This Thursday, January 28, the Bozeman Study Commission will be meeting and deciding on the following issues: Deputy Mayor: Section 2.03 (b) eliminate Deputy Mayor position LV position: YES eliminate Deputy Mayor position Partisanship: Section 6.01 (a) Election of Mayor and Commissioners will continue to be nonpartisan or switch to partisan LV position: Switch to partisan (a long shot) Filling Commissioner Vacancies: Section 2.06 (c) Filling of Vacancies shall occur within ___ days LV position: 30 days Other Elected Offices: Article IV LV position: elected Sheriff (as is) elected City Attorney (a change from what is) Duties of Commissioners: Should there be a change in Section 2.01? Options include: keep it the same, make a comprehensive list, or state that the Commissioners must write a job description and then review it every 5 years. LV position is to define as part-time (see below) Number of Commissioners and Part-time/Full-time LV position keep at five and keep part-time Do we want Citizen Representation? Do we want the ability for Commissioners to work in Citizen Representation is part time, yes we want commissioners to live and work under the policies they put in place. Bozeman? Mayor part-time/full-time: Section 2.03 (b) LV position is to keep as is Dictate salary or describe salary outcome or guidelines. Commissioner part-time/full-time: 2.01 LV Talking Points: Part-time Commissioners: 1. Citizen Representation, Not a Political Class Part-time service reinforces the idea that commissioners are citizens first, not career politicians. When commissioners live and work in the community outside City Hall, they stay grounded in real-world consequences of policy decisions. This helps ensure the commission reflects the diversity of lived experience in the city—business owners, renters, retirees, parents, and workers—not just those able to make politics a full-time job. The City Commissioner position should be clearly defined as a part-time public service role, with compensation reflecting that status and not structured as full-time employment or salaried executive compensation. It should not be within the authority of the commission to redefine the office for its own benefit. 2. Prevents Professionalization of Local Politics 3. Strengthens Accountability to the Public Full-time positions can unintentionally turn local government into a career ladder, rather than a temporary civic duty. Part-time roles reduce incentives to make decisions based on job preservation, benefits, or future political ambitions. This preserves independence and reduces susceptibility to institutional groupthink. Commissioners who earn their primary income outside city government are less insulated from the effects of taxes, regulations, and service delivery. They experience city policies the same way residents do—as taxpayers, customers, property owners, or employees—creating natural accountability. 4. Clarifies Roles Between Policy and Administration A part-time commission reinforces the proper division of labor: Commissioners set policy and direction Professional staff implement and manage operations This helps avoid micromanagement and protects against commissioners drifting into administrative roles that belong with city staff. 5. Encourages Focus on Core Responsibilities Limited time encourages commissioners to focus on high-level policy decisions, priorities, and oversight rather than day-to-day operational detail. This can lead to better preparation, clearer agendas, and more disciplined decision-making. 6. Expands Who Can Serve Full-time positions with modest pay can unintentionally limit service to: retirees, independently wealthy individuals, or those seeking political careers. Part-time service—especially when paired with reasonable compensation—can broaden participation and lower barriers to entry. 7. Reduces Cost and Perception of Self-Interest Part-time roles reduce pressure to justify higher salaries, benefits, and staff support. This helps maintain public trust by reinforcing that service is about stewardship, not personal advancement. 8. Aligns with Montana’s Tradition of Citizen Government Montana has a long tradition of citizen legislators and local officials who serve while maintaining careers and community ties. Part-time service is consistent with that cultural and historical model of governance.
THE FACTS The City Commission is considering a proposal from the Associated Students of Montana State University (ASMSU) to create a non-voting, ex-officio student seat on every “Super Advisory Board” in the City of Bozeman. According to the staff memo, these seats would: Be designated for MSU students (nominated and trained by ASMSU) Represent “student interests” on city policy issues Participate in discussions but not vote Produce “official student opinions” and collaborate across boards Require no fiscal impact  WHY IT MATTERS Even without voting power, presence and participation on advisory boards shape the direction of policy. Advisory boards don’t just vote—they set the agenda, frame the debate, and influence staff and commissioners long before items reach the final vote. Key concerns: 1. Transient population, permanent influence Students are in Bozeman temporarily. Their priorities often reflect short-term, student-centered concerns—not the long-term stability, fiscal responsibility, or property implications residents live with for decades. 2. No skin in the game Most students are not taxpayers , do not pay property taxes, and will not bear the cost of the policies they influence. Yet advisory boards shape ordinances for housing, transportation, zoning, climate plans, spending priorities, and more. 3. Unequal representation Creating designated seats for one demographic elevates that demographic above all others. No other group—seniors, small landlords, homeowners, business owners, low-income families—has guaranteed seats on every advisory board. 4. It teaches the wrong lesson about civic engagement The democratic process is based on showing up, applying, serving, and earning a seat—not being granted automatic representation because of age or affiliation. This proposal teaches students that their voice is owed, not earned. 5. Advisory board influence is real Even without voting rights, ex-officio members: Shape narratives Push staff recommendations Influence public opinion Change the direction of policy conversations This is influence without accountability. 6. Risk of political capture Student political organizations—whether progressive or conservative—change yearly. These seats risk being used as rotating ideological footholds on every advisory board in the city. WHAT YOU CAN DO 1. Submit a written comment 2 . Attend the meeting in person Showing up matters. Commissioners react to the room. 3. Give public comment (even 30 seconds helps) You can pick a single point and expand on it. For example: “I support student engagement, but not special representation that elevates one group over others. Advisory boards should represent the residents who live with the consequences of policy.” 4. Share this Alert with neighbors Many don’t know this is happening. Awareness is our strongest tool. 5. Ask the Commission to expand public participation without creating permanent demographic seats For example: Promote advisory board openings to all young adults Create optional student liaisons on an as-needed basis Hold joint listening sessions with students instead of giving permanent positions.
THE FACTS The City Commission is advancing a tenant right-to-counsel ordinance that would create a new, city-funded legal services program for tenants. They are holding a special meeting on Tuesday Dec 2 at 1pm. The proposal comes despite the City’s own history of development choices that created a permanent renter class and invited large out-of-state corporate landlords into Bozeman. Bozeman already has a tenant advocacy organization (Bozeman Tenants United) with dues-paying members. Nevertheless, the City wants taxpayers—including homeowners, small landlords, and families—to subsidize legal services for tenants. Costs are unknown : demand, staffing needs, long-term funding, and the educational program budget remain undefined. The ordinance covers far more than eviction defense —including security deposit disputes, repair claims, damage claims, and pre-litigation representation. Only tenants are required to attempt mediation; landlords are not, and nothing prevents immediate escalation into litigation. The City has already diverted federal Community Development Block Grant funds toward the program, with no clarity on how long that funding will last or what taxpayers will be responsible for if it disappears. The City previously claimed it was facing a $1.77 million general fund deficit , yet now claims to have “savings” available to launch this new program. This ordinance would result in the City using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers to sue local landlords . Resources: Bozeman Staff Memo Tenant Right to Counsel | Expanded Talking Points ORDINANCE Adopting TRC and Mediation Programs | RESOLUTION Adopting TRC Mediation & Education
Facts: Bozeman Study Commission to Discuss Adding the Following Amendments to the Bylaws at Nov 19th Meeting:  Section 3.04 External Communications. There will be several opportunities for Study Commission members to speak to the public through presentations, online, written and spoken media. Study Commission members must act in accordance with the following rules where feasible: Matters of external communication must align with the Bozeman City Code of Conduct and Decorum as stated in Bozeman City Ordinance 2157. As a general rule, external communication should be provided by at least 2 Study Commissioners. When addressing issues outside of the scope of responsibility of the Study Commission, writing, presenting or electronic posting as an individual person must not include any reference to being a member of the Study Commission. During the term of service, unless specifically authorized through a vote by the Study Commission at a meeting, writing, presenting or electronic posting regarding subject matter within the scope of the Study Commission’s jurisdiction by an individual may include the title of Bozeman Study Commissioner, but must also include, “The views expressed here are my own and only my own.” All external communication should be reported during the Study Commission meeting during the Outreach agenda Item. If timing allows, this should be done prior to external communication, and then the Study Commissioner should also share the results following the external communication event.
Bozeman City Study Commission Meeting – Thursday, November 6  A major development demands public attention. Without prior discussion or consensus from the full Commission, a new agenda item has been added for Thursday’s meeting: Working Ventures, the out-of-state firm hired as the public engagement consultant, is now asking for an additional $9,000 — or at least $4,500 — to conduct “additional research.” Here Are the Facts: The Study Commission approved a $50,000 budget for this work. Working Ventures presented itself as a team of experts in municipal engagement and civic research. They submitted a detailed proposal for $48,000+ and signed a contract agreeing to deliver the full scope of work outlined in the RFP. A local firm — with extensive experience in Montana municipal government — submitted a competing proposal for $25,000 plus time and materials, not to exceed $50,000. The Commission chose to hire Working Ventures instead, trusting their stated expertise. To date, Working Ventures has held three public engagement events, with a total attendance of only 17 people. Now, despite that track record, the firm is asking taxpayers to fund their learning curve. In their own words, they are seeking money to conduct research that will “explore key areas of municipal governance to inform potential updates to the City Charter and ensure alignment with best practices, state law, and community needs.” — exactly what they were hired and paid to do in the first place. Working Ventures has also identified twelve “community partners” they plan to meet with during their December 4–6 engagement events. Not one conservative organization identified in prior meetings is included, while Forward Montana — a well-known activist group — is being given two special engagement sessions. Why This Matters: Bozeman taxpayers already paid for this expertise. Paying more to complete the same work is fiscally irresponsible. Every dollar spent here is one less available for essential city needs. Rewarding poor performance undermines public confidence and accountability. Local voices warned early on that this out-of-state firm lacked understanding of Bozeman’s local dynamics. The results confirm it. Representation in community outreach should reflect all viewpoints, not just one side of the political spectrum. Accountability matters. The firm claimed expertise in community engagement and local government review. Performance to date shows they over rated themselves and now expect taxpayers to pick up the slack. What You Can Do: Attend the Study Commission meeting on Thursday, November 6 at 4:00 -7:00 PM, City Hall. Submit written public comment before the meeting to govreveiw@bozeman.net Urge commissioners to vote NO on any additional funding for Working Ventures. Remind them: the public deserves accountability, not excuses. When citizens speak up, government listens. Let’s make sure they hear us loud and clear.