Bozeman Board of Ethics Meeting – October 2, 2026

The Bozeman Board of Ethics met Friday, October 2, 2026, and was called to order at 9:00 a.m. The primary agenda item was the initial review of the Cynthia Smith ethics complaint filed July 5, 2026. The meeting was held in person and by video conference and was streamed on city cable channel 190. After hearing from retained counsel, the complainant, and respondents, the board voted 3-0 to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Disclosures

• Chair Sara Rushing disclosed an acquaintance with respondent Douglas Fischer but stated she did not believe recusal was required. Board member Mark Bond disclosed that his employer convenes Gallatin County's Regional Housing Coalition, which includes HRDC and the City of Bozeman. Retained Counsel Jordan Crosby reviewed both disclosures and agreed no recusal was necessary.

Complaint Review Proceedings

• The board reviewed the complaint, the respondents' response, Resolution 2025-64, and counsel's September 8, 2026 analysis under Bozeman Municipal Code 2.03.640(E). Chair Rushing noted this was not a formal ethics hearing; the board could dismiss the complaint, decide the merits without a hearing, or schedule a hearing.
• Jordan Crosby, retained counsel, summarized the complaint as alleging improper responses to Smith's requests about HRDC, city contracts, public funding, and oversight. Crosby recommended dismissal, stating the complaint challenged conduct outside the board's jurisdiction and failed to identify specific conduct that would violate Bozeman's or Montana's ethics codes.
• Complainant Cyndy Smith argued that the board should separate her HRDC employment dispute from her concerns about city officials' conduct regarding public money, oversight, equal access, possible conflicts, and retaliation. She asked the board not to dismiss the complaint but to preserve records, gather facts, and provide written findings. She said she had been unable to obtain documents through ordinary city channels.
• Mayor Joey Morrison, appearing as a respondent, offered a timeline clarification: he said Smith met with him on May 11 and had escalated to an ethics complaint with the Commissioner of Political Practices by May 13. He described the records request as extremely large, involving about 150,000 emails and an estimated eight months of full-time clerk work to review and redact. He also said a meeting with the mayor is sufficient access.
• Smith disputed the Mayor's timeline characterization, saying she did not file this ethics complaint two days after the May 11 meeting; she said she continued using public comment and city channels and filed only after being repeatedly denied information.
• Complainant comments were limited to 10 minutes, with 50 seconds reserved for rebuttal; respondents also had up to 10 minutes for comments.

Discussion Items

• Board members asked Smith to connect specific facts to specific ethics-code violations. Smith said she was still gathering documentation and had not received records through ordinary city channels.
• Jim Drummond said he found no concrete facts or conflict-of-interest evidence and characterized the complaint as casting a wider net after an employment dispute with HRDC.
• Mark Bond said the complaint relied on subjective concerns rather than concrete allegations of ethics-code violations, and many requests for investigation fell outside the board's authority.
• Chair Sara Rushing said the complaint did not identify specific conduct — who did what, when — and that the board does not conduct investigations. She also noted records-request grievances have their own procedures under the city resolution.
• No board member requested additional information before the vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comment was accepted during the complaint review prior to the board's decision, consistent with the board's rules of procedure for contested matters.
• During the non-agenda public comment period, the board called three times and checked for online comments; no public comments were offered.

Key Outcomes

• Mark Bond moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and Jim Drummond seconded the motion, for failing to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction under BMC 2.03.600(A)(3) and 2.03.640(G).
• The motion carried 3-0. Jim Drummond, Mark Bond, and Sara Rushing voted to approve; no one disapproved.
• The dismissal with prejudice means the complaint cannot be brought again.
• The board did not schedule a hearing and adjourned after completing its agenda.