We love you.

Two minute warning.

We're just listening very deep.

She might be out of town.

She did say she's a lot of speed.

So I just want to do something.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

So I have some side of the meeting.

So I'll be able to do it.

So that we get to the major purpose of this meeting for which the public may be watching uh and/or present.

Um and I also think we'll probably get through that uh and then we can go back to F1.

We also need to excuse Becky.

Right.

Um do you want to comment on that, Deanna?

I do.

I don't know how we can possibly be looking at the final report if we haven't considered all of the changes that might be made to the uh um uh draft charter.

It's a final tentative report, it's not even we won't even approve it till it to get it on the record, um, and um what we have in front of us, at least from what I've seen, is 32 motions to amend, and um very few of them in my mind are substantive in the sense that they would affect what what went into the report, so I think we should um deal with that first, and then we will get to the changes.

Well, I I uh first of all, um I sent uh a document last night um uh simplifying the uh motions.

There aren't 45.

32.

I counted them in the thing you said last night.

Yeah, um, and uh I take it uh uh well actually I find it insulting that you think they're not substantive.

Um and I don't I I honestly don't see how you can possibly continue the business of a final report without having somewhat of a finalized version of the draft charter.

All right, would you like to make a motion to not change the agenda?

Yes, I so move.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Okay, next item is public comment on anything within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

Can I interrupt?

Can we excuse formally?

Sorry.

Could I get a motion to excuse uh Commissioner Franks?

I move we excuse Commissioner Franks from today's meeting, second.

Any discussion all those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Now, public comment.

Um there will be time for public comment on any motion that's made under F1.

There will be time for public comment on input to the tentative draft report, and um then there'll be um public comment at the end the way we normally do, but anything other than uh on subject matter other than those, or if you want to give public comment and leave right now, um, feel free to step forward to the mic, give your name.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, but there may be people online.

Uh give your name and address, and you have three minutes for input, and this is kind of general input for us.

Is there any online, Caleb?

Okay.

Next item is the consent agenda.

And would anybody like to pull any of the items on the consent agenda for discussion?

All right, can I have a motion on the consent agenda?

And move we approve the consent agenda, second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any public comment on the consent agenda?

Caleb.

All right, let's vote all those in favor of the item on the consent agenda, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries 4-0.

Next item is correspondence or study commission update.

Um, I'll just say that I'm I'm continuing to correspond with Ann Vinzenguera about a presentation to their neighborhood association, probably the latter part of July is the date we're looking at around 6 or 6:30 is the time.

And Becky is willing to do that with me.

So I'll just proceed with finding a date that works for the two of us to go talk with them.

Cool.

And maybe what I'm gonna say fits later on with the strategy for education, but I was gonna ask my Rotary Club if they would like a presentation sometime in September when uh everything is settled, and they're usually a good group to just tell what the situation is and then they reach out and tell other people.

Who is the group, Carson?

What?

What did you want to do?

Sunset rotary group presentation.

Sure.

Um, but I wanted to talk to them now before they fill up all the time slots.

That was the idea.

Also, we've requested that of a forum by the League of Women Voters and Business and Professional Women.

So we're waiting on those, but they've heard from us as you've heard from me all along.

But on a related matter, could I ask if we have a date or could we have a date to talk to the new consultants regarding ballot education?

Yes, that in the book.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anything else under correspondence or study commission update?

Mike?

Yeah, I was gonna speak to so Carson and I had a call with Nevin from Dane Geld about the ballot education.

Um he's excited to get started to meet the rest of the group.

He said he can actually be here on June 4th.

I'm not sure if his whole team will be with him there, um, but they would be able to attend there for just the start of the process to see the bulk of where we're at.

Um, we talked about the three sub-options.

He he didn't think that messaging and education related to the to those general concepts would be difficult.

Um, and so he's looking forward to um getting started.

They have some stuff that they just routinely, you know, producing graphics, they want to keep similar.

We've been using similar language, so keeping that going.

And then we kind of talked about the engagement levels, and that'll be something for um down the road.

We'll make sure that that comes back to this group to discuss where in that um engagement level with the with the consultant at what point, just the different strategies that are available there.

Good.

Anything else under correspondence or study commission update?

Good.

Next item on the agenda, then is provide input on tentative report draft one.

I'm gonna suggest procedurally that Barb start, do a summary, tell us what you would like to hear from us, then we'll take public comment, and then um we'll tell you what you want to hear from us, and we'll also tell you what we think you should hear from us.

Could I ask, and you'll probably do this part, but I think we've heard that this report may not be clear in terms of its timing and its function, and I think it would be helpful just to maybe back us up a little bit on that.

Thank you.

Okay, Barb, it's the floor is yours.

All right, so um, this is the very first draft of the tentative report that we will present to the community for their feedback at our next public hearing on June 18th.

And so it's first draft, it's a rough draft.

Um, Becky and I have continued to work on it and refine it.

So your feedback now is really important, so that we can get a better draft to get before you all for the June 4th meeting.

Um, and so we do need to talk about this tonight so that we can have a draft for your consideration next week, because that is the draft we have to approve to go to the public.

It's all still a draft, tentative report is the language in Montana Code.

It's not gonna be final until the end of July when we finalize what we're gonna send to the election folks the first week of August.

Um, so right now, what I would like I can walk you through um kind of what's in here now and what I would really like to hear from you guys at a high level is not wordsmithing and stuff that could be read better, could read better.

It's more what did we get right that we need to keep in there, what's missing that that we think should be included in the report, and and what did we get straight up wrong that doesn't reflect um what we should be presenting to the community.

Um obviously the the sort of amended charter that will be inserted into the report is not ready yet, um, and we have not included all of the various appendices in this tentative yet.

Um we'll we'll be pulling all of that together over the next few days.

So um any questions about that or Mike or Carson, anything to add to that?

So um I'm taking it from reading that I've done before that the um the statute's pretty clear about what needs the pieces that need to be in the report, and um I'm um taking what you've written to be um you've got all the pieces at least by title if you haven't filled them in.

Yes, and so uh everything we're seeing in front of us is part of something that has to be done for the voters.

Yes, and that that the table of contents reflects that, and we pulled that um from like we created our outline from the last report that the last study commission did.

Um, and and so it it should reflect what the code requires to be in the report, which to my point of like what did we miss that's that needs to be in there that we didn't get, um, and then we've been fleshing it out as we go.

Great.

Mike, do you you look like you have something to add?

Oh, I was just gonna point out um in the cover memo for the item, we put those statutory requirements in here so people could follow along with what was required.

So this talks about the the final report itself, um, the specifics from the 73142.

This would be as if the citizens brought it, but it's incorporated.

So that's where like the certificates and looking at the previous one.

Um it appears to be basically a sentence, maybe two for the current plan, the proposed plan, just very broad strokes, and then the um the comparison was that table that we had started with um when we were laying out the um schedule, so we kind of have that structure from those previous documents to fill here, so that um looking at what we had on the on the table, that's where some of these um exhibits that aren't included, like yeah, I think in the previous one.

So exhibit A and B were a combined like five lines total.

So these are these are um minor fixes to get in place for the hearing.

Great.

Any other comments before I invite the public up to make comments on the tentative report, and then uh we'll just go around to Ann.

I just um I actually I realized I actually had read the other one earlier today, but I'm back to the one that we are formally um looking at.

I think it's really well done.

First of all, in terms of what um what is working.

I I will say when you added the high high level, high top pieces, which we'll see next time.

I hope you'll keep those in.

Um, I saw the chart, I thought that was really helpful, and then I really like the tone of the letter uh from us as commissioners.

I felt it was um giving us the basic reasons and rationale, but also try to make it you know within all of that um straightforward and user-friendly at the same time, and I think that's been the tone of the overall report, in addition to all of the legal language.

So, kudos.

I have a few wordsmithing suggestions, I'll put those in an email later.

And and just so everybody's clear, the the version we're talking about tonight is the one that was included in the agenda for this meeting.

Great.

I was thinking we'd have public comment before we did that, but let's continue with that.

Then Deanna, do you want to give some preliminary comments?

I'm sorry.

Uh no, my comments are too specific.

Okay.

Um I think the only comment that I think one I thought it was really well put together.

Thank you for that.

Thank you for all of the labor involved in in getting it.

Um I did have a few uh comments here or there that are um pretty much just some ideas.

You know you have to fix the um the certificate establishing the official ballot uh to co to uh coincide with what we talked about.

Um the uh it's it's in the sub option three, I don't know what page it says, the report summary.

You talk about five or seven commissioners.

I think that's gonna confuse people.

So we need to have it's either the mayor and four or the mayor and six, or however that comes across, and I think that occurs in several places in here, just to not totally confuse people, but by and large, I think you covered the basis, um, and and my only other question is on things that we think might be awkward, or maybe you should add something to it.

Do you want that input in writing from us or how would you like that?

Um so let me give you an example.

That's the wrong word.

I know.

Finding number three.

I I guess my suggestion would be for the wordsmithing stuff, is that you guys send it in writing.

Um is that kosher if they just send it directly in writing?

Because otherwise we're gonna spend all night wordsmithing something that that may have already changed.

Right.

So let me give you this example.

You tell me where you fit in it.

Under finding number three, under the report summary.

Um there's a lot about what the what we heard from the public, but what we also have heard from the public that's not in here is they feel like the um commissioners come to the meeting with their minds made up and that they're therefore wasting their time um giving public input because everybody's mind is made up, and so I think that would be worth mentioning because I think we heard that from a number of different places.

So I don't know whether that's wordsmithing or something you left out, you know, in terms of where we're going with this.

So let's go to public comment on the draft of the tentative um local government study report.

Okay, no comments from the crowd, no one online.

All right, um, back up to here.

And let's not do um, it's a clarification.

Yeah.

Mike, could you run this?

The one I'm looking at on the screen by.

I see a lot more information in it than the one I just downloaded that was on that was in the agenda.

You guys, we no, the one that was in the agenda is the one that Mike has up here now.

The one that Becky sent directly late at night was the next iteration, but it was not in time to be posted in the agenda.

So we need to talk about the very rough first draft that was attached in the agenda.

And that's what I have downloaded, because I took it from the agenda.

I thought if there's a note in it in red that says Barb, you need to add the table, then it's the right one.

Right.

I have that one.

I just thought I saw on the screen.

It had a chart in it and had a lot of certificates.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

We're on the same page.

Thank you.

We're debating what we have.

I copied this from the agenda.

I don't know how else I would have gotten it.

Becky emailed a second version directly after the agenda was published.

So it's possible I copied hers.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So sorry.

Would you mind Barb after this meeting just sending us the appropriate copy, even though we probably have it?

But we just to make sure.

As a point of trying to manage version control.

The next one that will be sent to anyone will be the newest version that we will be discussing for the June 4th agenda.

You've already been sent the one that's in the agenda, you've already been sent the updated work.

The next one will be the one that is going in June 4th, and that will be the only one you will be sent after this meeting.

Great.

So would that be the one we should make the written comments back to Barb and Becky on?

Would be the one in the June 4th agenda?

Um I think it would be most helpful.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there anything else from us?

So is there anything high level that that in the version that was in the agenda was missing?

Which full disclosure we may have already fixed that because, like, for example, the table, the chart was missing.

Um, and it's not anymore.

But um, can I make can I make a suggestion?

Article one, the letter.

Any changes necessary, high level to the letter?

Article two, the summary AB.

Work through it that way, please.

Mike thinks like I do.

So in the letter that is coming from us, first thing in the table of contents.

Are there any not words mything editing but high level things?

And and this is supposed to be short introduction, set up the report.

Are there any additions, anything missing?

Becky, we're sorry, Barb, I was wondering um, would we is there anything from the survey work or the uh communication script strategy?

Will any of that be in in the report itself?

This is the final report of the communication strategy.

Folks, should that be in there?

I'm not sure it should be in the letter, but it can be in the findings.

If if that would work.

In other words, we've referenced um this, we've got, you know, referencing of of some things that have products, some that don't.

But I think if we have substantive products like the um survey and findings, survey and findings.

Sorry, survey and findings, that would be helpful to add.

So one is procedural, and I don't I don't know but whether it's a good um comment or not, but we tend to start with what we have.

So if you look at the report summary, you start with we're not changing anything, or it sounds like we're not changing anything.

So I don't know, but I somehow it needs to be a little clearer that there's a lot of changes going on.

Can we first finish any feedback on the letter to the residents?

Oh, I'm sorry, I think we did.

I was already on the next slide.

I know, Jan was I'm taking it to mean that you don't have any feedback on the letter to the residents.

Not not of the kind that you're asking.

Okay, do you have any feedback on the letter to the residents, Deanna?

No, I don't, but I do have to um uh say that the comments that I have prepared on the uh for the on the final report are on the one that Becky sent last night, so I'm going to have to make some so I I I reviewed the the the only version uh or the latest version.

So I'm gonna have to just missing still, I yeah, I'll I'll try and work them into this, but if you've already changed it, uh then the well, we haven't changed anything to that, we haven't made any more changes to that late version that Becky sent directly.

But do you want my comments on that or is it version?

Maybe should you just email?

Can we can we do that?

I think if it's some changes, I think we should talk about them.

That's there.

Okay.

If something's still missing from the most recent thing, I think we should raise it.

Because it probably wasn't in the first thing either.

Okay, so if there are no um letter to the residents, I mean the structure of both is the same, so um, I have one other for the letter.

Yes, and I'm wondering if we ought to um at least have a sentence in the opening letter that this is the um first study commission report in 20 years.

The last one was in 2006, you've referenced it later, but I think it's important in the very beginning to let people know because I think that's substantive.

Thank you, okay.

Anything else on the letter?

Can we move to the report summary now?

Yay, okay.

Um, start with A findings.

Well, I was gonna start above that.

Um there's nothing above that.

Oh, report summary.

There's two paragraphs above it on the most recent version, never mind.

Um it's it's the problem that I think you just need to pay a little bit of attention to get to the changes sooner, because if you assume people are gonna look at this and they go, oh, same old, same old, bam, they stop reading.

And um the only other thing I had, and I don't I I can't tell that it was between um leaving things out or whatever, but um the part about the city has been great since 20 and the self-governing charter form has been great since 2006.

Um do we want to say something about the city manager blip, or is that best under unsaid?

In other words, we're saying the city, we've been well served by the city manager system.

Well, a lot of people I think there have think there has been a blip, um, or worse, and somehow we don't want to sound like we're not that we don't know about it.

We want to say by and large, with except with that one exception, would be what I would say.

All right, then I'm I'm done on report summary.

Anybody, Deanna, Jan.

And again, if we if we if you give me your feedback on section A, um, that's great.

It doesn't necessarily matter, and I can capture it.

You know, what's missing from section A.

What did we get wrong?

Um Carson, I just want to clarify what you said, because I'm reading item A2, if that's what you're referencing when the city's been well served by the commission manager form of government for decades.

And then I was hearing, you know, sort of then a personal level that we were focused on a person who did not obviously serve the for this this type of government did not work well for the city of Bozeman, because at that particular time that individual didn't work for the city.

Well, is that what you're trying to say?

And I know I'm not sure.

So that with one minor exception or one major exception, the city manager government has served us well.

Except at least my one of my conclusions from all of the learning we did about that is that even in that case, while that specific individual did not work well for us, the the structure did because we got rid of it.

That's my point.

And I don't think we should single out that.

We can all think of electeds, frankly, that might fit into that category, but we wouldn't give up nonpartisan elections, right?

Fair enough.

Thanks.

Okay.

Anything else on movement number two report summary.

All right.

Roman number three comparison of existing and amended charter.

Except, key provision.

Section B in this.

We need to talk about section B.

There are multiple in report summary, there are several sections.

Excuse me.

Not in mine.

Yeah, Deanna has something.

I'm sorry, I'm comparing to uh different things here, but under the um finding number two, um, we say that the mayor um represents the interests of Bozeman across Montana and the United States, and um I think that's overstating um the the mayor's position is to is to represent uh the citizens of Bozeman and his focus should be on Bozeman and perhaps the state, but not the country.

Um so I would delete um uh uh the United States, and then findings number two.

So to that I would say functionally, they are representing the interests, but they do so um across Montana and the United States.

We've had previous mayor who served on the leadership for the National League of Cities.

We've had the same mayor testify before Congress.

We have relations with the congressional district, the congressional delegation, house, senate, the mayor represents Bozeman to those people, to those entities.

So I I think it is accurate to say the mayor is representing the interests of Bozeman across Montana, say at the legislature, say at the Montana League of Cities, and the United States, because they have, and may in the future as well, continue to represent them to entities such as the US Senate, the US House, and the National League of Cities.

Okay.

So my copy, in addition to being the wrong copy, was misbound.

So now I've got it in the right order.

I stapled it wrong.

I'm sorry.

That's why I didn't, so we're on B now.

Which brings up the point, it would be really helpful if you numbered pages in these documents.

Thank you.

In the agenda version, they are numbered.

Pardon?

The agenda version is numbered.

Yeah.

Like I said, I don't know the agenda version.

I have the latest version that was emailed late last night.

I advertently printed out the whole agenda, Tim.

It would also be good to add a header bar.

Because sometimes when you know I'm printing a bunch of documents from the agenda and I don't pick them up from the printer, they can't easily get confused without a header.

Yeah, I've already captured it.

I've captured that we will add a header with the date of the draft and the version, and we will add page numbers.

Thank you.

All right.

So I inadvertently printed the entire agenda also, so I actually have the right copy here as well as everything else.

So under B, report summary.

You read that and you go, everything's gonna stay the same.

I don't know whether that you're the writers, I'm gonna defer to you.

I won't ever raise it again, but just think of that.

Anything else on key provisions B?

I'm not sure, but uh in number three, we have uh the city commit in the new version.

Uh the city commission will select a vice mayor each year, and my understanding was the vice mayor would serve for two years.

Good pickup.

Yeah, I don't have to email you.

Anything else on subsection B.

All right, subsection C, sub options that are presented, so these will need to be adjusted based on future changes to the suboption language.

Barb, you and I had talked about getting we we had this discussion yesterday at the meeting about changing the order those.

I started working on some of that language, talked with Greg.

He had a number of notes on that, and he will have additional information for consideration in the sub-options.

So I think just the fact that here's where the sub-options go, and when we get to the other discussion, then that's gonna be plug and play here.

And he'll share that today.

I don't know if it'll be today.

Do you know when he will get us that language?

I do not.

Okay.

In my conversation with him today, he's gonna try and get it done before the fourth.

In time to publish it, maybe.

Okay.

So uh how's that for?

Well, what I mean, what are we supposed to do then?

Because this language also has to go in the amended charter, I think we should do the best we can with it.

But my point being, let's not get bogged down on this right now and move through the rest of the report, knowing that we have additional discussion on the language and input from Greg on the sub-options, all right.

Can we move anything else on suboptions?

Then comparison of existing in the amended charter.

Oh, I never mind.

Nothing there.

Barb add chart here.

Nice.

In regard to the chart, uh, this is precisely why we have to finish the charter before we try to complete a chart.

So um, you know, I would say there's more to come on on the specifics in this chart.

Technically, we don't have the chart in front of us.

Pardon?

Technically, we don't have the chart.

Excuse me.

So you're right.

That's my email.

Okay.

Um, can we move to G D justification and reasons for proposed amendments?

I'm sorry, did you say D as in David?

D is in data justification and reasons for the proposed amendments.

And then you said that same thing.

You have two big paragraphs about everything staying the same.

Maybe that's the place it should change more than anywhere else.

And leave them for the end.

But is there I'm sorry?

I just is there a reason for different colors of green and blue.

It's a function of um word track changes, track changes and word and Becky working in Word and me working in Google Docs, and so there's no significance other than technology companies don't work well together.

Um I have a question.

Um it's clear.

It seems to me that the worksheets are becoming confusing to people because we simply Becky and I simply cannot go back and make every change that we agree to up here in every worksheet and every version of the amended charter and and the comparison that Mike has developed.

And so my suggestion would be that we stop amending the worksheets and make that decision and simply work in the amended charter in track changes, and then Mike can have his comparison doc going between the current charter and the amended charter.

Um because it's it's it's clearly becoming very confusing to me as well in terms of where we've made changes and where we haven't.

And I just like I can't go back and make every change in every place.

Um, so that's my request that we make that shift and then ref and then not refer to worksheets in the tentative report, but just talk about the comparison being between the current charter and the amended charter.

That sounds good to me.

Yes, I think we see the evidence of that right here.

So one of the um points on this, uh, so the landing page for the web page for the study commission page has the the comparison document here.

So as we so this draft proposed amended charter was the one prepared for the May 20th agenda, so the next one will be updated with both the file name and it will contain the header per what Barb had said.

So we will post that as the separate version, and then the Word version comparing the most current one we're working from, and the 2006 previously adopted charter will also be available here.

So if you pull that document up, you will see every change as it compares to the current charter we're operating under.

Just for ease of understanding, I think that's the where um pointing people to for what are we doing now versus what is in this proposed amended charter.

And are we gonna leave somewhere the charter drafting worksheets?

Or are we gonna we can as far as I'm concerned, we can continue to place them there, but these three documents will be the functional work of where we are.

That's that's good with me, and um and I like charter drafting worksheets.

It implies only nerds will go there, but um people can go there, that's the what I'm driving at.

And I just think we need to be clear that there is no expectation that we're gonna continue to go back into those worksheets and keep changing them, right?

Do we need to say that in the charter drafting worksheets?

Put a date on them or something, and that these were working documents between this date and that date, that we're no longer updating them.

I mean, I'm even a little nervous about keeping them, although I don't want to do anything in terms of a lack of public transparency, but I am also trying to think about avoiding confusion and expectations, so I put that out.

So maybe it needs a better name.

Mike, can you open the folder again?

So maybe just in these bullets, see the bullets about no scroll up these bullets where we say your city or charter.

We'll say we use these worksheets to do our work.

We're no longer updating them and just add a bullet there.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, are we ready for the comparison?

Of existing and amended charter.

Oh, wait.

I'm sorry, are we ready for the um the clear explanation of the key suggested amendments to the existing charter?

Yeah, this yeah, are we on D now?

This is still under D justification and reasons.

So that's the piece that we're going to remove in terms of this sentence.

All edits are listed as track changes.

Yeah, Jan, that introductory paragraph to justification and reasons will change.

It will no longer refer to the worksheets.

Yeah.

Great, thanks.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be so super micromanaging.

But in other words, we'll take out the second sentence of D, and then will you continue each edit has been carefully explored through these criteria because I think that's an important thing to keep.

Yes.

So moving down into these um powers, yes, stays the same.

The form is not the commission manager, it's a charter form with a commission manager structure, just so the form as listed here is a charter form of government.

I have an additional comment to make on um one thing uh on the material, and I'm sorry to to backtrack a bit, but on the materials that are available to the um public in terms of the um drafting that's been done.

Um I would like uh somewhere the proposed um amendments, the amendments that I'm proposing be um available for public viewing uh somewhere, and not in you know 37 steps behind the repository, but that they'd be readily uh accessible to people to see these were amendments that uh were rejected.

I think that that's what the minutes are.

Those aren't really accessible, readily.

Nobody's gonna go through a video and make note of every uh motion that was made and uh failed.

So for the meeting last night, all the materials that were produced between the 20th and the 27th.

And the materials I sent the supplemental materials were added to that agenda.

Your your stuff wasn't available at the time that that was added, but we can certainly put it in the repository with the other stuff.

The repository is too deep.

All right, and we're we're out of order, we're not going to discuss this.

Well, we were talking about the charter comparison and what was going to be available to the public, and I'm saying that the public should see what charter amendments we considered and which ones were rejected.

I think that's I think that's a very important public knowledge to be shared and not buried uh deep.

It should be as as available as these charter comparison documents.

And I would say that if we added all the amendments that you proposed and didn't get a second for, that it would confuse people and they wouldn't read it and it would be the same as putting it in.

They don't have to read it, they read it if they want to.

It should be available.

Then we should know the depth of our discussion.

Then we put it in the repository with a proposed amendments.

I think if you put it here, you're gonna end up with people not not looking at anything.

Well, I beg to differ, you know, and I I think that in the in the uh interest of transparency and for people to know what we actually did in this body that they have a right to easily access the things that we considered and accepted and the thing which is in the charter and the things that we considered and rejected.

So just to bring it back to the report, my question is that in the um reasons for the proposed amendments, you're asking that every proposed amendment that was failed be outlined in the report of the charter.

No, I'm talking about uh uh I'm talking about the uh page where we were um uh people had access on the website to the work that we've been doing.

And I think that that's work that we've been doing that should be readily and easily visible to the public, and uh they can look at it if they want.

And if it's labeled these are the amendments that were proposed and rejected, they can look at it if they want to, and they can pass it by on to the uh next item uh if that's what they're interested in.

And again, I'd reiterate that the motion was made captured in the minutes, those are the motions that were considered or not considered by the body.

I would have to agree with Mike because I think we found uh and have been finding that not having the rationale, not having the discussion or debate really doesn't make that information very useful to people.

I spent hours looking at what you did yesterday, found out there was something brand new today, and um without the rationale and again the fuller discussion where there was an actual second on an amendment amendment.

Um I just don't think it's going to be a good use of anyone's time to either create that um document or to have it um uh in in our on our on our website.

So I would support having it put in the repository, or or basically you're suggesting just referencing that uh to to particularly look at the minutes of the dates that we've been amending the actual draft charter.

Referring to people to the amendment.

Sorry, one second.

I just want to clarify that.

So is that what you're suggesting, Mike?

If we if we put it so, yeah, the uh all the supplemental materials were added to the repository, they were linked from the agenda for last night.

We can continue to place the supplemental materials into the repository.

Then I suggest that you put a link on that same page that we were just looking at.

So here's the repository.

Here's the stuff that we had as of uh 8 30 this morning.

Mike, and that stuff is buried.

People can hardly find the public comments, much less three three sellers down to the repository.

And I'm saying if we are going to make this of transparent process, that the amendments that were proposed discussed and rejected are captured in the meeting video and the video.

And I'm saying that's useless, and I'm moving that we put a direct link on the page to those documents.

The same page that people will be looking at to study our uh work in progress.

Okay, that's a motion.

Is there a second for the motion?

Seeing no second, the motion fails for lack of a second.

Let's move on through this process so that we can get to some of the other amendments that will be proposed.

So my first thing on noticing is in the document that we're discussing that was um provided for this meeting, there is a lot more than in the next amended version.

What am I missing something here?

In other words, um I I appreciate the city commission vacancy, the election of the mayor, the three branches of government, and the public engagement piece that are all parts of um this section, which are um justification and reasons for proposed amendments.

But when I look at the updated version, that there's only powers of government will stay the same, form will stay the same, three branches of government and public engagement.

We left out election of mayor, we left out city commission vac vacancy.

Is that because we didn't change?

We certainly changed the mayor election piece.

That might be a mistake, and if you guys think we should add it back in, I'm happy to convey that.

We we the one thing I know we took out, you'll see in the draft for tonight.

We had downsides listed for each of these changes, and it felt like that got super confusing and and sort of that we should stay focused on the what of the change and the why of the change, and not and not interject this ambiguity about um you know the downsides.

Um so we remove that from each of these sections, um, or well, Becky removed that from each of these sections.

Um that already got taken.

If if you feel like we need to re-add back in, I got I captured Mike's point that number two is goofy because the form is the charter and the um city man commission manager is the structure, and so we'll fix that and make sure that the what and the why of those get in the right places.

Um, I think the election of mayor, that changes a significant one that we're making.

Maybe it's not controversial, but that should be in there, yeah.

I like this section as an explanation for what I know will be in that chart.

So the chart itself doesn't allow this level of detail on the why.

So I was a big fan of this being uh elaboration on those findings.

It's a good way to introduce that chart and set us up for whatever else is going to be added to the chart based on the continuing discussion and amendment process.

Okay.

Is there anything else on this section?

So should we also add back in the change in how we fill commission vacancies?

I captured that we want to add back in the change about the election of the mayor.

Yes, on both.

I think the change is 60 to 30 days.

I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that.

And that it has a public hearing, and I didn't see it what I want to add on my own way, but um, you know, that it's going to have an announcement of the candidates and really make it more of just not a forum, but a much more robust election ballot education.

Okay.

Anything else on this section?

All right.

Next section is minority report if needed.

We don't have one at this point, and realistically can't have one till we settle on what the what the language is.

So and then the next is the appendices.

Um I don't see anything complicated till we get to recommendations.

Can we just skip to recommendations?

For the amendment.

Yeah, just so everybody's clear as to actually where the the so the amended charter would then be exhibit B.

Exhibit A is the certificate of the existing form, and charter B is the amended charter, and then we'd have a C around wards.

Anything else?

No, the recommendation section that I have in the document that was provided to the public has two recommendations.

There are more added later.

But I I frankly think that what you've got is fine, and I don't know what other people think.

I don't think we've reached the point where we have finalized the recommendations.

I know Jan had some we were yet to talk about.

Right.

And truth is we've got there's more in the copy that you and I have, Deanna, than this.

So why don't we leave that for now for later?

All right.

Anything else on this item on the agenda?

Okay.

Thanks again for the great work.

This is a huge a huge um contribution.

All right.

Now we will move to any items not reached for consideration on the May 27th meeting.

I think we have some uh amendment proposals from Deanna, and we have a recommendation proposal from Jan.

Um, and let's let's run um Deanna, you want to make your first amendment proposal.

Okay, the first one uh and uh this is uh in in the preamble.

I move to amend the preamble of the draft charter to eliminate the repetitive phrasing of secure the benefits by striking the phrase from the second sentence and replacing it with by this action, we affirm the values of.

And that phrase secure the benefits is used twice in this repetitive, and this edit removes redundancy while strengthening the text of the preamble, and actually turns that phrase into a nice uh act of intentional statement of our governance.

Is there a second?

I can second that one, it seems fine.

Great.

Um so we're gonna do the same format.

Um I think it makes it a little cleaner if we take the redundancy out, and I do like that by this action we affirm the values of language.

Jen, do you want to opine?

No, I'm fine with it.

Is there any public comment on this proposed amendment?

Any online comment?

Deanna, do you wish to say more?

Question, call the question.

Let's move as quickly as we possibly can.

Good.

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

Motion carries 40.

So I do a couple and then we'll get do a few and then we'll get to Jan.

Okay.

Uh so in art, and I'm picking these in the order for the most part in order.

Are you using the which date of the this is the one that uh you received the I sent it late last night?

So the 28th.

So this would be article one, powers of the city, um, section one point oh three in our uh and I am move.

I move to amend section one point oh three to read the city of Bozeman may participate by contract or otherwise with other government entities for lawful government purposes, any intergovernment agreement, coalition participation, legislative advocacy position, joint lobbying effort, or regional policy commitment that substantially affects the city's regulatory authority, land use authority, taxation authority, financial obligations or long-term governance responsibilities, shall require approval by a majority vote of the whole city commission at a publicly noticed meeting.

No elected official, staff member, or city representative shall have the authority to enter into binding policy commitments or represent the formal position of the city on such matters without prior approval of the city commission.

And the reason for that is that significant policy commitments affecting the authority, finances, and governance of the city of Bozeman should not be entered into administratively or without transparent public review and formal approval by elected representatives, point of uh clarification.

Did we amend this to take the shell out?

Previously, I don't I can't keep track of I don't I don't think we were taking this shell out of section 101.

103, but we're talking about 101 right now, I thought.

No, 103.

Oh, sorry.

I'm I'm sorry.

Um we did amend 103 to take turn the shell into a May last night.

All right.

Well, if we're gonna speak, we should speak into the microphone and a second.

I'm getting there.

Is there a second for this motion?

Motion fails for lack of a second, Deanna.

Why don't you do one more and then we'll get to Jan's recommendation?

Article 2 City commission.

And I'm looking at section two point zero four.

Article 2 City commission two point zero four.

I move to amend section two point zero four of the draft charter by adding the following language to the end of the section.

An itemized report of all such expenses for each commissioner and the mayor shall be published on the city's website quarterly to ensure full public transparency.

And the reason for that is regular public disclosure of reimbursed expenses, promotes transparency, accountability, and public trust in local government.

It ensures the public has seamless, unhindered access to look at how public funds are utilized by elected officials without needing to file formal public records requests.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

I would like to know.

This is so simple.

Deanna, you've put 32 amendments in front of it.

If we try and explain to you why we're going to be able to do that.

I think the public would like to know why of this commission, you would not want transparency and expenses.

My reason is because the public is otherwise entitled to that information and they can get it without going through the bureaucratic method that you're proposing.

This is not a bureaucratic method.

This is a simple who's had a job.

That's it.

Carson, can I offer a piece of information?

Yes.

All this information is presented on every city commission that a meeting agenda that approves claims by the city commission.

It's publicly posted on our website at all times.

You can look back for a number of fiscal years.

All this information is already included on our website going back a number of fiscal years, and every commission meeting that approves claims approves all of this information at that is publicly available.

Okay.

That's good to know.

It's not very accessible since nobody seems to know about it.

I have one more amendment to Article 2, and then and then if you like, that would end Article 2.

Okay, let's finish Article 2 then.

Thank you, Deanna.

I move to amend section 2.06 B, number four, of the draft charter, to clarify the attendance rules by inserting the words excused by a majority of the commission.

Ensuring that excusing a commissioner's absence requires a collective action of the body.

And the reason is that the current draft leaves ambiguity regarding who has authority to excuse a commissioner's absence, and this would prevent a situation where one commissioner or the mayor uh could unilaterally excuse an absence.

Is it pretty simple?

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

All right.

I'll just speak to why I say no in a number of these cases.

I see this as a kind of micromanagement overreach when in fact I'm not sure if the maker of any of these like motions have checked out to know exactly what does happen, whether it's reporting the salary reimbursements, expenses.

Some of these seem very um more about editing, and others just seem like micromanagement.

And I have tried to read everything as clear as I can.

I've spent hours on this, and um, unless it's a substantive uh pro-democratic need, which is not already covered by what we are already doing.

I do not want to add additional work to the staff of our um city, in at least what I've read so far.

So I did want to answer your question.

Thank you.

It doesn't require any work to have everybody present.

I'm not debating.

There's nothing in front of us, please.

Thank you.

All right, now we will move to Jan's recommendation.

Sorry, I had two, and I'm I'm waiting on the second one because it had to do with the um wards, and we're not at all there yet, so I'll wait until that.

This one, however, is on a recommendation, not an amendment to the charter.

It was posted in the agenda that came out earlier this in the supplemental information that came out earlier this week, and it is related to section 804, which is recognition of neighborhood associations.

There is an item seven of that recognition, which is to increase capacity to develop and transmit advisory input on neighborhood and citywide issues.

And I wanted to add as the recommendation quote the City of Bozeman Interneighborhood Council and neighborhood associations can work with the city's department of community engagement to co-create and develop neighborhood impact statement forms and process.

Thoughts?

My thoughts were completely confused by what was going on on the screen in front of me, flashing, you know, uh, everything except what Jan was reading.

Um I would like for her to repeat her uh her your proposal.

To read the recommendations, yes.

Um and if we can get it up on the screen.

Yeah, the recommended sorry, the recommendations on the screen.

Did you want to see a copy of the um Los Angeles City Department of Community Empowerment?

That model.

If you read it, if you read it again, then it would have that would have context.

Okay.

Um that the City of Bozeman Interneighborhood Council, INC, and neighborhood associations can work with the city's department of community engagement to co-create and develop neighborhood impact statement forms and process or an NIS.

This option, emphasis option, can be used to enhance communication of specific proposals initiated by the individual neighborhood association and or the INC for the City Commission, using again as an example, the model of the LA City Department of Community Empowerment.

Thank you.

You are welcome.

And that model, which I hope will be on the screen if it hasn't already, and was in the agenda.

It was the last page of the supplemental agenda.

If anybody, of course, we may not always get to the last pages, but it came out of what the Gallup Valley Sentinel used as an excellent model, in my opinion.

There we go.

So this is at both a process of how communications between, in this case, an individual neighborhood association.

If you'll scroll down one more page, Mike, we actually see the uh neighborhood association of Harbor City.

This actually comes out from where I used to live.

And you'll read it in on the two pages.

It talks a lot about what they are interested in, what the kind of needs assessment is, solutions oriented, very concrete.

And I thought if that was helpful to the neighborhood associations and the INC, along with the Department of Community Engagement, that this could be something they could work on together.

And that's why it's a recommendation and not an amendment to the charter.

So the recommendation is that the commission and look at various versions of NISs, because I assume other communities have done it as well, and see if that's a good idea for them.

Yes.

Barb.

I'm I'm okay with including a recommendation that they that and the city explore this as something that we may want to adopt.

So I'm glad that that's what you're asking instead of amending it into the charter because I felt in looking at this stuff that to amend this into the charter would be way too prescriptive for the charter.

So I guess that's that's kind of where I've come.

I will admit that I haven't fully wrapped my head around understanding this and what the benefits might be, but I did hear very strongly from neighborhood associations and Inc.

that that they were they, as volunteers, they didn't want to be overly burdened by process requirements, while also still wanting to have some better communication with the city.

So I think it's worthy to say check this out and see what you think without requiring anything definitive around it.

And if I could add um two things, I didn't have a chance in the agenda to get to Inc.

or you know, all of the associations.

I did ask a couple of people I knew that are involved in that uh to take a look at this model itself, and then in my mind, and I'm not an expert on this either.

Uh I kind of likened it to an environmental impact statement where people really had to look at impacts on what proposals they are making for whatever it is that they would like to see improved and I'm not comparing it, but it was part of what it resonated with me.

So I will just say, as someone who spends a good part of my day job reviewing environmental impact statements and environmental assessments, that is burdensome.

So do we need a motion on this to make it a recommendation?

I so moved to recommend the optional opportunity to have a co-creation of a neighborhood impact statement with the city of Bozeman, City Commission, and neighborhood with the um interneighborhood council.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Um I think we've gone around and talked about a public comment on this.

No public comment from those present, public comment online.

Nope.

No public comment there.

Do we need further discussion?

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

Aye, aye.

Opposed.

Say nay.

Motion carries four zero.

Okay, should we get to article three, Deanna?

Okay, article three, uh, which deals with the city manager, and um, you know, I'm asking for you to open your minds and uh uh consider the time and effort that I have put into these motions and the research behind it, and not dismiss them as unsubstantive uh and consider that the public is listening uh to our decision making here.

So, in that I move uh so we're looking at section 3.04 number 11 of the draft charter, and I move to clarify the city manager's operational focus by adopting the following language.

Assist in implementing the long-term goals and policies established by the city commission, and this is replacing the words developing.

So the reason for this would be that the city commission, as the elective legislative body, should establish long-term policy goals for the city.

The city manager's role should be focused on implementation and administration rather than formation.

This amendment anchors the city manager's role to execution rather than creation.

This reinforces that the legislative body sets, which is the commission, sets the long-term vision and political direction for Bozeman, while the manager, as the leader of the executive branch, carries out that vision.

So this prevents a city manager from developing a policy.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Next.

And the city continues to watch.

Okay.

And of course, that's part of the problem that we had with our illustrious past city manager.

So we haven't solved that problem.

Okay.

I moved okay to section 3.04 number 12.

Same same article 3.04 number 12 of the draft charter to clarify the city manager's role in intergovernmental relations by adopting the following language.

Provide administrative support for intergovernmental cooperation authorized by the city commission.

And the reason is that the charter should permit intergovernmental cooperation where appropriate, but should not constitutionally direct future city managers to actively promote regional governance relationships or policy alignment beyond the direction established by elected representatives by limiting the city manager's role to providing administrative support for cooperation authorized by the commission.

We protect local sovereignty and maintain clear elected oversight.

That's the motion.

That is the motion.

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Next I move to amend section 3.04 number 13 of the draft charter again to clarify the city manager's role in community outreach by adopting the following language.

Support the public communication and engagement processes established by the city commission and this charter.

And the reason is that it anchors the manager's duty to supporting the processes established by the city commission in the charter and ensures that the community engagement strategies remain accountable to elected officials in the foundational rules of the city.

That's the motion.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Section 3.04 of the draft charter number 16.

I move to amend section 3.04 number 16 by striking it in entirety and inserting in its place a new subset subsection 16 to read as follows.

Provide the city commission with a formal staff capacity and operational impact note prior to the adoption of any new priority policy initiative or major project.

This note shall explicitly detail the required staff hours necessary for technological resources and specific existing city services or projects that will be delayed or displaced if the new initiative is improved.

And the reason is that this two-part amendment corrects two issues.

First, it eliminates a loophole that allows an unelected manager to unilaterally form an advisory commission behind closed doors, or excuse me, committee behind closed doors, ensuring that all groups advising the commission go through a public recruitment and appointment process.

This will require other changes later in the charter, which I'll address at the appropriate time.

The new text creates a critical tool for fiscal and operational discipline, forcing a transparent data check on how new policies and priorities will impact baseline city staff and infrastructure before a vote can occur.

And this I would think is basic fiscal responsibility.

That's the motion.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

And let's see.

I move to amend the draft charter by striking Article 6 in its entirety and replacing it with the original existing text of Article 6 from the current Bozeman City Charter.

And the reason is that the proposed changes to Article 6 fundamentally weaken the city's established financial guardrails by reducing mandatory debt disclosures, obscuring long-term cost impacts, and replacing concrete financial metrics with subjective narrative goals.

Reverting to the original text ensures that strict fiscal discipline and total financial transparency remain in the charter.

And what we the Article 6 that we have removes that.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

This will make great footage.

I move to amend section 5.02 of the current chart.

Now we're backing up a little bit.

Section 5.02.

Personnel system.

I move to amend section 502 of the current.

I think you have a typo on there that this intended motion is in the fiscal management.

6.02 is the submission of budget and budget message.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

So this is uh section six point oh two.

Yeah, that's because we added a added section, and we're looking at the amended version here.

Right.

Okay, so I move to amend section six point zero two of the current city charter as follows.

The city manager shall submit to the city commission a preliminary budget for ensuring fiscal year and accompanying budget message and a final budget in a timely manner as provided by state law.

All required budget publications and notices shall conform to state law and shall be made electronically available to the public.

And the reason for this is that it retains the intent of the original charter while making the language clearer and simpler to read.

And so actually the motion should be moved to amend section six oh two of the amended charter.

Yeah.

All right, that's the motion.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Okay, I move to uh amend uh section.

Actually, this is confusing because these are uh I think it's 503, but we're uh the new number is 603.

Um the city manager's budget message, and I think okay, um, shall explain the budget in both fiscal terms and in relation to work programs, organizational goals, and community priorities it supports.

The message shall outlined outline the proposed financial policies of the city for ensuing fiscal year and the projected impact of those policies on future fiscal years.

It will describe the significant features of the budget, identify major changes from the current year in financial policies, expenditures, and revenues, together with reasons for such changes, D, it will summarize the city's debt position and factors affecting the city's ability to finance future obligations, and include other material the city manager deems useful for public understanding of the city's financial condition and priorities, and the reason is that by item itemizing the list of things to include in the budget message, it improves the readability of the section.

That's the motion.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Looking at section uh five or six point oh uh seven.

Um I think actually we did this, we removed the uh um the date.

Uh so we can skip that one uh and go on to five or six point zero seven B one.

Uh I move to amend section of six oh seven B one to read a summary of the proposed capital improvements and expenditures, so instead of the just summary of its contents to identify that the contents uh shall be capital improvements and expenditures, that's the motion.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second, okay.

Taking a look at section uh B2 Identification of the Long Term Goals I I move to strike section of B7.

A commentary on how the plan addresses the sustainability of the community and region of which it is part from the current charter, and the reason is that it removes subjective narrative requirements from a data-driven document that say and it will say valuable staff hours and keeps Bozeman's capital planning focused strictly on fiscal reality and core public services.

That's the motion.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Okay.

The next one, the um uh 509 or 609.

609 now.

Okay, no, I'm uh strike that one.

Let's move on to Article 8, the rule of public engagement 8.03A.

I move to amend section eight point zero three A of the draft charter by striking the phrase the city shall be proactive in outreach to bring in diverse voices, partner groups, and ideas, and replacing it with the following text.

The city shall encourage broad public participation using a variety of engagement methods, and the reason for that is that uh the replacement language avoids very vague and potentially ideological termination terminology while encouraging broad participation.

The charter should use neutral, precise language that applies equally to all members of the public without creating arbitrary categories of preferred outreach, and I would suggest that we look at this one carefully.

That's the motion.

That's the motion.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Looking at section eight point zero three C of the draft charter by striking the phrase provide opportunities for residents to influence decisions, and replacing it with the following text.

Provide opportunities for public input regarding decisions, and the reason is that the original wording to influence decisions implies entitlement beyond advisory participation and unintentionally expands legal expectations.

That's a motion.

I can second that one.

It's been moved and seconded.

Question?

Well, we've got to take public input.

Oh, thank you.

Is there any public input?

No.

Online.

I think the use of the word influence isn't all that good, and I like the change, so I'm gonna vote for it.

Just the word influence?

It's provide opportunities for public input regarding decisions, as opposed to provide opportunities for residents to influence decisions.

Any further comment?

Questions been called.

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

I motion carries four-zero.

Okay, section 803 C of the draft charter.

Striking the phrase while allowing flexibility as conditioned, excuse me, as conditions change in its uh entirety.

And the reason is that the phrase is legally vague, it's completely undefined, and it fails to establish a measurable or enforceable standard for city administration to follow.

I can second that one too.

All right, I'm lost.

It's the same, it's 803C.

It's the text around accountability.

Oh, I see.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

It would just the second sentence would just be the city shall be clear about the purpose, scope, and how input will be used, period.

Well, I personally like the language while allowing flexibility as conditions change because given heated discussion about an issue involving public engagement, I think you need to be flexible about um whatever it is so that if you talk about scope of input and you tell everybody they have three minutes, and something happens that suggests that you should um enlarge that time.

I think you should be able to do that and um and be flexible about that because some and sometimes there's someone that has uh something to say, and um you know we we do that by allowing us to ask people questions so that they can do their three minutes and then we ask them a question and we don't expect them to finish.

So I think the idea of flexibility is generally a good one.

Can I ask a question?

Yes.

Do you since I'm not a lawyer?

Um, do you feel like if we just say the city shall be clear about purpose, scope and how input will be used, removing that sentence prohibits adapting and being flexible in the circumstance in a public meeting?

Well, let's focus on scope if you're clear and you say everybody has three minutes, period.

Um I think as a person that's chaired a number of those meetings.

Sometimes you need to let people go a little bit longer than the three minutes, and sometimes it changes and it suggests no flexibility, and nor am I worried about the implications of allowing some flexibility.

So what?

I mean, what's what's the downside to leaving that language in there?

I guess it would be what I would say.

Jen?

I'm concerned when I read in a rationale words like legally or constitutionally, or all of these things, because I'm assuming, but I should never assume that this is written by the commissioner herself.

She's not an attorney, she's not having this reviewed by an attorney, or maybe written by an attorney instead of herself.

Is that true?

Can I ask that question of you when you use words like legally vague constitutionally here or there?

Where does that come from?

Is that an attorney point of view or just your own thought about it?

It doesn't take an attorney's mind to know when words are vague and unconstitutional.

I'm just saying that uh reason is legally vague.

So I'm just wondering what is legally vague.

Legally vague uh is is just that when you say uh um uh uh the flexibility as conditions change, right?

Is legally vague, yes.

But it's not coming from an attorney, you're not a con I have I have conferred with an attorney, yes.

Well, I notice our attorney is in our duty's in the house.

Could we ask him if if he thinks the language is unconstitutional, but I would like to support Carson in saying I understand where I think we need to have at least in this uh particular area uh and where possible uh some flexibility as conditions change and frankly they're changing every minute every day right now.

So I would like to keep it in there, but I also have been noticing that as this sort of a legal primer uh in in many of the motions, and I'm concerned because I thought it was coming strictly just from the thinking of the commissioner, but if an attorney's reviewed everything you've written, maybe that should be noted as a footnote, just so we're clear about where this comes from, but I will oppose um I will oppose the motion.

I'd like to hear it from Greg.

Mr.

Sullivan, if you could approach the dais, the the speaker, the microphone, whatever it's called.

So good afternoon, Greg Sullivan.

I'm the city attorney.

I'm also been appointed by you guys to be the attorney for the study commission.

So, um I'm doing is listening right now, and you guys are moving rapidly, and I have not had a chance to look at the draft charter in depth, nor all of these motions in depth.

And so we've had conversations, Carson and I did about sort of at what point in time will I do that.

And I think once you've completed this process that you have now, and you've prepared a draft to vote on on the fourth, I will take a look at the final product that you are looking at on the fourth, and then the public hearing will occur.

I'll give you some input during that time frame.

Certainly before you would meet again in July.

On June 18th, you'll and then again in July you'll have input.

Okay, so that being said, um, and I can keep working individually with the whoever wants to call and communicate about any kind of question they have.

I'm always open to do that.

Um I think as I'm looking at this right now, I just wanted to provide some uh some suggestion about how it works now, and I think I'm I don't want to make sure that I'm looking at the at the correct thing, and I'm looking at the second bullet on page seven.

Is that correct?

Third or second, yeah.

Oh, yeah, the Deanna's motion.

And you're talking about, are you talking about that phrase allowing flexibility still?

Yes, yeah, okay, so um, I almost think to a certain extent that that kind of language is not necessary.

And I'm also thinking about sort of as I'm sitting up here every Tuesday night, or as whatever work product you end up completing, how I'll be charged as a city, the attorney for the city to interpret all of your work and to help the administration and the city commission implement every word that you write if the charter amended charter is adopted.

Allowing flexibility as consistents change.

I think the city does have this would have, I would read this as the city commission would have flexibility, no matter what.

As long as they met the standard that you had established.

And the standard that's being established is being clear about purpose scope and how input will be used.

That creates a certain uh amount of discretion on the part of city administration and the city commission to determine to what extent do they need to be clear.

Adding a phrase about flexibility, I just don't think is really adding very much.

Is it unconstitutional?

Off the top.

I am not going to tell you that right now.

Okay.

As far as like 14th Amendment vagueness issues, I uh there's no way I can tell you that standing right here right now.

Thank you.

Anything else of Greg?

Thank you, Greg.

Any further conversation, um, the the problem that I have with taking it out is not whether in fact the city commission and/or the mayor or whoever is running the meeting has more discretion.

It's that if you define the scope in a certain way and then use that discretion, people will say no, no, you can't do that if it's contrary to what their interests are.

So um I'm gonna vote against the amendment.

Um, you all should do whatever you think is appropriate.

And I will say, if we leave it in the way it is, I'm assuming that when Greg reviews it, he will look at it from the constitutional standpoint.

So if the constitution is the issue, that will get done.

Um I don't think it's unconstitutional, one and two, um, I think it creates um an expectation that things won't change and things inevitably do.

Any further discussion?

I I don't believe constitutionality was uh at issue here, it was legally vague was the term that I used, and completely undefined, and failed to establish an enforceable measurable um uh standard.

Legally vague is a constitutional issue.

Okay, question.

All right, questions quote all those in favor of the amendment so indicate by saying aye.

Aye, opposed, nay.

Motion fails for lack of a majority.

Okay.

Looking at that same section uh and the same uh letter C.

I am uh move to amend C of the draft charter 803 C of the draft charter by adding the following closing sentence.

The city shall be clear about the purpose, scope, and how input will be used, and the reason is that transparency regarding the use of public input improves accountability and public trust, it's with the direction that much of our work has been uh headed toward in these many last weeks.

Uh and this amendment establishes actionable objective standard.

Deanna, that's what it says right now.

Right, let's read that.

I mean your motion to remove while allowing flexibility as conditions change failed, so that is staying in, but it says the city shall be clear about the purpose scope and how input will be used.

If I understand the motion, and I don't think you mean this the it would be a problem.

I would draw all right, I withdraw the motion.

That could have been from the last go-round.

All right, um section eight point oh four B six.

Um and I uh um okay, and I move to amend section eight point oh four B six of the draft by striking the word accessible and inserting the phrase broadly distributed and available to describe neighborhood association communication standards.

And the reason is that the term accessible carries strict guidelines and legal definitions.

Leaving this world word in the charter inadvertently places a heavy unfunded compliance mandate on volunteer neighborhood associations, creating a technical loophole where the city could de-recognize a small neighborhood association simply for lacking the budget for professional translation or specialized formatting.

Replacing it ensures the focus remains on a wide community outreach without imposing unrealistic legal liabilities on volunteer groups.

In other words, when you say accessible, uh it could mean that you need to provide your materials in uh a variety of languages, maybe braille, maybe an audio form, accessible is uh uh uh applies to the um disabilities act, or could be interpreted in that manner.

So I think we can we can say what we need to say without uh risking that kind of a liability.

That's the motion.

Is there a second?

Motion fails for lack of a second.

Okay, let's stop for a minute.

We have five minutes.

My watch says we have seven and a half minutes.

Um how do we want to proceed from here?

I am open to starting up tomorrow morning and just continuing this meeting.

Um, who would be available tomorrow morning at nine o'clock?

All right, so we wouldn't have a quorum.

Um, willing to work Saturday morning?

If we can get someone to open up the building, I would be available Saturday morning.

Um here, because I anticipated we wouldn't get through this.

I have a schedule.

Uh we have uh Monday the first.

I am available in the morning as well.

Five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, four amendments that's it.

I won't promise anything, but that's what's I have before us.

We have uh I think I counted quickly, it was either 11 or 12.

Okay.

I feel like the last two are more um typo or wording things, and maybe uh if you and Barb got together, you could um look at that um briefly.

I'll go through these, and if there are any of that nature, I'll the one about um the this is now located in 7.03 and so it just needs a change in the reference, I think.

Um and the other has to do with the date.

So the last two perhaps can get worked out.

Well the the uh Article 11 transition uh one is is fairly substantial, right?

But but I think if you point out when Douglas Fisher, the whole thing has to do with not depriving Douglas Fisher of his mayorship, but when you appoint the vice mayor, and so it needs the vice mayor, if the uh current amended charter passes, that's when there is no longer a deputy mayor.

Right.

I I get it.

We do need to provide for appointing a vice mayor mayor before the election where the transition in mayor occurs.

Right.

I am tracking that.

And then the same with um the one before it, where I think it's just a question of getting the right section number down.

That still leaves 10.

Um, so um I am going to attend virtually on June 4th.

Um I guess unless someone else has a better idea about when we could meet to deal with these 10, we take them up on April 4th on April 4th.

Why do I say that?

June 4th, it's my sister's birthday.

Um, we suggest that.

Yeah, I would suggest that.

I'm out all of it.

I'm out all of next week regardless.

And will Becky be here?

She will not, she will be virtual, I believe.

Okay, so there'll be two virtuals and two people, and um we have to figure out who runs the meeting.

So just so we're clear, Deanna and Jan will be in the room on June 4th, correct?

Yes.

That'll be it.

And you'll be here.

I'm gonna be uh for I'll be in New York City.

Uh I will come virtually.

Virtually.

Yeah.

And Barb won't be here at all.

Right.

She's gonna be someplace exciting.

I hope.

I'm gonna be doing all the Montana things with my family.

Oh, good for you.

So Becky and I will figure out who how the meeting will be run, and we will continue to set up the agenda.

Uh is there any further public comment for tonight?

Any online, Caleb.

Nope.

All right.

If there's nothing else, this murder murder.

This meeting, is adjourned at 5 57.