Welcome everybody to the uh study commission meeting on uh June 4th, 2026.

We have uh a lot to go over today, but let us begin with um standing for the pledge of allegiance if you're able, and followed by a moment of silence.

I pledge allegations to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right, thank you very much.

Um, I don't have any changes to the agenda.

Uh Jan Deanna, do you guys have any changes to the agenda?

No, okay.

Then we're not gonna make any changes.

We're gonna uh go with public comment on anything within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

And if you are uh able to stay until we're talking about the charter or the report, that pretty much covers everything within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

So I'll ask you to hold your comments till then.

But that said, feel free to come up and provide public comment if you wish.

Madam Chair, yeah.

I just want to make sure you don't forget Carson when you would ask the two of us if we had any additions to the agenda or changes.

Don't forget Carson.

That's a great idea.

Okay, Carson, did you have any changes to the agenda?

No.

Okay.

Back to public comment.

Thank you.

It is a team sport.

All right, none in the.

Oh, Joey, go ahead.

Good evening.

Um thank you all for having public comment today.

Unfortunately, I can't stay for the whole uh meeting today.

I am on the mic.

Um what's that?

Can you give your full name on the money?

Yes, my name is Joey Morrison.

I serve as the mayor of the city of Bozeman, but I am here in my personal capacity.

Um I wanted to comment on part about process and something that I uh got to experience when I came to a meeting a couple weeks ago where I got to see some of the the energy in this room that I've noticed at times.

Um, sitting as the presiding officer, it is hard at times to keep these meetings um running smoothly, efficient, and without intimidation, and that often means trying to cut down on clapping and jeering and things like that.

And what I saw when I was here was not only what I didn't, what I felt like was not just it not intervening when that was occurring, but almost relishing in that for the sake of doing something that we that felt popular, which I can understand the desires to want that.

Um, but I think it's important to note the conversations that I was seeing play out in public comment on social media and otherwise, specifically around the inner neighborhood council, the neighborhood associations was so virulent and toxic that made it, I think, very challenging for many people to participate that disagreed with what the made the majority consensus that you guys were hearing from was.

And so I wanted to offer a few a few points to rebut some of what I was hearing about that comes with the context of sitting as the inner neighborhood council liaison from the commission for two years.

Um really, it's about how effective I think it is right now, and things that I think would make it stronger, are not giving it more authority and more ability to compel the commission to take action, that it actually would come from increasing representation and increasing the threshold by which the interneighborhood council and neighborhood associations need to meet from their neighborhoods to be able to take action.

As an example, when the UDC was being proposed, uh at the October Inc.

meeting, there was a poll to see to ask whether neighborhoods wanted to delay uh to push the commission to delay the vote on the UDC.

So fairly hot button issue.

And still, even for that poll, um, the highest return was the Northeast neighborhood with 53 responses in a neighborhood uh with around 3600 people, so less than one half of a percent.

That is actually the highest percentage representation of any neighborhood.

So to decide that that is what gives mandate to the neighborhood associations, I think is the is one of the flaws.

I've lived in three different neighborhood associations in my time that I've lived here.

I've never been polled, I've never been canvassed, I've never been approached by any member of the inner neighborhood council for my neighborhood associations.

I would sit right there next to the new highlight view neighborhood association rep, having no idea what they were talking about when they were saying, Here are the concerns of the neighborhood today.

And so all that to say just the the strength and beauty of the neighborhood associations, I don't think will be enhanced by giving them more compulsory authority over the agenda of the city commission, but instead mechanisms that encourage and facilitate and reward participation that's representative of the neighborhoods.

Um that is that I think is is the is the main challenge to continue to hear that neighborhood associations are not represented, while four out of five study commissioners live in a neighborhood association.

Five out of five city commissioners live in a neighborhood association.

I I have a hard time with with entertaining that, and I think it's a really important discussion that felt like we got shortchanged a bit.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, and thank you for indulging me going a little bit over.

Any further public comment in the room?

How about online?

Uh not at the moment.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Seeing no public comment, we're gonna move to the consent agenda.

And on the consent agenda, we've got the uh meeting minutes from May 13 and May 20.

Do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes or the consent agenda?

Excuse me.

I s I so moved.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any com any uh comment from the commissioners?

Any public comment from the crowd?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Motion carries four to zero.

And I would like to um also take a moment to um thinking of a big word like elephant and fire truck.

Uh dismiss.

Barb.

Excuse.

Excuse, thank you.

Oh my gosh, see, that was a big word.

Excuse Barb Cetraro, she is um out during this meeting and and has uh let us know ahead of time that that was going to happen.

So right now we've got four.

All right, with that, we're gonna go ahead to the correspondence or study commission update.

And before we go to our members, I'm gonna ask um uh Carson to introduce the Dungeld folks who are in the room here today.

Becky, I have a point of order.

Don't we need a motion to excuse Barb Sister?

Okay.

Do we have a motion to excuse?

I would move to excuse her.

Okay, thank you.

Second, got a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Excuse four zero.

Thank you.

And so um Carson, if you want to uh introduce the Dengeld folks and just and then um I can cut to the introduction.

Sure, I can introduce uh Nevin Graves, but from here I can't actually see who's there.

But I'll ask Nevin to come up and introduce whoever else is there, say a little bit about himself, and um a little bit about um what's next.

But the main purpose is uh just introduction so we can see who they are and he can they can see who we are.

Great, thank you.

Nevin.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair, uh, members of the commission.

Uh my name's Nevin Graves.

Uh, I'm one of the partners at Dangild.

Uh we are your consultant for the ballot education campaign on the amended Bozeman City Charter.

Uh I'm joined today in the room uh by Aaron Corsey uh and Audrey Dozier.

Um Audrey and I are based in Missoula.

Aaron is just based here in Bozeman.

Uh uh we have a fourth person working on the project who couldn't be here today, uh Tor Goodmanson.

Uh he is dog sitting in Boezy at the moment, uh, but he's otherwise excited to go to work with y'all.

Um, but yeah, we're gonna be uh, you know, looking forward to the final language of the charter.

Uh we'll, you know, we've looked at uh some of the trends in it right now, and you know, we're getting ready to put the messaging in order for whatever sub options you guys uh end up deciding on.

But uh we've otherwise worked in voter engagement campaigns previously, and we're excited to get to work.

Happy to take any questions.

Thank you so much.

Um any questions for Nevin?

Jan.

Go ahead and come in, please.

Great, and and uh welcome, and we're looking forward to working with you.

We know you have liaisons with Mike and Carson, but I'm also curious given your uh very strong experience in these areas, and particularly with ballot education, what have you learned uh that might be considered best practices from ballot education?

Campaigns and your work to help educate, following, of course, all of the laws, all of the um nonpartisanship that uh this should represent.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you for the question.

Um, you know, as uh as referenced in our proposal, we've worked on some uh previous initiative works on certainly the stateside level that uh bridge the gap between a constitutional and a statutory initiative, which could have led to a significant amount of voter confusion.

Um, and you know, just to reference the current uh election cycle right now, we have a lot of ballot initiatives that people were spending a lot of time uh and effort, you know, collecting signatures on, going back and forth.

I believe there's a ballot initiative about ballot initiatives, for instance.

So there's certainly a lot of opportunities for for voter confusion.

Um the thing that I would say is, you know, with regards to you know taking a non-partisan approach and particularly a non-persuasive approach, um, we can we can talk about the process, we're going to talk about the intent.

Um, you know, I appreciate the fact that the commission has done a really good job collecting input from a lot of community stakeholders, has kept really good minutes, and like has given us a lot of data to work through.

Um for us, and you know, making sure that, you know, in the event that you guys end up going with two, three suboptions or whatever the case may be, um, if those end up uh otherwise, you know, sort of falling in sort of a cascade effect, uh, we'll describe it as such, and you know, like, you know, really lead them, you know, down the direction of so the intention of you know this suboption in relation.

You know, I'll use, for instance, the number of commissioners that's gonna affect simultaneously the number of wards.

Uh, and if you have more wards, you have more of a chance of being with a different commissioner, things like that.

Um, I think the thing that I would say, you know, particularly with regards to the Montana electorate, is they can in fact handle fairly complex um ballot language.

You know, there's there's a there's a high degree of confidence that I have based on particularly the level to which stuff way down the ballot, which I imagine this will be, but I won't, you know, venture to guess whether or not we'll be competing for space at the bottom with any bonds or levies from other taxing districts.

Um but ultimately I think you know, the thing we're thinking we're going to be shooting for is just making sure that the message is out there as often as possible and in as many channels as possible uh to give people as much time as as we can give them to understand what is on the ballot.

But I think once we get it in front of them, I I have confidence in the Montana voter and the Bozeman voters particularly.

Thank you.

Deanna, yeah.

I actually have a number of questions, but um in your proposal, you mentioned um your work on the first contact con 2026.

Uh so for those who aren't familiar with that, can you um explain what that is and what methods you used and what were the outcomes of those elections?

Uh sure.

So uh first contact convention uh was an event held in early April here in Bozeman, um, celebrating the fact that uh in the Star Wars universe, uh apparently, first contact between aliens and humans uh takes place just outside of Bozeman, Montana.

Uh so that was a science fiction convention.

Uh we ended up having something in the area of 150 people turn out for that.

We had a pretty short window to actually activate that audience and turn them out.

Uh but you know, we had a combination of, you know, physical advertising distribution.

We did a fairly good job on social media activations as well.

But you know, other than that, really working on word of mouth and making sure we were connected to, you know, sort of subgroup community leaders who we know would, you know, have the right emails, know who to talk to to turn people out.

But uh yeah, that was uh I think the time between us actually knowing for sure we had funding for the event and uh turning out all the people that we did, um it was only something in the area of three months if that.

But uh yeah, just a combination of uh traditional print and digital advertisement.

So and in that, so in the three months who turned out 150 people?

Uh yeah, uh roughly 150 people turned out to to the convention.

Um I think that was the high point number at any given point during the day.

We had, you know, some some churn as people, you know, came for some portions, left for others, but I think the the highest number that we had in the building at a time was 150.

But total total people present at any point in time could have exceeded that.

Okay.

Um you talk about um Daniel, you speak a little bit stronger into your microphone to make sure that the public can hear you.

Uh so in your proposal, uh, I'm just uh getting I have several questions here, I won't ask them all.

But uh in your proposal, you um state that uh you would like to um uh turn the work of the study commission into what you call uh easily digestible public information.

So, what are your ideas of uh what does that mean?

Well, the ultimately the document that the commission is going to produce uh in the form of the amended city charter is uh ideally going to be legally resilient uh formal language.

What we're gonna be doing depending on the specifics within that is just explaining some of those core legal concepts in uh in more regular conversational style.

So yeah, um I, you know, without a specific line to look at, I couldn't give you an example at the moment, but just making sure that people understand the the functions of uh specific provisions in the charter.

Do you have legal um uh legal talent on your firm to be able to do that?

Uh so no one on my firm is an attorney uh specifically, uh although we have worked on uh public policy documents uh both at the state level and all the way down to the nonprofit governance level.

So we've we've certainly worked with those uh with documents of that nature.

Um I think you know, probably the most recent example that I could give you from myself personally would be updates to the Missoula Community Access Television bylaws, uh, where I serve as the as the board treasurer, um but yeah, we're familiar with you know, otherwise, you know, crafting formal language and then translating it into a form that's understandable to someone who, for lack of a better term, doesn't speak legalese.

Okay, um so you um also uh in your project scope, you mentioned utilizing communication channels to reach underserved and disengaged voters.

So what specific demographics or um geographic pockets of Bozeman uh do you classify as disengaged and what's your method of determining that and what specific metrics will you use to prove you are educating all vote voters equally rather than just mobilizing specific voter blocks?

So I think that the answer that I'd have to that uh would again fall back to you know looking at given where we're going to fall in the ballot, where we land as far as an undervote of registered voters.

So at some point uh prior to the election, uh we should have a rough estimate, although in Montana we do have same-day voter registration, so a final number of registered voters in the city of Bozeman is not necessarily available to me now.

Uh, but I think that what I would say is with regards to you know how we actually do on the voter turnout on that specific question, recognizing that there are plenty of times where people look at something on their ballot and it's not this specific election that they turned out for or engaged with.

There are plenty of people who undervote later on down the ballot.

We're gonna try to keep that under vote percentage fairly low compared to the highest turnout uh on whatever ends up being on your November ballot.

That's not exactly what I asked.

What I asked is what are you going to do to identify what you have described as the um underserved and disengaged voters?

So um uh who do you consider the underserved and disengaged?

How will you identify them?

And how will you uh serve them?

Sure.

So fairly traditionally uh in American elections and certainly in Montanan elections, uh, we certainly see young people ages 18 to 24 turning at a little lower percentage compared to other various other age demographics.

So that's certainly one area where we would take a look uh at making sure that we were reaching out to particularly college-age voters, uh, Callaton College, Montana State University.

Uh we have good relationships with civic engagement groups that otherwise work with those demographics, but then I would also lean on you as someone who lives here in Bozeman to help identify uh segments of the voting population that otherwise don't seem to turn out for elections.

Well, what kind of metrics, what are you going to use to prove that um uh you're educating all voters equally?

I mean, we're not uh you what you just mentioned were the 18 to 21 year olds.

What what uh what are you doing to reach all voters equally?

Right.

So with regards to that, every segment of uh a given electorate is going to have different needs and approaches to how they communicate, where they congregate, where they receive information, you know.

I I think that you know, on the other end of the spectrum, if we're looking at specifically the category of age, uh, you know, some of the public third spaces that uh that older voters occupy are very different from those that younger voters occupy.

Um I think that you know, for instance, uh in the upwards of 50 range, I'd certainly, you know, again, I would lean on uh folks who live here in Bozeman to, you know, deliberately ask them like, hey, where where's a good place uh in the specific community to reach a lot of people at the same time?

We see a lot of opportunities both in public events, but again, in that more specific sense.

Uh I'd lean on rotary clubs, I'd be on Kawanis meetings, uh, I'd look at VFW meetings, you know.

Every segment of the population is going to, you know, have its own area in which it's congregating where it's talking about the things that are going on, uh, and we'd want to give each of those specific attention.

And will you think of this metrics?

Will you provide us metrics to prove that you are reaching out equally to all demographic groups in the city?

I would be more than happy to make sure that uh as we're you know, reporting back on the work that we're doing to reach out to these voters, that we're giving a comprehensive list of everything that we're doing with regards to who we're reaching out to, how we're getting a hold of them, whether or not you know we're leaning in any specific instance more on physical advertising versus social media, such as the case may be.

Um certainly a lot of that is going to be impacted by the budget that the commission ends ends up selecting for voter education.

Um, and so yeah, I'd be happy to make sure that further materials that we're providing to you outline everything we're doing to reach as many Bozeman voters as possible.

So Indiana, when we've got time for one more question, and then we're gonna ask, see if Carson has any questions because we have a lot to get to this evening.

Under understood.

Uh but he mentioned budget.

When are we going to make a determinant?

Because I noticed they have different tiers here, and we can so when will we be having that discussion?

Um we'll need Mike here because he's the one who's who's been talking, he's out tonight, and so um I don't know that we unless we start early on the 18th to be able to um have a meeting before the public hearing.

Otherwise, um that's this that's the next time.

So um Carson, will you talk with Mike and then you guys can get back to us in terms of the tier of of engagement that we did because I don't think you guys have just we've decided that yet.

Right.

And I I think that um what uh needs to get to us pretty soon is what are we what are we going to be needed for, we the commissioners, and um what groups can we help reach out to, how can we organize that um and uh just a counterposition to Deanna, I don't think that the responsibility of this group is um to make sure that they've reached out equally to all groups.

I think the goal is for them and us to make sure that all groups have equally understood um that which we put in front of them, and it will be easier for some groups and harder for others.

Uh so um that that's what we the art of this is to figure out how to reach uh all of the voters in the way that they are best reachable so that they can um understand what they're voting on when the time comes for them to vote on it, and um so um we need to get on that, but we also need to um know what it is that we're reaching out for, and that's the process that we're starting today, and in June 18th, and um uh we've got time to put together the materials that need to go to people so they know that we're what we're asking of them, um, but right now we don't formally completely know what we're asking them to do.

We're getting closer, um, but until we have that down, um the education process is not gonna uh not gonna really start.

The getting ready for the education process is the place where I see we're in now.

Okay, I just want to be sure that we have set aside time because I have a lot more questions about the work that uh will be uh going forward, and I just want to be sure that uh we as a commission um discuss the nature of the um work uh product.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Nevin.

Oh Jan.

Sorry.

Yeah, I'm trying to have make sure we have a round robin where we each ask one question, okay.

Um that's what I've thought we were doing, but no worries.

I just want to say more of a comment.

Um, one of the things that would be of interest to you is that 80% of Gallatin County actually votes by mail, so that we're really looking at the timeline that that you all are going to develop with Mike and uh Carson to reflect that so that we're we're you know in several different phases, but that'll be the most important phase in terms of your timeline, and certainly we all have different resources that we've been using across the um uh outreach and engagement of our study commission with surveys and uh encouraging people to make public comments that we can share with you as well um through the uh folks that we hired to be our uh communication strategists so there's some good good background and good work that I think will be very helpful with you and looking forward to that.

So thank you.

Yeah, we look forward to working with you and and your colleagues, and thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, um, we're still on the correspondence uh or study commission update with that.

Um is there any further correspondence, Deanna?

I have two things.

First of all, uh my apologies, Carson.

The um appointment we had with the um University Neighborhood Association last Thursday.

Uh I got all um confused in my schedule, thinking that meeting was going to go beyond uh six o'clock, and I got home and at 7 30 realized, oh my gosh, um they're waiting for us.

Okay.

And so I did um uh rush over there and um explain to them that uh uh we had this meeting and um explained a little bit about the June 18th meeting and um and then the process that it would be going on the November ballot, and they knew that I was um speaking uh on my own behalf and not representing the commission.

Then I have one other thing that I would like to address, and that is just to make a clarification of something that I said at our last meeting on May 28th.

When Jan suggested that I didn't write my own motions and amendments, I can tell you that really caught me off guard.

And I was shocked by the implication considering the many, many hours that I have put in reading our charter, researching alternatives, reviewing public comment, and then carefully drafting proposed changes.

And every amendment, every proposal, every thing that I have presented to this commission has been my own analysis and my own judgment.

And when I indicated that the language had been reviewed by an attorney, I want to clarify what I was thinking.

I have not employed an attorney to review the work of the study commission, but I do have friends who are attorneys, and on occasions we've had high-level conversations about legal concepts, legal language, and but everything again that I present to this commission is my own.

You know, I didn't just fall off a pumpkin truck, and I have decades of experience and work experience that called for a working understanding and oftentimes precise understanding of business law, insurance law, real estate law, nonprofit law, landlord tenant law.

And in addition to that, I have spent three legislative sessions in Helena reviewing, analyzing, and commenting on a proposed legislation.

So that experience has prepared me very well to read and analyze, review and put together charter language and amendment proposals.

And I just uh I'm making this clarification because I want uh to be perfectly transparent, and I want the record, the public deserves an accurate record, and that record should reflect that the proposals and amendments that I bring forward are my own, and they are based on a careful reading of the charter and um an analysis and a review of the public comment that we have had uh in this process to this point.

So I just wanted to add that to the record.

All right, thank you so much.

Carson, do you have anything to add to the correspondence agenda item?

That was a negative.

That was a negative.

Okay, thank you.

Did you have trouble?

Did you have trouble hearing?

Yeah, just for a moment.

It kind of got garbled for a second, so I just want to double check.

All right, thank you so much.

I have nothing to add, Jan.

Do you have anything to add?

Yes, just two uh short things.

I want to be clear uh regarding what uh Deanna's interpretation was of my question last questions last meeting, which in which I noticed a trend of uh rationales that talked about constitutionality and legality of some of the amendments that she wanted to make, or really, I think were making in conjunction with the Gallatin Valley Sentinel.

All of those were the same amendments, and so my question was not that she had uh no capacity or limited capacity to do any of these things, please.

I would never think that.

But my concern was the way in which the rationales were framed to appear that it had some sort of legal uh evaluation to it.

And so I wanted to make sure that that was that was my intention in asking that question because it was referenced a number of times that these would potentially avoid legal problems, legal lawsuits, etc.

Constitutionality.

So that's where I was coming from.

Not about your credibility, not about your experience, but it was the rationale.

And then that allows me to just raise a short issue, I hope, and that is a new.

If you will put this up on the screen, Caleb, with a new group, I guess, or a new project from the Galton Valley Sentinel called Save the Gallatin not.

And I don't have to pass this around.

I'm sure you have seen this before.

If it hasn't arrived at your doorstep, it's paid for by the Gallant Valley Sentinel.

But what happened is the reason I want to raise this for just a moment is the fact that the Save the Gallatin.

And I'll pass it over here too.

But people contacted me in my northwest neighborhood, or northwest part of the city where I live, and they had received it as door hangers and thought it was actually from the study commission.

And I hadn't seen it, I hadn't received one on my door.

I wish I had, but uh the several people that contacted me basically wanted to know if it was from us.

And I said no, and we you know looked at it, and I wonder what was needed saving in terms of the Gallatin.

And I care about the Gallatin River, I care about the Gallant Mountain Range, I care about Gallatin County.

Um, but as I read it, it was basically about saving us as a study commission, and also the um in um interneighborhood uh council, but it was paid for by the Gallant Valley, and I just wondered about this sort of evolution of where we started way about.

Pardon, but but just wanted to say that I think it feels like it's misrepresenting us or misrepresenting others that may care about Gallatin, Gallaton County, and I I think it's really important that given that the Gallatin Valley Sentinel, let me just find my other notes, has been so involved, and um and you two we know work very closely together, um, that we've asked for some information that would be really helpful to us, which has been the Gallatin Valley Sentinel survey.

And for whatever reason, after I think at least four attempts on our behalf to get that information, um we still don't have that survey, and I think it would add great value to have that survey uh shared, which we would understand it's probably comprehensive, it's probably got demographics, geographics, the total numbers of people that actually were asked to provide the information for the survey, and then ultimately the total number that actually did provide the information that would give us more of an analysis.

Um, and also maybe including the focus groups that uh participants.

So I'm just assuming there's a very small handful of this group that has spent so much time providing a lot of perspectives, and yet we still don't have any idea of what that survey says, how it how that how many folks participated, and I would just make that request also again to see if we could we could have that, particularly when we are um spending so much time on the number of amendments, the number of uh requests that that have come to us.

So that is my comment on the process.

Um thank you, Jan, for bringing this forward.

I think that um for me what's important is that um save the gallatin.net is not the Bozeman Study Commission.

So for the public who's listening, if you want information about the Bozeman Study Commission, that's called Bozeman Study.com.

We got that URL, so it'd be easy to understand and and remember, and so please go to Bozeman Study.com.

If you get the door hanger, don't confuse that group with what we're doing because we were the ones who are elected and we've been working on it.

You also see the the graphic, your city, your charter, and that's in our ads on in the paper and on online with uh social media.

So if you see that, if you see boseman study.com, that's us, and and we're the ones who are reworking and got elected to do this work.

So um right, are we ready to move on to the next agenda item?

Yes, so uh we've got um first of all.

I apologize for missing the last meeting.

Um, as I um it conflicted with one of my other volunteer opportunities in this community with the hospital, um, but we're gonna be looking at the the report, and so um Barb and I have been working on this report.

You'll still notice, and this is one of the things I think is gonna be super hard for the public, it's hard for me, that we will be inserting the charter into this document, but only after tonight when we you know get our final kind of edits, not you know, final draft edits, and so after tonight, both the the report and the charter will be provided for the public.

We are gonna insert the charter in this report, but I think we're also gonna publish the charter separately just so the public can find it better and and they can look at both.

But anyways, with that, um if there you know we want to look at any kind of edits, I'm gonna be pulling up my computer so I can do that a lot of time.

I didn't want to ask uh Caleb to make a printed copy of this beast for me.

Um, the format, remember, is very much organized and and determined by the MCA, and um we followed the format that was also provided from the uh uh MSU govern governance center and um and also looking at past uh reports.

So that's where we're at.

Um, and I think what we're gonna do is do uh a couple rounds around, Robin here, and then go to the public, get some public comment, and then we'll kind of go from there.

I had asked everyone to give me some edits ahead of time, and I did not receive any, and I know we're all busy, and so we didn't I didn't get any of those.

Um, and if there are literally like you need a comma here or an S here, just email them to me if it's substantive.

Let's talk about it tonight.

But if it's just uh uh one of those little edits, I did ask um Microsoft Word to underline things that are broken, and I'm hoping I was able to cover all that, but you know, stay tuned on that.

So um Deanna, would you like to start and then we'll do one all the way around or just kind of keep going for a bit?

I find that to be a very um scattered um way of approaching things, and I would rather have us um go, you know, Jan make all those things that she's got on her piece of paper, and then I'll make mine.

Um I just think it's more orderly that way.

Uh this round robin one thing, and then jump to another thing.

I do want to make sure that we have our um let me ask uh Carson, how many edits do you have to share?

Well, or three that are not um typos at the motion.

Okay, three.

All right, and Deanna, how many do you have?

Eight.

Eight that are not typos.

And Jan?

Um six to eight.

Okay.

Well, would we prefer just one person at a time?

Carson.

Carson, do you want to start?

And um, and one of the things that's important if we could all look at the screen.

When you say, look at the letter or look at appendix E or whatever, Caleb's gonna move it there, and then once you see it, um then we then please start talking just to make sure that we can make some of these edits in live time.

What I did, and I'm hoping others did, is I have the page number, uh what it what it is, and then the specific paragraph or number that is listed exactly in the report.

So that's really puts us on all the same page.

Great.

Yeah, that's why I paginated it too, just so we can at least do that.

All right, Carson, go for it.

So mine is um page four uh Roman numeral two report summary, um, the second paragraph before you get to a findings of the study commission.

Um I'm not sure the right place to put this, but I I would put it before the sentence that ends that second paragraph that says these amendments are summarized below.

I think we need to say to people, if the amended charter is turned down, then we will continue with the charter that we presently have.

I've got that listed in two other places, but you want that listed here too.

I think at the uh I you can my view of this is uh if you don't like the idea, um it's not important enough to me.

I'm not gonna make a motion about it or whatever.

Okay, um, but I think start it right when they read it, they need to know right at the beginning when they start in the in with the report, it would be handy for them to know either you pass the new amendments or we stay the way exactly the way we are.

Um that's that's my main thought.

All right, I can um I I know that's such an important thing that even though we've done it at a few other places, I can add some language about how the vote goes down.

Well, it it does it does appear, I think, towards the end of the document.

Yeah, okay.

Thanks.

My question is how many people are gonna get the way through the document?

Right.

What's next?

Do you want me to keep going or do you want to go one at a time?

No, we're gonna go ahead and um go ahead and finish and then we'll go to the next person.

Okay, so same page, finding number three, um, the second sentence, um, and I think it it goes to this question of um how we're presenting the situation, and the sentence currently reads the public is not feeling heard.

I I'm not sure that that's accurate.

I I would say some members of the public are not feeling heard, because if it as it's currently expressed, it it sounds like uh everybody in the city is up in arms about the commission, and um I'm I'm not sure that that's the case.

Okay, yeah, and certainly you got that.

Yep, yeah, that makes sense to me.

And what's your third thing?

Okay, um, in uh page five, uh paragraph subsection B two.

Um, and maybe this falls into the category of typo, and you can berate me for that.

Um the wages question you you need to indicate there for the commissioner and the commissioners and the mayor.

Even uh, you know what it says that at the thing?

Just make sure that it's clear.

When I read it, even though it says commissioner and mayor compensation language has been added that requires the city to have a compensation committee to meet annually to determine a fair and reasonable rate.

I think you need to add four commissioners and the mayor, not for everybody.

Just to be more clear, okay, just to be more clear, and I believe that is it.

All right, thank you, Carson.

Uh Deanna.

Okay, and the um third sentence.

What page?

No, the one I have isn't numbered, but uh it's in the this is what I downloaded.

So let me just number.

Did you is the first page the table of contents?

Oh no.

No.

Page uh two is the table of contents.

Okay, so three, four, five.

Okay, so this would be um uh the third uh page in the letter to residents.

So that's page, letter three.

Okay, paragraph two.

Um say um engaging the public, city employees, and city advisory boards with comprehensive surveys.

Um so uh we didn't since we included all of that in our study, we it should be in here.

Um hang on a second, I need to focus on two public hearings multiple.

The third sentence in paragraph two.

No, no, the letter to the residents of uh oh yeah, uh I did have I did uh, oh meeting with stakeholders, social media, paid advertisements and op eds.

Actually, I do have a written uh oh yeah, I have yeah, I see where that is.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, it should be public hearings on the final, yeah.

Multiple presentations, meetings of stakeholders social media.

Is that where you're looking?

Yeah, okay.

Um so uh the third sentence in paragraph two.

Okay, did you find it?

Also highlighted.

Oh, yeah, yeah, engaging the public with a comprehensive survey, yeah.

Two public hearings, multiple presentations, meetings of stakeholders.

What would you like change?

Yeah, to include rather than just saying engaging the public with a comprehensive survey and uh and such, um, that we include um oh all of them, all of them uh a comprehensive list of what we did.

Okay, don't we list that later?

In the public, city employees, city advisory boards, with comprehensive surveys.

Since we refer to all the surveys again on page four uh in the report summary, we should be uh consistent.

Okay, okay, then um and the last paragraph on page uh three, this same page, last paragraph.

Um wait, due to the number of edits.

Uh no wait.

Um paragraph the last sentence in paragraph two of the letter to the residents on page three.

So the last oh, here after Bozeman Chronicle, members of the study commit commission were also interviewed on the radio and the public and the Bozeman Chronicle, and we should add the Gallatin Valley uh Sentinel since uh there were three of us interviewed by the Gallant Valley Sentinel.

Do we want to include more detail everywhere in that?

Because there's a whole why would we not why would we not add that we were in we were interviewed on the radio and the Bozeman Chronicle and Gallatin Valley Sentinel?

There it was an important part of our process to reach out to the public.

Well, we met with a whole bunch of groups, we're not gonna I don't feel like we should list all the groups.

Gallatin Valley Sentinel is a media, and you included the media here.

The radio, the chronicle, and the sentinel are all media.

The sentinel isn't a group, it's a media.

I thought they identified as a platform, not a media.

I'm sorry, what?

I thought they identified as a platform, not a media.

They aren't on the radio and or in the new, they don't have a newspaper that goes out to the public, do they?

Yes, they have a newsletter that goes out to the public.

I've never seen it.

It's the new you should subscribe to it, Becky.

You're missing a lot.

It's the uh it's a newsletter, not not media.

In other words, we've been in a lot of newsletters, from what I understand.

Because we've tried to what we could add legal witnesses.

What are other newsletters that that we've been in?

Yeah, we'd have to we'd have to really are more than a newsletter, they are a media, okay.

They recognize that they present themselves as media.

For this one, I'd like you to make a motion if you want to change that because I I'm not picking up what you're putting out.

I I don't I don't know if there's a radio station like 101.2 is is their thing.

Do they have a newspaper that goes out to the whole public?

Um I don't understand how it's defined as a media versus I I think Jan and and Cars.

I know Barb is has included our information, some like e-newsletters to other groups, which is great, and we're gonna need to keep doing that for sure, and I'm really grateful that the sentinel they have an e-newsletter that that goes out with all of our information and links to our website and things like that, but that's not a media like the newspaper is or a radio station or KBC K TV.

Up the meaning of media, okay?

Uh and I move that we we add the Gallatin Valley Sentinel as a legitimate source of the engagement that we uh engaged in reaching out to the public, uh, in that they interviewed us, they provided um uh uh video uh to uh on on many plat other platforms because they're uh media that provided content for other platforms.

And so what's your motion?

My motion is to add Gallatin Valley Sentinel to the last sentence uh in paragraph two of the letter uh to the residents of the city of Bozeman.

Okay, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Seeing none, the motion fails from lack of a second.

Okay, the last sentence of the last paragraph in the letter to the residents on page three should be removed.

Um and the reason is that um uh it is uh uh not neutral.

We invite public engagement as we prepare for its adoption.

Um we're not preparing for its adoption, we are preparing for public education.

That's a good point, Deanna.

I took that from the last letter, and you're right, because we are not supposed to be promoting the adoption, which is supposed to be educational.

So thank you so much for that.

Okay, so the next one is in the justification and reasons for the proposed amendments page.

Um justification, the page two, page two, page eight, eight, nine, yep.

Nine, page nine.

Oh, yeah, page nine.

Um sorry about that.

Okay, so we're on um which is labeled as page two, but it's actually page nine.

Okay, um, here.

Oh yeah, the pageant, yeah, the pagination went crazy.

Anyways, we know where we're at.

Okay, you know where justification reasons for the proposed amendments.

Uh uh we need to be more clear on what happens in the event of a vacancy in the position of mayor, since this is changing from the current charter uh by removing the deputy uh uh mayor position, and it should be the change should be made more clear in number five.

Uh commission vacancies, okay.

It just isn't very clear.

What needs to be more clear the uh replacement or the um filling the uh vacancy of mayor.

We say city commissioners uh vote.

So right now it says uh currently the city commissioners vote independently within 30 days of the vacancy.

The amended charter says that there will now be a requirement to fill the vacant position within 60 days instead of 30, and the city commissioners must hold a public forum and potential applicants for the vacant commission or mayoral position.

Okay, but the preceding sentence it says when a commission or mayoral seat becomes permanently vacant, vacant, there was a desire to make this process uh more robust and increased public engagement, and so what you're saying here is that currently the city commissioners will vote independently.

You've said that this is for the mayoral seat and commissioners, so currently, currently that they do vote for the for the mayor.

They vote independently within 30 days of the vacancy.

That's what they do right now, isn't it?

Let's ask Carson.

I mean Carson.

Right now, if there's a vacancy, the commissioners just get to sit up here and say this is who we want to fill the vacancy, and they get to vote on the vacancy, and that's it, right?

But if it's the mayor who becomes vacant, then the deputy mayor takes over that slot automatically.

So there's no vote on the mayor, and in our case, it will be the vice mayor.

But two point, it is commission vacancy, so um, it's not what happens to replace the mayor, it's what happens to replace the commissioner.

Okay, so take the mayor, mayoral seat out of that.

So, and we can see and we should probably add something else.

Uh, what happens in the new charter?

Uh, the mayor will be uh replaced by the I think we called it the vice mayor, and that um, yeah, I know there's an amendment coming, right?

On that, which we can discuss then.

Would that make sense?

Would we get to the charter?

The amended charter.

We're not we're not trying to see what you're saying.

Yes.

Um, I just have to point it out because we still have the same words right in that election of mayor number one.

I'm not trying to take away from what you're saying, but it says every year the city commissioner will select a vice mayor, it's every two years.

Oh, I thought I I wondered about that.

Didn't we say that that is it every two years that's that we're gonna do the vice mayor?

Okay, I could not remember that.

That's okay, and I thought it was every year.

Um, so every two years, perfect, okay.

All right, I'll make some adjustments in there.

Thank you.

We'll come back to that.

I know I've got some ideas too, Deanna.

Okay, so then uh in um on page uh, I don't know if I the sub-options.

So this would be page uh five the sub-options.

Uh so exhibit D.

Hang on a second.

Let me find it, Deanna.

I could think we went backwards.

Yes, we went backwards.

Okay, it's on um, it's it's up way up in the in the um page one.

Yeah, it is uh page six above the table.

The table threw up all the all the um numbers.

This one, yes, sub-options that are presented, right?

Deanna?

No, that's not what I'm looking for.

It's uh it's back here on page 12 exhibit.

Oh, the certificate got it exhibit D.

D.

Like dog?

Yeah.

Okay, certificate establishing the official ballot it.

No, that's exhibit D.

Exhibit D is certificate establishing the official ballot.

Second on page five.

Okay, oh here we go.

Okay, so on this exhibit D, sub option two, okay.

Um add existing to the second option.

Um where do you add existing?

Let's see.

Four, and then add, no, no, no, no, no, stay there.

Okay, so revised plan of local uh city government um sub option to vote for one.

Okay, now in the um uh second one down here, uh for the existing at large system, got it.

Okay, I was gonna put that in.

I like it.

I like having existing uh like we do it up above, yeah.

And then um sub option three.

Um it's just confusing um and and kind of vague.

Um it might be improved by reversing the order.

Um, I would get some of those in my recommendations, uh, so uh so uh uh the method of elic uh electing city commissioners, and then should um as a bad choice of words there, because uh people reading it fast might think of this as oh we should have the word system.

So um how about that would replace that with if okay, uh and then um for um by voting uh at large.

Uh see if I can are we still under suboption three?

Yeah, sub option three, yeah.

Um if if the the second one were the first one, I think it would flow better.

So uh four by ward uh voters only, uh only residents living within a specific ward may vote for that ward's commissioner.

Um what if you change that second language for the ward voters only and then the residents only living within a specific ward may vote?

Start that the residents only living.

Okay, so here uh uh I'm sorry, here's my suggestion.

Oh, okay.

Okay, uh so then the first one would become uh four uh by ward residents only.

City commissioners must reside within a specific ward and shall be elected only by qualified voters living within that specific ward.

It's very clear.

That's a lot of words.

Can you say that again?

And tell me what you're thinking.

Oh, is it it's on here too?

It's on there.

Okay, it's down at the bottom.

It's at bold section, and then city commissioners must reside within a specific ward and shall be elected by voters living within that specific ward.

That's by ward residents only, and then by all qualified electors, but put that in first instead of at large.

Pardon?

Using that language, yeah.

Instead of at large, yeah.

Do people know it at large is?

I don't know.

Well, uh maybe not.

I don't know.

I know.

And this this is that's why I asked by all qualified cities.

Uh it doesn't require them to uh to understand any special vocabulary.

What is qualified mean in this context?

Register.

Registered the re the residents and they're registered do we use the word qualified throughout of course i mean you know in all of our I'm just looking at the other ballot language to say if they're elected candidates qualified electors well I'm just wondering if the language is consistent in in all of the different places where we talk about voters we don't say qualified voters anywhere else do we yeah we don't we do all right could you help me find in in this we don't we should so we've oh well we can we can work with that language a little bit I just wondered when you said qualified because it was specific to word if it meant the qualified meant the geography qualified versus whether or not they um meet all the requirements to be a voter that it would include that maybe maybe that's what we ought to say though uh well it says within the word doesn't it living within if I could go ahead Carson go ahead um I I think you probably need to use the words and this is maybe a Greg question qualified electors everywhere because if you look at the the the sentence that Deanna's trying to change it says only the residents living within a specific ward may vote for that ward's commissioner that's not accurate it the residents living are not quali are not allowed to vote it's the qualified electors in the ward that may vote you see what I'm saying and we we seem to use the words residents um interchangeably with qualified electors and and technic the technical term is qualified electors and Carson um are is the word electors and voters synonymous well that's that's a good question um yes that's what it means what you and I think of when we talk about voters is our qualified electors so you could say um for the bottom sentence that that we're talking about instead of saying only the residents you could say only the voters living within or only the qualified electors within a specific ward may vote for that ward's commissioners but there ought to be um parallel parallel with them so if you have at-large voting you use the word qualified electors for the thing below it it ought to say qualified electors um and then limited by where they're living you see what uh and I say I don't know if that's what the end is trying to say or not but I think so.

Yes.

Okay thank you.

And and we should probably double check the language throughout that and if we decide to use qualified electors I think that's a good term to look to use.

I'm struggling with electors only because I I think of I wonder if uh the electors are the people who show up to the yeah I had a number of friends who got who are actually at the courthouse counting the election ballots are they the electors or am I elector because I live here and I can vote you know and so I think voters is such a such an easy word that everyone understands I'll agree with that.

So you let's think electoral college too that's where I went and we don't qualified voters is yeah qualified voters I think is just an easier word because I think we use more.

Okay that's it for me.

Okay.

I obviously don't have any edits because I wrote it um public comment can I go to mine oh sorry you didn't go to yours no it's okay.

No worries.

Am I am I keeping you waiting, Daniel though?

Let's go to the cover letter, please on page three.

Okay.

I would like to suggest at the um where did that go?

The last paragraph.

Yes, I'm sorry.

We are keeping the last paragraph.

We're just changing the word adoption.

So therefore, I would like to recommend where the uh we have the second sentence for transparency.

You can find a summary of all proposed edits on the city website.

My two questions are do we want to keep it the city website versus the study commission website?

And whatever we decide there, let's put the link in right away.

I hate for people to have to try to find things like that.

Okay.

And do we want it to read the city website or the study commission?

Boseman Study.com website.

I would say that too.

Thank you.

All right, moving right along, page four.

And that is um report summary in the second paragraph.

I'd like to suggest we replace the word potentially to the composition of the city commission with possibility as options.

Will you tell me what paragraph you're in?

Sorry, second paragraph on the report summary.

Okay.

Um in the first sentence, I'll read the first sentence then.

Well, we are not changing the powers, etc.

etc.

Important amendments to the charter and potentially to the composition of the city commission.

My concern with the word potentially as compared to possibility as options to the composition of the city commission, potentially we seemed more firm in my thinking.

It sounded like we're gonna make this happen, potentially make it happen.

Where it possibly doesn't, it we're possibly as options to the composition of the city commission.

Thank you.

Page five.

We're on the compensation board.

Uh number two.

Okay.

Um we're back to this.

Um we now said commissioners and mayor compensation.

Uh I want to correct the word compensation committee to actually read board because we've said board throughout, and it is a city board.

Compensation board.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

Going on further on page five and number four, three branches of the government.

It's not the preamble that reinforces that there are three branches, it is the actual language of the um powers of the city, which is article one, section one oh one, not the preamble.

Correct?

Well, the preamble.

Um, you're right.

So where is it?

It's in other words, going to the powers.

It's in the powers section.

So it's the powers uh section in article one, section one point oh one powers of the city.

Okay, it's just moving that same thing down one article.

Oh and page.

It's article one, you said.

Yeah, it's it's in article one.

Got it.

Okay, yeah, section one on one.

Um page six in sub options, kind of going along the the thinking of Deanna.

I was going to suggest that we reverse under sub-options under the second and third sub-option.

Uh let me just see.

Um, I was trying to have the sub-option number two uh start with at large and end with, in other words, flip that sentence, we'll ask voters to decide whether to elect city commissioners by, or to elect city commissioners, to continue to elect city commissioners, sorry, at large with no geographic residence requirement, or whether to elect city commissioners by wards.

Because moving right into sub option three, they're going to talk about wards, so it's sort of a continuity issue for me to start with the at-large, the current system, and then whether to change it with the election of city commissioners by wards.

Then as you move to suboption number three, which will be based on suboption number two, which is that starts right out with should voters approve ward-based residency requirements, they will decide on these things.

Maybe we eliminate that to elect city commissioners at large, period, period.

But in this case, it would start out with at large and then go to the words or to decide whether to be commissioners.

Go ahead, Carson.

Sorry.

Yep.

Yeah.

And so you do the way it is first in the way it might be if they opt for it.

That's saying it so much better than I did.

Thank you.

So what I've got now is um sub option two will ask voters to decide whether to continue to elect commissioners at large, where commissioners can live anywhere within the city limits, or elect city commissioners by wards.

Where they need to live within.

Well, do we want to take that that section out as uh with no geographical residency requirement, but just at large?

I think that the fact that that is not just that all commissioners, all people get to vote for all commissioners, but you also have to live in that neighborhood or ward, right?

This is the um electing commissioners at large if it goes on to say with no geographical residency residency requirement.

Do we want to eliminate the with no geographical residency requirement?

Yeah, I took that out.

Hang on.

Okay, and then you live.

So how about we'll ask voters to decide whether to continue to elect commissioners at large where commissioners can live anywhere within the city limits, or elect city city commissioners by wards where commissioners must live within the ward they serve.

Okay, I think that for me that is clarifying.

That duck swims.

Okay.

On page eight with the number seven on the chart, where we have citizen participation slash appointments to boards, etc.

Given that we've changed the language to read public education or public engagement or public participation, can we label that public participation or public engagement?

Oh, for that characteristics number seven.

So it's the same as what we've just amended, the um proposed the amendment.

And oh, my very last one is I think the signatures for all of these um documents all have an order, and I think they should start with Carson as they do, they should go to Becky second as the vice chair, and then follow in the alphabetical order that's currently there.

Okay, it seems weird to have you way down in the bottom because of the alphabetical order, not the leadership role.

Thank you.

Can we revisit uh the number seven um in the chart?

Yeah, DJ.

Um I do think that citizen participation is an important distinction because public participation could invite the participation by anybody in the public, uh, including those who are brought in from uh outside of the city, which has been a practice that we've noticed in recent um demonstrations and public uh um public demonstrations, and so I think citizen uh limits it to um uh citizens of Bozeman, or we could say resident, um resident, or I like the idea of citizen, but uh I think public is too broad in that context, even though it's connected to appointments to boards, that resident or that public would, in other words, they've got to qualify for the boards on so many levels, right?

There's a whole batch of requirements to be on a board.

So maybe resident engagement appointments to boards, or resident participation since you've got participation there.

I thought we took it out, okay.

Participation got it.

In other words, this is sort of the current characteristic I was trying to keep.

But then we're now adding, and as you said, proposed form of government uh regarding the role of public engagement, so that you've covered it there, and then the evaluation.

Got it.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

Anything else?

You lost me there for a sec.

Um I just want to note that on some citizen boards in the past, you've actually uh citizen boards, city boards, of city advisory boards.

We have invited people from that don't live in the city from the county to participate on some of the boards that um with the concept of you know we're all one big community, so transportation usually has a county uh person or two on it.

Um even the bike board when there was a bike board had a county representative on the bike board.

Now, some of it's statutory, and and we're not dealing with that, but uh I think public is a much better term um than citizen or even resident because sometimes you want people on citizen advisory boards that are affected by the decisions that are made, but don't necessarily live um within the city.

How about we just say no?

How about we just say participation and appointments to boards?

Yeah, call it there.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I apparently I have my hand raised and didn't know it.

Is it unraised?

It's unraised.

Good.

And then you ask for one other thing.

I I thought of one more thing, may I?

Um page seven, the thing that starts with exhibit F.

F.

Recommendations from the study commission.

Yeah, F is in Frank.

Recommendations, and there's uh Roman normal II, yeah.

Um, I would add this will ensure this is the lesson.

This will ensure that candidates, residents, and commissioners understand the commitment and duties of the elected elected offices that are sought.

I I did it backwards.

That will ensure that candidates and commissioners and residents understand the commitment and duties of the elective office that is sought.

In other words, we want the public to also understand what it is that their commissioners are doing, can we just say candidates comma commissioners and residents?

Without two hands.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Good good.

Good catch.

All right.

Any public input there?

Okay.

How about online?

No, we're done.

All right.

Well, Yahoo, Gidea.

I made all those changes.

I've got uh some in red here that I will change.

Um and then also do the order, but we're otherwise we're good.

Could we have a five-minute break?

I'm just gonna say I love that.

Thank you.

Carson, you ready?

Yes.

Okay.

We're gonna bring this uh gig back to order, call the meeting back to order, and we are now looking at the charter itself.

Um we've amended it a number of times.

Those uh edits are reflective here.

Um this document will then go into the repository where all the other edits are, and the next version we see is going to be a clean copy.

Um, so with that, um Jan, how many edits do you have?

Or potential amendments?

Yeah, let's see.

Not as many.

It looks like maybe five or six.

Okay.

Um Diana, how many do you have?

Um, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Okay, Carson.

I'm looking, I think I have one.

Okay.

Um, just want to make sure everyone's got the um document that says May 31st, 2026 on the top.

Yeah, um, to make sure that we're have the right that we're looking the right thing.

Um, if it's a substantive change, I'm gonna ask everyone to bring it forward as um a motion.

If it's if it's a small something like we just did on a lot of the report things, and it's like yeah, what if we turn potentially to possible?

That's that's a simple.

We don't have to we don't have to do a motion for that, but if it's anything substantive, I'm gonna ask you to start with the motion, and if we get a second, we're gonna keep rolling, and if we don't, then we're gonna keep rolling.

Um so that's kind of how we're gonna we're gonna go.

Uh, who would like to start?

I'll throw it up in the air.

Why not Carson with one?

Carson, since you're a singular over there and you're online and it's during your dinner time.

Why don't you start?

Remember to start with.

Remember to start with their this is not a paginated document, so please start with um the article, the section, the letter, narrow us down, not page, it's not paginated.

Mine has page numbers, but maybe um, oh yeah, it does hey.

Isn't that special?

I paginated it.

It was from Thailand, so you know give me a break.

So, um the place is that I have is section 2.04 compensation, and it that starts on page the bottom of page three and goes to the top of page four.

Got it.

So on the top of page four, we passed um the Gallatin County area median income for a family of four.

Actually, the correct term is a household of four, um, and then you all cut that out.

Um I'm happy to discuss what that means, but the area of median income for a household of four or two or one is a specific sum that's calculated.

Um every I think it's every year, and and I used it in this section specifically to have a standard um a set fee that no one has um any um input into for that part of it and so I I don't think you all um can take out for a family of four um without further discussion so I I don't think I'm making a motion to add it back in.

Um making a motion to put it the way we passed it.

Um we did, of course, give you guys um latitude to make the wording better than it was, and you have done that.

Um but the other piece in here that um is missing is the the percentages that we're talking about um uh for the specific is basically based on a 40 hour work week and the concept was that um the the board would say all right based on what we've heard and what we understand and what the job description is, all of those things, the commissioner is expected in the next year to work, let's say 30 hours a week.

That creates the ratio between a 30 hour week and a 40 hour week, 75%, and so the commissioners will get 75% of the um average of the um of the Gallatin County area median income for a family of four.

So um I I'd like to put the concept of percentage of a 40 hour work week back into um what happened so so as to make it clearer.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

I'd certainly like to agree or I would second it if it was a needing to be a motion.

Yeah, let's go ahead and I mean um I see that you know Barbara and I it was passed as uh family of four.

What you're saying is a household household of four is the most more appropriate language, and um that that's the metric that's used kind of you know outside of this room kind of thing, um, and then appropriate percentage of our 40-hour work week.

Was that approved before Carson?

But we just took it out.

Okay, so yeah, so to add those things, we've already approved it.

Oh, great.

And every time I use the word average, I mean area, so correct that on the record too.

Area median income.

Okay.

Deanna, it's my understanding that uh elected officials are on salaries, not hourly uh wages.

And um, so I think that putting percentage of hours or any of that language would be um out of place.

So um, appropriate percentage of a full full-time position.

Well, that also is not 40 hours.

Uh we're not determining whether the positions are full-time or part-time.

Oh, it's an appropriate percentage of a full-time position.

Appropriate percentage of what?

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

An elected official um is salaried, and so there aren't a specific number of hours that they um need to report to or um I think we would want to look even at the county commission language again, Carson, because um they are several read and you know, in many cases are working more than full time, and then they also have the ability to be flexible and and work fewer hours in the next week or month.

So and I don't have that right now, but is that a place we could go to try to make this work?

I don't think I don't I looked at the county language and I didn't think it did it.

This is not saying that it's an hourly job, it's setting a salary based on a percentage of a 40 hour work week and a figure that is otherwise calculated um um neutrally and uh unconnected to the job at all and so the idea is to have some form of fair pay for the people who are commissioners and the mayor based on the approximate expected amount of work that they're gonna do and um that's the the goal of it and the county commission uh um standard is a little more subjective or um um doesn't have quite the same um objective standard like the uh area median income which uh which I think is a good thing particularly since it's the median income and so that's why we set it up this way right can we use the word then salary because I wanted to take out the hours per week myself when we get to that but can we really talk about it as a salary standard that uses the Gallon County average media income.

I think that you can call a salary a salary you're creating the amount of the salary exactly by creating a proportion to the average full work week that is expected that the people are going to work.

That's what the that's what the idea is so uh based on what Deanna was saying here's what I would recommend that it be determined based on an appropriate percentage of a full-time position of the Gallatin County area median income for a household of four so what pos what percentage of a full-time position because it's one FTE point.75 FTE.5 FTE that's called a full time equivalent I think that's good I think that will work back and you know we're gonna get in we're gonna get input on this on June 18th and um so we can listen and see what see what comes with that too.

Okay so I've added back in what we already voted on and change took out though that um 40 hour work week because that um to your point isn't necessarily salary positions are listed that way the FTE's full-time equivalents and then instead of family family of four a household of four and instead of area it's average why would we do a family oh it's an area area is right oh area is right oh thank you why would we choose a family of four it's a household of four because it's a standard by which um uh yeah income is measured it doesn't mean that you have to have four people what if it's a single person then it's less so when you look at yeah so the standard calculates less for a single person yeah yeah yeah yeah it's just you have to start that you can start somewhere and that's the that's kind of how it's measured it reminds me of um uh you know with uh with Boseman Health we we talk about access and and the the measure comes out it's like access is being able to at least get the third appointment of your wish and we're like why the third appointment of your wish that's just how it's measured like got it okay great that's how it's measured perfect uh so sticking with the more natural uh Carson are you done uh also procedurally was there a motion or was that not a motion it wasn't a motion because um it it was a motion but bar bar had taken it out of something that was already voted in.

Okay.

So that we did not need a motion on that one.

I just want to make sure yeah thank you're asking that yeah.

Yeah.

That's it for me.

That's it for you.

All right.

Um, we'll go alphabetical then, so Deanna, you're next.

Uh, do you want one at a time, or are we going to go through?

You guys have okay.

Yeah so um article uh eight.

Which page?

Uh page uh 8.1.

Okay.

If we get to Article 8, um we're going to do uh 8.04 D number five.

804 D number five.

D as in David number five.

How how happy are you that we don't have two eight point oh fours anymore?

Very happy.

That's pretty good, don't you think Deanna?

So that's on uh page 16.

Thank you.

Okay, go ahead.

Number five.

Was that there's that point eight or four?

Is that because that's not uh, when practicable, the ink shall be consulted?

So, there we go, number five here.

So, um removing um when practical in its entirety.

I move to remove in practicable uh from this uh in and in its entirety, uh, because it weakens the accountability, uh hold on one second, and then just have it start with just the ink shall be consulted, ink shall be consulted during the formative stages of citywide planning efforts, policy initiatives and budgeting discussions that affect neighborhood associations, so delete when practical.

I don't have any problem with that.

I think it's the goal is to hopefully have it still remain as something that's clear about this consultation rather than thinking the practicable would create um unfairness, Carson.

How are you feeling about that when practicable taking that up can't hear you?

Still can't hear you mute.

We have to be a little more flexible, and I like the use of the word when practicable, um, because I I think and I think Joey was speaking to it a little bit, we're creating a little bit too much of a the commission must, and um you know, look read it with paragraph six, um, when ink develops recommendations.

How much what's the right balance?

And I guess that's in my mind that's the question is how to the neighborhood associations and the commission create the right balance between recommendations and ideas coming up from Inc.

and getting proposed to Inc.

for their input and um and how much um that will work and uh I I think that the um the flexibility of when practicable is fine the way it's written, and I wouldn't mess with it.

Carson, I I would agree with you.

I was also looking at the um end of that sentence, which is just the all of these things are there uh when the discussions affect neighborhood associations.

So does that not provide the balance that you're talking about without practicable?

That's what I was thinking too.

It's not like every citywide, every citywide policy budget, etc., but it's really how the neighborhood associations are affected by any of these coming up, right?

And I don't think practicable is gonna help one way or the other.

Well, and maybe maybe also when I look at this, should should the commission go to Inc.

or the city staff go to ink, or should they go to the affected neighborhood association?

Both.

Well, I think ink is the way to get ink is the leadership of the neighborhood association that's affected.

And I think there's there could be plenty of initiatives, policy industries, budget discussions that affect more than one neighborhood, and then that would leave Inc.

to be able to do that.

Um, do you want to go ahead and make a motion?

I did, but I'll move again.

We remove when practicable from number five of uh 804 D.

Okay, a motion's been made.

Do we have a second?

Oh second.

We've got a motion and second.

Any further conversation?

Any public input?

Okay, any public input online?

No, we know.

Okay, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Go ahead, Deanna.

Okay, I move to amend section eight.04 D number seven.

So just scroll down here.

It report D number seven.

Okay, as applicable, um, uh and to remove as applicable.

Uh and again um it creates uh uh ambiguity and uh a certain amount of uh arbitration when actually uh the city specific obligations apply.

Carson, what do you think?

I think you're you're pressing up against um pushing giving too much the in the balance of power.

I think you're giving public power to um I don't know what's happening there, but uh it sounds interesting.

Becky's on the lamp, but go ahead.

I think the the as applicable applies to is it the city commission, or is it the city manager that provides timely responses?

And so with that with that clause modifying the one or the other, I think it it makes total sense the way it is.

I I'm I'm a little wary of the including an explanation of how such input was considered and the reasons for any divergence.

Um I I think it gets to that thing that Jan that you wanted to add that is added as a recommendation, and that is when is the commission or the staff in a position where they must respond to something, and um how do we set the boundaries in the balance for that?

I I think what we're creating here is a really important experiment in how much um the city commission and the neighborhood associations are going to work together, and if they um in the next 10 years work together really effectively, and they have that balance and understanding of um, you know, the commission can do so much, this the neighborhood associations can do so much, and together they're building a better Bozeman, then I think we're then I think we're good.

Um, but if it goes awry, and some of the the clauses that we put in the charter end up being used as bludgeons to um get the city commission to consider things over and over again, um, that um perhaps it has considered in the past, then it gets it gets a little bit dicey.

And so this is really um I think a a document which, if we all get behind and say, all right, we're gonna do this and we're gonna maintain a really good balance um between um the commission the staff and the neighborhood associations it's good but um i in other words um who who answers is it the city commissioner the city manager it's the the appropriate party and it partly will depend on where the inquiry uh or the response is where the recommendation is directed um who will give the response so i don't see any problem with the word as applicable may i comment pardon me may i comment yeah and also uh would you like to make a motion oh i didn't either do you want to oh okay oh okay so i did make a motion okay i i i would just like to respond to Carson go ahead and do that no last for a second oh okay uh Carson that that's all well and good what you said working together and so on and so forth but but the uh the the um it's in very important that language be precise and clear if that is the outcome that we're looking for and in this case this is very ambiguous does the as applicable um uh refer to the choice between the city commission and the city manager or does it apply to uh as applicable shall provide timely responses that is not clear in this language and so removing it uh we simply say the city commission or the city manager shall provide timely responses which was the intent of the um of the um uh clause so um it it if if we want everybody working together nicely then we must um create a document that is very clear and precise and this isn't so let's get we've yeah let's go ahead and get get a second um so that we can further discuss otherwise we we need to move on so we've got a motion on the table is there a second I want to amend it in a different way so I don't shall I second this go ahead and second it for the uh for the sake of further discussion okay okay we have a we have a motion a second Jan.

Well I would like to remove that last section of including an explanation again I think it's I won't use the words micromanage but I do think it's really moving into policy and not structure.

If we keep it the words shall provide timely responses to recommendations city commissioner city manager um but I would like to um strike that including phrase at the end of that number seven so what you're saying you want to take out as applicable and including an explanation on how such input is considered and the reasons for any divergence I would I would second that would that be okay for to change your motion no because that takes the meat out of this this was a very meaty clause that we discussed at great length and we had a lot of public input on this and I think to categorically rip it at the last moment is uh really um um not uh uh uh not fair to the public okay so we've got a motion on the table to strike as applicable we have a second all in favor uh public comment I remember yeah I guess star uh Daniel Cardi Bozon resident um I do support removing as applicable because it is unclear whether it applies to the city commission or city manager or whether it applies to an explanation.

So I would support removing it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further public comment?

Not right no okay um I would just like to say that um I haven't comment uh yet I I am gonna vote in favor of this because as applicable is just as applicable, whatever the hell you say it.

It is vague.

And we're trying to take out vague, vagueness.

And so we've struck we've striked a number of things because it's vague.

That's vague.

And because what exactly does it mean?

I can see that that can be a problem.

And hopefully, Carson, to your point, because I really am really hearing your point too.

I'm hoping people are reasonable as well.

So all those things are kind of true at the same time.

If there was a different word that that could be used, but as applicable as just as applicable, is vague.

So all right.

Any further discussion?

I'm sorry, the motion in front of us is to strike as applicable.

Okay.

Yeah, just to strike the two words.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

So we we strike those two words.

Um four to zero.

And we so moving on to that same um uh that same passage, uh, striking the ver the phrase provide reasons reasons for divergence and replacing it with provide formal written findings detailing the reasons for divergence, which shall be attached to the final action and distributed to the related neighborhood associations, all right.

So we have a motion on the table.

Do we have a second?

Seeing no second, the motion fails due to lack of a second.

Okay, um, then moving on to number eight uh in that same section.

Um I would um strike this um uh in its entirety, because um uh it's it's it's advisory rather than foundational, and uh the and I'll just read it the city of Bozeman neighborhood Delia San shall work with the inner neighborhood council to expand the neighborhood program and develop boundaries to include all residents in the neighborhood association, and we talked at length about this not being a function of a city staff person, but that the neighborhoods would be um organic and formed by the residents of the neighborhood, and therefore this is very prescriptive and it's not uh in alignment with uh the public comment that we got and and the work that we did in this regard.

So your motion is to strike number eight, strike number eight in its entirety.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Seeing no second, the motion fails due to lack of a second.

So we're not going to keep our word to the do you have another motion?

Uh move to amend section 805 um a um by striking the phrase and assist in public education on matters within their purview, which is uh the last sentence there and assist in public education on matters within the so the whole sentence reads city boards provide advice and recommendations to the city commission semicolon, encourage public participation in civic affairs semicolon, and assist in public education on matters within their purview.

And your your motion is to strike that last section phrase and end it after participation in civic civic affairs, okay.

Um we have a motion.

Do we have a second on that?

No, we do not have a second motion fails due to lack of a second okay uh 805 uh case if you can scroll down uh Caleb uh number one um and strike the phrase not less than twice annually and replace it uh with the following text by individually posting each board vacancy across the city's official official digital and social media platforms for a minimum of 30 days prior to filling the uh position and uh you know and it's clear a simple biannual um advertisement does not adequately inform uh the public so we have a motion could I make a second I mean I want to make a second I want to make a comment yeah um Deanna I would like to see a both and with that I agree with what you want to I think accomplish but I think it should be a regular ongoing you know a twice or more annually because people come and go people come into the city they if it's only at 30 days minimum um that's a good reminder along with um an ongoing um advertising process so I I would not I would not second only a 30 30 day so leave the 30 days in there and then add yeah what are you saying gene okay oh in other words to keep the ongoing um twice you know not less than twice only and in addition to have the 30 day that you're talking about okay people are receiving of it I would accept that okay if you'll make that I'll second it because I don't think we do enough either so can you so it's stay the way it is but you're adding adding yeah adding um the uh individually posting of each vacancy across the cities uh so adding that to what is already there can you figure out how to use less words okay I was supporting it with three days uh where are we uh so it would read um the following public uh will be appointed by the commission or the mayor when required by law following public solicitation advertised not less than twice annually and post and posted or at least 30 individual could I even suggest something different I don't like the words not less than I think it should be proactive advertised at least twice and annually and um 30 days before the vacancy if that was your intention yeah um but we wanted across um digital and social media platforms for a minimum of 30 days prior and you want to take the minimum out it's not there right I mean but I would even I would even expect it should be more than that.

More than 30 days no I'm sorry about all of the ways in which we do it but do we need to put all of the ways in which we do that I'd be very reticent to do that just because the ways that we advertise today might be very different than the ways that we you know we we ran into that in the last charter that was listed in 2006 that we're supposed to you know put it in the newspaper and at the time that sounded like a great idea that it put it in the newspaper but now of course that changes so um what if we had um all city boards will be established by the city commission members will be appointed by this commission and the mayor when required by law following public solicitation uh advertised at least twice annually for a minimum of 30 days prior to the vacancy and and a minimum or with the minimum of 30 days before each vacancy oh good sorry and and you're saying take out the uh prescription that it be digital and social media yeah that's kinda is that okay with you uh deanna yeah so you you you've mended your motion Jan you're gonna second that amended motion yes and any public comment on that none from the crowd how about online all right all in favor say aye oh well we're gonna have discussion oh yeah uh Carson you talk about being prescriptive this is so over the top prescriptive it's ridiculous and to give 30 days notice means at least 30 days notice means you're not gonna fill a vacancy for 30 days when sometimes you want to fill the vacancy and I would argue that if it's posted on the website and it's posted in the newspaper twice annually the city website that that's a minimum and you don't want to tell them to they have to do any more and certainly the 30 day limit is is potentially problematic and I think it's actually fine the way it's written I can see that I can see that angle too Diana is there a problem that this is solving.

Well it's solving the problem of uh the commission quickly appointing its uh um preferred members on to various boards and uh committees and ad hoc things um when it should be um uh uh very widely uh uh it should be a wide opportunity for for anyone in the city and it should not be uh hidden behind uh two annual um announcements we're seeking public participation I think I'm per I think I'm persuaded to not be I don't want to be prescriptive too many times but I think that the twice at least the words twice at least twice annually would be helpful and I'm not sure you know the larger question of who gets appointed and all of that I'm not sure this is going to solve that problem is why I was asking the question I I can agree with the fact that that's happening I think there's some other solutions than this that will prevent it or at least attempt to uh I I can I can see what you're saying Carson I really can and um I can also understand Deanna what you're saying and um for a minimum of 30 days prior to the vacancy being filled and I'm trying to think of an emergency situation where a board must have somebody in its seat within 30 days and I am having a hard time coming out of the situation where that might be and and this would stop someone from saying oh Jan you're coming off this board I'm just gonna quickly appoint your buddy and now we got the same voice because it's your friend you know what I mean and um and meanwhile that poor Dan there wants to be on that board, but he never heard about it.

And now all of a sudden your buddy is appointed, so it at least have to be you know listed um and not just boom, but but listed for a while so that uh poor Dan has a chance to see that he could be on the board.

And so I'm and given that I'm struggling thinking that this could ever be a bad idea, but I might not be thinking enough either.

It's been a long day.

Yeah, and I think number two is honestly trying to address uh some of the issues in number one, and that's where I think I would put my emphasis.

So can I weigh in a little bit here?

Yeah.

Um sometimes what happens is um someone doesn't show up for a board, um, they move out of town and they don't tell anybody.

They lose interest or whatever.

And so what happens is there's a meeting and they're not there, and most of the boards sort of use that three-meeting rule.

So you could have a board say it has monthly meetings, and they go three or four months without that one member.

And in the meantime, um, in my experience, um, people that are interested in boards are following the boards, and so they're they're looking to see what's going on, um, and they're looking to see when there's an opening.

So it's not if you have if you then have to give 30 days notice, you have a position on the board that's maybe gone four or five or six months, depending on how often the board without that board member and without that public input.

And um it's also where you get vacancies is when terms expire, and certainly uh I don't know what they're doing now, but in the past they were always advertising those boards uh well in advance of when the terms expire or when people say I'm leaving at the end of my term.

Um so it it's to 30 days is um is not necessarily what um the board, you know, the board is without anybody from uh filling that spot from the public.

It's not a 30-day thing, it's more like a um three or four month thing in many situations in many cases.

Um, and I I don't know, maybe there are people that um don't um know or follow what's going on with the boards, but at least my experience years ago was people were anxious to be on the boards, they applied for them, they paid attention, and when a vacancy came up, um th there were ways of letting people know without being as prescriptive as as we are with the with the proposed amendment.

Um I don't think um that the problem is the commission finds people that they favor to be on given boards so the the assumption of the amendment is that the commission is about trying to find people that um are their favorite people or I don't know what it is um exactly, but I I didn't I don't think that's the case, and I I think it's um it it's suggesting that the commission is these people that get elected, and when they get elected, they're they love the power and they're just using it in any way that they can, um, and that they're um filling the boards with people that agree with them so that they um won't have any controversy.

I just I think that's not the problem.

The problem is um we don't have enough people involved in boards, and um the the way to get people involved in boards is uh to let people know about it, but um to encourage them to be involved, and um I don't think that the the notice stuff is um is what's needed to solve the problem.

May I come all right?

Um yes, and then we're gonna take a vote on this because we're gonna move along.

Go ahead.

Well, I I I would like to comment on on what you've just said, Carson, because it doesn't make very much sense.

Uh you're you're saying in the past that uh you had ways of letting people know what when there were vacancies on the board, and that's just the thing we're trying to um eliminate is uh uh commissioners using their ways.

Uh and instead we're prescribing that um when these vacancies uh occur that everybody uh has an opportunity, an equal opportunity uh through awareness to uh apply for that position.

So um not um you said not enough people, not enough enough people involved.

So uh that would that in itself would indicate that we need more noticing uh of these vacancies so that people can get involved.

So I have to say that the that your objections uh don't really uh drive with uh the problem here, and I think that we are looking at uh a problem that you yourself noted that past commissions have had their ways and that people uh didn't get involved.

So, best way is plenty of notifications.

So you know, I I hope that um uh this amendment will pass.

Could we sorry?

What what I what I meant to say was that um we went from 40 boards to a lot fewer, a lot of community involvement and a lot of boards, and um what we're trying to do with the changes to the charter, is increase more involvement in the board in the boards.

The problem is not that the city commissioners are filling the boards with the people that they think are yes people.

We don't know that.

Oh well, um, I think it's an incredibly incredibly presumptive to assume that people that get elected automatically fall into the position of wanting the power and somehow managing the power so that they get exactly what they want.

Elected for people if you think that.

Hang on, Sienna, please.

Carson, we let's just not talk on top of each other.

Okay, I'm done.

Okay, okay.

Um, we've got a motion, we've got a second on the table.

Um, and we've had some discussion.

We've asked for public comment, and so at this point I'm gonna call the call the vote a public comment.

Could you um sorry before also could you repeat the motion, please?

So um it would read um that it would uh following public solicitation advertised at least twice annually.

That's just a wording situation for a minimum of 30 days prior to the vacancy being filled.

That's that's what's on the table.

And then I know you were gonna ask for public comment, or did you I didn't?

Okay, sorry.

I don't think on this one you did.

Did I do it again?

You did, but I did, thank you.

Thank you, Caleb.

I I already gave myself a gold star for asking for public comment.

So the fact that I didn't, I'm like, where's my star?

Um, so I'll give us a moment to think about it, and then I'm just gonna call for the vote.

We're gonna move on.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed, same sign.

Abstain.

Abstain.

Carson, can you help me if we have two ayes, one abstain and one nay.

Does it pass?

I don't know the answer to that one.

Jan, can we encourage you to vote?

One way or another.

It was your would you remote your area?

I I well, if I thought I the reason I asked for that uh clarification is I thought it still contained the at least twice annually plus the 30 days.

That's it.

Is that what you said?

So let me read it again.

Then yes, you could vote one way or another.

All city boards will be established by the city commission, and members will be appointed by the commission or the mayor when required by law, following public solicitation advertised at least twice annually for a minimum of 30 days prior to the vacancy being filled.

I'll change my vote to a yes.

Okay.

With that, it passes three to one.

All right.

Thank you, everybody.

And I appreciate everyone's comments and input because that's how we make decisions.

So thank you.

Okay, moving to um 805 uh C number three.

Okay.

Um, and I moved to strike this because it's now covered by 805 C number one.

Yeah, now that I'm reading that, the whole thing doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, it says for the public's understanding.

Appointments may be made to fill unexpected vacancies or vacancies not filled through the rest last round of advertisements from those applications on file as of the date of appointment.

Well, people applied, why wouldn't they just pick somebody who applied?

Well, if the board vacancies are posted as they arise, um there would not be a uh a need to um there wouldn't be unexpected vacancies.

Well, all vacancies might be unexpected.

I might piece out today, right?

So it could be unexpected.

I mean, vacancies are unexpected, so that's kind of a silly sentence there, too.

I wondered what appointments that that um it's a passive appointments will be made, but then by whom?

Is this assumed the city commission?

So Deanna, what you're saying is that you want to strike number three.

Strike it not all together.

I don't think it makes sense.

I would second that.

Carson.

Well, so uh I'm at a loss, and I'm having a little trouble following it from here, and I apologize for that.

That's my own problem.

You know, some vacancies, some of the committee committees um by state law, the mayor gets to appoint a certain number of slots, um, and so um and I think it was when I was the mayor, it was three slots on the planning board, which is now the the uh I can't remember what it's called community planning, um, and so um an unexpected vacancy could happen at any point.

Um someone dies, and um so if we eliminate this, um, and let's say it's a mayor will pick um what you say what's being said is um wait, similarized, um give at least 30 days notice of the vacancy, and um then the mayor picks anyway from the people that apply.

Uh um on the other hand, uh, we've changed what we've done in number one, and so I'm not sure I'm trying to figure out as I sit here off the top of my head, where what we lose by um getting rid of this, if anything.

That's what I'm kind of struggling with too.

Uh Carson, I can't see when we'd use number three, and I think it's just the fact that I had to read it three times, tells me maybe it's not written the best, and a little duplicate duplicative.

The fact that there's vacancies on city boards is always vacancies on city boards.

So that's just city boards rotate.

That's just how it works.

So I think number one covers it for me.

And I can't figure out a time when number three would come into play.

Jan, what do you want to share some of your words?

Yeah, I can't either.

Yeah.

I'm with you, Peggy.

Okay.

Public comment negative.

Public comment online.

No.

Let's go ahead and vote on this.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries four to zero.

Okay, eight oh five uh C number five.

So let's see.

Striking the phrase without public advertisements and replacing it with public notification and open application process for a minimum of 30 days prior to any appointments being made.

So number five is about the city commission may authorize the city manager to establish a special ad hoc commission for specific purposes without public advertisement.

And you're saying to eliminate without public advertisement, add everything else that you said.

And add um for the purposes of true transparency in our government, uh, with public notification and open application process for a minimum of 30 days prior to any appointments being made.

We have a we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Motion bills due to lack of a second.

May I ask why in this case we would not want, uh can you uh comment on that?

I'll give one comment, but we're not gonna have discussion about it.

Um the because the motion failed, right?

Um, but I will tell you that um occasionally uh the city city commission, I've seen it happen on boards all the time.

We just need a small task done.

I need Caleb and Mike to go do that.

I don't need to post this.

This is a short-term little tasky thing.

That's what ad hoc um things happen, and so in that way, um, in able to get business done in the city.

Sometimes we need to do that without public advertisement.

It was in the last charter.

We've got it in this charter.

I think that was a reason.

So do you have another motion?

Um I do.

So I move to amend uh section 805 uh 805 C.

Number one by adding an item that reads uh no member shall serve more than two consecutive four-year terms, so putting term limits on the board service.

Yes, do we have a motion?

Do we have a second?

Seeing none, the motion fails due to lack of a second.

Do you have another motion one more?

Okay.

I move to amend the charter by adding a new subsection to the advisory board provisions, establishing advisory board eligibility and conflict of interest standards.

Hang on just a second.

Can you tell us what section you're in?

What article?

This well, this is our uh this is um um uh the advisory board provisions.

So back up where we were uh advisory boards.

So where we were city boards, yeah, section 8.05.

Excuse me, yes, 8.05.

Would it be adding?

Are you wanting to add a number D, like Dog?

By adding um uh, yes, by adding, is it a D or is it a it would be a D like Dog?

Okay, okay.

Now I'm with you.

Um uh a subsection uh establishing advisory board eligibility and conflict of interest standards utilizing the text provided in the public comment, uh submitted by Valentin Count County or now Gallatin County Sentinel, Gallanton Valley Sentinel, excuse me.

And this is the language that they provided, which uh it is dense.

I I I will say, Dan, you got way too many words there, I can just see it from here.

It's their language, but you know, so we do have time.

The subsection is called eligibility, eligibility uh on the boards, and I think that it's something uh worth um uh worth considering, and um would you like me to read this?

Because uh uh Carlson doesn't have it.

I'm sorry.

So we don't have a digital copy of any of these things you could give to Caleb to put up so people can know what this is.

Can you just give us I'm sorry and cut you off, Jan?

Go ahead.

No, no, just just I this should be a digital um always we should provide digital copies.

Do you know if they submitted that one?

Yeah, it's it's in it's yeah, I just I just lifted it from their public comment, you haven't.

From 527.

Okay, I can look.

Let me give it a quick summary to what it is so that we understand the motion, then we can decide if we have a second.

So this is about eligibility.

Um to um that uh to advisory boards to advisory boards that it prohibits owners, partners, employees of any firm, organization, corporation currently under contract or bidding with a contract.

Um it uh prohibits staff, volunteer, board members of any for-profit or nonprofit organization or entity that's received a discretionary grant or financial consideration.

It prohibits any person with substantial indirect interest in the firm, organization, corporation.

Um if a member is on an advisory board and employer uh enters into a contractual relationship, then they have to step off.

All applicants uh have to submit a full disclosure of any professional financial volunteer ties, and um, is doing business with the city, should yet should a member's employment financial interest or organizational affiliation change during the term in a way that creates a potential conflict in the section.

Then you have to notify the city clerk within five days.

So that's it's really looking at what's that that eligibility to make sure that you have no connection.

Am I summarizing this correctly?

No connection with the the city uh in terms of making money or any financial interest, uh right.

It's it's a uh a pretty thorough conflict of interest clause uh to uh the advisory board eligibility, okay.

So we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Seeing no second motion fails due to lack of a second, and I would just say that we already have a whole conflict of interest section in this document, and uh conflicts of interest are regulated in a specific way.

So that's why I did not vote for that.

All right, so you have another motion.

The same for me.

Uh the uh that's it.

Okay, thank you so much for that.

Um, just a few.

Um page one of the preamble, going back to my beloved preamble, okay at the very end to the preamble, probably.

Yes.

Um, I noticed after a lot of discussion last time, we were trying to remove the word uh benefits twice, and yet they still appear, and the words actually secure the benefits of appear twice.

So I'd like to propose on the last sentence where it says by this action, remove the words by this action, we remove the words we've secured the benefits of to read by this action, self-governance and affirmation.

Sorry, why did I?

Let me just see what I wrote.

Okay.

Sorry, by this action, self-governance and the values.

Sorry.

We affirm.

Sorry, we affirm.

Thank you.

By this action, self-govern-governance and we affirm the values of so forth, representative democracy, human rights, professional management.

I also want to uh add a word here, which is elected before leadership.

So to read elected leadership, public engagement, and regional cooperation.

But it seemed less awkward when I wrote it out earlier.

So by this action.

We affirm the benefits.

Well, I'm trying to uh leave out the secure the benefits of because it's a repeat of the same thing.

We secure the benefits of local government.

Yes.

In the second in the first sentence, people talked a lot about taking out those same words repeated twice.

But it is we passed this in our last meeting.

Let me um but now that you've pointed that out.

Let's um I can wordsmith that and get rid of the two that that could be capping.

That was not something we mean.

It's not just wordsmithing, it's uh by this action we affirm uh the benefit the values values of self-governance, and you can skip that again.

Uh representative democracy, human rights, professional management.

Yeah, keeping elected.

Got it, okay.

Okay.

So that's great from a wordsmithing if everybody is consensus with that, but I would like to move then in that same sentence.

We add the word uh political, excuse me, elected to the uh in in it um, sorry, next to the word leadership to read um the values of representative democracy, human rights, professional management, elected leadership, public engagement, and regional cooperation.

If there's a second, I'll speak to it.

What does that add?

It adds the fact that leadership itself, which I think is very important part of defining representative democracy, be it elected leadership.

Leadership could be management, or it could be um appointed, it could be any type of leadership, but we want elected leadership, don't we?

But we're talking about values here.

True.

Values of uh leadership and public engagement, and we would be expecting leadership from all of our volunteers, volunteers, uh staff, um, everyone involved in government were valuing um professional matters.

So the broad definition of leadership.

I thought we had to remove the strong political, which to me represented um elected leadership, and I felt that that was kind of a vacancy in the preamble to not have it clearly spelled out as elected leadership.

So you got a motion on the table.

Are you making a motion to put elected leadership?

Maybe elected and other?

Now I'm getting it too deep.

Okay, I'll leave it as leadership.

I just wanted to make sure at a time that we're in and who knows what it can look like in the next 10 years that we are electing our leaders, and this doesn't say we are, unless representative democracy always means, and I'm gonna look over to Carson and anyone else.

Does representative democracy always mean elected leadership, Carson?

Democracy always what?

Oh, sorry, does uh representative democracy always mean elected leadership?

Well, it does in my mind.

Is that pretty much a consensus?

Um I would just say that because this is not just talking about our elected officials in this in this, um, our whole community uh secure that um affirms the values of self-government, governance, representative democracy, our whole communities has a value of human rights, professional management, and leadership.

We want people to step up to the table and be on an advisory board.

We want people to come and be on the ink and be part of the the um neighborhood associations and show up to volunteer their time like we are doing right now.

Um now, of course, we were elected, but most of our most of the community that comes forward to show a leadership position and show leadership in our community is not elected.

Um only a very few are elected actually, and I kind of like people like Mike Moss, who's the city clerk to be a leader as well.

Please and thank you.

So for me, I I would not be in favor at all about adding any kind of word before leadership.

I I can be comfortable with drawing that motion with that interpretation.

That sounds great, thank you.

Let's see.

I think we covered one, we covered compensation board.

Um, yeah, then I think um I'm done.

We covered a lot of other things that we have I do have one question.

Uh in the new um uh um in our in our um charter, where are we discussing um what we discussed in section five of the old charter?

What what would what is the title of that?

Well, it must be finance because my concern was about um, finance is now um article seven, six, article six is finance.

Okay, uh why am I not finding this?

Uh I'm sorry, um yeah, financial management uh in the in the document that I uh here it is uh in the in the old uh in the old charter, the original charter, what was section five point oh nine?

Five point and nine was uh five point, I mean six point oh nine.

Was what in uh independent audit?

No, in the in uh in the 2006 charter, in the original charter.

It was independent audit independent audit.

Okay.

Well, where is that in our 6.09?

6.09?

Yeah.

Oh, section five just switched to section six, okay.

Because we added the judge thing.

Okay, so then I do have one more amendment.

Okay.

If you would bear with me.

Uh so I move to amend section 6.09 by striking the final sentence in its entirety and establishing an absolute prohibition against an auditing accountant or firm performing other non-audit services for the city and removing the city's authority to waive this restriction.

Um, and the reason is simply that allowing an independent auditor to simultaneously contract for other paid work uh creates an inherent structural conflict of interest that compromises the city's um financial uh integrity and oversight.

I'll second that.

Okay, I'm sorry, I'm missing the point.

I'm reading the whole thing.

The city has an independent annual audit of all city accounts, and it shall be reformed in these accepted standards, and then it goes on to say no accountant or firm may provide other services to the city during this time.

Which other but it at the last sentence is so it it is it is best practice that it is a uh independent or uh financial uh organization that does the audit and so the fact that the last sentence says the city commission can waive that requirement, and it doesn't have to be independent, yeah.

No, okay, I I agree that should not be in there.

It was in the original charter, but we missed it.

I'm comfortable removing that without hearing from the financial people as to why it's in there, there it it's it's the way it's set up.

There must be a circumstance or a reason.

I have no idea what it is when there needs to be an exception to that, and so um I would leave it in there and suggest that um someone come to the public meeting in uh on June and explain it to us so that we can make a decision as to whether to leave it in or leave it out, but it's so specific.

Someone has thought it through, and there must be some reason for it.

I'm sure there is, I'm sure there is, but um uh it definitely is not uh in the interest of um financial integrity.

Um I would say too that you know this was written in 2006, and at that time the number of um uh financial organizations that were available may have been very slim, but that's not the case anymore.

Um and um, you know, when I look at the other organizations, um, it is very clear that you have to have an independent audit.

Um, and there's exactly no reason why you can't, uh, but I'm guessing that it was in the originally because of that.

I would be more apt to vote it out and then um ask one of us to inform the finance folks that we took it out and they can come to the public meeting public hearing on the 18th, and suggest we put it back in.

I'd rather run that way than the other way, um, because I'm guessing that's why they did that, which made made perfect sense at the time, or may have made perfect sense.

Let's give some um I'm happy to I'm happy to go either way as long as one of us is tasked with telling the financial people in the city that that's what we've done so that it's on their radar so that we can hear from them.

So I'd like to change my second and um ask Deanna, would you be willing to um make a motion to uh take out that sentence and ask Carson to go talk to the financial people and let them know that we took it out?

Is Carson agreeable to that?

Uh otherwise I mean, um I'll be worried that to do that.

Uh go ahead, Carson.

You've been volunteered.

But I'd be happy to do it.

I guess so.

Oh, and getting back into town next week.

Deanna's offered Carson.

Yeah, Dan is offered.

Uh okay, so we have a motion and a second on the table.

Um any public comment, any online, no, no, everyone's at the Mumford and Sons concert, which we're not.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Aye.

Okay.

With that, motion carries for zero.

And we have a charter that we are and a report.

You guys, this is big.

I'd like to all celebrate for a moment.

Yes, that we we made it, we survived, we arrived, we've we've thrived, and uh and made it.

And so um with that, uh Carson, I'm gonna ask you to run this next section while I uh make a quick stop uh on the planning for the June eighteenth public hearing.

Um you're gonna ask me to run it.

Oh, while you uh, I can do it, Carson.

It'll just be a short conversation.

But if you want to, so I wouldn't.

Because I I can't see anybody, I mean I can see the like if you raise your hand, Jen.

Jane, raise your hand.

Can you see it?

I saw Caleb's hand go up.

I didn't see yours.

I see movement.

Okay, so please you I yield any power that I have to you to run it, Jen.

Oh, look out, Carson.

Um we have one wonderful person here, Daniel, and that's the whole room besides Caleb and the rest of us.

So just to let you know that information.

So, yeah, let's look ahead for the public hearing.

We on June 18th, we moved it to the 18th at one of my suggestions actually to see if we could at least start the hearing itself a little bit later, 5 or 5 30, so we can finally recognize that some people have regular jobs and have not been able to be here, but we have some other business we probably can take up that isn't necessarily essential, and I don't know what that is, but I know it's been referenced from time to time.

So we can still start at 4 p.m.

It would still be advertised for whatever those other business items are that we need to take care of, but I'd like to suggest um at least from a timing standpoint.

What if we did start at 5 30 and gave people a chance to get off work and get over here?

Um, and if need be go go up to 7 30 or 8.

Uh I would be greatly in favor of that.

However, I don't think we should advertise uh like a starting at four so that we because we would have to advertise that so that we can do business.

I I think it would be better to um advertise the starting time at 5 30 so people know um uh the that's when we're starting.

Rather than thinking all they're starting at four, and by the time I get there at 5 30, they'll be done.

Right.

And I was reflecting, I think it was Barb, uh, when I had asked about starting the meeting a little later at 5 or 5 30 for the hearing to be able to have people that would want to be here in person, be able to finally be here in person.

But I didn't know what this other business might be, and I'm wondering um not to put you on the spot.

Uh Becky, do you have any idea what any other business would be if we did start at 5 30 that could be conducted earlier or differently in meeting our legal requirements?

Um we can start the meeting whenever we want, but one of the things that we were going to do is um make a decision on what level of engagement we want to work with the ballot election folks.

Um, and I think that you know, time is a little bit of the essence of so if we're gonna make that decision, we really need to do it on the 18th.

Um, because after that, when I don't think we meet until like the 30th or something like that.

Um and so then now it's July.

I mean, the the the vote is not until November.

So well, you know, the vote legally is not till November, but as we keep pointing out, the vote really starts the second week in October when the ballot was emailed, and 80% of the people at least have that choice to do that.

So let's chat a moment about just the timing, and then we can talk about special things and advertising and all of that.

Carson, what are your thoughts about the timing?

I'm seeing uh I'm fine with the timing.

I don't think that we want to talk about um the level of um the level of uh engagement with Daniel until the end of that meeting.

Meaning let's see um what what the uh who shows up, what they have to say, what the written comments are.

Um I'm hoping that people will look at this and um and let us know what they think, and then we can have a much better sense of one how much more we're gonna change because we could change um and um then so the Dangel conversation in my mind is not until the next meeting.

Um, when we get our arms around how much more change is gonna be.

For instance, if we end up having a meeting and the only people who come say, you know, you got it right, except the uh financial people who are gonna tell us what's right and what's not.

Um but if if if it's a lot of people telling us you got it right, then it's different than if it's a lot of people telling us oh this is wrong, and you know, on and on.

So I I I think I think we've done a really interesting and good job of trying to reset a balance so that um city government is um spreads its wings to more people.

Uh I think we're doing an experiment with uh citizen participation that is necessary and really an important part of what our future is, and um I think if people um believe that and are supportive of it, then it's a different choice as to what we do with Dangell.

Um, but I don't think we can tell till we have um you know this big meeting, and I hope it's a big meeting on June 18th, and um hear what people have to say about the work that we've done.

So I am going to respectfully disagree with you.

And here's why.

Given our history, I'm guessing we're gonna have 20 people show up to the public hearing.

If those 20 people understand or don't understand, I don't think that makes a boot bit of difference.

We still have to let the entire public know how to read this charter, what's in it, and what they're voting on.

And I think that's a big job, and so the level of engagement for these folks, I think it's dependent on that, not whether or not the 20 people who I mean, let's let's all cross our fingers a hundred people.

Let's just say a hundred.

But out of the 75,000 people that live in the city of Bozeman, 50,000 people, that's still not enough.

We still need them to really work their butts off to try to make it so that people can make an educated vote.

And I have not looked at the levels of engagement, I don't know what they are, but I I'd like them to say, here's your three options, and then we can all vote on doing that, and they can get to work and start getting busy.

And and also we all need to decide, you know.

I know I don't know about all you, but after the public hearing, I'm ready for a nap, right?

But we can't.

We can't take a nap, we gotta sit up straight and make sure that the public understands.

So we're gonna have to help with that, right?

We're gonna have to help with that, just like we did with the first public hearing.

We're gonna have to say, hey, I'm a member of the rotary, and come on over here and and pass stuff out and stand on the streets and go to the the um the sweet P and do all those things to make sure that the public understands, um, and in a legal way, of course.

So whether we do it at the beginning of the meeting or the end of the meeting, I think we need to get that puppy rolling.

Jane, you have something to say, I can tell.

Well, um, thank you.

I'm just also trying to just think about the whole tone and way that we can structure this meeting so it isn't the same old, same old.

I mean, even thinking if we started at five o'clock with a little social 30 minutes, a little bit of refreshments, we've got a big budget.

Uh people come when there's food, let's face it.

Um, it sets a tone, a different kind of tone.

Um, that maybe when we talked about it before uh Carson and others, that we wanted to have some small group kinds of discussions, that it isn't just people standing up in front of a podium like they always do, but maybe there's some sort of uh workshoppy discussions about sections of the charter before we even decide we want to open it up to a more of a four uh possible formal uh public comment portion of the meeting.

Uh and maybe the engagement decision is woven into uh one of those kind of workshoppy circles that people who are most interested in different topics could be a part of that, and we'd each facilitate one.

So I'm just kind of brainstorming out loud, but I think there's some ways that we can mix it up and advertise that and make it more appealing so that there's engagement literally here down on the floor, like we started with our last hearing.

And we're gonna have to start with some education too.

Like, this is what we're all talking about.

We could uh take the three um the three sub-options and two of the other big changes, biggest changes uh that we're making uh such as the deputy mayor, um, and um I don't know what the fifth would be and divide it.

And have com conversations with people who want to come and talk about them and start um at five with that and not convene the the formal public hearing till six o'clock.

I like that idea.

And I and I think you persuaded me, Becky, that um we need to uh make a decision on day guild and the the level.

Um the problem I have is uh my automatic um default is um we've really done a very interesting job of putting all this stuff together.

Um and um we uh uh my my predilection is to say let's go for it.

Um let's make everybody as informed as they possibly can be on it, um, so that they know what they're voting for.

And um so maybe that's not as hard a decision or dependent on anything else.

So you've you've won me over on that, but I would like to have that discussion after this meeting rather than before.

Um I don't know.

But could could we convene a subcommittee to try and organize this meeting so that we have um five conversations um informal with whoever can come at five and then start the meeting at at six, quarter to six, something like that.

I like that idea.

Well, I think we said 5 30, didn't we?

I think that uh these kind of these these topics are in public hearing.

Yeah, right.

It I don't think it's we're not all sitting there on chit chat and and you know, pre-game.

I just had suggested the first 30 minutes be a time people can be arriving.

There's some food, we advertise that, and then we settle in formally at 5 30.

And we take it, we segment all the topic so that it's digestible for folks.

Yeah, yeah.

Um Carson is um I'm just thinking about who um who can figure that out.

Um I'm happy to help facilitate that conversation and just you know, we need someone to to say what's what's in what's in the um the documents and then to be able to segment it off.

It's like now we're gonna talk about this, and really in the report, we've got those big topics summarized on the in the beginning.

Those are the ones that we can just start with, and then we can do each of those, and then we can open it up to everybody just saying any other public comment that you have about anything else that's in in in the charter or in the report, uh, please come forward, but we can take those those subtopics first.

Question, Deanna.

How uh is uh the room open to us?

Um definitely or do you know?

I don't know.

I I it must be if we're if we're talking about 5 30.

It's Thursday.

We we actually changed it to Thursday because it was open.

Okay, okay.

And that's I just want to be sure about that.

And then Becky, how soon will you be able to get the final, final draft of the charter?

Saturday at noon.

Saturday, this Saturday at noon.

This Saturday at noon.

Okay.

Um and the report, because I said I'd get it right after this meeting.

Um well that's great because then I think that we can start um promoting it immediately.

Um is there a way to put a document?

Uh could could I just ask one quick favor?

I would like us to just still fine-tune for just a few minutes the actual sort of program schedule.

Then let's hop in on a deep dive like you're you're doing because I'm not completely clear.

I just kind of went to speed dating.

Well, you got me at food.

So food's all I know.

Food at five o'clock, food to five o'clock meeting starts at 5 30 and it goes till 7 30.

I at least I think we should, you know, prepare ourselves.

Let's say there's a formal program of two hours.

People could still stay longer.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too, just to get people like you you are able to leave.

You won't have to bring your sleepers, right?

And um, uh I think that we had talked earlier about um giving generous time at the microphone for people, um, on this uh at the public hearings.

I didn't remember that.

What are you thinking is generous?

Well, I mean, mo there there will be some people who who will have more to say than can be said in three minutes.

And um uh Carson, I think was the one that talked about leniency here.

Uh Carson, were you talking about more than three minutes?

Uh you know, in the days when I facilitated public policy discussions on very controversial topics.

I I made it a point of going around in advance during the social time before and talking to the people that I knew had strong feelings one way or the other about it.

And and I would say to them, what do you think the most amount of time you need to give coded remarks on the topic before us?

And no one ever said more than five minutes, sometimes they said three minutes or four minutes.

Uh and I think we need to encourage people to prepare um or um be thoughtful about this, but I do think that um we could expand the time and again it will depend on how many people are here.

If there are a hundred people and they own a speak, probably five minutes isn't gonna work.

Um but um I I think we can assess the crowd, and I think I think if we do have a half an hour um time, we should just go around and talk to people, see what they think.

Um it's a way of them um owning their own comments, and um and come up with a number, three, four, five minutes.

Uh I don't have problems with five minutes if um if there's time to do it, and people uh are really trying hard to um give us the best form of comments that they can, unlike me, who is like half um coherent right now, but um, so I think there you are.

You know, one of the things I uh um when I served on the board of health that I thought about a lot is okay.

If we have five minutes for each person, one hour only twelve people get to speak.

So it's a it's a it's a mix of that.

I would say no more than five minutes.

Um but uh it you don't have to use the five minutes, because if it's only three minutes, then a whole bunch more people can speak.

You know, now you're up to 20 people who can speak within that hour.

Um but if all these people show up and we can only get 12 people, you know, so so l maybe let's think about up to five minutes, but if there's a hundred people in the room, we bring it back down to three.

Does that sound fair?

I think we could say three to five minutes.

Yeah.

And yeah, depending on the size of the group.

And then they can think about that too.

And then I guess I still want to go back to this sort of work workshop uh piece, which would be the small groups, right?

Are we gonna have the small groups for the first 30 45 minutes?

But a small groups mean five people only talking alone.

Oh no, no, I we'd I suggested we each take a major section for people to be able to uh sit, sit with uh one of us to facilitate the different pieces of the um uh of the charter.

I think we need to do that as a group, you know, that we walk through those those key topics, but everyone needs to talk about those key topics instead of a small group because if we're talking about should there be a deputy mayor, that's everybody needs to be able to say that.

I see I see uh Mr.

McCarty, but it's no makeup.

Well, I think it's also I think it's Mr.

Carter.

I think what you're describing as something we could do later on in public engagement, during the ballot education.

Yes, the ballot education then, okay.

No, I I I can see the difference, and also I try to think about people who are less comfortable in um in those kind of settings, but that may be that that first um 30, whatever, 40 minutes, whatever it was, um that we do go around and we are you know wearing little name tags which we don't have, and um have a have a way to be just you know listening to people and asking them.

Yeah, during the social time in the social time, you know, kind of where they are in even knowing what our process is.

You want a name tag that says city commission or city study commissioner?

They're cheap and we can have them made by then.

I think it would be really great to have that for all of us to say.

I want something more than cardio.

Well probably name tags, probably through the summer.

Uh through all of these engagement things, um so um those are $13 of uh a shot at the Trophy House.

Will you order them?

And I I'll order them.

Would you like um the state of Montana shape?

Yeah, yeah.

And would you like it in gold with um I worry about the state of Montana shape because that's the legislators legislators shape.

That's their shape, yeah.

You could do this, you could do the shape of Bozeman or a B or whatever.

Anyways, do whatever you want, but I think it needs to be.

If there's another choice, yeah, basically that's the only one I've seen over there, but but they may have square ones too.

Yeah, so it would just say um uh Bozeman City Study Commissioner, James Draw, Becky Franks, yeah, yeah.

Cause it it uh for the sweet pea.

Um everyone's been talking about having it, you know, tabling the sweet pea, and it would be very helpful to have them tags.

So let's do that.

What color would you like?

Um, well, we need to be intentional here, Becky.

Color is important.

We could do P green like the Bozeman.

We could see if they have a P green, Bozeman color.

Or or the or the blue, either the green or the blue.

That sounds good.

That sounds good.

Okay.

So then we would be um at let's say, depending on the size, when do we start then?

Do we do we start 5 30 sharp?

5 30.

Okay, so that's advertised.

But along with and if I could say Caleb, not putting you in charge of this, let's do more than cookies for food.

Let's see if we could have, yeah, pizza would be great, you know.

Uh something more substantial, maybe a case of LaCroix or some sparkling wire.

I think we say a case of beer.

I don't don't make me want that.

And um, but but just so we had something along those lines, and then cookies, or then, you know, these little candy bar things are and fruit bars.

That would be really great.

Fruit fresh fruit.

For fruit, always fruit, if you don't mind.

Yeah, I'll definitely send that over to Mike because I won't be able to make a decision on that, but I will let him know that there's requests for more and what it specifically was.

That would be that would be great.

Thank you.

And then you're gonna work on all the advertisements.

Yes, same time.

Okay.

Do we need to do any more on the program to actually say who will present on which part of the charter?

I think we do that with email.

Yeah, I think it's um, you know, in terms of facilitating the meeting.

Carson's been doing this, chair, I've been doing it as a vice chair.

Uh, I think facilitating this the way you you laid it out is gonna be really straightforward and simple.

And and then we'll just get all the documents.

We're gonna have to have copies and all those things.

So we can think about that.

Um yeah, hopefully, people come and start to engage with it.

Um, and hopefully to the uh ballot election folks would be there.

I would assume that, but maybe we should assume the ballot election folks, the the people we hired.

So I'm gonna invite them to this.

Um I hope yeah, that would be great.

Yeah, and then um at 7 30.

Then we would vote on.

I I know that doesn't feel right at the end.

I think we should do it right away in the beginning.

Are we voting on what?

Uh, on our level of engagement with the study with the ballot folks.

I know I think that I think we should um we should not tax the public with that decision.

I think so.

Do we wait?

We do we do uh uh you know we do the the public hearing, and then uh when we've finished, we can say you're free to go.

We're we've got some business to conduct.

I like that.

All right.

So we need to post that that we're gonna be talking about that voting on.

And I'd like people to stay in and learn more about ballot education strategies, and we make them part of the solution.

Hey, which which organizations can you make sure that you reach out to if anybody's still Daniel?

What organizations do you can you reach out to?

I have a few I know you belong to, but anyway, it's just that idea that the more we can engage people throughout that whole evening will I think be really important, and so I was hoping it would not just be run in a traditional way in the traditional people.

So that's my due cents, all right.

Um anything else for the record, yeah.

Um, I think we should make a large number of copies of the report and the tentative um the tentative report and the tentative um uh amended charter, and uh if it's too many, we can use them in the time that we're uh getting out and talking to people before we get to the final version.

And I'm not saying a thousand, but I'm saying at least a hundred, and they should all be there in case a large number of people show up.

But if they don't, we can each take a bunch home and start distributing them around.

Um we shouldn't uh uh worry about spending too much money on those copies at this point.

I I agree with you and remember that um on the 30th or whenever our next meeting is after June 38th, we're taking the public's comment and deciding if there's further edits.

So the document we're sharing right now will not be the final draft.

We vote on that, I think the 30th of July or something like that.

So, so that feedback it doesn't apply for us to make changes until when we come back together at the next meeting and then we vote and said, Okay, we heard these things, right?

Does that mean we want to incorporate them or not?

What's the following meeting then of the 18th?

If I knew that I wouldn't keep making the note.

Oh, I'm sorry, I've got it.

I've got it here, look at that.

Thanks.

Sorry, I think it's like June 30th, but I don't have that in front of me.

So um, right?

And what I have on the events page is July 15th.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, that's why.

Yeah, that's why I was uh worried, not worried this says 15th, yeah.

Um yeah, the study commission input on the draft report and charter language.

We used to have a meeting July like second, I think, but we we need to next it next that one, yeah.

Yep, okay.

So we don't meet again until July 15th.

So none of that's July 15th, and then we meet on August 6th.

Do we meet in between this yeah?

July 30th.

July 30 is approved the ballot language to be submitted.

So really we'll all probably want to watch that hearing again before July 15th to really get an essence of um what we learned.

All right, I'm about to turn into a pumpkin.

Oh final public comment.

Final public comment negative online.

That's a negative okay.

Okay, um, if you need more public comment, go to Mumford Sons, apparently.

Thank you everybody.

Thank you.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you, Caleb.

You really have been so helpful.

Appreciate it.