when it makes sense without locking them into it when it doesn't.

So a change from a shell to a May.

I'll second that.

And do you have more to talk about, Deanna, at this moment?

Well, we're taking them one at a time.

Yeah, I mean more on that.

No, that's it.

I'm I'm gonna second that because I I think we have too many shalls in this, and um I would love to change all the shells to May, but that but it turns out that doesn't work.

So um, and I think this is a good example, but I'm wondering if we shouldn't ask um Barb and Becky to look at the shalls and consider whether there's other language in light of this kind of discussion that we're about to have.

Well, I'd like to just move forward with this amendment and on through because uh sometimes a shell is what's needed, and sometimes a may is, and so you know, I don't think we can hope make a wholesale determination.

So let's just go with this amendment.

I moved and seconded that the word in section 103 intergovernmental relations shall shall be changed to May.

Any discussion from Barb or Jan?

In Carson, can I make a comment on this?

Yes.

Um I I agree um with this motion.

I I would vote for it, and I will say that um throughout the document as uh Barb and I have gone through and tried to reflect the comments of the commission and of the public and all the things.

We have looked at every shell and every May intentionally, so um just know that we've done that, I think, pretty well.

So if there's specific ones, great.

I don't think Barb and I need to necessarily do that again, but for this one I I will I will um definitely vote for this amendment.

Okay.

Other comment, Jen.

I was trying to see if the May in this intergovernmental relations um reduces the city power in any way.

Um does the shell actually, and I'll turn it back to uh Deanna, does the shell then um removal of the shell give the city less power in its negotiations with the ultimate contracts that they do decide to uh approve?

No.

Why would it?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking the question.

No, I would it's just uh are we going to prescribe that they must um uh engage in um uh uh these uh uh that they must engage in an intergovernmental relations or that they may.

That's all this is addressing.

Well, it's worse, is it says they shall participate by contract?

Uh you can do intergovernment relations without a contract.

Uh well, I have another amendment here, or a display or otherwise, you're right.

So, Barb.

I the current charter says May.

I'm totally fine with switching back to May.

I have a note to change it to Shell, but I have no idea why we made that decision.

I can't remember why we made that decision or whose feedback that was made on, based on.

So I'm, you know, May.

I think what Deanna offered makes a lot of sense of being per permissive, but not requiring it.

Any public comment on this?

Mike, any?

Okay.

Further discussion seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to change the word shall to may, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries you to all right.

Now it comes to me.

Okay.

Can we ask for you?

Yes, we're going to eight.

Section 8.01 in public engagement.

8.01.

8.01 public engagement.

In the second paragraph, it says the city shall ensure shall ensure public engagement is an integral part of effective and trusted governments.

And I I think the word should not be shall because it's a two-way street.

And it should be public engagement is intended to ensure two-way communication.

And my worry, this is a lawyer fear, that you get sued by whatever you create by way of a public engagement plan because it doesn't.

Wait a minute, where am I here?

Because it doesn't result in ensuring public engagement.

And if the public doesn't engage, it doesn't engage, and you can only try, which is why I said is intended to.

It would say well, I I'm open to other language, but I couldn't figure out.

Go ahead.

I have a suggestion.

What if we just strike the city shall ensure in that sentence and start with public engagement is an integral part of effective and trusted government?

And then we can discuss whether the second sentence shall have a shell or not.

Yeah, I like that.

And I'm happy with the second shell.

Say it say it again, Mark.

So that first sentence in Article 8.

Um section 801 just will start with public engagement as an integral part of effective and trusted government.

Period.

The city shall ensure engagement includes a variety of formats.

Alright, I don't have a second, so I can make my motion without approval of the second.

So I move to drop the city shall ensure from section 801, the second paragraph, and begin with the words public engagement is.

I'll second.

It's been moved in second.

I mean, it's been moved.

It's been moved in second.

Is there any discussion?

Jan is saying no.

Deanna, any discussion on that one?

Becky, any discussion?

Any public comment?

Any online public comment?

All right, seeing none, um, we shall take a vote on Carson's proposed amendment to section 801.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries four or zero.

I don't know if Becky voted.

She's an unclear name.

We'll say, 4-0.

Yep.

All right.

Jen.

I think we can.

Uh do you have more amendments?

Yeah, go ahead.

For Deanna, and I could go after that.

Okay.

So let's make sure we get to your recommendation.

Can I make a suggestion?

Yes.

Recommendations are part of the report.

We're on the agenda item for charter.

Yeah, it would be my suggestion that the recommendations for the report be in tomorrow's meeting and not tonight.

And you're not gonna say it's not like we're getting something out to the public in advance.

No worries, I'm fine with that.

Okay, Deanna.

Okay, so back to um uh article eight um section 801.

Um it page uh in my document, it's page one of a motions to amend Article 8.

It's on the screen.

So, I thought we were looking at Facebook.

Yeah, that's what I just said.

It's on the screen.

It's on the screen here.

Okay, okay.

Uh the motions for the articles, Jan, the uh it are up in the okay.

Okay, um, all right.

So um I move to um amend the draft charter by striking the phrase community-based organizations, civics and civic groups, and replacing the sentence to read as follows.

The city shall encourage public participation and communication between residents, neighborhood associations, city boards, and local government.

And uh the reason is that the deleted terms are vague, overly broad, and may create implied government standing for unelected advocacy uh organizations outside direct voter accountability, and leaving them in the charter inadvertently elevates um unelected advocacy organizations and political special interest groups to the same formal governance standing as actual citizens and official city boards, so community-based organizations.

What does that mean?

Does that mean Montana Forward and the Bozeman Tenant Union and the Kijuanas and the Lions and the uh civic uh civic groups would be the veterans of foreign wars and whatever.

I mean, that's just it's um it's too granular, is the word that you seem to uh be using.

Um, but in my but I'm saying is that um uh really what we're looking for is participation participation from residents, neighborhood associations, city boards, and local government.

Is there a second?

So you want the key wanas to be noticed for every single meeting?

So think of the Bozeman Beach, where the my Rotary Club has been very active in building and keeping it up, cleaning it up every year.

They're by definition, I think a civic group.

They're residents, they're primarily residents it's it's resident participation that we want in our government, and um the word resident covers every person, well, not every person, but um uh the ones we're interested in who are members of these organizations are also residents of Bozeman.

And many of those organizations have residents that are not in Bozeman.

So why would you uh include an organization full of residents from the whole county?

I think another example is the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, and the collaboration between that organ or that community-based organization and the city gives the city capacity that they would not otherwise have.

And all I read that sentence is saying is let's do more of that.

Let's work together, let's involve people in shaping the city.

Um, I think Gallant Valley Land Trust is a community-based organization that serves this community in a grand way and provides a structured way for residents to give back and help take care of the trails and all of that.

So I I think that that's a perfectly appropriate sentence.

One good group doesn't uh qualify every group.

And the the members of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust are residents.

They're interested parties, and if they want to participate, they can participate.

Okay, so point of order, we don't have a second.

That's right.

Um, and so I'm trying to get one.

What did you want to say?

I was I was just gonna highlight um similar to Barb, like the uh Bozeman Chamber of Commerce.

Many of those residents I know, or many of those members are not residents of the city of Bozeman, but they operate businesses within there and within the city, and they would be a community-based organization.

Okay.

Um is there a second?

I'll amend it.

Remove civic groups, is there a second to that?

All right, the motion fails for lack of a second back to me.

I'm done.

So it's yours, Deanna, to um, okay, so uh again, and and I'm reading from still on page one of my motions to amend Article 8.

And um I move to amend section 802 of the draft by striking the phrase participatory budgeting, and replacing it with the following text.

The city may establish public engagement processes related to budgeting and capital planning.

And the reason is that participatory uh budgeting is a very specific policy model, and it's more uh it's it if you if we want to use it, it can be addressed in an ordinance or a pilot program rather than embedded in the chart charter.

It's a policy, so an enshrining this uh special mechanism into the city charter would be inappropriate.

It binds future administrations to single inflexible methodology.

Um uh my amendment preserves the city's ability to robustly engage citizens in the budget process, but properly moves the design of the engagement outside of the charter where various methods can be attested, uh tested, adjusted, and managed responsibly.

Is there a second to that motion?

I'll second that one for purposes of discussion.

Um, okay, um Deanna, is it all right for her to talk about her second?

Sorry, yeah, okay.

Um and partly because in reading it, I realize that that list is set up by saying these governmental structures may include and then number four is a process, it's not a structure.

And so I'm you know, if we want to add that um the sentence um that Deanna proposed about may establish public engagement processes related to budgeting and capital planning, I would put it up in the paragraph before the list, and then strike the budget process.

So you would strike a number four participatory budgeting process, okay.

Yeah, I mean, I'm just I'm just reflecting that when I saw this proposed amendment and read that it the list is not congruent because the first three are actual structures, and then number four is a process.

Well, I think can I speak?

Ken you're next, go ahead.

I know I'm just trying to figure it out.

Yeah, I I get the process point.

I do think somewhere in the charter, and I think maybe it's included in what you've proposed, Deanna, that participation in the budgeting process is important for the public, and it ought to be in the charter.

Um, but not with prescriptive language.

Participatory budgeting is a um particular policy.

It engages it's it's it's it's a defined um uh uh a defined process.

Is this in the original charter?

No.

Okay, so why was it put in?

Okay, so it this it's not in the original charter.

We modeled it, we added it based on um Jeff Krauss's suggestion about a budget committee and the information in this model charter.

Um it originally read participatory budgeting processes and commissions, I think.

I can't remember exactly what the word was, um, and we struck that because we don't really have that.

Um, so I'm you know, we wanted to get at the issue of let's involve more people in the budgeting process so people understand um and are engaged in setting those kinds of processes, which is why I think the language that Deanna suggests about may establish public engagement processes related to budgeting and capital planning fits.

I would I just wouldn't put it on the list because then it's still incongruent.

I would just add it to the paragraph above um that defines section 802.

And is was that your intention, Deanna?

Well, I I think we could add that sentence uh probably to the first paragraph.

But yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, I'm good with that.

Can I offer a thought too?

Yes, with your structures, may include to add more permissive language by saying may include but are not limited to, because if you if you limit it to the three, those are the only three that may be included.

But if you add that but not limited language, if somebody comes up with a brilliant structure somewhere else that isn't one of those three, they would be allowed to do so.

Yeah, I like that.

Well, I think I I I don't I because um most any good idea could be incorporated uh either as a city board, a commissioner, an ad hoc committee, or a department or administrative position.

There's plenty of uh of places to fit, but um to leave it unlimited.

Uh I just don't think is a good idea.

Where would this go then in the if it's moved somewhere else?

Could you read where that is and what it will say?

Just right here.

Okay, so I think we've lost the thread here.

Yeah, so as I understand the accepted changes by the mover, this sentence, the city may establish public engagement process related to the budget and capital planning is intended to be added to this paragraph up here.

And number four, stricken from the list.

That was Deanna's motion.

I overstepped and added another thought beyond that motion.

So let's wrap up that motion and then we can talk about the other idea.

Well, we could, but I'm gonna vote against the motion unless we add the language.

Yeah, may include, but not limited to.

Well, that changes my motion.

Understood.

I'm just that's what I'm saying.

So we can you can vote for the motion, and then we'll have another, and then you can make a motion about doing the may include.

Right.

Because my motion doesn't have anything to do with that.

We could vote the motion down and go from there.

I you're right, we could do it either way.

Um are we ready to take public comment on this?

I would could I speak briefly to to it.

I um was very interested in this particular section because I do think we need more participation in the budget process.

So I'm um I'm concerned about losing that and not quite sure what it is that we can structurally include to really open up this budgeting process with um scheduled hearings with scheduled um, you know, notice of what the budget will include, um, similar to what we have in the capital budget requirement in the charter, which is what I wanted to add to this portion.

So I will probably vote against it if it removes uh some overt way of talking about a participatory budgeting process.

It is added in the first paragraph, Jan.

So we're gonna add the uh city shall encourage participation um uh and communication between oh wait, wait a minute, that's wrong one.

Uh the city may establish public engagement processes related to budgeting and capital planning.

That'll be in the first paragraph.

Sorry, and eliminate participatory budgeting because that is a that's a policy, and that's a it's a process that we're what we haven't defined anywhere else in the charter, and I think it's got it, yeah.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay, and also to your concerns as far as noticing public hearings, that's all outlined in state statute of what's required.

Thank you.

I understand that, but it's never stated in this document if people wanted to see it, but I'm not gonna bring that up now.

I just wanted to to make the point of why I was concerned.

I do have some motions on budgeting later on.

Let me be clear.

Is there anybody online that wants to give public comment?

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure.

Is there any further discussion?

Although, okay.

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

Those opposed, so indicate by saying nay.

Nay.

Motion carries three to one.

All right, I would like just out of order, but I guess it's my turn anyway, to add the words these government structures may include but are not limited to neighbor the and then the the one through three since number four has been stricken.

And I think that's important because sometimes when you make a list, people look at the list and say they don't think beyond that.

And I do think that there are potential, and um I don't know a lot about the quote participatory budgeting process, um, but frankly, the sound of it sounds good to me.

And if there is a structure that someone thinks is a good idea somewhere along the line, I'd like them to be thinking creatively about it.

I'll second that.

No, did you want to speak to your second and then take over?

Um I I for all of the reasons just said, I think that that language is that.

I agree as well.

I I'm not going to support that amendment.

Are we public comment?

Public comment online.

Are we ready to vote?

Are we ready to vote?

Any further discussion?

Okay, all in favor signify by saying aye.

I aye.

All opposed, same sign?

Nay.

Motion carries three to one.

I have a procedural point.

If it's the same sign, she needed to say aye.

And I which is why you never it's too confusing.

That's why I say say nay.

Just there are plenty of people that go same sign, and then you get this weird lot of eyes for something.

All right, um, we're back to you, Deanna, because uh I've I'm done.

I'm now done.

Um, let's look at Article Three, City Manager.

Okay, so I I have some that are just adding commas and such.

I'll skip that.

And the numbering lists some some of them are alphabetical and some of them are numerical, so I suggest that that be um proofed.

And then okay, so I am uh I move to amend section three hundred four five.

Three oh four number five, um to reinsert the phrase for its approval immediately following the reference to the budget and capital program clarifying the commission's authority over both documents.

So um right now we have in number five, prepare and submit the annual budget and capital program to the city commission and implement the final budget approved by the commission to achieve the goals of the city, and um by submitting by submit the annual budget for approval uh and capital program for approval uh to the city, removing that creates a lot of ambiguity.

It could be argued that the city manager just submitted uh as an informational document uh rather than proposing and requiring a vote of the commission.

So I think approval is an important word there, and it preserves the uh it preserves the uh commission's authority over the budget.

The city commit the manager can't just submit a budget and say this is what it is.

He submits it for approval.

Is there a second?

The motion fails for lack of a second.

I I have to speak to this.

You can't possibly mean that you are turning over the budget to the city manager to simply submit as is, without requiring approval.

It's redundant in the same sentence.

Yeah, because it says prepare and submit to the city commission and implement the final budget approved by commission.

Right.

So it it the way it reads right now, it actually in my mind gives the city more authority because they don't like they don't just approve what the city manager prepares and submits.

Exactly.

And he only gets to implement what is approved, is how I read that.

And I saw it as redundant for that reason.

For the record, I read it that way too, so that if ever anybody ever wants to interpret our commission rules, they could go back to the historic and just say no, this is meant to mean um approval by the city commission.

Okay, next.

Okay, um, for section uh three oh four nine.

Um where it says um developing policy.

Wait, I see.

Okay, so make so we have here and nine make recommendations to the city commission concerning the affairs of the city and facilitate the work of the city commission in developing policy, and in a in a um commission manager of form of government, which is what we are chartering.

The development of policy is strictly the work of the commission and should not be uh driven by the city manager, and so I would um uh uh move to have that language say provide administrative opinions or options, analysis and information necessary to inform the policies established by the city commission.

Is there a second?

The motion fails for lack of a second.

This was the problem we had with the city manager that was dismissed.

Okay, I move to amend section three point oh four ten to clarify the delivery of administrative support by adopting the following language.

Um provide administrative support services for the mayor and commission members compiled and directed through the city manager subject to the provisions regarding the city clerk under 2.08.

And we can go back and look at that if you like.

And the reason is that uh this amendment protects the integrity of the commission manager form of government by reinforcing the administrative chain of command requiring support services be funneled through the city manager, prevents individual commission members from circumventing the manager to directly task lower level staff, I'm sorry, Deanna, I don't understand what you're saying.

Okay, so right now we're just point of order at the request of all of us on the commission, we're gonna engage in a conversation about what it means without a second, and then there will or won't be a second.

Okay, so uh it presently reads that um, uh the city manager shall provide staff support services for the mayor and commission members, subject to the provisions regarding the city clerk in 2.08.

Okay, so if we go back to 2.08, the city commission or the city manager as designated by ordinance shall appoint an officer of the city who shall have the title of city clerk.

The city clerk shall give notice of commission meetings to its members and the public, keep the journal of its proceedings and perform such other duties as are assigned by this charter by the commission or by state law.

And so by this amendment.

So historically, what I understand is the city clerk position was created, and the question was was left to the commission.

Do you want to have your own employee, which would be the city clerk, and which would perform the functions that were that are being discussed here?

And at some point before my time, but after the um the charter was passed, the commission passed an ordinance giving the supervision of the city clerk to the city manager, and presumably that could be changed at any point.

The city commission could overrule their previous ordinance and make the city clerk a um a direct employee of the commission, and in that sense sort of have their own advisor rather than the city manager, and I think the way it's set up is good enough for the give and take.

And again, we're making that recommendation that the relationship between commission and staff get worked out as part of the city manager's hiring and continued employment.

So I think that solves the problem that's here.

And I don't think that there currently is a problem with commission members circumventing the manager to directly task lower level staff, meaning I don't think that.

Where is it taken care of?

It's taken care of because the commission and the city manager work out what the commission's relationship to the staff is going to be.

Is that in the charter?

Yes.

Yes, 2.05 C interference with administration prohibits and direction of staff.

And then there's our recommendation that we're making about the relationship between what essentially what does C mean?

What it's what it's driving at because different city managers have interpreted very differently.

You know, I like to say there was a period of time when I felt it was really good for me, and I learned a lot about the city by playing nine holes of golf with Chuck Wynne and um Craig Willard.

And that is gone.

And I'm not saying that that was that necessarily right.

We didn't talk about a lot of city leagues, but I learned a lot about what their jobs were and what they did.

But then there's the when can you call up someone from the uh planning department and say what did you mean by this?

That's the kind of negotiation and thing that has to happen.

And I I fear that if you make the change that you're making, we're going against what our recommendation is about the connection between the city manager and the city commission and how they find information to make policy and to do their jobs.

Any other discussion?

Any second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

I've got to leave, so I don't.

You'll still have a quorum then for anything else you decide to continue with.

Say that again.

I'm sorry, I have to leave, but you'll have a quorum to continue with anything else you want to move forward on.

Um Deanna, how many more amendments do you have?

Proposed amendments.

Uh quite a bit more.

Um articles uh six, the financial management management, uh nine and ten.

And is all of that contained in the document dated May 27th?

So is there a way, Mike, to at least get this document online so that if we took it up at our next meeting, people would know what we're taking up the May 27th.

The meeting tomorrow?

Yeah, just post it somewhere.

Yeah, I can get this posted tomorrow morning.

And um my question is do we want to start meeting at three o'clock tomorrow?

Can we do that?

With a no public notice.

You're right, we can't let's let's pause that thought.

Oh, actually, it we could continue this meeting to three o'clock.

The room's not available at three o'clock, okay.

I think that's I think we actually asked this question before at three o'clock.

All right, so we're not so forget the three o'clock.

We're gonna start at four.

All right, so is there another way to have this discussion, Deanna, of the rest of these items?

Well, we can have it tomorrow.

Well, but I think we do want to focus on the report and the recommendations.

Um so one idea that I had, and uh is that we all take this home and we look over the ones we haven't discussed and see if anyone is uh interested in second any seconding any of them, and if they are good, we will have that discussion and we'll second them.

But if nobody is interested, um, then we don't go there.

That's not Robert's rules of order, so um that would be something we would have to agree to.

Um but this is what I guess what I'm gonna suggest is let's think about that, but everybody read the things that we haven't gone through for tomorrow.

We have put a place in the agenda for tomorrow for things that we did not get through today.

So it's it's properly noticed at least.

Um, and then this will go up on the um the website so people in the public can find it if they want to comment on it, and but let's leave in our head the idea.

Is there another way to do this?

That was my idea.

We'll discuss it tomorrow or not.

And um, but under Robert's rules of orders, Robert's rules, or um you can continue to make motions until you're done, if that's the way you want to go with it.

Okay.

Okay.

Anything further?

Any public comment on uh anything that's gone on?

Any public comment on uh um Mike online?

All right, then this continued meeting.

Oh no, we gotta wait till seven o'clock.

It's eight fifty nine.

All right, no.

This meeting is adjourned at um six fifty-nine and a half.