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.

Background: From City of Bozeman

Bozeman City Commission Candidate Interviews 

The City of Bozeman claims that a new Montana state law reducing property taxes has caused a $1.77 million budget deficit in Bozeman’s general fund, primarily affecting police and fire department staffing. The law lowered the city’s total taxable value by nearly 9% and reduced the value of a mill from $245,000 to $218,000. To address the shortfall, Bozeman commissioners approved using 4.5 of nine previously untouched mills, set aside in 2006 to ease taxpayer burdens, and cut the general fund budget by $810,000 through delaying non-essential expenses and keeping vacant positions open. The decision was justified by changing city needs, as the 2006 assumptions no longer apply. Commissioners also converted fixed mill levies for police and fire staffing to dollar amounts for consistency with other voter-approved levies. As a result, the property tax bill for a median home (assessed at $671,800) will decrease by about $126, with the total tax bill, including services like water and parks, set at $3,427.28, slightly lower than last year. Click the link below to read the full article from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

Their is conflict in Bozeman over the WARD (Water Adequacy for Residential Development) ballot initiative, which aims to tie water conservation to affordable housing. WARD would require one-third of new residential developments with three or more units to be affordable housing if developers pay cash-in-lieu of water rights to use the city’s water supply. This is due to the over-allocation of water resources, making cash-in-lieu a common practice for new developments. The Affordable Bozeman Coalition (ABC), led by figures like Riley Rivers of the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association, opposes WARD, arguing it will act as a housing moratorium, halt development, increase home prices, and encourage urban sprawl as developers move to county areas. They claim market-rate home prices will rise to subsidize affordable units, making homeownership harder for middle-income earners (e.g., those earning 121% of the area median income). Supporters of WARD, including Natsuki Nakamura and Dan Carty, argue it streamlines development while addressing water scarcity and housing affordability. They see it as a necessary trade-off, linking developers’ access to municipal water with the provision of affordable housing. Click the link below to read the full article on Bozeman KBZK News:

Regarding the Bozeman City Government Study Commission. 43 citizens wrote-in requesting the hiring of Andrew Thomas, from Helena, MT, as the Communication Strategist for the Study Commission. 0 (Zero) citizens wrote-in on behalf of Working Ventures, from Nebraska. The Study Commission, has voted 4-1 to advance Working Ventures for approval on the agenda. If you are able, please show up to the August 7th Bozeman Study Commission Meeting and express your opinions on this issue and the other topics on the agenda below, it is important. The Study Commission needs to hear what citizens truly want from their government structure. Bozeman Study Commission Meeting - August 7th 4 PM to 7 PM - City Hall - Commission Room 121 N. Rouse Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 

Over the past few weeks, we have worked to bring public awareness to an important issue taking place inside Bozeman City Hall. City Commissioner Emma Bode, along with activist groups including Queer Bozeman , Forward Montana , and the lesser-known Countship of the ISCSM (a non-profit known for its drag performances and LGBT advocacy), are pushing to have the “pride” flag adopted as an official city flag. This move is a strategic way to circumvent House Bill 819, a new state law that explicitly prohibits flags with political affiliations from being displayed on government property. This issue galvanized public response at the July 8 City Commission meeting, where residents delivered nearly two hours of public comment, despite the item being removed from the agenda just days before. Now, the proposal to adopt the “pride” flag as an official city flag is back on the agenda for an official vote at the City Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 15, and we must keep pushing back. This fight is far from over. We must stand up for neutrality and resist the politicization of our city’s official symbols. Commissioner Bode herself acknowledged the division, stating, “If you do choose to vote against raising the pride flag through any of these potential options that we have, I will respect your right to have that difference of opinion, but I do insist that you make that decision on the record and not as a result of avoiding the conversation entirely.” To “insist” is a bold demand from someone who was appointed, not elected. Her tone is less about dialogue and more about intimidation, an effort to publicly mark those who disagree as morally suspect. It’s a kind of performative pressure, as if voting no requires a scarlet letter. At Tuesday’s meeting, Mayor Terry Cunningham misleadingly framed the discussion, saying that “Bozeman is deciding how to comply with the effect of HB 819,” as if the law were vague or confusing. In reality, compliance is straightforward: fly the U.S. flag, the State of Montana flag, and the City of Bozeman’s official municipal flag, first displayed in 1966. Anything else is a deliberate provocation, not a good-faith effort to navigate the law. HB 819 plainly bans flags tied to political or ideological viewpoints, including those connected to sexual orientation, from being flown on public property. The city is not “deciding how to comply;” it is actively flirting with defiance. Adoption of the “pride” flag as an official city flag would then allow it to be displayed on other public property, including the library and public schools. The city staff memo released Thursday spells out the risks: “Adopting the Pride flag may draw increased attention to the City’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and related executive orders. This could invite legal challenges or public scrutiny, leading to unplanned legal costs, and additional staff time to respond. The increased attention could also lead to closer examination of other City initiatives, potentially complicating federal grant processes if concerns are raised about compliance with executive orders.” In other words, adopting the “pride” flag as an official city flag is not a harmless gesture; it invites controversy, legal exposure, political division, and increased scrutiny of the city’s DEI initiatives. It risks triggering lawsuits, burdensome litigation, and even loss of federal funds due to potential violations of executive orders and state law. The consequences of this decision are real, and they will fall on taxpayers. Worse yet, it takes up valuable staff and community time and displaces attention from issues that impact all residents. We’re told that there isn’t time in a regular City Commission meeting to have the important discussion on changes to zoning, a subject that impacts every household, so it was moved to a “special meeting” on a Monday afternoon. Meanwhile, this symbolic proposal gets prime-time placement. There isn’t staff time or capacity to complete a full review of the city’s Community Plan, but somehow there’s time for this. The urgency placed on this symbolic issue is unreasonable. It distracts the public from more pressing matters and diverts energy away from policy discussions that affect people’s daily lives. Supporters of adopting the “pride” flag as an official city flag frame their arguments around themes of inclusivity, safety, and visibility, often leveraging emotional appeals to rally support. But what happens when the city opens the door to symbolic favoritism? If Bozeman adopts the “pride” flag, what stops other groups – religious organizations, social organizations, or ethnic advocacy groups, from demanding the same status for their symbols because it would help them to feel more “included” and “seen?” We’ve seen how this can play out. If Bozeman selectively allows some ideological or political flags, like the “pride” flag, to fly at City Hall, while denying others, it risks turning its flag policy into a public forum and may be exposed to lawsuits. As an example, under Shurtleff v. City of Boston (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the City of Boston violated the First Amendment when it denied a request to fly a Christian flag on a city-owned flagpole after having allowed other groups to raise their flags there in the past. This decision cost Boston over $2 million in legal fees. This should be a cautionary tale for Bozeman: if you open the door to one flag, you need to open the door to all. The ruling reinforces that if a city opens a flagpole for expressive use, it must treat all viewpoints equally or clearly assert that it is only expressing government speech through narrowly defined and consistently enforced policies. The concept of government speech allows governments to express their own viewpoints through symbols, flags, or other means, but it comes with complexities when applied to a symbol like the “pride” flag, which is strongly associated with specific social and political movements, namely LGBT rights and advocacy. Adopting it as an official city flag could be challenged as the government endorsing a specific social or political viewpoint, potentially violating the First Amendment by favoring one group’s ideology over others, even though they will claim that the viewpoint that they are representing is “inclusivity.” While government speech is generally exempt from First Amendment scrutiny (per Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 2015), courts have held that governments must avoid creating an impression of excluding or suppressing dissenting viewpoints (Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 2009). Opponents could argue that the flag’s adoption alienates those with differing views on LGBT issues, leading to lawsuits claiming viewpoint discrimination. Calling the “pride” flag “government speech” sends a clear message: some viewpoints are official, and others are not. That perception, true or not, undermines community unity and erodes public faith in a neutral city government. Neutrality is not oppression. It is the only position a city government can responsibly take. A neutral flag policy means no political flags, no ideological endorsements, and no backdoor designations designed to sneak around state law. The existing Bozeman flag represents all residents equally, without judgment or agenda. It works. We don’t need any additional flags. And let’s be honest about the politics behind this. Commissioner Emma Bode was appointed to fill a commission seat vacated by another progressive activist, Christopher Coburn (co-founder of Queer Bozeman), and she has used her position to advance the housing agenda of her former employer, Forward Montana, elevate the voices of youths by advocating for an MSU student to sit on every city advisory board, advocate for climate initiatives, which aligns with her volunteer work with the Sunrise Movement, and now to pressure the city into adopting the “pride” flag, advocating for the LGBT community, a group that she self-identifies with as a “queer woman.” This is not representation of all Bozeman residents. This is lobbying from the dais. Her own public statements show that she is more concerned about keeping the conversation of adopting the “pride” flag alive rather than respecting the law, different views, and both staff’s and residents’ time. Bode’s selective application of inclusion is telling. She recently voted against a hotel site plan because its patio overlooking Bozeman Creek would only be accessible to paying customers, a form of exclusion she said was unacceptable when it came to a shared natural resource. Yet here she is, pushing to make a partisan symbol an official flag of the city, despite knowing it will make many residents feel excluded from their own government. That isn’t consistent. It’s performative politics. It is identity politics. It is a betrayal of her privilege to represent the city, especially for an unelected, appointed position. In the end, it is about her sexual preferences. This is a shameful waste of time and resources, and, bluntly put, it is perverse. Her remarks at the July 8 meeting were revealing. She said that HB 819 is like a “burning coal” that must be addressed, or it will “catch fire.” But she fails to recognize that it is her proposal to adopt the “pride” flag that has ignited the flame. The community didn’t ask for this. They didn’t demand a new flag. This is a top-down, ideologically driven campaign to force the city to take sides in a culture war. This type of mindset is destroying our city. Bode also said that if the Commission doesn’t reach consensus, she’s open to alternative ideas, implying that a compromise is still on the table. But let’s be clear: there are no acceptable alternatives here. The “pride” flag should never be flown at City Hall. This isn’t a matter of tweaking a policy or finding a middle ground; it’s about rejecting the politicization of public symbols altogether. Forced compromise only legitimizes a push that never should have been entertained in the first place. And if this isn’t about defying state law, why do so many supporters describe it that way? We’ve heard phrases like “sending a message to Helena to stop bullying” and “a statement to politicians in power that they will not strip us of our community.” These are not expressions of civic unity; they are declarations of resistance. And if resistance is truly the goal, why is there so little of it when it comes to laws like Senate Bill 382, legislation that reshapes housing and land use policy in ways that impact Bozeman residents far more broadly than a flag ever could? The selective outrage reveals the political nature of this push; it’s not about principle, it’s about symbolism. It is about power, and force. You can’t claim this is about safety and inclusion while publicly framing it as an act of defiance against state government. And let’s be real: Bozeman isn’t being seen as a trailblazer for this. Across the state, we are becoming a laughingstock, not a leader. This performative defiance only further isolates Bozeman from serious policy conversations that affect residents. Montana’s HB 819 exists for a reason: to prevent government buildings from becoming stages for political expression. If Bozeman defies that law by designating the “pride” flag as an official city flag, as Missoula and Butte-Silver Bow have done, the city will face legal and political consequences. They are working to make an ideological flag a symbol of the city under the guise of inclusivity. This is not a conversation about whether LGBT individuals “belong” in Bozeman. This is a conversation about what our city chooses to elevate as a symbol for everyone. A neutral flag is not an act of exclusion; it’s an act of unity. Every Bozeman resident, regardless of political, cultural, or religious beliefs, should be able to look at our city flag and feel represented. If we allow activist groups and sympathetic commissioners to transform the flag into a progressive symbol, we fracture that unity. We turn one of our few remaining shared spaces into another battlefield in a national culture war. And we do so for what? A temporary sense of moral satisfaction for some? A photo op outside City Hall celebrating their “victory”? And at what risk? Lawsuits, a deeper divide, and a blueprint for mob rule. We urge the Bozeman City Commission to reject the proposal to adopt the “pride” flag as an official city flag. Anything less would be a betrayal of neutrality, a violation of state law, and an insult to the very idea of public unity. Let this be a city for all its residents, not just those with the loudest paid-for lobby of activists, many of whom are not local. In the coming days, we ask Bozeman residents to make their voices heard. Attend the July 15 meeting. Submit public comment before noon on July 15. Remind the Commission that this city does not belong to any one ideology, identity, or movement. It belongs to all of us. And all of us deserve a flag we can stand beneath, not one that draws lines between neighbors. As you consider your comments on this, allow us to break down some of the most frequently used comments that were delivered on July 8 in support of adoption of the “pride” flag: 

From zoning discussions to climate data, last week’s Bozeman advisory board and Commission meetings painted a clear picture: city leadership is doubling down on growth, density, and sweeping policy shifts. The Community Development Board advanced major code revisions despite growing neighborhood concerns over zone edge transitions and incompatible density. The City Commission voted 4-1 to annex nearly 164 acres for high-density housing, relying on a still-unfunded $18 million sewer project to support it. Commissioners made their views clear: suburbs are a “blight,” single-family zoning is a “relic of the past,” and if developers build apartments that no one rents – “that’s not our problem.” Meanwhile, the Sustainability Board reported a 3% rise in emissions since 2022 and admitted the city is off track to meet its 2025 climate goals. And in the background of it all, public frustration continued to grow over the Commission’s decision to adopt the “pride” flag as an official city symbol. The meetings made it clear: this isn’t about minor updates. It’s a full-speed sprint toward a new Bozeman, whether the public desires it or not.