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:

1. Matters of external communication must align with the Bozeman City Code of Conduct and Decorum as stated in Bozeman City Ordinance 2157.
2. As a general rule, external communication should be provided by at least 2 Study Commissioners.
3. 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.
4. 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.”
5. 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.

Why It Matters:

We must keep communication open, simple, and honest. Don’t add restrictions that get in the way of the relationship between citizens and their representatives.

What You Can Do:

• Send written comments before noon on Wednesday to: govreview@bozeman.net
  
  
• Attend the meeting Wednesday at 4- 6pm City Hall, 121 North Rouse, Bozeman

Talking Points:

1. “Don’t restrict how our commissioners talk to us.”
   “As a citizen, I rely on commissioners being able to talk with me openly. I don’t want them to have to bring another commissioner to the conversation or file reports every time they speak to a neighbor. That feels more like surveillance than transparency.”
   
   
2. “We elected individuals — not a group that has to speak in unison.”
   “I voted fora specific commissioner because I trust their judgment. They should be free to express their views as individuals. Not everything needs to be said by two commissioners at the same time. That makes communication confusing, not clearer.”
   
   
3. “The only real communication problems we’ve seen can be solved with a disclaimer.”
   “The issues that have come up were because someone spoke in a way that sounded like the Commission had made a decision. That’s easy to fix. Just make sure people say when they’re speaking as individuals. We don’t need a whole system of restrictions to solve a simple issue.”
   
   
4. “Overregulating communication hurts minority voices.”
   “When acommission requires another member to be present, that puts the minority at adisadvantage. The majority can always find someone to pair up with. A dissenting voice might not. That’s not fair representation — that’s shutting people out.”
   
   
5. “Public service doesn’t require a chaperone.”
   “I don’t need a second commissioner in the room when I talk to the one I elected. That’s not transparency — that’s control. Commissioners should be allowed to meet with constituents one-on-one.”
   
   
6. “Transparency doesn’t mean reporting every conversation you have.”
   “Good representatives talk with people all the time — at the grocery store, at church, at community events. They shouldn’t have to file official reports about every conversation. That’s not practical. It’s not reasonable. And it’s not what we expect as citizens.”
   
   
7. “Protect the right of commissioners to tell us what they think.”
   “I want to hear each commissioner’s perspective. I don’t want them silenced or restricted because a bylaw makes them afraid to speak without permission.”
   
   
8. “A disclaimer solves the problem without restricting communication.”
   “The simplest solution is the best:
   If a commissioner is speaking as an individual, they should say so.
   That’s it.
   Everything else in this proposed bylaw feels unnecessary and intrusive.”
   
   
9. “This feels like it creates barriers instead of trust.”
   “When you add restrictive rules, it creates a sense that commissioners are being policed. That doesn’t build trust — it erodes it. We need open communication, not managed communication.”
   
   
10. “Bozeman values open doors and plain talk — not bureaucracy.”
    “We’re a community that believes in straight answers and open dialogue. This bylaw proposal leans toward bureaucratic control instead of common-sense communication

Please weigh in on this issue at govreview@bozeman.net before noon on Wednesday.

For Liberty!

Your Local Vocals Team