Meeting of the October 6th Study Commission to order, please.

May we have a roll call?

Uh Rayland Brandle here.

Lori Casey here.

Dan Denehee.

Mary McCormick.

Excused.

Cindy Purdue Dolan.

Cindy Shaw, excused.

Chad Silk.

Here.

Matt Stappen.

I believe he's on his way.

Okay.

And Ben Thielen.

Can we have our Pledge of Allegiance and prayer, please?

Under God.

Liberty and Justice for All.

All right, thank you.

So our first item, public comment on any item on the agenda.

All right, everybody 2601 Grand Avenue.

Just a couple questions.

You keep talking about an op-ed.

I kind of wondered what it was all about.

And then I wondered why you're not putting out news releases after each meeting.

Because you're covering subjects that are new and different each time.

Thank you, Mr.

Badrab.

Any other public comment on any item not on the agenda or on the agenda.

Good evening.

My name is John Reardon, 1107 Iowa Avenue.

And I just thought I'd uh I've been following you guys quite closely, and first of all, I just want to uh thank you for and uh and appreciate you for the work that you guys are doing because it's a large task.

There's some doors that haven't been open for quite a while.

Uh the process has been in i in butte for years and years, you know.

Uh I remember I don't want to get into it, but years ago the big council of commissioners usually started at the drift in and then they come up and do some work up here at the courthouse and all that stuff.

So but right now we have a pretty full plate with the people and the growth and all that.

And I just wanted to state that I I really support the the system that we're looking at, the replacement system, because something's got to change.

I mean, Butte was a small quaint community and all that.

It grew, it went down, it grew, and then now here we are, we're really growing really fast.

Um to have attention, support for the people that we have out there.

And I think what this would do, this process would open up the public interest of the voting citizens.

They would have more transparency, and I'm not saying there isn't transparency now, but it would give them more of a chance to participate in all that, and I think that that would more or less bring the government back together where the right the right hand knew the left hand, and then the commissioners would know what to do with their people in their district.

Um I looked, there's a couple people around here that have been on the commission and all that.

It's probably the craziest job I've ever had.

For the fact that number one, I was retired and had some time, and number two is just that uh the situations that you run in to that people don't understand and don't know the process how to get it.

Uh I noticed on the agenda and all that uh there was a deal about community councils.

I don't know if I'm allowed to speak at that.

I think that would help help a lot getting more people involved in this situation.

But uh I just mainly can't came up to support you guys.

Uh like I said, it isn't an easy job.

We guys got some great people here that really care about butte and want to get some things done, so I thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Reardon.

Any other public comment on item on the agenda?

All right, everybody 2601 Grand Avenue.

Reference public comment on any items not on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

The subject clarification of a point of procedure.

Butte Silver Bowl precedent and state of Montana law relative to public comments.

At the last meeting of the local government study committee, the question of precedent came up relative to public comments.

This brings up the crux of the issue.

Why does the Butte Silver Bowl public throw up their arms and say what's the use?

And then do not try to participate in their local government.

The answer being simple.

Because of the Butte Silver Bowl precedent, they are not allowed to participate in the discussions.

According to the Butte Silver Boat precedent at the Butte meet public meetings, there is to be public comment period.

One for items on the agenda, and one for items not on the agenda.

Public discussion is not to be allowed during either.

According to Montana law public meetings for items not on the agenda.

There is to be a public comment period.

There is not to be a back and forth conversation with the board or the commission.

No action should be taken on any public comment that addresses something not on the agenda.

For items on the agenda, Montana law states, or the public has the right to participate in the discussions of the board or commission on agenda items before a final decision is made.

A recommended procedure is outlined in the Montana Code.

So I don't get caught in the crossfire again.

I and I am sure the people of the Greater Butte Silver Boat community would appreciate it if you would consider putting procedure for public comment and public participation during discussions on your agenda and an item under new business at your next meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Banderab.

We jumped ahead.

Is there any other public comment on items on the agenda?

Okay.

And then now or is there any other public comment on items not on the agenda?

Okay.

Excellent.

All right, thank you.

So I'd like to move on to approval of minutes of the meeting held September 22nd and the public hearing meetings held on September 29th.

I would move to approve the minutes.

I move to approve the minutes of September 22nd and the public hearing minutes held on September 29, 2025.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Silk Seconds, is there any discussion on the approval of the minutes?

Can I get a vote for the approval of minutes?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Motion carries thank you for approving our minutes and thank you.

Um Ms.

Boyd and Ms.

Christians for the detailed minutes.

We appreciate those.

Okay, so moving on.

Correspondence or study commission update.

So at the last meeting, you guys asked um me or Annie to reach out to the GIS department about the fire districts.

Um I provided a email to all of you in regards to that.

Um Ross Carlson emailed back and said that yes, GIS is in the process of reviewing the prior fire district mapping efforts.

And they met with Lee Sullivan about this for the first time last week, so mid-September.

Um and they have a reoccurring meeting now with him on Thursdays for the foreseeable future.

He briefed he briefed the GIS department on the fire district mapping endeavors undertaken to date by Ross's predecessor, Dan, and they are starting to dig into the data.

They're unsure of how complete or accurate the mapping data and resulting static maps are until they gain a further or a deeper understanding of the data.

Basically just meaning whether the mapping work is 10 or 90 percent complete currently.

There are 92 council descriptions that they have to review the mapping of to understand if the mapping data for the proposed fire district represents these legal descriptions yet or not.

And they're still becoming familiar with the prior work in this arena and digging into all the available data from Dan's work, comparing it to the available source data from Lee and examining the mapping work and trying to trace the source legal descriptions all the way through to the end polygons, and they think that the mapping work is further along than less so, but are also already found differences in the source council resolutions from what Dan had compared to Lee.

Discrepancies and documentation about what had and had not been mapped in a spreadsheet versus the resulting map data.

And Lee has been very helpful in helping them expedite their learning about the data in this arena and has graciously volunteered to come in to meet with them on days he's not on shift.

Um and then he said they can provide more updates about the work as they learn more.

Thank you.

Are there any other study commission updates?

Mr.

Enruth.

May I interject before we go on to the next thing?

Can I add something to this email?

Comment?

Yeah, I think that's fine.

Okay.

Um I just a minute before we started the meeting, and I just want to get it on the record.

I had asked Chad who Lee Sullivan was.

Um so Chad, can you explain who Lee is and then I'll say something else?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Cindy.

So Lee is a firefighter paramedic who is in charge of our IT committee at the career department.

Um of the reasons that brought us to finding out or trying to find all of the fire districts mapping was the new flex system that um Dan was a big part in getting us.

It's a computer aid dispatch system.

And we needed to have the proper mapping documentation so when someone calls 911, the PIN will drop.

They click a button, it says all the units that need to respond, and they go ahead and go.

This was brought up boy a a couple years ago, and I distinctly remember, and I'll look back in the fire advisory minutes.

Um the volunteers were asked to provide their district boundaries.

And I'm paraphrasing here, but uh the volunteer at that time said what is what's the job of the fire director, what is the director do?

Why can't he find those?

So when Cindy asked me if uh the volunteers were asked to help or to fact check this, um it probably not recently.

Um that was I assume taken as they weren't gonna do it, and the IT committee for the career department was going to investigate that.

Um with Dan retiring there was just a changing of the guard as that email said so they're starting um back to zero to make sure that everything is is clear and accurate.

Um what I can do is suggest to the director of fire services to have a volunteer go to these Thursday meetings to make sure that what's in black and white is black and white um and it's properly documented.

If someone from the volunteer department wants to fulfill that role, it's all public documentation, so um it all has to be accurate and we want it accurate because we do not have a true fire district map in this community.

We have a response area map but not a fire district map with true boundaries and resolutions for district boundaries.

So that might enlighten some people and bring some more insight to it.

So with that, I'll hand it back over to Cindy.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um thank you for that, Chad.

I just wanted to get that on the record because that's great information to have.

I want to try and prevent any of that from happening if we can at all with the information that we get that it's correct and accurate and um both sides can join, you know, uh sign on to that.

And I think that's a good way to go.

Thanks, Chad.

Ms.

Casey.

This question I think might be for Chad.

But Chad, are do you know are they doing it by resolution and the resolution usually has a boundary description?

Uh yeah, as far as I'm aware, um the guy to ask that question to would be firefighter Sullivan.

Um, but I believe the documentation of those resolutions has townships sections and everything that you're very familiar with.

Um, to the best of my knowledge, yes, that's how they're doing it.

One thing that I maybe would suggest is that it might be brought to the fire advisory board to see if there's a volunteer that the volunteer council could select if they wanted to be a part of this process.

Um and again, I've said it in other meetings, but if volunteers are listening to this, or if anyone can talk to the volunteers to speed up the process with bringing their documentation, I believe maybe racetrack did do that, and I I imagine that spit up the process.

Um but um there has to be more people in the community that have the district boundaries than just the archives, but at least the archives has them.

So short answer, uh I think the resolutions are what they're going off of.

Okay.

Um thank you for that update.

And you know, again, on fulfilling this mapping need, we're a little bit out of our purview, but I appreciate the efforts to make sure that people are are included and working well together, and especially as that information will help uh support the study commission's work as we move forward.

Okay, Mr.

Nruth, I think we're ready for you.

Uh good evening, commissioners.

Prior to the meeting started, I handed uh all of you all of you did get the uh memorandum that was prepared.

Uh all of you should have also got a printout of some emails from uh with regards to Rivalley County and them changing their charter in form of government here back in 2016.

And then some of you got uh we the people of Butte Silverbow, you know, uh big packet that is what our study commission did back in 2006.

So what I would like the commissioners to look at with regards to this is uh the memorandum lays out your next course of action.

Uh us as you know, beatsilverbow county, we are an incorporated municipality, so we fall under whether you know we if we want to choose the county rules or the municipality rules, we can go back and forth.

They're both contained in here.

They're almost identical as you'll see with regards to what study commissions can do.

So the purpose of the study commission, obviously, as we all know, is to study whether or not Butte Silverbow County wants to make any recommendations to the existing plan of government.

You may also draft a charter.

Um you may also do things that uh previously have been done, which is uh incorporate a municipal county consolidation.

Uh you may also submit no recommendation.

One of the big questions that was proposed to me was how many recommendations does this council get to submit on a ballot.

So if we look um uh in the memorandum, um you get to submit one question with three sub-options.

So once a study commission finalizes a recommendation, you know, a local government body must present to the proposed voters what that recommendation is.

You can look in there under section three, a study commission recommendation.

There are also two other ways to do this by local ordinance or verified petition, but we're under the study commission recommendations.

Under 7-3-192, a study commission's recommendation of an alternative form or plan of government must be submitted to the voters as an election conducted under section 149, which gets into the same way that if it was presented to you guys or presented to the commissioners through a petition by the people.

So when you start looking back at these statutes, just remember that they're all referencing each other.

So while sections 7, 3, 150 and 151 state based off of a petition, the other statute specifically references back, that that's how these things have to be handled.

So when we're looking at uh what you can put on the ballot, it's gonna state a petition recommendation when you're looking in the statutes, but that's the same thing that the study commission can do.

So under section 7-3-151, a petition or recommendation may include up to three sub-options with no more than two alternatives.

So basically what that means is if you look at the the uh option they give you in the statute down underneath section three of uh see that's section six or paragraph six number three, and then it says vote for one to be elected for a term of four years or to be appointed for a term of four years by a presiding officer.

Those are that is the statutory sub-language under which you need to your your two options under your one choice, right?

So that is for the county attorney specifically, and that is your question, and then you get the two sub-options underneath that is how it reads.

So, for instance, one of the ones I know that this commission was currently looking at was the coroner.

Do the citizens abuse Silverbow County wish to retain the coroner the way it is, you know, or under these two options.

Does that all make sense to everybody?

So, based on what I'm reading and what I have found, we get you get three of them.

And when you look at the emails that I provided you from Rivalley County, I could have condensed that into a member a memorandum, but when you actually read through the emails themselves the way they're written, I think it makes more sense, and you can look at that and see what Ravalli County was trying to do.

They were trying to put you know substantially more than three items with the two subsections underneath them on their ballot.

And the attorney for Mako, who's I don't is not, I don't believe Harold is there anymore, but I do have an email in to whoever's now doing this, uh, specifically laid out that you cannot do that.

You have to break it back down into your three questions.

So what he did is he took, you know, their uh what they were looking at doing, which was taking their county commissioners um from five back down to three, and then also restructuring their terms.

Um how they had it set up was each one of those was a separate question.

So question number one was you know, uh knocking the the commissioners back down from five to three, and then they had a separate question of going from four to six years.

The Mako attorney suggested combining those to make it one question.

Um you read that in here, you'll see those types of options.

Um obviously this was a non-legal binding opinion as he was the Mako attorney, and he suggests that their county attorney would have to issue an opinion.

But between the research Sean and I did, this is what it keeps boiling back to is this commission gets to change three things.

Um, one of them, you know, being you know the form of government and then anything that falls under sections one through six of uh Montana Code annotated seven-three-sections one through six, you can see in there all the different options that we can have, which is the manager commission style government uh continue what we have going forward, um, the mayor style one as well.

I provided the packet from the 2006 study commission so you guys can review what they did there and how they you know started kind of putting together their proposals for the people of Butte Silverbow County.

Uh you know, this is honestly.

I think this packet that I was able to obtain was like their final report, is almost what it looks like to me.

But it's got slides in there.

I think it just obtained a lot of good information for everybody to be able to review to just look at how they structured things.

So when we get back to looking under paragraph six, remember there's that single question requirement, and then we can have the sub questions that specifically you know, with regards to our our charter, and then you have under those those sub-questions the two alternatives.

Um I put in there just some guidelines with regards to kind of the process that you guys are looking at going forward through, always contact me, and then the conclusion there.

But that's the basis of that big question is it appears to me that you guys get three amendments to our current charter and form of government based off of the new statute.

The one thing Sean and I have not been able to find because we don't have a book, but we're looking for one and we can't pull it up on Lexus, is if the 2006 laws were structured significantly different than the uh current laws that we're going under, mainly because if you look um through that packet that I gave you guys about what the 2006 study commission did, they did have the uh some of the more general questions, such as um you know, deleting transitional language and clarified out-of-date references within the the local abuse silverboat charter.

That was one of you know the things that they put on the ballot back then.

But again, when you look at that, they put a lot more on the ballot than uh what I believe the law is currently allowing us to, so I think this might have been changed.

But the one thing that is that the study commission can do, then I know that everybody's looking at because you want to do a lot of different changes in the charter, you can draft a charter for adoption by the voters.

That's that's part of your guys' authority, but that would be drafting a whole new charter.

Um and how that looks on a ballot, uh, I cannot find an example of it if it just says that you know you guys want to adopt a new charter and then proceed forward with uh the local government um developing that charter and laying it all out.

But I I genuinely think that if you're drafting a new charter, the voters have the right to look at that charter before it's fully adopted.

But as you guys have as what I think your procedure is now, is you get uh three things that you can change, and you can have uh the two options underneath each one of those requests on the ballot, and then this gives you guys some framework to continue forth with that.

Uh like I said, um I have uh an email out to the head attorney for Mako with regards to uh anybody else that has recently done one closer to ours, you know, more like Rivalley Counties is a little off, but um, to see if there's something even newer that we can look at and grab.

But for the purposes of going forward, that's what it's looking like for now.

And sorry, that's a lot to digest.

If that memo is kind of big clarification questions, Mr.

Denih.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, thank you, Matt, very much without reading your information that you gave us today.

These might be redundant questions, but um so we have three ballot issues that can be put on the ballot, and underneath each of those three are two sub-options for a certain subject and for or against a certain subject.

Sometimes the in other charters it's two affirmative votes for for example um council commissioners.

We the ballot first ballot measure would say something like for uh the amendment of the charter that would require five uh council of commissioner members for that amendment or against that amendment.

That's one sub-option.

Second sub-option could it be those members, those new members of the council commissioners shall be elected at large or two elected as districts through districts, and three sub-option would be those commissioners would be part-time commissioners versus those commissioners will be full-time commissioners.

So that's one ballot issue, or is that five ballot issues?

Uh Commissioner Denny, that's where I want you to read those emails with the Rivalley County Commissioners.

That is exactly what they were discussing, because I think that's where we're gonna get into trouble is is we want to do a lot of things and we want to break it down and make it clear.

But the problem with that is is then that exceeds the statutory authority.

Do you want us to move that, Ms.

Dole?

I don't know if we can.

Oh.

You want to sit over this test?

Sorry, I didn't mean to stop.

I just looked over and I'm like read those emails between the uh Revalli County.

Uh, you know, that was dealing over there in Revalley County because that's literally what it addresses is that specific option because that's what they were trying to do was break it down into you know six or seven different uh ballot uh initiatives, and uh the Mako attorney was clear that he believed it violated uh you know those provisions of the law where we're allowed only three, and that's why he was saying you can possibly combine these.

But then if you read in there, and I do agree with them, you have to be very careful that we don't make it convoluted and you know not understandable, which again, you know, if you were able to lay it them all out, you know, okay, five five commissioners compared to 12 four or six-year terms.

Dolan thank you madam chair um so Matt um it seems to me at this juncture that we're at and you're absolutely correct there are a lot of things that people want to change in this charter and unfortunately with that assessment of only three ballot options um or I'm glad you added this tonight because I didn't realize that having only three binding ballot issues and a list of recommendations that we can give the council of commissioners those recommendations that we give in a list aren't binding they can accept them or they can say no we're not gonna do that.

So it's imperative for some of these changes that are that people want made to the charter it may and because we haven't done it for over 20 years um to re to redo the whole charter and put that on the ballot because then it would be totally binding.

Is that correct?

Commissioner Dolan so that is the one question that Mr Peterson and I have yet to find a final answer on but that's what we were discussing uh last week and earlier today was uh one of the uh options that this study commission has is to re is to draft a charter and I and Sean and I looked at each other and we said well does that mean redraft a current charter um or not and so that is one of the questions that we want uh a few more opinions on before we finalize that answer to this commission but we do believe it is a possibility we can't specifically find anything that that prohibits redrafting of it which wouldn't make any sense anyways because obviously it's in there for a reason and and as you just said ours is 20 years old you need to be able to redraft these older documents to catch up with the times and things like that and only being able to change you know three options in them or three options within your local government can become cumbersome now the one thing we need to keep separate here is uh you know one the study commission has been asked of whether or not we should actually modify our form of government and then the sub questions also go underneath they go underneath that one so essentially you know do the do the citizens of Silverville County want to go to a commission manager formed style of government and then those sub-options are obviously the number of commissioners and the years that go with that.

And then I do think one of those the is is a possibility of redrafting a um charter that you know can contain all of everything but Sean and I have not had a final answer on that yet.

So yes and possibly no just one quick follow-up thank you madam chair um so knowing that and hope I'm hopeful that we can redraft the entire charter because I think as we continue this process there's gonna be a jockey of position on which things are most important.

I mean there are some folks that are pushing certain things that may or may not be a ballot intense question or maybe just a a change of a word in the current charter um for example the community councils that's already in the charter but instead of just changing a word from shall to may or from excuse me from may to shall that changes the whole dynamic of community councils that are currently in the charter.

So that it in my point of view that wouldn't be a ballot issue because that's just a a language question.

Of course it changes everything with one word but to make it easier for folks to vote on things I mean I just I just think there's going to be some little bit of fireworks on on what ends up being a ballot issue and which ends up being a you know list of recommendations for the council commissioners and um anyway that's what I think.

Well and just as a follow up to that Sean and I will have an answer um by October our next meeting is 22nd 21st 21st two.

We'll we'll have a full blown answer for on whether or not um that is a a possibility and what the timeframe of redrafting that you know looks like and just as a you know with regards to um community councils I I do believe that the May was put in there because if it's a shall it becomes basically an unfunded mandate you know you have to go do these things.

So just while we're looking at all of those I would caution forcing forcing things like that on communities some commun some some of our communities might not want them.

But I do think we can tune that language up.

I'll take Mr.

Denehee and then I'll go to Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you again, Madam Chair.

Matt, um, looking at the 2006 charter, they have seven issues.

Yes.

And so in your legal opinion, based on what you know and your review of the state statute, would you say that the seven ballot issues that were placed on the ballot in 2006 was not the correct way to go or against I shouldn't say against, but violated state law?

I don't have an answer for that, Commissioner Denhy, specifically because when you look at that, the 2006 law is approximately 20 years old, it very well could have been different.

Um the program that we use for legal research is Lexus Nexus Plus, we have a very advanced version of it, but uh sometimes it doesn't allow us access to things that old, and we have to go find literally find a book.

And the only place I know where that book may exist is in the old uh De Hood law firm in Anaconda, and so I might have to drive over there and find it because they have a very large law library uh next to the University of Montana.

Mr.

Steffen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um two points, I think.

One just logically in my mind.

It seems that it doesn't make sense to me that it something that you only have the opportunity to do every 10 years, is limited to three recommendations that you could make.

That that's the first thing that jumps out at me.

The second, and I'm certain I will not be able to articulate this well.

But reading the copy of the emails that you sent, I'm I'm seeing a petition recommendation may not involve more than three separate sub-options.

When I read that, I read one petition recommendation might be our chief executive form of government, and that we can't have more than three sub-options to that.

I'm not reading three total uh at least that's not what I'm reading.

Does that make sense?

Am I articulating?

I understand your question, yes.

So if you go to the memorandum, um specifically uh well, there's no page numbers, but it's gonna be under paragraph three.

There are three ways in which a local government can modify their charter or their form of government.

One of them is a verified petition.

That petition actually comes from the people.

They have to gather signatures, um, I believe it's uh 15% of the local voting body, and then they are limited by statute under section 7-3-151 to how many choices they can put on their petition to modify.

Um, and it's it's one petition.

Now the question becomes is can they can they provide multiple petitions if they got 15% of the voting population to submit three different petitions, possibly, but I don't read it that way.

I read it as it's a verified petition, and these are the three things that they can change under that petition.

Now, what's different here is is there's a study commission recommendation because we have the the people of Ute Silverbow County already voted to convene a study commission.

This body was elected.

When you go into what a municipal study commission may do, it's at the top of that specific page.

Um you have more options than just uh a petition submitted by the people.

Those options being one of them that's that's different is to actually draft a charter.

Um also you can make the recommended amendments to an existing plan of government, but when then when you get into section 7-3-149, you are specifically still stuck to uh uh the amount of recommendations that you can make to the voting population, which is the same as if a petition was submitted, which is the three.

Um and that though those two statutes correlate with each other, uh and it took us a while to find the one random one that showed that it did, but that's where Sean and I were stuck was do you guys have an unlimited amount because of what the 2006 study commission did?

That was a possibility in our brain until we found um the statute that specifically correlates those two, which is on the next page, and it's 7-3-192.

A study commission's recommended alternative form of form or plan of government must be submitted to the voters in the same manner um as an election conducted under 73149, which is the ballot structure for the petitions, which is 73150 and 151, and that is to ensure consistency with citizen initiated proposals.

Basically, they didn't want to give you more power than citizens had themselves.

Mr.

Anruth, with some of those bow or those charter cleanup pieces, like the language, we could make that as a recommendation to the council commissioners.

Are they authorized to change those cleanup pieces or no?

So the problem with that is is after reviewing our current charter, I did not find anywhere in the charter where it specifically gives them the authorization to do so.

Um the only amendments that they are authentic that the commission uh current commission is authorized to make are amendments to our charter to make it uh not correlate, but um you know, be uh copacetic with state law.

If state law changes and then our charter is now all of a sudden, you know, at odds with that state law, they have the authority to amend the charter to to make them you know fall in line with each other because specifically under Article 9 of the Montana Constitution, our local government is to comply with all statutory laws in the state of Montana.

So to Ms.

Dolan's point, if there's a lot of language cleanup that we need to do, then it might behoove us to ask the voters if we may redraft.

Yes.

And then the next question becomes is the charter, do we present an entire charter to them in a voting manner?

And that's the question that we have out to uh the Mako attorney and also to the um there's a board that convenes in the state of Montana uh every so many years with regards to local governments and how they're being you know conducted, and they're currently not in sessions, my understanding.

But we've uh Sean was looking to see if we could find some names of the people that are on that commission to help us in that area if we do intend on drafting an entire new charter to encompass all of the things that the this study commission wants to do, how that has to be presented on a ballot.

You know, and is it if you you can kind of look in that the packet from 2006, but I also think of of looking at a packet, sometimes it's got you know the little description of what um you're voting on, and then underneath it's you know three or four more paragraphs.

I don't know if that's how it has to look or not, but that is a question that we're gonna ask.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just one quick follow-up, Matt.

Um, with regard we to the mention of the local government commission, is that a group of state legislators?

Could you say they're not in session?

Yes, and I don't know if I used the correct uh term, their uh session, if they're not in session or not, but yes, it's their state legislators is my understanding, and it was it's now I can't think of the name of it, but it was like a subcommittee that dealt with an overview of local governments, and uh we just happened to come across it through all the research that we're doing, and I'm like, well, let's call them, and then I you know did the instant Google trying to find them, and it says, you know, this is currently not there, there was nothing available, but I've already made the couple of phone calls to the people I know over there to see if they can point me in the right direction.

Yep.

Mr.

Steppen.

Forgive me for going back again.

But for clarity, are we talking about potentially drafting a new charter as a way to address more than three issues?

And if so, I'm curious how we can do so while still providing multiple options for the each of those issues.

Uh you could have a lot of different variations of a charter depending on how each issue is perceived by the public, right?

And so that's I guess where I'm struggling with.

You know, we we've identified four topics that have kind of risen to the top.

And I'm curious how we can have the public's input through vote on each of those four, or if we have to eliminate one, or I know I just kind of keep coming back to the same fundamental question, but I'm struggling with seeing how a rewrite of the charter addresses individual topics without writing what would that be, four times three to the what's power?

Uh different variations.

Uh Commissioner, so with regards to that, that is what this body was voted on to decide on to vote whether or not you're gonna look at redoing an entire charter, or if you're going to vote uh, you know, by majority of redoing just a certain amount of things within the charter uh and keeping that within the law itself.

Uh and again, we don't have a final answer on whether or not one of those questions can specifically be redrafting the charter.

But I can say this if if that is a possibility, I do think that that eliminates the sub options issue because you're presenting a whole new charter that they're gonna vote on.

They're not gonna be voting on uh um uh one specific individual question within the charter.

So you could look at that if a new charter was drafted, and this commission stated that we're going to a new form.

This is the new form of government that we're looking at, and this is the charter that we're looking at.

Do you wish to adopt the charter?

Yes or no after reviewing it.

I do not think you can submit you know multiple questions under the charter.

It has to be a fully agreed upon document in order to be submitted to the voters.

And so that's where you guys are gonna have to, you know, after having some more debate and listening to some more people, you know, make those recommendations among yourselves is which way are we gonna go?

Are we gonna just look at keeping to the three options, or are we gonna look at an option which includes um modifying our current form of government in conjunction with submitting a new uh charter at the same time?

But then again, those are two separate questions because if question number one is we don't want to change our government, question number two becomes null and void because the new charter doesn't apply to the old form of government.

So those are all things that need to be discussed within this body itself.

Again, like I said, I'll have a final answer on whether or not redrafting an entire charter is possible by your next meeting.

However, for right now, I can uh with um legal certainty state that if that is not what this body is looking at doing, you are bound by the th basically the three ballot initiatives, or not initiatives, but the three ballot questions that you want to put on it that underneath have the two the two options.

Mr.

Dunny.

Thank you, Matt.

Um to two Matt's.

Um I think what we need to do too is we debate the issue and have our comments made is that what would it what would be easier?

Um in terms of voting what we want to get done for the community.

Three ballot issues with the two sub-options as part of the vote, or an entire charter that the people will be would say, Oh, yeah, I read it, and we want a new entire new charter, which has been like a constitution, the amendments to that part of the constitution might be a lot easier than saying we want a whole new constitution in this in this vernacular, a whole new charter, and we and say, here you go, voters.

Do you like this whole new charter?

Because some of the things in the charter are very important, some are very well written.

It's been a document that has served 40 years, versus okay, there's three ballot issues that we have to come to terms with.

What they are going to be, we don't know yet.

That's again up to our debate and our uh due diligence here.

So I mean though those are some of the questions we have to grapple with as we move forward.

Mr.

Thielen uh Dan, I I kind of tend to agree with you and disagree with you, right?

I think that at some point we might have to entertain the idea of possibly doing a new charter if we can't agree to what issues are going to be put on there.

So I don't think at this point in time anything is off the table.

And as you said, some of the things are really well written.

And they can they could stay in.

And you could just add to them or enhance some of the the current subjects in there.

So it's just something we're gonna have to take a look at at that time.

So I think it's still all on the table.

Mr.

Stepin?

It just seems to me that the writing of a new charter limits the public's opportunity to vote on the things that they feel are important.

And the way that I'm understanding it is correct.

That would be us having to make the recommendation say that you know there will be a change to the executive form of government with a city manager, and we would have to make a recommendation on the number of commissioners.

And then it becomes a yes or no to accept the new charter or not, where maybe a voter feels strongly about the chief executive form, but not as strongly about the commissioners, but it's an all or nothing option, if that makes sense.

And that seems limiting to me that for them to accept the new form, we are recommendations have to align with each one of those important issues without getting a vote of the people to determine that.

Mr.

Thenon I kinda agree and I kinda don't, Matt.

We're here to do a job, we're not here to make friends.

You know, I mean, some people are going to like it, some people aren't going to like it.

You're never going to please all the people all the time.

We're going to have to do what we can, what we feel is best for the community, and put it forth.

If they don't like it, they're not going to vote for it.

It's that simple.

So then that puts it back to square one, I'd imagine, or go back to the old charter, wouldn't it?

I believe that would be correct.

In addition, that's also why I I do believe at the end of uh not the end, but as part of the statutes with regards to a municipal study commission, um sometimes you know recommendations can't be agreed upon, which is why you submit no recommendation.

I think as we do our work and we go through our deliberations, I think your opinion in regards to the charter question is is really important for us to have ASAP because otherwise we're we can talk around the conversation or cut talk around the issues for weeks.

Um and then secondly, I think we've all been very diligent about making sure we have good voter input and that we're allowing our voters ample opportunity to vote on the things that they want to, to your point, Mr.

Stepan, in terms of commission, you know, if if we are thinking we need to redraft a whole uh charter because we want to include those three that we've been talking about, um, or four that we've been talking about, and we can't choose between those four.

I think that might be to Dan's point, it might be confusing to to the voters in terms of like, hey, here's a whole new charter instead of we're changing number of commissioners, uh city manager, et cetera.

So I think we've got to be diligent, is what I'm trying to bring it back full circle to in our considerations.

Also, in terms of workload and time, you know, we'd want to be diligent about which what we're doing in that um process, because we you know, we have some example charters from other communities that we can use from.

We have ours as well.

Um, but I I'm not sure that the whole baby and bathwater have to go out together at this point.

I think we have a strong um a strong charter that we can amend.

But I am open to whatever what the desire of this commission is in terms of moving forward with the questions.

Um Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so a couple things.

First, a question, uh Matt, can you find out front for us if it's a limited number of questions on the ballot why that is?

I mean, that that is kind of the crux of the matter here because we're dealing with a very old charter, and you know, I hate to disagree, but first of all, people don't follow the charter, how it's written, and we hear that I've heard that a lot when I was a county commissioner, um, and there's no accountability there, and the language is antiquated.

So even trying to get up to the technological age that 20 years ago we didn't have to deal with, um, you know, and and I do understand the yay or nay um crux of uh doing an entire charter, but at the same time I really want to find out you know the minutiae of why it's so limiting, because in 2006 they had seven issues on the ballot, and you know, it may have been a while since I had one in 2000 for 2006, but um I would say that there are a lot of issues that you know a couple have risen to the top, the number of commissioners and the city county manager.

Fire, you know, with everything that happened in Helena with fire, that's certainly on the top of the list as well.

Um but there are a number of things that the public hasn't had an opportunity to chew on yet.

And I think if we make these determinations ahead of time when we only have like 200 and some odd surveys back, we have 35, 36,000 people in this county, and we can't get ahead of ourselves making these determinations without to Ray Lynn's point, the community's input.

And I think that you know, while we're doing the hard work to try and get people to, you know, engage in our process, you know, there are a number of things, and I'll bring this up later in the meeting of you know, we still have research to do.

We still have presentations to have to get to learn things about what should be on the the um docket.

And so, you know, we have we can't keep dragging our feet on, you know, from anaconda, sheriff corner, forensic audit, all these things that we need to learn more about.

Um we need to do that before we start setting ourselves up for you know, charter language and ballot issues.

Dunney and other question yes I'm sorry yes Commissioner uh Dillon I that's one of our questions is why in 2006 we were allowed to do seven and now we're limited to uh sorry three and that's where there's just there's not a lot out there with regards to this it's kind of I mean you can actually read that in the emails in the in for the Revalley County stuff that they say that that there's just not a ton of case law or opinions or anything on it really what it boils down to is what it looks like is each year you send it off to the election committee and when they're like yeah sure go ahead then that county does what they do and I don't know if that changes from year to year but we're gonna get an answer on why they got to do that in 2006 and now it looks like we're limited to three here we will answer that chair thank you Matt thank you Cindy I think we brought this up before earlier in our uh deliberations but the ballot requirement is section 7-3-150 and 7-3-151 of the Montana code out of data state law and if you review the MSU uh information that they provided us it's in unit six page 28 uh there are also limits to the number of suboptions that can be on the petition as Matt said 7-3-151 of MCA says that a petition recommend recommendation cannot include more than three suboptions each of those sub-options cannot have more than two alternatives and they give you an example on page 28 of the MC MSU uh unit of education for s for study commission so obviously what happened in 2006 might have been a change in the law they might have amended the law uh might have created the Montana code annotated that says okay you can't have 30 uh ballot issues because it dilutes what you're trying to do in terms of of reforming and amending your charter your form of government so this has been this law is not 2006 this is last year and so there is uh to add to your question the MCA state law has provided that alternative so yeah what happened in 2006 was maybe an outlier maybe not correct but right now it's three it's sub options with two alternatives under each suboption three suboptions thank you madam chair so I kind of read it like Matt did uh Matt Steppen um with regard to how that language is and I would like to you know I Matt's gonna check Matt Enruth is or excuse me county attorney is gonna check that because I read that a little differently the same way of it's very confusing it's not obvious on that language in the in the law it's just it just says you know in these suboptions but I read that differently I read it like Matt did so we'll have to get some clarification other discussion all right county attorney enru thank you very much for that lovely update and our pivot might might be happening soon but um we'll look forward to what you find out in the opinion regarding the rationale about the number of options and then the possible directions we can go.

Well and I thank the commissioners for that too and like I said um my office as of today is finally fully staffed um and we now I get to sit down and do my actual job which is nice and this is a big part of it so you're gonna be doing a lot more for me you know we'll be Sean and I will be working on you know the ballot language and how that is to be drafted um you know when you look in that memorandum that's got to go in front of another committee to tell us that that's okay to put on the ballot so we're gonna start sticking to those timelines and getting on those things.

So we'll provide you with uh an additional update here prior to the next meeting and with that being said I'm gonna go football.

Thank you.

Thanks ma'am.

Thank you very much.

Okay so moving moving on to unfinished business we had overview of public hearing and GIS progress I would like to look at GIS progress with the fire district mapping you give you had given that in the correspondence is there anything else to add to that or any other discussion no just that um if I get anything else now that we have access to OneDrive I'll make sure to put that on there for you guys so you have any of that correspondence.

Commissioners, was there any more information that anybody needed regarding the GIS with regard to fire district or adding we kind of jumped ahead in our agenda?

So I just want to circle back that we're still on topic there.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

So can we go back to overview of public hearing, please?

Ms.

Ms.

Adams, do you have overview for us?

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

Um I don't have a lot to add tonight.

Just uh so I'm kind of putting together a report that will go to all of you that you can incorporate as you wish in your draft report.

Um we have about 338 as of tonight survey respondents.

If you recall, we're hoping to get to about 375.

That'd be our statistically significant number for the number of voters in our county.

Um so I guess my only question really is um how long do we want to let that survey go before we cut that off?

Because we will need to kind of cut that off so that I can include all of those answers.

If you remember there are quite a few um open-ended answers.

So the summaries are great.

You kind of hear what people are thinking, but I do think you're gonna want to read through all of those open-ended answers.

So just kind of need to decide schedule-wise when we want to cut that off.

Mr.

Silk?

Madam Chair, thank you.

When is our preliminary report due?

Right.

So we had said we wanted it in at the end of by the end of November.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then are we gonna be able to I mean I think surveys are just phenomenal.

Just I think that you get that's the best way to get public engagement, especially since we have over 300 people, and I know it's not as many as we wanted, but it's definitely more than who's showed up to the open houses.

It it would it be a good recommendation to say, you know, a couple weeks prior to the preliminary report ending, so we can uh analyze all that data and then potentially with what we get from that data plus what we hear from County Attorney Anne Ruth on the direction of which direction the full charter, or we narrow down to three topics, then we'll be able to submit another survey to the community.

Ms.

Adams, do you have uh an idea?

Like how much time would you like?

Yeah, no, I think that's fine.

Um it's not a matter of how much time I want or I need.

I think it's more a matter of how much time you guys need to, you know, you're gonna have you know 300 response 300 plus, maybe 400 responses to I'm not sure how many questions are open-ended, maybe half a dozen.

You know, it's kind of a lot of information.

So I don't know if two weeks is maybe enough.

Um we could cut it off at the end of October, and then I could get you a report maybe the first week of November, and that would give you a little bit more time.

Um and we can, you know, kind of push the survey out, you know, over the next couple weeks, give it one more push to try to get some more responses, but it's really up to you guys.

That timeline seems reasonable to me.

Um Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

So my question is uh is it statutorily um put in at the end of November for a preliminary report?

Is that a hard and fast date?

It is okay.

And then what is in that preliminary report?

The preliminary report is to decipher for the folks what is going on the ballot and what are going to be recommendations for the council commissioners?

The preliminary findings to date.

Remember that um chapter I sent out via email is it a couple of weeks ago?

It kind of outlines exactly what we need to have in there, but you've summarized that correctly.

Okay.

So my concern still is, you know, engagement and getting people, you know, the survey, so if we can extend it as long as humanly possible, um, that would be great.

I you know I don't know.

I thank you.

I think if we roll to the end of October, like cut it off on Halloween, if you will.

Um that should give us enough time to review and then hopefully, you know, your in your desire to push it out again and us all again bringing those codes around and asking people to try to take that survey.

I think is we're gonna do all we can do, you know, with our hopes that we get to our three, would you say 378?

Such an odd number.

375, right?

375, okay.

So I I think that's the best that we can do.

Um other thoughts or any other concerns.

Mr.

Silk?

Thank you, ma'am.

I'm sure I just have one more.

So we're gonna will we be able to revamp a survey with more specific questions so we can get it even more dialed in with what the public wants with regard to our topics.

We're going to put out another survey, is that correct?

Just to continue the engagement?

Yeah, absolutely.

I think so.

And especially if you know, given what Mr.

Enruth had talked to us about tonight, if there has to be a pivot or there's a change, I think we need to definitely almost bring the cavalry back out for another survey, a whole another set of listening sessions perhaps.

So, you know, just my thoughts, you know, off the cuff here.

I'll make a motion that the survey runs till October 31st, have two weeks of discussion and and have Shana get the uh data back to us, and then after reviewing that data, come up with uh preliminary report to uh the community and then go from there to see um to see what the county attorney says and what the state law is and make those pivots as you describe them.

So I have a motion to close the let me see if I get this right, Dan.

Motion to close the survey at the end of October, October 31st with two weeks review time and then begin the process of the preliminary report.

That's correct.

Is there a second second?

Okay.

So I have a second by silk.

Um all those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

So I have one opposition from Ms.

Dolan, all others in favor.

Okay, so that looks like you have a direction.

Um thank you very much for your work with us and thank you for that overview.

Thank you.

Okay, so the study commission OneDrive update.

Go ahead.

Sorry, madam chair.

I wanted to talk about the public hearing for a second with regard to the formatting of it.

We talked about this after the meeting last week outside of the courthouse, and I just wanted to put this on the record because it was a little disconcerting to have four options for people to give public comment at our first very first public hearing and then comment on anything else.

That determination I think was made by yourself and Mr.

Denehee and Mr.

Step in an email thread that didn't include the rest of us, and I think we need to all be included on what is happening with a public hearing, because what that gave the public a sense of what our top four things were and then everything else.

And that is disingenuous because we don't know what the public wants yet.

We have heard some things percolate to the top, but a public hearing is for any comment that people have, and I think making that structure it it just put us on the back foot a little bit.

I think that you know, the public needs to decide, you know, what is most important, and we will disseminate that eventually, but I think putting that out in a public hearing, our very first one, um, wasn't the right way to do that.

And I hope in the future when we have public hearings and ask for public comment, it can be anything, and they're all on the same level playing field.

Thanks.

Um noted.

And question uh uh just for clarification, it was with county attorney and Ruth and myself.

We had um had a correspondence regarding what was legally required and what the um precedent that Butte Silver Bow has in as stated on their website.

That was the conversation.

Um and then in terms of my decision making for how to facilitate the meeting, I felt that we had been out for all of our open houses, we had been on party line, we'd had our op-eds, these were things that were coming up, and people were coming to the meeting prepared to speak about those, and that it was open to comment on anything that was not that.

Um so I think you know, I agree that we can have a better discussion internally as far as like how to proceed with things.

That's you know, certainly I'm open to that, but I I feel confident and completely okay with the way that we we led that meeting.

But I appreciate you bringing the um issue forward.

Any other discussion about the overview of the public meeting or any other things that people would like to discuss there?

So are we good to move on?

Okay.

All right.

So our study commission one drive update, Ms.

Boyd McKinsey?

Um, so earlier today, I guess right before this meeting, we finally got access.

We had to wait to get approval from the chief executive and the county attorney before IT could allow us to get that access, and then right before this meeting you gave us that access.

So we'll start to upload everything onto that to make it easier for everybody.

Thank you.

Any other discussion regarding that?

All right.

So the next unfinished business is party line.

We're going to be back on party line again for October 29th.

And who was I guess in the bullpen for that?

Mr.

I think you like being on the radio, Mr.

Thielen.

Very good.

Okay.

Okay.

Very good.

Yeah, I'm chair.

I could be in the bullpen too.

I know that uh both Ben and Cindy have done double time on the on a par line, unless they want to continue to do it, but it'd be yeah.

And Mr.

Soak, you had your finger up too.

Yeah, I had a um it was my mistake.

I had a conflict when Ben was on it last with uh vacation time.

So I did miss, and I would be happy to be in the bullpen as well.

But um if someone can't make it, um let me know.

But I I do look forward to going back on there and really appreciate that opportunity that we have.

All right.

So amongst yourselves, decide who out of I love that everybody wants to go and visit with Ron.

That's great.

So please just let us know like who's gonna do.

Okay, I like it.

Okay.

So we'll have Mr.

Silk and Mr.

Steppen and Mr.

Denehy on the 29th.

That's think it's fine for three of you to go.

We'll have our our heavy hitters.

So we should get some home runs.

This this metaphor is getting terrible.

Take it easy on the heavy hitters.

All right.

So um thank you all for taking that on.

Um Mr.

Steppen, op edks, madam chair.

Um I sent an email earlier and I printed a similar sheet that I'd like to give everybody a copy of.

And it's really just suggested or some options for op-ed themes going forward.

Or at least what's what's up next.

You know what, and so I put together just some proposed themes, and again, these are just suggested themes based on where we're at in the process and what we feel is important to relay to the public.

Um the first one more addressing the call it the the lack of participation we've seen from the public or an encouragement to engage and why it's important.

So that was the first one that kind of jumped out at me.

I think we had 11 people speak at the public hearing.

Um then after, just in keeping with the theme that we've had four issues rise to the top, it could be an explanation of those four.

Or we could do look at doing a series on each of the important topics, but after hearing the comments tonight, and and I think it might behoove us to maybe look at option one here until we have more direction from County Attorney Inruth because I I wouldn't want to mislead that we're moving in a direction when we we could be pivoting all together, so it could be just updating on where we are, what's next, and the importance of engaging with us.

Comments or thoughts?

Mr.

Henny?

Madam Chair, I I agree with Matt.

Um given tonight's discussion and where we're going to lead uh in our decisions.

I think there's nothing wrong with while your voice matters on any op-ed.

Uh I think that's kind of facilitates more people getting involved with our discussions.

Uh more people being in the audience, more people sending written comments to us, what's important to them.

And uh and I think that at least should be our first um the power participation is important, and then we'll have to uh wait and see where we're at legally in terms of where we want to go and what the decision of the commission is going to be.

So thanks, Matt, for putting that together.

Other comments or questions.

Mr.

Um Steppen, I appreciate you taking the lead on getting these opinion pieces in the newspaper and and having been the driver of this um process.

So thank you.

And I I would agree, I think let's start with one and see what happens on the 20th and go from there.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll draft something, send it to the group, and we can have an opportunity to provide feedback before anything goes to the Montana standard.

Um and I'd like to circle back to Mr.

Banderub's uh question on the op ed and what is it all about.

And these are the opinion pieces that we attempt to do um fairly frequently to engage our public.

It's an informational way to reach out um and hopefully gain more interest in in the study commission's work.

And then the I would say the very reason we're not putting out news releases after each meeting is practicality with time and effort, and you know, this is a volunteer commission and we're not reporters so to speak, but I think we do bring the the op-eds and you've done a very good job, Mr.

Steppen, to to make sure that we're bringing those relevant pieces up.

So I think this is our fourth one now, is that correct?

So thank you very much.

All right, any other discussion on op eds.

Okay, so moving on to our new business.

Um we had originally started to bring the big topics in for discussion in the new business so we could start to look at um what issues might be rising to the top that we need to create those ballot questions for.

Um and again, tonight's conversation from Matt and Ruth is a little bit um upset the Apple cart, but I would entertain the discussion of neighborhood councils and community councils to begin tonight and then uh moving into discussion of the additional research needed.

So if we want to open that discussion um regarding neighborhood councils thoughts on where we're at with that and things, Ms.

Ms.

Dillon.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I don't mean to be disrespectful in in saying what I'm going to say, um, because I do appreciate um Mr.

Banderob's consistent engagement with the study commission.

But where we sit today, this particular issue has almost taken over the study commission.

And I just don't feel it rises to that occasion.

And I don't feel that it should be part of the and and I do understand why you did this uh Raylin to have some given back and forth with someone who comes here every single week.

But to put this on the agenda to talk about this every week dilutes, and that was a good word that Dan used earlier.

It dilutes what we're doing and it almost you know rises to cream at the top when I don't know what n if it necessarily should at this point.

Um I agree that I'd like to have a discussion back and forth, and I don't want to change that precedent with public comment, and that was a good point.

But for all intents and purposes, just because someone comes up here every week, and that's great engagement, doesn't necessarily mean that is gonna be the top issue that we need to discern um and give a huge amount of time to.

And that's just what I wanted to say before we started the discussion.

Okay, so this in new business, the intention is to take our issues that we've looked at as we start to drill down and decide if we want them to be a ballot issue or not.

Now, given Mr.

Enruth's discussion tonight, we might have our cart before the horse.

So we were starting with this one um because we wanted to clear the deck with it and get moved on to the next issues, whether that be chief executive versus city manager, whether it be the fire districts issue, whether it be the number of commissioners and should they be paid or not paid.

So we are looking at those the ones that the big issues that have come forward so far.

Um and so that was the intention.

Um Ms.

Dolan, it wasn't that we wanted to add it to every single agenda or that we talk about it every week.

Um in my looking at our current charter, it the community councils are in the charter already.

And so, you know, if we have to prioritize, if let's say we we decide on three questions, and this is hypothetical.

If we decide on three questions, are excuse me, three ballot issues, and we only have those three, since community councils are in the charter.

Um that's my opinion.

Uh wanted to open that discussion for others to to weigh into, and then again, like I said, we might be cart and horse at this point.

So uh Mr.

Thielen.

Madam Chair, thank you.

Um, the whole thing with the the number of commissioners uh people are wondering how they're gonna pay for it.

They don't want their taxes to go up.

Uh that's where another place where that forensic audit would come in to find out where the they can get the money from or what department has too much.

I mean, it it all goes hand in hand.

And why some people are so adamant against it, it it just boggles my mind, but it needs to be done.

Mr.

Thielen, I I think that with regards to that, the forensic audit issue, I in the way that I'm reading um our background documents, I think that might be out of our jurisdiction.

But we can, you know, we can get an opinion from Mr.

Enruth on that for sure.

But to me, it looks like it's one of the red light things.

Um it might be a recommendation that we would make to council that they do the forensic audit or that there are individuals in our community asking for that.

Um but I'm not sure that it's in our purview.

But I'm certainly willing to, you know, graph the email to Mr.

Enward to ask for an opinion on it.

Um and I agree with you, I understand where you're coming from in regards to um looking at how would we pay for things.

I think that was something else this commission had discussed, is that while it's not our responsibility to figure out how to pay for things if we should recommend or the voters decide they want to have full-time paid commissioners, uh, we might do well to look at the budget, have an opinion from our budget office and maybe our treasurer about how it could be paid for, what the possibilities are in in terms of um rearranging positions or staffing, um, although it that too is outside of our purview.

Our purview is is really about the charter change and then what the voters want.

Um but it you know, you open that question, so I guess we can we can grapple with both of these questions at the same time.

Madam Chair, in terms of how do you pay for this the recommendations that the study commission will eventually get to, whether it's a three ballot, two options or creating a uh a new charter, we and I think this was discussed before, uh it's not our responsibility to say how are you gonna pay for these choices.

Our responsibility is to provide a ballot change that we have been looking for, looking over for the last two years, and provide the voters of this community options of what they want to do.

In that option, why it's really important, and I would I agreed with I first agreed that well, this is gonna cost some money, but also I agree that if this is what the voters of this community wants, finding the money is secondary.

That is a determination of the commissioners and executive executive and to implement our recommendations that are passed by the voters.

So whether or not this is going to increase certain expenditures to implement our suggestions that are voted on in favor by the voters is something that will the the council of commissioners and the chief executive is gonna have to do.

How they find the money.

I don't think it's our responsibility to say, well, we're not gonna do this, and I know that's not what you're saying, but I think it's secondary to making our recommendations and how they find the money is up to them.

Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, madam chair.

Um Lori, I have a question for you.

I think the audit, the word audit is in our charter.

That a yearly audit, am I correct with that, Lori?

Do you remember?

I was just looking for it.

That's what we're going through.

Okay.

Um it does say that the chief executive provides his goals and uh they go through the budget, the preliminary budget, and what was different than last year, but I can't specifically find the audit.

Okay.

So I'm I I think that might be in there, but it gives direction for the executive branch.

So I have to disagree with Dan here to say, you know, yes, our decisions are going to have monetary implications.

And we understand that, and we know that budgeting is not in our purview.

But telling Butte Silverbow government from the people, you know, every single time I I've raised this issue with folks in the community at Walmart or wherever, people are overwhelming.

Why why don't we do that already?

I thought we did that already.

Because where does the money go?

That's a big question that people have in Butte Silverbow.

So it ties directly to these um ballot issues that have a monetary price tag, and to say to them, yes, if we do a forensic audit, we can have a complete transparent government as to where our money is going, and they can in turn make those big decisions on how do we fund things.

But if you have a framework and your charters your framework and you have it in there, even if you add a word, if audit is already in there and you add the word forensic, it changes everything like it does with May, the word may and the word shall because it's a directive, but then again, it gives it it the impetus is for the council of commissioners to do those things.

We just create uh on the uh agreement or disagreement of the of the um voter um what the framework is going to look like.

And I think that's in a a very important piece of that framework is a forensic audit.

Ms.

Dolan, I I want to clarify.

So you were you were recommending a charter change that there's a forensic audit part of the charter.

Um Madam Chair, oh sorry, Lori had it.

Um chair, I did find it in the charter.

It is within section 3.03 powers and duties of the council of commissioners.

To provide uh under section subsection D is to provide for an independent audit of the finances of the local government, is how it currently reads.

Yeah.

Okay.

And so um Butte Silverbow believes that they're meeting that by having um the auditors that come with Ms.

Hasler, is that correct?

Madam Chair, yes, I believe it's Newland and company that are currently the auditors that come from outside, and they have for quite some time.

Thank you.

And so back to you, Ms.

Dolan.

Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Lori, for looking into that.

Um I would say there's a big difference between an audit and a forensic audit.

An audit for Newland and company for Butte Silver Bow and our budget office is to make sure all the numbers add up and all the numbers are in their right boxes and that.

It doesn't go under the hood and say, where is all the money going?

What are we paying for?

And what are we getting for that money?

So and these are questions for, of course, again, for the Council of Commissioners, not for us.

But if people are asking us, where does all the money go?

We pay a lot of money in this town, and we don't have streets at work, we don't have this, you know, whatever you constantly hear from folks.

If we can make a framework that helps in that regard, and I think um, especially with budget implications of our decision making, that would be the avenue to go down.

Because then, again, we've always heard transparency.

That's a great transparency tool is a forensic audit.

So I'm I'm thinking I'm trying to I'm trying to capture the essence of what's being asked here.

So looking that would be a a fifth issue as we're kind of framing them out right now.

So and I know we heard from public and we got public comment from emails on forensic audits or adding that that language.

Is that correct?

Is that what I'm hearing from you, Ms.

Dolan and you, Mr.

Thielen?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for helping me understand where we're at.

Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um if it's a red light within our scope of work, but it's so important to the people.

I mean, why can't we ask the council of commissioners to go ahead and perform one now where it might be in their scope of work?

And as the legislative body, they can determine if they're they want to go ahead and do one or not.

To where we might have access to it given that we have a little bit of time to figure out what we're even going to do in general.

Is it something that we could just ask now whether they're willing to do it or not instead of putting it in the charter or waiting and maybe not even doing it from this body, but to ask a body that could that is just as you know, they represent the public as much as we do.

Uh I wonder if we could ask the council of commissioners their thoughts on it with it, where they'd be willing to do it.

Because if we're hearing that people are wondering where the money is going and all of these issues, I guarantee the council commissioners is as well, and I wonder if they've already thought about it.

Mr.

Denny?

And then I'll take you, Ms.

Dolan.

Um Madam Chair, um it might be one of those issues that we discuss and not table, but it could be a supplemental report to the Council of Commissioners asking them to be engaged in a forensic audit.

I would like to know what a definition of a forensic audit is, because I have been part of those forensic audits on a number of occasions in my career.

Not that I wanted to be, but I had to be.

Not your name.

But your department's in it saying, hey, you're missing a substantial bit of money.

Then you meet with that auditor and say what's up and find out what the problem is and find where the problem is.

And it wasn't anything nefarious.

It was an accountant air, and it was done.

Now on the in forensic audit, it's expensive.

There has to be some sideboards on what you're looking at.

A forensic audit could be five months to a year.

Yes, it is.

Well, well it is true because I've been I've been under one bin.

They did one.

So whether or not you want a forensic audit, that's fine.

Maybe we asked the council that they should be involved one.

I I like to know where where they're where there's communication that there's something missing in the local government.

Um, but if forensic audit is something that this commission uh approves of and votes for, uh that's fine.

Uh but um I think we have to define what that is.

Mr.

Thielen, then I'll take Ms.

Casey.

So I don't know how long ago that you were audited, Dan, and no disrespect intended, but they use AI now.

They can do this whole county in a month.

And they can discover every transaction, they can see where every penny's been spent.

And it's nothing that anybody's doing wrong.

But if they're spending more money here that they don't need to be, it could go over here to pay for these guys.

If this uh uh if the roads have more money than they should have, then they can give it to whomever, give it to the water company, you know.

Anybody.

So they they can find the money there by doing that.

And it doesn't take five months to a year anymore.

They can do the whole county within a month.

I'll take Ms.

Casey and then you miss you.

Um Ms.

Dillon.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also uh would be with Dan on a definition of forensic, and I get what you're saying, Ben.

But right now we do have an independent or be it silver bow has an independent audit, and then all every claim every thing that you purchase or pay for go goes in a claim and goes to the finance and budget committee of the beat silverboat council of commissioners.

So I would just I think it would be important that we define what the difference is for the public between all of those, and we may need maybe the budget director to explain what exactly Newlands do for their audit.

I've been just like Dan, part of that audit and had to produce different things over the course of my career also, but I think that would be important because you have to submit a claim that has to be approved by the finance and budget committee before a department head can pay a person.

So is this different?

I I just think we would need uh more explanation, or at least I would to understand help me understand it better of what um I get that it's it shows where all the money is going in that, but does it drill down to staffing levels?

What what is that kind of audit?

I guess I would need more definition too.

Thank you.

Ms.

Dillon?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I agree um with you, Lori.

I think it's almost again putting the cart before the horse because we still need, and I know I'm I feel like I'm beating a dead horse when I keep asking for folks from Anaconda to come to this meeting and to tell us about fire in Anaconda and how that works.

It's not in their charter.

I want to learn that.

I want to get more information.

I want to learn about the Sheriff Corner.

What is that job look like?

What would that look like for Butte Silver Bow?

We haven't had that.

And now to add forensic auditing, you know, there are forensic auditors in billings.

There might be some closer to Butte Silver Bow, but we should invite them and have us learn exactly to your point.

What does a forensic audit look like?

What will it take?

How much time will it take with the advent of AI?

What what are the differences between a forensic audit and the audit that's done year after year after year from Newland and company?

Is it just making sure all the numbers match and all the claims match and all of that?

Um so we need some real information so then we can give that to the public and the public can watch that on YouTube and get informed to decide whether or not they want these things to be changed in the charter or added to the charter.

And if we can't get these things at our meetings, we're doing a disservice to the public.

And I don't know why we're dragging our feet on getting, and I know a lot of things have happened, it's no one's fault in particular.

It's just that we need to get folks at that podium to give us information so we can learn.

I think we all just want to learn more about these things, to have them rise to top five or top three or top two or whatever it is, because if we don't, we just don't know.

And it just frustrates me that we can't learn that, and we getting stymied by that, and I just don't know why.

Ms.

Dolan, I I think that that is the next item on our agenda is which information do we want and do we need to continue our research?

Um to the Anaconda question, as you know, we had a change in our ex officio.

We've um had the terrible case that happened in Anaconda.

So I don't feel like we've drug our feet.

I feel like it's just been timing has been difficult with that particular issue and trying to get those folks here to to give their testimony.

Um so if we could kind of bring ourselves back, it sounds like forensic audit and definitions of that and understanding what that is, might be one of our pieces of information that we are research that we need to look for.

But if we can bring ourselves back to anything else that we want to discuss regarding neighborhood councils or community councils, or if we'd like to rather bring that back following um whatever Mr.

and Ruth has to say to us on the 20th, I'm I would open to that as well.

Um but if we can kind of go back up an agenda item and then maybe go into the the next thing.

Yeah, I think that's a great idea.

The uh hold it in abeyance until we get a uh um uh definition or or some more clarity from county attorney and Ruth, and then we can get back to asking more speci specific questions.

Easy for me to say.

Okay.

All right, so let's hold that one and we'll bring it back.

Um and then now if we can move forward to the discussion of additional research needed.

Um forensic audit has gotten there.

The fire council or the structure from Anaconda is a piece.

Um what else do we have on our minds?

Pardon?

Madam Chair, Sheriff Corner.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I would like to talk with Dan Clark from MSU again on his recommendation on just from his knowledge of what his idea, how many commissioners we might need based off of our population and our size.

He seems so knowledgeable about one of our main topics that and he loves to talk about it, and he's he's a great great guy to listen to, and I feel like he would have a ton of our uh he would be able to answer a ton of our questions.

So I would um and it and maybe it's just one of those nights where we just talk about restructuring and we gather all of our questions from everybody and just talk to him one night.

Okay, very good.

Okay, I think um with that one too.

There was um research that the Montana Association of Counties or Mako has regarding commissioners, the number of commissioners in various um communities and their salaries, and so I think that would be another piece that would be valuable or value adding to us.

Um and then there is a a suggestion from Russell Leary that we visit with Andy Hunthausen, who who is a commissioner in Lewis and Clark County, um, and Mr.

Tim Burton, is that who's the city manager there if people are open to that one as well.

Other other research needs or things that you guys are considering.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We also got a uh we received an email from Fritz Daly with regard to Superfund and a independent super fund coordinator or information.

And um while it might not be on the very top of the list at this point, it may be something that it may be a good recommendation for the council of commissioners, but I would like to see, you know, and get some more information about what that entails and what what is you know, Fritz Mr.

Daly, you know, um he's very passionate as we all know about superfund, but but having that discussion might be worthwhile to get some more information and to to kind of get a context of what that would look like.

Okay, other suggestions or needs?

Ms.

Casey.

Uh Madam Chair, are we gonna designate somebody or is McKenzie going to reach out to these people or do folks have contacts that they can uh reach out and maybe help?

I I I don't know.

I think that would be important that we kind of designate who's gonna reach out because I feel like maybe even with the anaconda deer lodge situation that's maybe at the very beginning when folks asked if they could have, we didn't really appoint someone to reach out.

I know Kim had our ex-officier had at a certain point, but I think uh early on uh Commissioner Shaw asked for someone and I don't think we were designating people to do that.

So I think that might help too.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

So if we can get the topics down and then maybe um divide and conquer, I'd appreciate that.

Um are there any other topics?

Okay.

So let's make sure I've got them correct, Mr.

Denny.

Um chair, I think McKenzie and Annie can do the due diligence of getting the hold of the people that we have on our list.

They're very capable, they know people uh from their work at uh in their office.

Uh I will help with Mr.

Burton just because I went to school with him, and I'm sure he would come and and provide any information on a city manager issue.

Um but I'm sure McKinsey and and Annie can make those calls.

They have that uh in the probably in the chief executive's roller deck somewhere.

So we'll ask them and if they run into troubles, we'll we'll I'm sorry.

I didn't know what I I didn't know what AI was either.

So there we go.

We're we're we're equal then.

Yeah, whatever Rolodex is back.

Well thanks.

Thanks for that.

Okay, so what I'm hearing is you've been volunteered.

So I think that does make sense in terms of structure, and then if there's help that's needed, I think there's commissioners that will be happy to help you, and maybe we can put that down.

So Dan has already volunteered to reach out to Tim Burton with you or for you or get the information to you.

Um so let's make sure I've got the topics correct that um we'll have you acting upon.

So we have Mako, we'd like to reach out to them regarding research on other districts, commission number of commissioners and salaries in other counties and cities.

And I think that might be as simple as an email.

I don't know that they need to come and present um because you know they can give us that data.

We have the Anaconda um folks regarding their fire district or how they set up their fire uh volunteer fire department and uh city fire department.

We have Russell Leary, Andy Hunthausen, um Tim Burton, which Dan will be part of that.

Um we had the question of the forensic art audit.

I don't know who we would reach out to for that.

Had defining that.

Ms.

Dolin.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

For that one, um I have spoken with a forensic auditing auditing company a couple years ago when I re reference billings.

I don't know if there's anybody closer, but if McKenzie, if you find that, you know, if you just Google like forensic auditors, ones in Missoula, okay.

Um but if you get, you know, just to ask them if they would be able to come over and talk with us about it, and then maybe reach out to our budget office, um, like Lori suggested to get their um addition, that might be a good way too.

But I would be able to help if if needed.

Okay.

So it would be Karen Hassler to come back and kind of discuss the auditing procedures and then getting a definition of a forensic audit is.

Okay.

And then our sheriff coroner question, correct?

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

Just before we go to the next one, the sheriff coroner.

Um I think we'd probably need more than just a definition of forensic auditing.

I think we definitely need a forensic auditor here to talk with us about what they do, what that it entails, and kind of give us some, you know, so we can learn about those two different things audit, regular audit versus a forensic.

Okay, I think I'm saying the same thing.

Okay.

It's okay.

We're we're clarifying that we're on the same page.

All right.

And then um staff or sheriff coroner, uh, we wanted to Ms.

Dolan.

Um yes, uh there's a former sheriff coroner in Jefferson County that I can reach out to if you want me to.

Um otherwise we could just go to anyone that's, you know, um this gentleman might have some time to come over and visit with us.

And then we have the question of Dan Clark regarding number of commissioners based on the size and other models.

I think that also might be, you know, we could do that via email, or he could come back and present again.

He does talk a lot though, so it gets us a long meeting.

Ma'am chair, and he might be able to, because he does reach out to Mako too, so he could probably kill two birds with one stone and talk about some of the county issues and some of the city issues, city managers versus size of the commissions too.

So Dan is a is a good resource, and we could maybe even do it by Zoom or something.

Okay.

I like that.

Uh and we can get our Rolodex and in input in the other.

Okay.

And then uh Fritz Daley, do we want Fritz to come?

Um Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, I would I would gladly reach out to Fritz and ask him and go from there.

I would also mention with the Anaconda, um, I would reach out if you could, and if everyone agrees to get the fire folks here, uh fire chief in Anaconda, and also the chief executive is if he's willing to come to kind of get a sense of how that works with the chief works with the charter, fire separate, and how that works.

It might be helpful to hear from both sides of of how that works in Anaconda.

Okay.

Mr.

Silk.

And one more uh we discussed last meeting.

Uh J.R.

Richardson.

Um we can just I think uh I think Dan said you could reach out and just schedule a meeting with him.

So I don't even know if McKinsey would have to do that or not, but as far as scheduling, I don't know how that would work.

Madam Chair, I did after the last public hearing where uh JR was here to discussing the fire coordinator's position and kind of ran out of time.

Um and so I did call him right after the meeting.

Uh I haven't heard back from him, but I'll make another call and I I think that would in our discussion of the fire departments and how they are uh structured in Anaconda Deer Lodge, it might be good to have JR uh talk a little bit about when he was working as a fire coordinator and in Butte Siverbow and what that means.

Excellent.

Other needs or ideas.

Okay.

So I have nine.

All right.

So you all want to do a lot of work, which is wonderful.

I like it.

But um maybe you and I can visit in terms of who you find out and when they're available and trying to structure our agendas so that we're not in the seats longer than about three hours.

If we can make that work.

Right.

If there's other other things that come up as you guys leave tonight, by all means, just put them in email.

We can we definitely this is our work, right?

Is to do the research and make sure we understand things really well.

Um the next item in this section was scheduling the calendar for ballot language and charter revisions.

And I I again I feel like this one needs to be held in advance until after our 20th meeting of the 20th.

I feel like I feel like our apples really got spilled today.

So I feel like we're a little bit out of balance.

But umce we hear from county attorney and Ruth, then um I think that will help us guide our agendas too in regard to um the deliberations we need to make for that preliminary report.

Is there any other discussion regarding this item?

Okay.

So moving on, we don't have a public hearing.

There are no other scheduled matters.

Madam Chair, would I be able to ask a question?

Um I know from our last public hearing um in some of the the letters that we got that were not um read, but we uh were sent them.

Um would I be able to address some concern that I believe that some of the community has with me being on this commission and talking about the fire service let's put it on our agenda?

Okay.

Okay.

So we'll put that into the next agenda and look at so that everybody on the commission has a chance to review those comments if they haven't already.

Okay.

Um because maybe people haven't read all the letters in detail yet.

Okay.

Would that be okay?

Yeah, and then just so everyone's aware, uh, I'm lucky enough to go on family vacation, so I will not be here in the next meeting.

Um, but you know, after after the 20th, I think is our next meeting, the the next scheduled meeting I should be here, so just so you you guys know.

Mr.

Thielen Well, I wasn't here for the last public hearing, uh, and I don't know what the letters were, but I myself am happy to have Mr.

Silk on this commission for the simple fact it's nice to have somebody that is involved on that side of it to enlighten us and give us answers at least in his opinion of how things work, and I and I for one appreciate that.

So thank you, Mr.

Thielen.

Mr.

Steppen.

To echo that, and I have read the the comments.

Mr.

Silk was voted to this commission just as the rest of us were.

There's county employees on the commission.

You can probably find a reason that any one of these issues may or may not affect us or our families personally, but we're everybody was voted to this commission under the proper guys, and I'm not sure that anything needs to be addressed.

Thank you, Mr.

Steppen.

I tend to agree.

Uh I just want to give Mr.

Silk the opportunity to voice any concerns he has if he should decide he wants to bring that forward and we'll schedule it in a meeting.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um any other scheduled matters?

Okay, announcements.

Um we had our public hearing on September 29th.

Our next um our next bi-weekly study commission meeting will be on October 20th, um, so in two weeks.

In the meantime, it looks like we have a small novel to read from Mr.

Enruth, and hopefully we'll um have some other things to discuss regarding that.

Ms.

Dillon.

Um yes, madam chair, just a quick question.

It says bi weekly.

Um I know next week is Columbus Day, so that's why we're not meeting, because it's Monday's a holiday, a federal holiday.

But um with the amount of of work that needs to be done, uh, I hope we still meet every week and not every two weeks going forward because there's a lot of work to do.

Um so am I correct in saying we're gonna once the federal holidays over, we'll just keep meeting weekly?

Let's bring it back and um have that discussion at our next meeting because we had agreed to moving off of that schedule, so I want the commissioners to have time to to talk.

But we do have a report to get done too, so we have a lot of work to do between now and the end of November.

Ms.

Casey?

Madam Chair, in regards to the large packet, uh Matt didn't have enough copies, so I didn't get one.

But if McKenzie can just uh scan it in and put it in the OneDrive, I'll just grab it electronically.

In my rollodex, yes.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

All right, I would call for a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Thielen, seconded by Dolan.

All those in favor?

Any opposed got a little bit of a question?