Bozeman Study Commission Meeting - June 4, 2026
Bozeman Study Commission Meeting - June 4, 2026
The Bozeman Study Commission met on June 4, 2026, to review the draft report and proposed amendments to the city charter, hear from the public, and plan the upcoming public hearing. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence, followed by approval of the consent agenda and public comments.
Consent Calendar
- The commission approved the meeting minutes from May 13 and May 20, 2026, by a 4–0 vote. Commissioner Barb Cetraro was excused by a separate 4–0 vote.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Joey Morrison (Mayor of Bozeman, speaking in his personal capacity) commented on the process of the study commission, particularly regarding the Inner Neighborhood Council (INC) and neighborhood associations. He expressed that the INC should not be given more compulsory authority over the city commission's agenda, but instead should focus on increasing representation and participation. He cited an example from an October INC meeting where the highest neighborhood response was 53 out of approximately 3,600 residents (less than 0.5%). He emphasized that he has never been polled or canvassed by any neighborhood association despite living in three different neighborhoods.
- No other public comments were made in the room or online.
Discussion Items
- Introduction of Dungeld Consultants: Nevin Graves, a partner at Dungeld, introduced his team (Aaron Corsey, Audrey Dozier, and Tor Goodmanson) as the consultants for the ballot education campaign on the amended city charter. Commissioner Deanna asked about best practices, metrics for reaching underserved voters, and how the firm would ensure equal education across all demographic groups. Graves cited reaching 18–24-year-olds and older voters through different channels, and committed to providing comprehensive reporting. There was discussion about the timeline and budget for the engagement level, which will be decided at a later meeting.
- Correspondence and Study Commission Update: Commission members discussed a door hanger distributed by the Gallatin Valley Sentinel titled "Save the Gallatin Not," which some residents mistakenly thought was from the study commission. Chair Becky clarified that only information from BozemanStudy.com is official. Commissioner Jan requested that the Gallatin Valley Sentinel share the results of their survey, which has not been provided despite multiple requests.
- Draft Report Edits: The commission reviewed the draft report page by page. Key changes included:
- Adding language that if the amended charter is rejected, the current charter remains (from Carson).
- Changing "the public is not feeling heard" to "some members of the public are not feeling heard."
- Clarifying that compensation applies to commissioners and the mayor, and using "compensation board" instead of "committee."
- Removing the sentence "We invite public engagement as we prepare for its adoption" and replacing "adoption" with education-related language (motion passed).
- Adjusting sub-option language in Exhibit D for clarity, including using "qualified voters" and reorganizing the order of options.
- Editing the compensation board section to reference Article 1, Section 1.01 (powers of the city) instead of the preamble.
- Changing the order of the sub-options to start with at-large voting before ward-based voting.
- Renaming "citizen participation" to "public participation" in the characteristics table, with a discussion about whether to use "citizen" or "public."
- Adding language to ensure candidates, commissioners, and residents understand the duties of elected office.
- Charter Amendments: The commission debated several substantive amendments to the charter:
- Compensation (Section 2.04): Carson moved to restore language based on Gallatin County area median income for a household of four, using full-time equivalent (FTE) percentage. This was accepted as a revision of previously approved language.
- INC Consultation (Section 8.04 D, #5): Deanna moved to strike "when practicable" from the requirement that the INC be consulted during formative stages. The motion passed 3–1 (Carson opposed).
- City Manager/Commission Responses (Section 8.04 D, #7): Deanna moved to strike "as applicable" from the requirement for timely responses. The motion passed 4–0. A subsequent motion to add detailed explanation requirements failed due to lack of a second.
- Neighborhood Program Expansion (Section 8.04 D, #8): Deanna moved to strike the entire subsection. The motion failed for lack of a second.
- Board Vacancy Advertising (Section 8.05 C, #1): Deanna moved to require individual posting of each vacancy on digital and social media for a minimum of 30 days prior to filling, in addition to the existing twice-annual advertisement. After discussion, the amended motion passed 3–1, requiring advertising at least twice annually and with a minimum of 30 days' notice.
- Striking Section 8.05 C, #3: Deanna moved to strike a section on filling unexpected vacancies from existing applications, as it was deemed duplicative. The motion passed 4–0.
- Ad Hoc Committees (Section 8.05 C, #5): Deanna moved to require public notification and an open application process for ad hoc committees. The motion failed for lack of a second.
- Term Limits for Board Members: Deanna moved to add a limit of two consecutive four-year terms for advisory board members. The motion failed for lack of a second.
- Conflict of Interest Standards: Deanna moved to add a new subsection establishing eligibility and conflict of interest standards based on public comments. The motion failed for lack of a second.
- Preamble: Chair Becky proposed minor wording changes to remove duplicate phrases and add "elected" before "leadership." After discussion, the word "elected" was not added; it was agreed that "representative democracy" implies elected leadership.
- Independent Audit (Section 6.09): Deanna moved to strike the final sentence allowing the city commission to waive the prohibition on auditors performing non-audit services. The motion passed 4–0, and Carson agreed to inform the finance department of the change.
Key Outcomes
- Approved consent agenda (4–0).
- Approved numerous editorial changes to the draft report and the charter language, as detailed above.
- Set the public hearing date for June 18, 2026, starting at 5:30 p.m. with food and informal discussion at 5:00 p.m. The commission will decide the level of ballot education engagement with Dungeld after public comment.
- Directed the chair to order name tags for commissioners for outreach events (e.g., Sweet Pea Festival).
- The final draft of the charter will be provided by Saturday, June 6, 2026, at noon, and the report will be released after the meeting.
- Next meeting: July 15, 2026, to discuss input from the public hearing and further refine the charter language.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com