Bozeman City Study Commission Meeting – May 27, 2026
Bozeman City Study Commission Meeting – May 27, 2026
This was a continuation of the May 20, 2026, meeting. The commission debated and voted on a series of amendments to the draft city charter, covering the preamble, eligibility, neighborhood associations, city boards, the municipal court, and other articles. Several motions were approved, some were withdrawn or failed, and a number of items were deferred to the next meeting. Public comment was heard on three occasions.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Dan Cardi (Bozeman resident) supported the amendment requiring that only residents of a neighborhood may serve on its leadership board and the Interneighborhood Council, and suggested clarifying the language to say “residents of the neighborhood” rather than “residents of the neighborhood association.”
- Natsuki Nakamura (Bozeman resident, also on the Economic Vitality Board but not speaking on its behalf) opposed disqualifying business owners from serving on a neighborhood association’s steering committee, arguing that each association should set its own rules. She supported limiting the restriction to the Interneighborhood Council.
- Emily Twego (Bozeman resident, speaking as a private citizen) echoed Natsuki Nakamura’s comments, noting that Midtown is a mixed-use neighborhood and that the proposed restriction would be too granular and would require restructuring their bylaws.
Discussion Items
- Preamble – Addition of Human Rights (Jan) – Motion to add “human rights” between “representative democracy” and “professional management” in the last sentence of the preamble. Passed 4–1.
- Preamble – Addition of Citizen Participation (Deanna) – Motion to add “citizen participation” to the list of values. Failed for lack of a second.
- Section 2.02 – Eligibility (Carson) – Motion to change eligibility language to “only registered voters whose principal residence is in the city of Bozeman” and to have the city attorney determine whether “principal residence” or “domiciled” is legally clearer. Passed 5–0.
- Section 8.04B – Neighborhood Associations (Jan) – Motion to add “nonpartisan” before “organizations” in the membership description. Passed 4–1.
- Section 8.04B – Leadership Board and Interneighborhood Council (Deanna) – Original motion to restrict leadership to residents only. After public comment and discussion, amended to require that “a majority of leadership as defined by the bylaws must be residents of the neighborhood.” Passed 5–0.
- Section 2.05C – Interference with Administration (Carson) – Motion to delete the word “solely” from the sentence dealing with the city manager. Passed 5–0.
- Section 8.05C2 – City Boards (Jan) – Motion to add “perspectives” (plural) to the list of desired attributes and to require a review every three to five years. The review requirement was changed to a recommendation to the city commission. Passed 5–0.
- Preamble – Multiple Edits (Deanna) – Original motion to replace the preamble; after discussion, narrowed to: add “responsive” after “accountable,” and strike “strong political” before “leadership.” The human rights addition from the earlier amendment was retained. Passed 5–0.
- Preamble – Addition of Active Citizen Participation (Deanna) – Motion to add “active citizen participation” after “public engagement.” Failed for lack of a second.
- Section 4.01 – Municipal Court (Barb) – Motion to add language clarifying that the court “exercises judicial authority on behalf of the city” and “shall operate independently and separately from the legislative and executive branches of city government in exercising its judicial authority.” Passed 5–0.
- Section 1.03 – Intergovernmental Relations (Deanna) – Motion to change “shall” to “may” to preserve local discretion. Passed 5–0.
- Section 8.01 – Public Engagement (Carson) – Motion to delete “the city shall ensure” and start the second paragraph with “Public engagement is an integral part of effective and trusted government.” Passed 4–0.
- Section 8.01 – Striking Community-Based Organizations (Deanna) – Motion to replace “community-based organizations, civic and civic groups” with “residents, neighborhood associations, city boards, and local government.” Failed for lack of a second.
- Section 8.02 – Participatory Budgeting (Deanna) – Motion to strike “participatory budgeting” and add “the city may establish public engagement processes related to budgeting and capital planning” to the first paragraph. Passed 3–1.
- Section 8.02 – Adding “May Include but Are Not Limited To” (Carson) – Motion to add this phrase to the list of governmental structures. Passed 3–1.
- Section 3.04.5 – Budget Approval (Deanna) – Motion to reinsert “for its approval” in the city manager’s duties. Failed for lack of a second.
- Section 3.04.9 – Policy Development (Deanna) – Motion to change the language to “provide administrative opinions or options, analysis and information necessary to inform the policies established by the city commission.” Failed for lack of a second.
- Section 3.04.10 – Administrative Support (Deanna) – Motion to clarify that staff support must be funneled through the city manager. Failed for lack of a second.
Key Outcomes
- Approved amendments (with votes):
- Preamble: added “human rights” (4–1).
- Section 2.02: revised eligibility language (5–0).
- Section 8.04B: added “nonpartisan” (4–1).
- Section 8.04B: majority of leadership must be residents of the neighborhood (5–0).
- Section 2.05C: deleted “solely” (5–0).
- Section 8.05C2: added “perspectives” and made board review a recommendation (5–0).
- Preamble: added “responsive,” deleted “strong political” (5–0).
- Section 4.01: added judicial independence language (5–0).
- Section 1.03: changed “shall” to “may” (5–0).
- Section 8.01: removed “the city shall ensure” (4–0).
- Section 8.02: replaced participatory budgeting with permissive language (3–1).
- Section 8.02: added “may include but are not limited to” (3–1).
- Failed motions:
- Preamble: addition of “citizen participation” (no second).
- Section 8.01: replacement of community-based organizations (no second).
- Section 3.04.5: reinsert “for its approval” (no second).
- Section 3.04.9: policy development language (no second).
- Section 3.04.10: administrative support language (no second).
- Preamble: addition of “active citizen participation” (no second).
- Deferred items: The commission did not finish all proposed amendments; remaining items on Deanna’s list (covering Articles 6, 9, 10, and others) were postponed to the next meeting scheduled for May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:59 PM.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com