If you sit there, I want to see.

Sorry.

It turns out that one of my problems as a child athlete is I don't have good peripheral vision.

And I would have been a lot better soccer player if I had better peripheral vision.

Mike, you cannot say anything about the score.

What happened?

So there's a call.

I'll call to order the meeting of the Bozeman City Study Commission on July 15th, 2026 at 4 a.m.

And I'll state the first rule, 4 p.m.

4 p.m.

That's what happens when you think ahead in the sense to what you really want to say.

The rule of the day is we will not discuss the soccer game that was going on this afternoon and presumably is still going on, but maybe isn't.

And I will say the score at the beginning of the game was zero zero.

And uh we'll leave it at that.

All right, with that little uh respite of funny seriousness.

If you're able, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance at a moment of silence.

You may be seated for the moment of silence.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all of the guess I just should say parenthetically, since my hip surgery, my balance isn't the best, and uh every now and then I stumble.

First thing on the agenda, or next thing on the agenda is are there any changes to the agenda?

One thing.

Um let's make a motion to excuse the uh absence of Commissioner Frank's I move I move the excuse the absence of Commissioner Franks in today's meeting.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

She's out of the country.

Couldn't make it.

So indicate by saying aye.

I motion carries four zero.

She's not able to attend by Zoom either, so it's just the four of us today.

It's the middle of the night where she is.

Next item on the agenda is public comment on anything with it in the jurisdiction of the study commission.

We will take comment on the items on the agenda under unfinished business and new business, and we'll do that at that time.

But if you need to talk to us and leave, or if you want to talk to us about any other issue, any other issue within our uh purview, uh now is the time to do it.

Any public comment?

Seeing none from those present.

Caleb, anybody online?

No, no.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda.

Would anybody like to pull any of the items on the consent agenda?

Is there any public comment on the consent agenda?

Is there a motion on the consent agenda?

I move we approve the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Motion carries 4-0.

Item E, correspondence or study commission update.

Um I have one thing to report, which is kind of related to later on in the agenda, but I I think I'll say it now.

We've got a call from the person at Ali.

OSHUR lifelong learning institute, where we spoke when we were in the middle of the process, and they would like us to speak on September 11.

It's I guess they're doing them all remotely.

So it would be two of us doing it remotely.

Um I think I responded that it was likely we could do it or that we could do it.

We just didn't know who, but um we need to figure that out at some point, not now, but as part of the plan for uh the the education plan.

But I just wanted to note that that contact had been made.

And then I I wanted to remind everybody that Becky and I are scheduled to speak to the Valley West Neighborhood Association on July 27th.

So I'm recognizing that we won't have everything totally done done, but it'll be pretty close.

Um it would be great to have at least the beginnings of a standard presentation that we'll be giving to folks.

Great.

July 27th, it's Monday.

Okay.

And Mike.

Yeah, so I was um alerted that Inc.

is requesting uh presentation at their October meeting.

Great to move on education.

Do we know what date that is?

It'll be um October 15th, I believe.

Okay.

I'm hoping that that one of the outcomes of the discussion later today and into the future is that Dane Geld will have a list of all of the uh engagements that we have and make sure that we um so that we're coordinated and we know when we're doing what, and then we can fill in who's doing it as well.

Um I'm looking out at them and making sure they're taking notes as we speak.

Any other um items under correspondence or study commission update.

Okay.

That brings us to unfinished business.

Um review edits to the tentative charter.

Um I thought um what we try to do here is take care of um the main things that have come up in public comment and sort of work our way through it from there.

Um what I would was gonna suggest is that Barb start with um compensation, which seemed to be the item that needed a lot of work, and certainly had a lot of comment on it.

And um Barb, give a little presentation, and then we'll sort of follow our normal path, which is we say something and then um open it up for public comment after that and then move forward from there.

Does that work?

All right, Barb, the floor is yours.

All right, yeah, and I was just gonna work through some of what Becky and I did based on you know what we all heard at the last public hearing, starting with the compensation board since that came up a lot.

Um so thank you, Mike, for pulling up section 2.04 on page four.

Um, and in doing this, I thought I would just run through kind of what I think we heard um the changes that Becky and I are proposing for consideration and points that we didn't address that might still need some discussion.

Um in terms of section 2.04 and the proposal to have a city compensation board.

Um I think we heard pretty general support for the concept and a number of places where there was confusion and um issues with the what we were proposing originally.

Um so we that's all reflected in the track changes.

Um, specifically, people were concerned about the reference to pegging salaries for the commissioners and mayor to the annual median income as well as um people and as well as the the language around um the compensation board determining the number of hours per week that commissioners and the mayor would work, and that that was problematic for a variety of reasons.

Um and then others, some people also raised questions and concern about the compensation composition of the board and who we were proposing be on it.

So in terms of the changes that Becky and I made, we deleted the AMI language, that sentence that said that um it would be a percentage of the full-time equivalent of the area median income.

Um and then we also deleted the sentence around the board determining the number of hours per week that commissioners and mayors um work.

I think that was widely seen as too prescriptive for a charter, and and um the city chimed in that it could run us a foul of the way uh salaries are managed for elected officials, which is different from an employee.

Um so we deleted that.

Um we also clarified that that the board doesn't actually get to make the decision because the board doesn't have that authority.

So we clarified that the board would be making recommendations to the city commission about the annual salaries.

Um of the comments around the composition of the board we didn't address because we didn't feel like there was any clear direction or consensus on that, but the issues were raised that were raised were having two commissioners on the board potentially creates a conflict because they're still involved in determining their own salary, um, and then having the city's chief financial officer is how it reads right now, and that's not actually the right title for that person if that is the person we want.

But that the question was also raised whether it should be the human resources director.

Um so we didn't make any changes around that and the composition of the board, but felt like that was a worthy point of discussion.

Um so with that take feedback on the changes that we made and and thoughts on anything else.

Great, thank you.

Um why don't we go around and uh see what we think right now, then we'll open it for public comment, and then we'll move forward.

Who wants to start?

Jan Thanks, Barb and Becky, for all this incredible work.

Um, as one of the co-makers of this section of the compensation board.

I'm very glad that you have um made most of the changes that you have.

I just want to speak to two of them.

One is uh I'd love a discussion about whether or not the work of the um commission compensation board would be on an annual basis or a biennial basis every other year, based on the fact that um the salaries of both the mayor and the city commissioners, each of them would be uh in a framework of being elected on a two to four year basis.

So wondering about that, number one, and number two, I'd like to speak for the original proposal we made, which was to have two city commissioners appointed by the city commission, because there has been some question about that to keep that but indicate that they would be appointed by their peers to be working with the finance director and the four residents who are registered voters and have their primary residents in the city.

So that's my um comment to you.

Deanna well in the feedback that's in the you've got this right here, Mr.

In the feedback that um that I got in and doing the homework from the Dingeld um uh group, uh I saw a strong uh public uh uh feeling that the commissioner there should not be commissioners on the board that uh determines their salary, and that it should be made up of residents and the um finance director uh as recommended by Chuck Wynn, and um and that the recommendations of course go to the commissioner, and I think you have that in here, um since only the commissioner can commissions uh can actually approve it.

So I would just if you uh would bear with me, I would read uh an edit to that section that I would suggest.

Sure.

Okay.

And I did send this out to everybody, so it would be uh in the uh document labeled um uh Deanna Campbell um amended charter uh content edits.

So section 204 would read the city commission shall appoint a compensation board to recommend to the city commission the annual salary of the mayor and commissioners.

The compensation board shall include residents who are um reg uh qualified electors and have their primary residence in the city, and the city's finance director or human resources director, who shall serve in a non-voting ex officio capacity.

The compensation board shall convene annually in one or more meetings open to the public to assess and recommend compensation for commissioners and the mayor for the subsequent fiscal year, taking into consideration the duties and obligations of the commission.

The commission may adopt the compensation board's recommended salary or lower the amount, but shall not adopt a salary higher than recommended by the compensation board.

And I feel that that really covers um uh uh the uh the uh duties of the commission and takes it, takes commissioners out of the equation of determining their own salary and puts it in the hands of the um taxpayers and uh makes uh uh the decision for the commission uh still very flexible.

They can they can lower it.

Clearly, they wouldn't we wouldn't want them to be able to raise it.

So those are the uh that's the feedback that I got from uh the people that I reached out to and the public comment.

Thank you, Jack.

Standard rules of classroom eating, or if you eat something, you have to share it with everybody in the class.

You're welcome to my basketball.

No, I'm looking at the apples over there.

Oh so in any case, um back to our business here.

That is my recommendation for uh the compensation um section 2.04.

Great, thanks.

So my two cents are uh one um I I don't see a reason to be annually if you're going to have an ordinance that doesn't take effect until the next election because however you do it, let's say you start in the next election is a year away, make a recommendation.

Um the next year the election is two years away.

And so if you're gonna if you're gonna do that waiting, um it seems to me that it ought to be coordinated by whatever the elections are.

And so if you're gonna if you're gonna do that waiting, um seems to me that it ought to be coordinated by whenever the elections are the I'm not sure I like the um waiting for two years, which is what would inevitably happen, or um, or else you don't have a decision until right before the next election, um, because it seems to me its intent is to set it up so that the commission um it's sort of a another safeguard.

The commission isn't voting for its technically its own um raises because there may be a new commission or a couple new commissioners or two new commissioners and a mayor or whatever.

And um, but I can live with that one um as sort of an extra safeguard.

Um I do think that there ought to be commissioners on the committee.

Obviously, when it gets time to vote for the vote, the salary that they will be getting, they they would not be voting because that would be a conflict of interest for them.

But um a brief survey that I did across the state, every other compensation committee has someone from the group on it as a point of reference as to how much work there is and all of that.

I I like the language of assess and recommend compensation based on consideration for duties and obligations of the commission.

I think that's good language.

Um I liked the other conceptualization we have, but I can live with this one, the the other conceptualization being let's try and pay um the people that work for the city commission and work as mayor, something that is um comparable to the amount of work and labor that they put into it, which is where we got into AMI and ours, and the goal there was some sort of a standard that um took it out of the subjective.

Um I heard a lot of um objection to that, and um area median income maybe isn't the best way to do it.

Um we can argue about what the right standard is, but I I can I can live with this uh pretty much the way it is.

I do think it's either the the there's no point in them meeting annually.

Um it's something else that ought to go into this.

And um I do think another way to look at it is if you have two commissioners on the committee and it doesn't take effect until the next election, you are giving yourself a little space from um whatever worries there are about undue influence.

And and more importantly, we should note right now the situation is the commission gets to decide without input from anybody else other than the public in a public meeting, and they have to wait the same amount of time.

So that's kind of where I'm at at this point, but a little more discussion.

Mike, do you want to weigh in on this one?

Yeah, the only thing I have for comments on this uh change is the uh subsequent fiscal year portion, uh the way you explained it.

If it's not taking effect until after the next election, that language for the next fiscal year.

Uh doesn't make a lot of sense.

And then just in the consideration of where that timing is, the filing fee for candidates is based on the salary.

So having that set in it prior to candidate filing would make things easier for the county.

That's good.

That's a good idea.

Thank you.

All right, is there any public comment on can I can I say I thought you had your say?

Well, I I didn't have my say on the topics that we didn't address.

Fair enough.

Um so I I in choosing not to do any track changes to the compensation of the board.

I did think a lot about the compensation or the composition of the board.

And um I'm also uncomfortable completely removing commissioners from it, from the conversation, because how else will the board know what the jobs entail if there isn't some level of dialogue with folks?

The way it's set up right now, they're clearly in the minority.

Um and so that's good, and the commission can't adopt an ordinance to take effect right away.

I did, like Deanna said, I did wonder if it would help to have the commissioners serve in a non-voting ex officio manner.

Um so that they were at least a part of the board, they were part of the conversation, they could inform and educate um about what the jobs entail, um, but they wouldn't be voting for their own salaries.

Yeah, I I was thinking that they wouldn't be just as an ethical matter.

It any more than I mean the problem, the interesting question is the way it's set up now.

You're voting for if you're a four if you're in the beginning of your four-year term, you are in fact voting for your own raise.

I don't know how that has been handled, but that's part of what the problem has been.

So I I don't mind um making those that those two positions ex officio, meaning they're there, they get appointed, um, but the vote is uh from the other five.

I think our attorney has some thoughts.

Good.

So we'll have we'll hear from the city attorney and then we'll have uh public comment.

So uh Greg Sullivan, Bozeman City Attorney Counsel to the Study Commission.

I think if you I think the way that I would read a provision that had the commission as members and then having of the composition board and then having the board then vote to make a recommendation to the commission is you would be creating a mandatory duty under law, and that would not then be subject to like a personal conflict.

Okay, the same way that the current rule exists for the commissioners, because if you sort of took that principle and applied it to the current structure, no commissioner could vote on the salary increase because they would all have a conflict of interest.

So I think your approach where you're saying they're non-voting members, um, but they still participate in the discussion, sort of addresses that sort of mandatory duty versus where the conflict would lie.

Because as it's set up anyway, the commission is going to approve this proposal, whatever it is it gets up guess proposed.

And uh regarding um I'm breaking my own any comment from the public on this before I we go further.

Uh Daniel Cardi Bozem Resident, I just want to say I would support Commissioner Campbell's language.

It's um pretty straightforward, removes all potential conflicts of interest, and I think it's the way to go.

So thank you.

Thank you, Daniel.

Any other public comment?

Any comment online?

Not right now.

All right.

Back to us for further discussion.

I would just do it.

Okay.

Um I just want to add, I think the clarity around non-voting is important and be stated.

I think also to say that if we pass that the composition includes the two commissioners, um, then it should state that they are selected by their peers on the city commission.

And that I would speak to that because we have talked from many angles and many points of view about the need for increased collaboration between the city, between the community, and between the staff.

And it seems to me that by having the opportunity for this collaborative effort to talk um and plan, frankly, about a very sensitive issue, which is your ability to hopefully earn a living wage or be paid, as Carson said earlier in uh light of the level of the job and the responsibilities involved.

So I'd like to strongly support that, but include those um friendly amendments, or I can make a motion if needed.

Well, I think we're gonna end up needing a motion for sure.

Other comments.

I have a comment.

Yes, Deanna.

Um well I I guess I well, I guess I'll wait until you call for a vote on this.

I would make an amendment to it.

Okay.

So we don't technically yet have a motion.

Right.

Yeah.

Barb.

Um I I again I'm I'm not because of the additional check and balance of the last sentence that says no ordinance increasing the salary shall become effective until the next after the next election.

I'm uncomfortable completely removing the commissioners, but I do think we should make it clear that their role on this board is as a non-voting ex officio member.

Um that that would be my amendment to that sentence about the composition of the compensation board.

I'm also hearing that we should um, and I want to just confirm that we should take out the shall convene annually.

And so it would just read the board shall assess and recommend compensation for commissioners and the mayor for the subsequent fiscal year taking into consideration the duties and obligations of the commission.

Umce it sounds like it doesn't totally make sense for them to be required to convene annually with the budget cycle and the way that the elections fall.

Um they could if they needed to.

So we wouldn't prohibit that.

We would just not require it.

Um and then the other thing.

I heard uh guess that's it.

It was so that would be the other.

The compensation, the idea would be the compensation would be set before commissioners file for election.

That was Mike's.

Yeah, so I don't have the exact wording that I would put in here, but uh generally, yeah, striking the annually meeting and the subsequent fiscal year, because it if it doesn't happen until after the next regular election, then every other fiscal year you're not actually setting it.

So ideally, in my head, this committee should meet once every two years to recommend what it will be after the next election, and that recommendation should be done through the city commission's adoption process prior to candidate filing opening for the next municipal election.

So the exact wording, I couldn't give you what I would say an amendment would be, but that's the general concept.

Great.

Deanna?

I I would just like to say as long as we're kind of talking about amendments, that I would like to see in here that um these meetings of the compensation board are public and uh announced.

Doesn't that uh I meant to address that uh that should go without saying?

Well meaning I don't think you can you know I think going without saying is a dangerous uh road to take.

I think all the it certainly wouldn't hurt to include that it be a public meeting.

That's a good question.

Is there anywhere in the charter where it says all meetings of all city boards are public?

I mean, certainly it's the practice that it is public and it's they're they're duly noticed.

I don't I'd have to dig in that.

I don't know off the top of my head.

Don't doesn't the constitution and our sunshine laws require it?

Yes.

Like it I mean, isn't it the law?

No, Greg's shaking his head, no.

No.

Maybe we should ask Greg.

And also look at city boards again, so that all city boards would meet that requirement.

Um Craig Sullivan City Attorney Counsel to the Study Commission.

Um Montana Law, the right to participate and the right to know, along with statutes that have been adopted by the legislature to implement those two rights.

Clearly identifies that meetings of convening of a quorum of the governing body needs to be noticed and open to the public with limited exceptions for closing them.

There's also uh case law legal guidance from the attorney general that says things like staff meetings are not.

So I certainly would interpret this composition as because of its importance as needing to be open to the public, therefore also noticed.

Um but be careful with your composition because the way that it works, that there's two city commissioners, that's not a quorum, and so that's not a meeting of the city commission.

Then if you have non governing body members on that, you're not gonna have a quorum of sort of a uh elected officials, but you will have a quorum, obviously, of appointed people, right?

The two or the one member that's a staff person that's included in the list would be automatic.

It's the citizen members or whatever you would appoint in addition to the two electives that would drive whether it's open or not, or has to be open or not.

So I do think if you want to ensure it that it's open to the public, just say it.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

So does what someone want to at least summarize in a motion what the language would say without using this specific language?

Well, or or would it be easier for us to just take another run at incorporating these changes and then we approve it once and for all when we come back together again next?

So let's summarize the changes.

Yeah, I can I can do that.

Okay.

Um we'll make the commission members will make it clear that they're non-voting ex officio members.

Um, and we can add that they're appointed by their peers on the commission.

Um we'll add a sentence that the compensation recommendations have have to be adopted prior to the candidate filing opening for the next municipal election.

We'll add Deanna's um recommended public meeting language, and we'll strike the convene annually and subsequent fiscal year language.

And did I miss anything?

Um do we want to change the name of the chief financial officer?

So it would be the financial director.

Um is that the correct term?

Okay.

That that does that leaves out um, I think in Chuck's comments the HR director.

Someone recommended it be the HR director and not the finance director.

Um sort of agnostic on that.

Jan.

I read that as well, and I felt like there could be any number of experts brought in to assist in the process as the compensation board determines.

I'm just concerned about adding more non-voting people and that the buttons my own look at it, trying to balance all the others.

I uh the end.

I also um uh think that there should be uh uh uh an overwhelming um uh number of residents as to commissioners and staff people.

In fact, uh you know I wouldn't have commissioners or staff, and so uh I I would be in favor of limiting uh it to one commissioner and one staff member ex official.

And if they're simply bringing forth uh information to the uh citizens whose uh money is at stake, um I think two would be sufficient.

And since we're trying to lighten the burden of our commissioners, um requiring two commissioners to sit on this is I think uh more than uh necessary.

So I would recommend one commissioner and the uh finance director or the uh human resource.

So um I'm good with two.

I think two is better than one because it's two different perspectives.

And um that seems to me to be a piece of what the discussion is.

How is it going to impact the budget and um where will that take us?

So I'm I'm with the um Barbtion uh all the way, and um we could make a motion to follow Barb's description and have her write it there, or um her and Becky write it, or we could amend that amend Barb's description, but I think we probably need a motion uh to vote on what the subject matter of the rewrite will be.

Do you want me to repeat the changes I'll make in the form of a motion?

I think so.

Okay.

I move that we amend section 2.04 to make clear that commission members will serve on the board as non-voting ex officio members.

We will add a sentence that the compensation recommendations have to be adopted prior to the candidate filing opening for the next municipal election.

We'll add Deanna's recommended public meeting language.

We'll strike the annual meeting requirement and the reference to the subsequent fiscal year, and we'll change the title of the chief financial officer to finance director.

And that it will be done for and that it'll be done before our next meeting.

So no, no, no, it'll the recommendation will be right.

I said that we'll be adopted.

We'll add a sentence that the recommendations will be adopted prior to the candidate filing period.

And before I second that, if I could just uh have you add the fact that the commissioners would be appointed by their peers as non-f ex officio non-voting, thank you.

And I will second that.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

All right.

Do we need public comment post-motion?

This is where I always get confused.

Okay.

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

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries 4-0.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item that we were going to take up is the mayor, vice mayor succession section 2.06 A and C.

Barb, can you tell us what you did there?

Yeah, so a number of people pointed out that um the original version had created a conflict.

Um hopefully the simple edits that are reflected in this document and track changes, um fix that.

Um, first in section A, we lay out that the vice mayor is the one that will succeed as mayor during the balance of the mayor's term, um, and that the commission vacancy created therein would be filled pursuant to this section.

I added a sentence that says a new vice mayor shall be appointed as provided in section 2.03C, which is where we lay out the process for appointing a vice mayor from among the city commission.

Then down in C where we had created the conflict, I just deleted we it originally read a vacancy in the city commission or the office of the mayor shall be filled within 60 days of the occurrence of the vacancy, which was the conflict because that's not how a mayor vacancy gets.

So I just deleted in the office of the mayor from that sentence.

So now that filling a vacancies by appointment within 60 days only applies to commission vacancies.

Does that make sense?

I don't know that I totally explained that well, but I understand the conflict that was created because we said the vice mayor steps in as mayor, and then in this section C, we said it got filled by appointment.

So that was wrong.

Um so hopefully this is the simple fix.

And provides for a new vice mayor if the vice mayor succeeds the mayor.

Thank you.

Comments.

Well, the uh my reviewers and the public comments and so forth pointed out uh uh well, actually in section 2.03, uh, which which applies here, okay.

Um some possibilities that we didn't think of.

Especially what happens if the vice mayor's remaining term is shorter than the term of the mayor they would be replacing.

Um this was um uh so I mean I made changes in 2.02, which impact 2.04 as well.

Um so I think we need to look at um I I think we need to look at that.

So it won't make sense, which right now it doesn't.

Can I offer so this touches on the section in 2.0 six um that I I was the sentence that ends with the um sorry if the mayor is incapacitated, so the portion of there where it says for the balance of the mayor's term as appropriate that that's the language that's the easiest fix to change.

So currently an appointment happens only until the next general municipal election, so that you would not have the possibility of a vice mayor's term being shorter than the term they're appointed to.

So if worst case scenario, candidate that is on the ballot dies prior to the election and still wins, that gives you the longest period of possible time, right?

Then whoever would be appointed, that vice mayor that would step up to the mayor role wouldn't get that full four years.

They would only get two, and then in an election for the remainder of the two-year term would occur.

So if we change that sentence in 2.06a to say the vice mayor shall succeed as mayor until the next one until the next general municipality.

So they wouldn't get the balance of the mayor's term, they would just get to the next municipal election.

Which maybe the balance of the term or a partial leaving an unexpired term for the remaining two years.

Right, and that's the way I thought it was.

So um that's not the way this paragraph is.

It's not the way the paragraph stated agreed.

And and that would be the same for a commission member who is incapacitated or dies.

Correct.

The vacancy gets filled within 60 days, but only until the next general election.

Municipal.

And it and that sentence has it in C.

The appointment will be in place until the next municipal election.

Right.

So that symmetry is lacking between the two, and that solves the vice mayor getting six year, potentially six years in one election.

Well, so maybe the fix is in C to change the thing about the vice mayor until the ballots of the mayor's term, get rid of that, but maybe the changes appointments for commissioner and mayor shall be in place until the next municipal election.

Because that's the same for both of us, probably why the language or the office of the mayor got put into filling vacancies.

Right, but we won't be making appointments to fill the vacancy in the mayor.

The vice mayor becomes the mayor.

Right.

But oh, I see what you're saying.

So what I understand is the changes in 2.06A, where in that sentence that starts if the mayor is incapacitated.

Um we should delete during said time for the balance of the mayor's term as appropriate and replace it with the vice mayor shall succeed as mayor until the next municipal election.

At which time a new mayor would be elected.

Right.

Or something like that.

Yes.

I'm just glad for the clarity and support it.

Thanks.

Um have you waited in that we're gonna take public comment, then we'll come back to the money.

Oh, well, I would just like to read uh to offer the um the edits that um I suggested for 2.03 C.

If the office of vice mayor is vacant at the time a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor, or if the vice mayor is unable or unwilling to succeed as mayor, the sh uh commission shall within 60 days appoint one of its members to succeed as mayor following the same terms and process set out in 2.03 C and this section.

And that covers the possibility of a of a vice mayor not wishing to take on uh the office of mayor.

Okay.

Public comment.

Any public comment on this item?

None from the public present.

Any online, Caleb?

Not right now.

Okay.

All right.

Now back up.

I I think we've covered it with what Barb said.

Um I think if the vice mayor is unwilling to succeed the mayor, then they shouldn't be the vice mayor in the first place and to say so.

That that could be what we end up with is more verbiage and more complication from your proposal, and I don't think it changes anything as to what has been proposed.

Except if we had a vice mayor that was unable to take on the position of mayor.

I mean, we've said that the mayor has uh uh a greater uh job responsibilities and more time and so forth.

Um there could be a scenario where the vice mayor was happy to be vice mayor, but um not able to be mayor.

Jen?

I understand the goal here, but I do read it under the vacancies area when it really does talk about if the mayor's incapacitated dies, sorry, in section 206a, if the mayor is incapacitated dies, all of those things, that the solution, a new vice mayor shall be appointed, is linked directly to the fact that they could be fulfilling those shoes.

And I'm not sure we need the extra language because this the vice mayor may not decide or may not have capacity, as you said.

I do think that it's really clear in this section.

If it were in a different section, perhaps we would need more verbiage.

But I think this section is a very clear um filling of vacancies, especially if that mayor is is not able to do their job.

And there are innumerable other reasons why the vice mayor couldn't take over, and I think we've covered it.

Mayor and the vice mayor could be going to a conference and get killed in a car accident.

Then you have no vice mayor.

But I think we've covered it with the changes that we've made.

And that's clear Carson under C then, right?

Filling a vacancies for the city commission?

Yeah.

So it do we need a motion on this one too?

I wouldn't think so.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

Again.

Why don't you make the motion of the she wouldn't?

I move to accept the current edits proposed in section 2.06 and add the deletion of during said time for the balance of the mayor's term as appropriate and replace that with until the next municipal election in section 2.06A.

And what was uh the you were going to say the first one again?

Um I'll accept the track changes that have been made so far that fix the conflict of different ways to fill a mayor vacancy, and then I will make a new edit that replaces the ambiguous the vice mayor shall succeed for the balance of the mayor's term with until the next municipal election.

I will second that.

Do we need something that says a new vice mayor shall be appointed from the existing commission?

That's what's provided for in section 2.03 C.

So the sentence I added says a new vice mayor shall be appointed as provided for in section 2.03C.

And 2.03C is the process for appointing a vice mayor from among its members.

Oh, it's 2.03.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there any further discussion?

All right.

All those in favor, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries four zero.

Okay.

Okay.

Now we get to the fun part.

Yeah, so the the next set of changes that I wanted to tackle are the is the edits to the explanatory language for suboptions one and two.

Um, and so you'll remember sub option one is where we ask voters if they want the city commission.

What section?

Um 704.

No, two, 2.02.

We're earlier.

We're still in Article 2.

2.02 sub options one and two.

So we we definitely heard confusion at the hearing about how this was presented.

And so, and and you'll recall our first sub-option is whether the city commission is comprised of four or six commissioners, and our second sub-option is whether those commissioners will continue to be elected at large as they are at present, or whether they would be elected by wards and have to reside within that ward.

Um we definitely heard that the way it was presented was confusing.

Um, and so I tried with some help from Greg and Mike to make the language more clear and direct.

Um, I also implemented the suggestion, which could still use some beefing up of making the explanatory text clearly different from the actual charter language.

So my first attempt was to bold and underline the headline and then put the explanatory text in italics.

I think it would also be worth it to probably put it in a little box so you can tell it's not part of the charter language.

Um that is what is reflected in those track changes, um, as well as the the formatting difference where it clearly says this first suboption is the question of whether the city commission is comprised of four or six commissioners, and that's on page two.

And then if you go down a little bit to sub option two, that question is whether city commissioners are elected at large or are elected by wards.

And so we tried to make it more clear the question that we're actually asking and the explanatory text more direct.

Okay, comments.

Well, um I have some comments up and um uh a suggestion that I would like to read in.

So um I changed for the the for the convenience of the voters because it's not about their convenience.

We're giving them two options, and I think we should uh keep language very clear.

Um so I would suggest that sub-option option one read thusly whether the city commission is comprised of four or six commissioners.

Study commission prevent presents this question to the voters as two alternative options allowing voters to determine whether the city commission should be composed of four or six members in addition to the mayor.

This sub option provides for a decision by the voters whether to retain the number of commissioners at the current four commissioners or to add two additional commissioners for a total of six commissioners.

And then I would delete this selection below that receives the most votes will be included in this sub-option will take effect if the amended charter is also approved by the voters.

The selection below that receives the most votes will be included in this charter if this charters is approved by the voters.

And it goes on, and you know, actually well, were my fellow commissioners provided copies of the materials I sent.

You emailed it to them.

Oh, okay.

So you have this.

Okay.

So in any rate, this is intended to be a clear statement of what we are asking the voters to consider.

And removing language that is unnecessary or confusing, and adding the language that might help clarify it.

And I think that adding particularly important is in addition to the mayor, because I think that people looked at four commissioners, we have five.

What is that about?

So that was feedback that I got.

And I think that I just made some suggestions for readability and clear clarity and reability readability.

Okay.

Oh, and also uh section uh 2.02.

Um I just changed the order of the selections to match what is on the ballot.

Can you explain that a little more?

Well, um there wasn't they seem to be out of order at some at some point.

Uh and this this was just restoring uh uh the order so it would be consistent throughout all of our documents, and we can take a look at that.

Okay.

All right, further comments commission, Jan.

I'm sorry.

I had also um asked several colleagues from the League of Women Voters to take a look at this in particular the amended draft charter because I felt they brought some expertise with public policy and um and voter education, and one person um spent some some quality time providing some edits that I shared with only one commissioner, which was um Becky.

I didn't realize she wouldn't be here, and I couldn't share it with two commissioners, but I'm happy to forward that to Barb that I think was very helpful in the goals that Deanna is raising to be as clear as possible.

I can share it to all commissioners if that would be appropriate.

Um the other person that I looked at, I read all of the all of the um uh public comments of course, but Patty Steinmiller, who's also a member of the League of Women Voters, has given us uh several different perspectives, and I found even her formatting and choosing boxes and removing a lot of the language, which again I appreciate all the efforts that have been made, um, was very helpful as well.

So I'd I'd like an extra look maybe at those as we um move forward in the next two weeks with with the next version, and I don't have a specific amendment to make because it's pretty complicated, but I have that in writing for you to consider.

Um you would send that to all of us, I presume.

Oh, I'd I'd be happy to, yeah.

I would have patties, everybody has patties.

Stein mother's public comment, and I printed it out as well.

But I will be happy to send the other okay suggestions.

So, in terms of the this explanatory text, I'm hearing it's still not clear.

Um, and I'll make another whack at it and and see because I'll see how to make it crystal clear um for the next one, because so a couple of things we can agree upon.

I think the for the convenience of the voters clause doesn't need to be there, and I do think that the um include the mayor as being make it clear that the mayor is a judicial commissioner that doesn't isn't part of the increase.

I think those two things are very important to have in here.

Other than that, uh I think the language is simpler than what Deanna has read.

I don't know what's in the other items, but it it needs to be as simple and clear, because if it reads too long, it won't get read.

Um so uh other than that, I'm happy to have you take a look at uh the language that Deanna proposed and the language that came from Jan and do that.

We should take public comment.

Mike, do you have anything to add?

Yeah, um piggybacking on one of Deanna's things with the consistency.

Yeah, just uh another pass through to make sure that our options in different places match.

Also, current options, the way I read one of the statutes needs to be the first choice when we have the the two sub-option choices.

So we'll just take a look at that.

Right.

And I I agree.

I haven't have I seen the ballot language.

It's in the report.

It's in the report.

Okay, so um we should coordinate the ballot language with what we're doing here as well.

All right, public comment on this issue.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any public comment online?

Now right now, no.

And do we have a hard stop tonight?

We do.

So um do we want to take up any other issues now that are maybe less consequential, but that we need to work our way for through it.

I do want to leave some time for the conversation about when the next meeting is and what's going to be in it, and a conversation with the Dangel people who are present.

Um but um I I have just a couple things that are laying out there.

And uh we haven't talked about that we haven't talked about today yet.

We haven't talked about Article 7 yet and the the word, the third suboption.

Yeah, and that's probably a big one.

So should we get to Article 7?

That's the one that I was gonna suggest we talk about next.

Okay.

So that seems to be now.

And then if we have any time, but uh let's finish by 5 30 so that we have time for the rest.

Okay.

Um so article seven deals with elections, and it starts on page 12 um and then continues.

And um made a couple of changes here to um make it more clear what the choice is to simplify the flow and to just make it easier to navigate.

So the first thing we did here, which was actually at Greg's suggestion, was to move the section dealing with initiative city referendum and recall up so that it starts this article at section 7.01.

The language is exactly the same as it was, um, but we put it first because power derives from the citizens, they should come first.

This is the power of initiative, referendum, and recall, and then it will save us having to go back through and renumber everything once the election is over and we know which sub-options are chosen.

So that was the first change.

Then we heard very clearly, I think at the public hearing, that um the language around the third option, sub-option that we're asking people to vote on, was really confusing in a couple of levels.

One it was unclear what choice people were being asked to make in the first place, and then the fact that the original draft um included um both the choice that we're actually asking people to vote on, as well as the the language about how word boundaries are going to be drawn was duplicated, that how the word boundaries was going to be drawn, and it was super confusing.

And then the fact that the original draft included both the choice that we're actually asking people to vote on, as well as the language about how ward boundaries are going to be drawn, was duplicated that how the ward boundaries was going to be drawn, and it was super confusing.03, which is the methods of electing commissioners, really focused that section just on the choice that we're actually actually asking people to make, which is about how we elect our commissioners if we decide to move to a ward system.

So that choice is do we only elect, do only people that live in the ward vote for the commissioner that's going to represent that ward, or do we have a commissioner run from a ward, but people still vote at large?

So that's the actual choice.

So change the explanatory language some, but then made section 03, section 7.03 about methods of electing commissioners.

And so the choice is commissioner members must reside within the ward, which that office of commissioner represents and shall be elected at large, or commission members must reside within the ward and shall be elected to four-year terms only by the electors within that ward.

So that's the choice.

And then that brings us to, and and we can talk about that stuff first, but then that brings us to the need to create a new section, which is that section 7.04 that is independent and actually lays out how we are gonna draw the lines and make adjustments.

Well, we definitely heard feedback in June that the original language, which was um item B in that section, um, there was concern about the city commission drawing ward boundaries.

Um there was concern about some permissive language that basically said you can redraw the boundaries whenever you want.

Um, and then there was confusion about why that was repeated and duplicated in the two choices.

So in creating this 7.04, I drew from the comments that the Gallatin Valley Sentinel presented, um, as well as the model charter, um, as well as conversations with Mike and Greg, and then dug into thanks to Mike, um, some information about how the city of Missoula has done it for many many years.

Um I created the language that's now reflected in this 7.04 to present to you guys for consideration.

So that's all the changes in Article 7 and kind of the why behind them.

Um so I guess I'll stop there and see what questions people have because I'm not sure I explained that as well as I I just wanted to ask a clarifying question for right now.

Going back to the method 7.03 methods of electing commission members, why are there only two methods when there are actually three methods?

If we we don't keep the current method if the voters decide to keep that current method.

Well, this this is the this is the sub-option that if voters in sub-option, if if in suboption two voters decide to just continue to elect people at large and not go to a ward system, then this 7.03 becomes completely moot.

This this only becomes in effect if we vote to go to wards, then we have to decide okay, if we're in wards, do only people that live in the ward get to vote for that commissioner, or do we basically do like the county where the commissioner has to live in the ward, but everybody still gets to vote?

Thank you for that.

And just one kind of uh addition of not to help my knowledge, then where does it say in the um charter how we elect people at large?

Is it going all the way back to section?

You have to go all the way back to 7.02.

That's the first selection in back to Article 2.

That's what I mean.

That's two, yeah.

Sub option two.

Got it.

Just wondering choice is commissioners elected at large or commissioners elected by ward.

So that's back on page three.

Got it.

Thank you.

So to just to add a little clarity.

If the voters decide not to create wards, section seven oh three and seven oh four would not exist.

So that's where moving them into their own sections made the most sense because they would just disappear in the article seven would stop at just the regular elections and beginning a term.

So thank you.

So I maybe I'm coming out of turn.

I don't know if you want to comment, but let me just it the way it jumps out at you.

You go what?

And so um maybe it needs to be if voters choose section one of suboption two, and maybe we need to describe that was then nothing else changes.

And then if voters choose section two of suboption two above and continue with what you got because it it just doesn't quite fit um if you you're jumping to um you know set section two of suboption two, you don't even know what they are when you read this, and so so that's um that's a question that I would have about how it's done.

Um I have thoughts about, but I don't want to get into yet if we can avoid it, um the um drawing of ward lines because I'm wondering if it's just not too much, and that if if we are better off just leaving that to um if it if this passes, then um the commission sets up a neutral, and I don't know how we want to describe it, but a simple description of what they set up on the theory that they'll set it up and they'll set it up by ordinance, and it it will be fair because there you're not going to be in a place where people are trying to read what gerrymandering may do or may not do at that moment in time.

The only issue, of course, that I understand is yeah, then you're letting them maybe they'll change it ten years from now, and then you'll be in this complicated situation.

But maybe they'll set up something very similar to what you have proposed, or we make that recommendation to them, and and if they follow that, then we've avoided the problem of the commission trying to preserve itself.

Um, however, you want to see that.

But those are my thoughts at this moment.

Deanna.

Do you want to weigh on in on this one?

I do.

Um I have actually quite a few um edits that I to 703.

Pardon.

So weigh in on if you could weigh in on everything except for how the wards are drawn.

Uh me having weighed in on it.

Um yeah, maybe maybe what we should do is just 7.01 through 7.03 first, right?

And and then we can move to 7.04 as its own thing.

Um and I can reiterate what we are trying what I'm trying to do in it.

Um, but in turn, I I definitely hear that 7.03 is not explained sufficiently, and you're right, we do just jump right into um if you choose selection two, then you have to deal with this, but um a little bit more explanation might be helpful.

Um you want to go 7.01 and down, or yeah, I mean, so I mean, I mean, we didn't really change the language in 7.01, it just shows as track changes because we moved it.

Um, and I I should have just told Becky to just accept that change, but I didn't.

Um so really the only that's only track changes because we moved it.

Okay.

Um so 7.03 is the only place where we actually made edits to the explanatory text.

Okay.

Um, with with the intent of really focusing the voters' attention on the single question that we're asking is if we make this move to wards, how do we then elect people?

Only people in the ward vote or still at large.

Okay.

So Deanna has the floor.

Do you want to go ahead, Jen?

I'm trying to uh coordinate here.

Because I'll be quick and I want to make sure you've got everything.

I know how much work you've done.

Um I like what you've done with moving up that uh section 01 with the initiative.

I think you're absolutely right.

This is at the heart of our democracy, and people should see it as quickly as possible with the power of initiative citizen referendum and recall, so thank you.

I really like that.

Um I also um think what I was asking in Carson said so much better to not jump into the um section two, but really have a sentence, maybe even a box again in this location, so people really understand what this piece is about.

Um, because that's one of the reasons I had asked other readers to help us with the clarity question, uh, because this is really complex and it's hard to know what is in the um charter itself and the options section, and I know you know that.

So anything you can do to make that stronger in a box, um I would support, and if it's in one sentence or no more than two, um, that would be ideal.

So that would be my support for this section.

Well, shall I?

I mean, you you have a copy of this, but I I will read it into the record.

So can you use your microphone, Deanna?

Um so in the interest of clarity and um uh ease of reading.

So suboption, so it would read so right after section three methods of electing commission members, sub option three.

If commissioners are elected by wards, whether they are elected by ward residents only or at large, if voters choose selection one of suboption two, section two point oh two D to elect commissioners by wards, the study commission presents this additional question to the voters as two alternative options allowing voters to determine whether commissioners elected by ward are elected only by qualified electors within the ward, the commissioners represents, or at large by all voters of the city.

If voters choose selection two of suboption two to retain at large elections, this suboption shall have no effect, and selection three below shall apply instead.

If the amended charter is also approved by the voters, and only if voters have chosen selection one of suboption two to elect commissioners by wards.

If voters choose selection one of suboption two, the selection below, selection one uh or selection two that receives the most votes shall be included in this charter.

Selection three below shall be deleted from the charter, and the text of the selection not chosen between selection one and selection two shall also be deleted from the charter following the election.

If voters choose section selection two of suboption two, selection three below shall be included in the charter, and selection one and selection two below shall be deleted from the charter along with following no I think uh uh shall be deleted from the charter following the election.

So that would be so then the selection one uh commission members must reside within the ward that the office of the commissioner represents and shall be elected for four-year terms only by the qualified electors within the ward in which they reside, or selection two, and that remains the same.

Uh selection three applies automatically if wards are not adopted.

Um commission members shall be elected at large for four-year terms without a ward residency requirement.

So just real quick, we can't have three selections.

So I want to I want to try and move move us to the next topic.

Um but I want to take public comment on this issue if there is any at this time.

Any public comment?

Seeing none.

Caleb, any public comment on that?

Not right now.

Is anybody online listening to us?

Not right now.

You could say that too.

But there might be sometimes they come in and out, isn't there?

Okay.

Um so where do we want to go from here?

Well, I I think definitely hearing again the explanatory text is still super confusing and muddy, so please send um your um recommended edits, and I will take another go at the explanatory text in section 7.03.

Um, we totally removed the ward the the current situation where commissioners don't have to be in a ward and they run at large, so they're nominated at large, they run at large.

Like that's not in this section 7.03 again, because we can only have two options.

So we wanted to focus in on the choice that our sub option three is asking.

Um so I'll work on explaining that um in that explanatory text, and then um I guess we'll have to have a longer discussion at our next meeting about the proposed section 7.04 about how we draw wards, because I at least heard that at the last meeting and and all the way along that if people are gonna evaluate whether they want to vote to make the shift to wards, they want to know how the lines are gonna get drawn.

So I don't feel like it's gonna be sufficient to just to not say anything about how that's gonna happen.

And so um that's what 7.04 is intended to do.

Is like if we choose wards, then this is how that process is gonna happen.

Yeah, I I get that.

I didn't mean to be saying that we shouldn't address how awards will be drawn.

Um we address that is gonna be uh a discussion.

So um are we ready to move on?

Um and maybe uh maybe we need to talk about the next meeting and when it's gonna be and how we're gonna proceed.

Um we did leave aside June 23rd as a tentative meeting time.

I I cannot be here at that time.

Um so um I'm I'm left and uh and I won't be able to attend by Zoom.

That doesn't mean that the the remaining people shouldn't meet.

Um it'll be the second meeting of all of ours that I've been unable to attend.

So I feel like I can leave it to you all if all of you are gonna be here on the 23rd, and we could either pick up where this is, or we could invite Dangell to come back on the 23rd.

We're gonna talk to them before the end of this meeting, but 23rd with uh a more comprehensive plan for education than what we have so far, or we could um combine all of those things, but what what is your all's pleasure?

The 23rd is a hard stop, too, right?

That's just a four to six.

I personally feel like we need it.

I I mean, I just like I feel like we need it because we you know, beyond Article 7, we still need to talk about Article 8, and then there were some wordsmithing changes that and and changes that we proposed based on the city comments that we should at least talk about.

And we haven't even touched revisions to the report yet.

Um I just couldn't do it all.

So I have some things for other parts of the question.

Yeah, I do as well.

And I'm not sure how I'll deal with it if I'm not going to be here, but I'll find a way.

I don't know.

Do we know?

I hard stop at 5 45 on the 23rd if we are meeting that day.

I I think she gets back on the 22nd, but I'm not a thousand percent sure.

Um but I think she's back on the 22nd.

But I'm prepared to spend a long time on the 30th on whatever we need to do.

My my preference is that we would just have it all on the 30th, and we have no time limit.

So let's hold that discussion for 20 minutes and talk with Dane Yeld, because maybe a solution is to have uh uh hour and a half or so meeting on the 23rd with Dan Gild and sort of finish all of the plans to the extent that we can without finishing what we're doing.

Um let's see how this evolves.

Is that all right with people?

I promise you at 10 of we'll come back to what our next when our next meeting is.

Okay.

So I see three Dangell people here.

And um they have sent us some stuff.

Um do you all want to come up and talk to us or answer questions or um you could say actually we could we didn't fail to introduce ourselves at the beginning of this meeting, and we don't have titles, so um Carson.

This is Jan, Deanna, Barb, Mike, and Caleb.

And you better introduce yourselves because other than Tor, I'm not sure who's who.

Yeah, absolutely.

I'll start.

Uh my name is Audrey Dozier.

Um, I'm part of Dane Geld.

I was here a few months ago, but it's been a minute since we've seen each other, so no worries.

Uh yeah.

I'm Aaron Corsi.

Okay.

Uh and Nevin Graves frequently confused for Tor Goodmanson due to the heightened facial similarities.

Well, you're Nevin?

Yes.

All right.

So now I've shown myself with all of my weaknesses.

Sorry, Nevin.

Oh no, you're totally fine.

No, not really.

That's let's be perfectly blunt with one another.

This is inappropriate.

It's like calling Dan Cardi, Dan McCarty.

I've done that too.

I I will say uh it happens at in Helena during the session all the time, so you're perfectly fine, and frankly, the norm at this point.

Okay.

Cool.

So do you want to show us or tell us what you sent us?

Yeah.

Um who wants to start?

Sure.

Um we have right here in front of us right now are some of our budgeted numbers based on previous voter election campaigns our team has worked on and feedback that we've gotten directly from some of our media partners.

You'll see that broken down into our video sections for uh ad spots uh over the next uh few months as that continues.

Same for our estimates and numbers on radio advertisement for print, such as the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, MSU exponent.

Uh the big piece in there is our latest quote on postcards from Miniman Press here in town for direct mailer.

Uh then likewise the budgeted amounts for social media and for any in-person events uh such as the Sweet Pea Festival and other things that the commission has said they want to have a presence at.

Uh small miscellaneous category for the voter file uh and adding another branded web domain to redirect.

Um but yeah, those are the expenditures within the limits that were approved at the last meeting.

Then down in budget upgrades, uh this would be in the event that the commission gets further along into the campaign and decides to apply additional budget.

This is the area where you know we've we've said this is where we would otherwise consider adding additional funding if the commission chose to do so.

For the most part, in I believe print radio and social, it's just like a 20% increase on what we had otherwise proposed spending.

Um these specifically.

Uh and then I think we have uh stuff on timeline for when stuff gets deployed.

But yeah, throw that to Audrey if that works.

Uh sure.

Yeah.

So largely we are still working off of the estimated timeline that we had in our proposal, um, acknowledging that things have been delayed a little bit.

So we're still planning to do the same amount of work, but we're just compressing it a little bit, uh, largely starting our um major pushes for education in August.

Uh we're hoping to start at the beginning of August and end by election day for most of these things.

So you'll see uh such as in the excuse me, uh the video section.

Um that's an estimate for running ads through uh from August 5th through November 3rd, which is election day.

Um, same with radio and same with print.

Um yeah, if there if we're definitely planning for events like the Sweet Pea Festival, uh story under the stars, uh farmers market presence, um, and if there are any events that you as commissioners think that you should be present at or that you want us to be present at, we're happy to work that in as well.

Great.

If any of us given you a list of things that we think that we can set up.

Um so maybe for the next time we meet, if we created a comprehensive list from all of us so that we kind of know what's coming um what it's gonna be.

I think that would be helpful.

Um any questions or comments on this?

Uh I do want to look at the branding before we um before we get done.

Can you scroll down to printed materials like even further?

Yeah.

What um questions?

I'm I'm curious.

Uh I guess that yeah.

I I'm just I I feel like I need to have leave behinds for like when we go on July 27th and present to this neighborhood association.

They may not be ready by then.

But um, so is that the cost of things?

So that would technically be under events and associated with the event costs.

We have printed materials and events slash tabling materials allocated for under their leave behinds, printed leave behinds for those things are included in that particular section of the budget.

Other questions?

I I feel like it's comprehensive.

I don't this is not my fourth day.

It's partly why you guys got hired.

Um I I wonder um how much detail we can get as time goes on so that we really have a timeline for when things are happening and what we're gonna do and what it's gonna look like, and at the same time, how much how much of all is all of this dependent on us finishing the product so that you know what to put in the literature?

Yeah, certainly.

Um I think you know, depending on the medium, the information is gonna be richer or not, you know, in our you know, 30-second TV ads, we're not going to be able to do a thorough explanation of every sub-option, but we are gonna be, you know, using that time to otherwise direct people back to the commission back to the study commission website, and you know, like depend depending on how granular you want it with regards to, you know, like do you want to know like the first air date for for TV ads?

Do you want to know when things are starting to appear in the chronicle?

Um, certainly on public events, that one I agree.

We want to make sure that everyone's clear on when we're all going to be going out and who's who's manning what tables, et cetera.

But yeah, certainly happy to come back to the next meeting with a fuller list of hard dates as those as those are scheduled.

Um I look to either of my colleagues with regards to when we think we might, for instance, be able to have as running on ABC Fox, which has been, I think, the most clear about when we can get stuff going from what I see on the avails.

Yeah.

Um, so as far as things like um TV or streaming ads are concerned, um, it will depend on when we are able to create the content and then also when we are able to pay them to place the content.

So partly it does depend on um your approval of our budget and and then our ability to pay for those placements.

Um, but generally once we know what we're exactly planning on, they'll need about seven to ten days, and then we can let you know exactly when you can expect to see that on TV or online.

Our current estimate is having those slotted for end of August.

Like Audrey said, that might shift around a little bit depending on some of those variables, but that's what we're planning on currently.

And that will include us putting together the video advertisements and paying for it and making sure it's everything is good to go.

And then that would be when things first start here.

What do we need to see before it goes out to the public?

Is it everything?

I mean, because there's part of me that says we want to see everything because if you get one little thing wrong and it goes out on TV, oh my gosh.

So how do we fit that into it?

I think my opinion on that would be I would like to discuss with you as a commission what would be a good collaborative back and forth on those materials.

Um obviously in order to keep our timelines, we're going to need feedback on materials relatively quickly from the commission as a whole.

We want to make sure that you have buy-in and that you've seen everything and you feel good with it.

Um that might look like appointing a couple people to have sign-off on specific things.

That might look like us, you know, sharing a folder or folders of documents with you and doing email back and forth.

Um I'm open to how that might look, but I think that definitely needs to happen at a frequency faster than these meetings.

So, however, we can facilitate that that works for you, that you feel like you have a sense of buy-in and that works for the timeline, I think will work just fine for us.

Cool.

Barbara Would it be possible to present us with a sort of message guidance document that includes sort of template graphics, key messages?

We could have talking points for our presentation, but then like what the messages in advertisings are going to be.

So we kind of pre-approve that messaging, and then that would speed up the like, yeah, this social media ad is good to go.

Yeah, that'll be one of our planned next steps right after this.

And I the other thing that we're planning on doing is um specifically having web copy for reviews sooner than later.

And because that will be the most volume of copy, um, we will be borrowing from that for other materials.

So that will be an important useful thing to have everyone sign off on as well.

And hopefully we can do some more of the back and forth on granular language there and then sort of cascade that across other platforms.

Other questions before we move to the branding.

I do want to take a look at that.

Yeah, if um I'm curious in your experience with our other campaigns.

Um, have there been some best practices coming out of your experience?

I know you've got modperg, you've got some great uh references, not trying to redo those, but any learnings that you might want to share with us that especially I know my question was going to be about messaging as well.

How do you develop it?

How do we have a chance to help shape it?

How can we all work closely together on all of this?

But have there been anything that has come out of your other experiences that we could benefit from.

I can start by speaking broadly to my experience across branding.

Um both in the sense of electoral campaigns and otherwise.

I think, and this feels obvious, but um consistency is really the most important part with messaging.

We will give you um you know, really top-level messaging and like a couple of different headlines, sound bites, things to use that you can keep repeating.

Um that sort of reinforcement and consistency works really well for people, helps them remember and stay engaged uh with you.

That's definitely one thing in general.

Just um when we come up with the messaging guidelines, obviously we want to make sure everyone is comfortable with uh getting out there and sort of embodying the messaging.

Um consistency was going to be really important there.

Um these guys take another point.

Yeah, I'll I'll jump in.

Um I would also say that meeting people where they already are is generally very helpful.

So being at visible at events, uh being visible on social media, being visible on the news and then in programs that people are already using and already viewing is super helpful.

Um I do find that, or I have found at least that in the last few rounds of things that um printed materials tend to be a little bit less effective as we all receive more and more political mail every year.

Um it tends to just kind of get tossed out with the rest of it, even if the messaging and branding is really good.

Um so we try to prioritize meeting people where they're at.

So sometimes that will mean being visible at an event, being behind a table, having pamphlets or other things for people to take rather than um prioritizing a postcard or uh an a different mailer.

Yeah.

Um I think the only other thing that I might add is for each of these pieces of messaging, we want to have a deliberate landing point for folks.

Um, you know, sometimes the message is gonna be go to the website.

Other times the message will be come to this event and come speak to the commissioners who and folks are tabling.

We, you know, particularly when we can have those specific messaging pieces be to be directing folks towards especially an in-person conversation with someone.

That's what's going to build relationship and understanding around the document um so that they can get the richest exposure to the most information.

Um I feel really strongly about um the message being consistent among all of the commissioners.

And um you uh encourage us to reach out to you for uh putting together a talk.

I think that you should put together um a slide deck and and a talk, and that when we go out, we all give the same talk.

Um it's scary to hear uh to me to hear you say embody the message because each one of us would embody it perhaps very differently.

And that is exactly what we do not want to do.

And we want this to be purely educational, and we want it to be consistent among us all.

So I would really hope to see um uh a five-minute slide deck that would be running uh at a table uh display that would be a consistent message, and that we be given specific talking points and even maybe uh uh a five-minute um uh uh speech to deliver to neighborhood groups and whatever groups we can pull together, and that there be a commitment among commissioners that we not deviate from the agreed upon message.

So yeah, absolutely.

We'll provide that.

Um we look at the branding.

Yeah.

Uh oh, I think we can Is that up here?

I can I can get it.

Okay, thanks.

Oh, it might be the next link, actually.

Next one.

There we are.

Oh, that's still not gonna be the actual link.

That should be a link.

Bear with me.

No worries.

Sorry about that.

All good.

You got there.

Okay.

Great.

Has everyone had a chance to look at this prior to the meeting?

Okay.

Can I see a show of hands of who's seen this so far?

Yeah, the um the initial link that we got we couldn't access.

Oh, okay.

And then I got the updated one.

Okay.

And that went to uh Carson and me.

Okay.

And then I just got it out to them today.

Okay.

Noted.

And I tried to send it out, but I all I could send out was a black sheet.

Because every time I did anything with it, it turned dark.

Okay.

Next time next time we can send you a PDF.

That's all right.

So go for it.

Okay, great.

What was your thinking?

All right.

So this is a what I would call a brand identity overview.

Our suggestion here is to have a strong brand for this campaign that is not necessarily just under the study commission umbrella.

The study commission will obviously continue to be associated with it, but to create something that specifically both visually and verbally connects back to the charter for people.

This is a complicated enough process that I think giving people as many cues as to what they're looking into, what this is about is really helpful in this case.

So the logo itself is the combination of a document or book and uh valley and then also a sunrise.

Um so it has a sort of aspirational quality.

Uh we wanted to do something that really felt like the Bozeman Valley, and then also again visually spoke to the idea of a document or charter.

Um this identity is uh meant to be kind of the anchor for our campaign, so we will continue to build out messaging around this and campaign um you know specific sound bites and messaging and all the things that we've been talking about prior to this.

Um the color scheme itself is something that is uh has a warmth to it, which uh in general, I think um speaking of kind of best practices, I think one of the things that helps people connect with things like this is for it to feel really approachable.

Um and I think having a uh a little bit of kind of Bozeman outdoorsy uh but warm color palette um really helps with this.

It's a diversified enough color palette that that it will be useful for us as we're building out infographic visuals and charts and things for the charter to make it or to help make it more legible or understandable for people.

Um that's kind of the general gist of things.

Um there are kind of on the left hand side, you'll see there are just a number of different applications of how the logo plays out.

Um whenever I'm doing an identity system, um the important thing with that is that it scales to billboard size and scales down to social media icon size.

Um so this is a system that will work at any scale for you.

Yeah, I'll take questions, comments, feedback.

Clemens, Mike?

Yeah, so uh just want to reiterate our ADA compliance um WCAG 2.1.

Yep.

Uh and then Deanna touched on it, but I reiterate just the the um essential education component in the in the messaging as opposed to any advocacy and minding that line uh for this side of the room timing-wise.

We have a meeting already scheduled mid-August.

That would be after adoption of the ballot language and everything else.

Uh it sounds like you were talking late August for final time.

What would be your required timeline to get approval for starting late August?

So um I will clarify that we we talked about video late August, because video it it has a slightly longer lead time to put together.

Uh we do have plans for some of the print materials to start early August.

Which doesn't answer your question, but does clarify, I think when we're planning on starting.

Let me clarify something.

My opinion, I love this.

So for print, all of these things, I think this is great.

Cool.

So I was just curious on our timing for the video rollout that may use some of this.

Yeah, we're uh essentially going to prioritize and build things out in waves so that uh we have if you um if we're planning on having a presence at Sweet P for instance, we have the tabling materials to do so.

And um if one of the first other items is doing a local presentation at um uh any sort of event um that we will have that messaging built out first.

Um the actual kind of approval process.

I know we touched on this a little earlier.

I think it would be nice to have essentially a point person, now that I've thought about it a little bit as we've been talking on the committee that um or on the commission that essentially we can touch base with and that can disseminate the information to different members, collect feedback and bring that back to us.

Um I don't know if that sounds reasonable to you guys.

I I do find it tends to be kind of a quicker turn time with feedback if we have one point person who's just kind of like uh making sure everyone is has seen things and and making sure that uh if we've set, you know, hey, we we have like a you know five-day window, three-day window, what have you for the feedback on this particular material that we have that feedback in by that time?

Umce this kind of general branding direction is approved, we're gonna immediately start building out different materials.

Um I think our plan is essentially to uh as we have things built out, send them over, get approval, and then you know, send things to press.

Um I would say ideally for us, our kind of early August lead time depends on uh no more than a five-day window for feedback from you guys for different materials.

We'll need to bundle them if it is a five-day window.

Um, but ideally more like uh three days for us to get uh to send you something and then get feedback back.

Does that seem reasonable?

I think so.

And I think we're gonna have to find a way to do that.

Um Mike and I have sort of had conversations, and Mike sees this as it's our education process as opposed to it being his, and and I think that's fair.

Um but I also think that one point person is too many, is too few.

Uh I I think two of us working in tandem can do that and contacting the other members.

So I I'd like to propose me and Jan as being the two.

Um I don't know what you all think of that, but you and all.

I would like to be one of those people.

And I do have a uh 20-year career in our directing for marketing.

Well, let's have that discussion.

I presume you don't have preferences that you would dare state.

No, I think just our preference is that uh whoever is appointed as that point person or two-point people can just collect feedback from everyone and give it back to us essentially in in one place, like in one email or in a document that we're sharing something along those lines so that we can easily keep track of it.

So it's not just um you know five different emails coming in with feedback.

Good.

Okay.

So we're running out of time now.

Um I I think that whoever the two people are need to can you wait till a little bit after the meeting and we'll have a little chat.

Sure.

Perfect.

Any more questions of them right now?

Jan.

Back to the um brand and the logo, which I think is I love hearing the story behind it as well as what it looks like.

I wasn't sure, and I'm not positive because I know the print's really tiny.

It would not be that tiny.

But would there be a place with either I'm seeing a QR code in some areas?

Um maybe our website don't want to cloud it up with a lot of print, but just want to make it really easy for people to see that logo, get excited, figure out where they can go within one click.

So I just wanted to put that one out.

Every single material we produce will have a call to action.

Um so any print material will absolutely have the website and a QR code.

Um speaking of the website, I know we're running low on time, but um we have also purchased uh uh charting BZN.com as an additional domain that we can point here that I think will uh uh tie in nicely with the brand, and that is something that we've grabbed a social handle for as well.

And thanks for that call to action inclusion, so important.

Do we need to approve this brand identity tonight?

I think we need to discuss it.

Okay.

We have 30 seconds.

We have 45 seconds.

Thank you.

Um back to you for discussion on the plan.

Uh I I'm not in a position to object to the uh branding.

It looks pretty good to me.

And it looks memorable, which is and reproducible.

Other discussion.

I'm looking at the uh, for example, the picture that you've chosen.

It's a cloudy sky and the clouds are are on the ground as well.

I don't think that that bodes well for the future uh or speaks boldly of a bright future that we're looking forward to with our new charter.

Uh and I think the whole choice of black uh as a background um could be reconsidered.

Um I think that changing uh uh using charting Bozeman's future.

Um I'm not sure that we have enough time to establish that in voters' minds.

They are looking to us.

What is the study commission doing?

And we are now asking them to um uh switch their association in their mind in a very short time.

So I'm questioning uh I'm questioning that, and I'm really questioning the choice of colors.

Uh I think they're dull and and uninteresting and almost depressing, and that they do not reflect that this is a city study commission message.

And uh that to me is the uh is a really strong point that needs to be made because we've been at this for two years, and they want to know our results.

And I don't think that this really points to the work that we're doing.

So other comments.

I mean, I just take these as examples of how the logo and the tagline are gonna show up.

So I think the logo is great.

I think the tagline works.

I think there'll be lots of other narrative that connects it to our study commission.

Um I I'm yeah, and I don't have any strong opinions about the colors, to be honest.

Okay.

Uh Deanna, to a couple of your other points.

Um, I think it's a little hard to see on the screen, but the kind of main background color on a lot of these is a deeper blue color that is intentionally in line with um the Bozeman City brand as a whole.

That's kind of the anchor of this.

Um, so that that kind of it's not the exact color value, but it's quite similar to this.

Um the goal with including that was to foster uh a connection between the city itself and this particular brand.

Um I think that that's as far as your uh note on the image, that is something that absolutely we can uh take forward as we're building out the final materials as well, being very careful about how we're uh choosing in particular landscape imagery.

I would say as far as uh your feelings about maybe there not being enough time to associate this uh in people's heads.

I think there is, and I think um having and committing to this brand for several months.

I've I've been a part of campaigns that have done it faster.

Um I think the consistency is important, and I think that the strong visual elements are important with this.

I know that the very engaged voters have been following along with you and are eagerly awaiting what's next.

I think a lot of the city.

Okay.

We've got to end.

So where do we go from here, folks?

I think we need to meet on the 23rd.

So can you all make it back on the 23rd and come maybe we'll chat afterwards about sort of what that meeting is going to look like?

Okay.

Um and come with a plan for that.

And what do we want to do about the rest?

Do we want to defer the rest of the um charter to the 30th?

Uh, or do we want to try and take up some of that on the 23rd as well?

Sorry, say that again.

Do we want to try and take up some of the charter on the 23rd as well?

Or do we want to just focus on a the plan for education?

Yeah.

I'd I mean, I do as the one that has to make all the changes and do all the revisions by the first week of August.

I definitely think we need to make some more progress on finalizing charter stuff and the board conversation is clearly gonna take some time.

Okay, so the 23rd is 4 p.m.

to 6.

Hard step.

Thursday?

Is it a hard stop?

Yes.

Okay.

Jan.

I think it would be helpful to really use the 23rd for the rest of the education, the rest of the charter business that we're that we're working on that um whoever's working with our folks can be utilizing the time between now and the 30th.

There may be there can be cases that would be ready to go in an agenda that would be coming out close to a week in advance for the 30th, and to really have an hour, an hour and a half at that meeting on the 30th, because we've done most of the work, hopefully on the 23rd, so we can really give you quality, not last minute end of the meeting kind of kind of um meeting opportunity.

So that would be my recommendation.

All right, so does that work?

That works.

And so the 23rd, we're gonna finish the charter to the extent that we can.

The 30th will come with a full to the extent that you can plan.

Right.

With the note that's who are gonna be the liaison.

I just want to say we do need some message guidance for the 27th.

Yes.

Yep.

All right.

Who are the appropriate people to be the liaison?

I would really like to do it.

I've been working with the comms team.

I've been working with Carson on this.

I've been, I don't want to give you a resume, but I probably have as much more experience than Deanna, but I will serve it to Commission's pleasure or not.

I don't want to do it.

And I have a two-week vacation in the middle of August.

So I I really can't do it.

Um I'm comfortable with Carson and Jan doing it feels like the chair should be involved in this.

Um we need a vote.

Is there a motion?

I will move that Jan and Carson service point people with Dangil.

Can you second that?

Yeah.

I'll second.

Public comment on this issue.

Caleb?

Further discussion?

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

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Abstain.

Motion carries three with one abstention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's no other business, this meeting is adjourned at 608 p.m.