[1:35] [Captioner present]
[5:23] [Captioner present]
[5:30] >> It is 6:00.
[5:32] We are going to go ahead and call this meeting to order,
[5:36] our September 2nd Economic Vitality Board meeting to order.
[5:41] Just a little business and reminder that our meetings
[5:45] are held in person, and you can also
[5:49] access them through our video conferencing system.
[5:51] You can also watch or stream our meetings on channel 190,
[5:57] and you can attend in person.
[5:59] If you have a public comment and you
[6:01] want to do that over the phone the number is 12532050468.
[6:04] Do we have any Disclosures in regards
[6:13] to what we're going to be talking about tonight?
[6:17] Any changes to the agenda?
[6:21] >> No changes.
[6:23] >> I'm going to go over how to give public comment.
[6:26] This is the time to comment by any non-agenda member falling
[6:29] within the scope of the Economic Vitality Board.
[6:32] They will also be a time in conjunction with each agenda
[6:35] item for public comment relating to that item,
[6:38] but you may only speak once per topic.
[6:40] Please note that the board cannot take any item which does
[6:44] not appear on the agenda.
[6:46] All persons addressing the board shall
[6:47] speak in a civil and courteous manner.
[6:50] And members of the audience shall be respectful of others.
[6:54] Please state your name, stay if you are a resident of the city,
[6:58] please state if you are a property owner.
[7:02] And please limit your comments to three minutes.
[7:05] Do we have any public comments in regards to anything?
[7:09] Not related to agenda items.
[7:13] >> I see two members of the public online but they are not
[7:17] raising their hands for public comment.
[7:20] >> Thank you very much for that.
[7:22] We have a wonderful presentation.
[7:24] I'm going to have Brett introduce our presenters
[7:28] tonight.
[7:29] >> So tonight I'd like to introduce Courtney Smith
[7:34] to the podium.
[7:35] She is doing a presentation on belonging in Bozeman.
[7:39] And I will let you provide her with the details of what
[7:43] she's trying to accomplish with you tonight.
[7:46] But welcome Courtney.
[7:47] And thank you for being here.
[7:50] >> Thank you.
[7:51] Good evening, everyone.
[7:53] Tonight I'm presenting on the belonging in Bozeman decision:
[7:58] Making tool.
[8:00] It's a work session and it's very interactive.
[8:02] I definitely appreciate your input and feedback on this.
[8:06] Just a bit of an overview of tonight,
[8:09] we will go through the background of the decision
[8:11] making tool.
[8:13] We will go over the tools, have an example walk through
[8:17] where I will have you walk through the decision making tool
[8:21] with me.
[8:21] And then I have some questions and input from you all on this.
[8:25] A little bit of background, the belonging in Bozeman plan was
[8:30] adopted by the Bozeman City Commission December 19th, 2023.
[8:33] This is in alignment with goal five recommendation one
[8:37] under Community Safety and Civic Health
[8:39] within the Belonging in Bozeman plan
[8:41] to develop a decision making tool
[8:44] and train elected officials, Advisory board members and staff
[8:50] and its use.
[8:51] I think this is a priority for the commission as well.
[8:55] So what is the decision making tool?
[8:58] This is a set of structures -- structured questions that guides
[9:03] the examination of policies, practices and decisions
[9:08] to ensure they align with equal access goals.
[9:11] I will also point out that this decision-making tool shows up
[9:18] in a couple other places within the Belonging in Bozeman plan,
[9:22] like our transportation section, to ensure
[9:25] that all of the policies and practices and decisions that
[9:28] are made by leaders within the city government
[9:30] have equal access in mind.
[9:32] So I use this decision making tool?
[9:37] Really, it's to make sure that there's a structured methodology
[9:41] for recognizing, addressing and rectifying
[9:44] disparities and ensuring that decisions are based
[9:47] on data, community engagement, and clear objectives
[9:51] and at advancing our intended outcomes.
[9:54] And it's a valuable resource within government practices.
[9:57] A lot of different government entities
[9:59] utilize this type of tool.
[10:01] We also hope that it addresses root causes of disparities
[10:04] and biases that exist within our community.
[10:09] Another reason why we exist is --
[10:16] why we use the decision making tool can be found by the way
[10:19] of example through the Americans with Disability Act.
[10:22] That was co-created with and by and for people
[10:24] with living with disabilities and expanded upon section 504
[10:27] of the Rehabilitation Act.
[10:29] The focus on accessibility spurred innovation and design
[10:33] and technology leading to products and services
[10:35] that are more easily used by everyone.
[10:38] For example, curb cuts, ramps and accessible restrooms
[10:42] benefit not only people with disabilities
[10:44] but people with strollers, older adults, delivery workers,
[10:48] and travelers with luggage.
[10:50] The electric toothbrushes commonly used by people
[10:53] and was intended originally for people with disabilities.
[10:56] When we target the needs of a particular group,
[10:59] we can actually meet the needs of a variety
[11:01] of groups of people.
[11:03] So that is what this tool is intended to do.
[11:06] You all have a hand in front of you
[11:10] and we will go through each of these questions one by one.
[11:14] But this is an outline of what the decision-making tool looks
[11:20] like.
[11:20] First you'll start with the proposal.
[11:23] What is the policy, program or budget
[11:26] decision under consideration and what are the broad desired
[11:29] outcomes?
[11:30] And example -- for example, all people in Bozeman have x.
[11:36] You'll start with a broad policy that you want for everybody
[11:39] when you're making a decision.
[11:42] Next, you'll look at the data and what is available
[11:47] and what does it tell us.
[11:48] Who is currently well-served and has access?
[11:52] And who does not, and why?
[11:55] Some resources that could help with your decision-making
[12:00] include the belonging in Bozeman data
[12:02] dashboard, even though it needs to be updated.
[12:05] And the belonging in Bozeman plan.
[12:08] We also have community census data and the community survey
[12:13] which informs a lot of data that we
[12:15] utilize within the city as well as the Library of Congress.
[12:18] There are also nonprofit data sources
[12:21] that exist like the Opportunity Atlas and the Kids Count data
[12:25] Center resources.
[12:26] I'll also point that -- point out that disaggregated data is
[12:32] preferable in these types of situations where you look
[12:34] at subgroups that share identifying factors that include
[12:37] but are not limited to race ethnicity, income,
[12:42] languages spoken, gender, geography and disability.
[12:47] And once you select a proposal related to a condition
[12:50] of well-being, we want you to look --
[12:54] you look at that data to reveal some groups that are more
[12:58] or less impacted.
[12:59] The next question asks how have stakeholders been engaged
[13:03] and what does that community engagement process look like?
[13:06] It's especially important to hear from those
[13:08] who will be directly impacted by a decision
[13:10] and whose voices are missing from a conversation,
[13:13] and how we can gain their perspectives.
[13:15] The next question, analysis and strategies.
[13:21] We want to look at who will benefit from the proposal
[13:24] that you have, who will be burdened by that proposal?
[13:28] And are there any strategies for mitigating unintended
[13:31] consequences?
[13:32] And these are some helpful starting considerations
[13:35] that we have here.
[13:38] Next, what is the plan for implementing your policy goals?
[13:43] How will you ensure that the timeline, communications,
[13:47] and the process address the needs of key groups identified
[13:50] above?
[13:55] Lastly, we have accountability and communication.
[14:00] How will you ensure accountability
[14:01] to meeting the proposed goals?
[14:04] How will the results of your proposal be evaluated?
[14:07] And make sure you include checkpoints
[14:10] for reviewing, reporting and addressing
[14:12] those outcomes along the way.
[14:15] You all have the handout in front of you.
[14:19] Now, we are going to go into an example using the MSU ex board
[14:26] member position.
[14:30] In March of this year, the Bozeman City Commission
[14:33] adopted a resolution establishing MSU students
[14:36] as ex officio members of different boards including
[14:40] the Community Development Board, economic vitality
[14:44] sustainability, transportation, urban parks and forestry boards
[14:48] as non-voting members we will use that as an example
[14:50] and try to step through that using the tool
[14:52] that you have in front of you.
[14:54] Great.
[14:55] So I'm going to encourage you all
[15:00] to think through this with me with each of these questions.
[15:05] And I'm doing this because my intent
[15:08] is to also walk through staff an example with this handout
[15:15] and see if this tool is helpful in their decision
[15:17] making processes.
[15:19] The first question is, what is the policy, program or budget
[15:24] decision under consideration and what are the broad desired
[15:28] outcomes?
[15:29] Anybody want to share how they would state this?
[15:46] >> I would assume that their reasoning for a desired outcome
[15:48] would be that you have a succession plan for board
[15:51] members so that you have additional folks you can tap
[15:55] into.
[15:55] In my mind are we supposed to answer that?
[16:00] What is it that we are supposed to do?
[16:01] Am I on the right track?
[16:05] >> Yeah you're on the right track.
[16:07] Why do we have the ex officio board member MSU students
[16:12] (Indiscernible) the policy?
[16:17] >> I guess, increasing representation from students
[16:22] in Bozeman. (Indiscernible) hear what they think,
[16:27] given that they make up such a large share of the citizens.
[16:31] >> Yes.
[16:32] Good.
[16:32] This is how I framed it.
[16:35] For all of those are correct answers.
[16:37] College student voices in Bozeman
[16:41] are represented through the ex officio board member position.
[16:45] That's the policy proposal.
[16:47] Next, data.
[16:48] What data is available and what does it tell us?
[16:51] Who currently has access and is well served?
[16:54] Who does not and why?
[16:57] Anything off of the top of your heads
[16:59] could be helpful in thinking through this.
[17:00] I know this might be tough.
[17:03] >> We have the knowledge and experience of past commenters
[17:07] and board members of city boards,
[17:09] knowing a little bit about the composition of what kind
[17:13] of people come up and give comments.
[17:16] So we can say, if we dug into it,
[17:19] we could figure out how frequently MSU students have
[17:23] participated in either part of that.
[17:26] >> Yes, sure.
[17:29] >> We could maybe look through our past work plans and get
[17:34] an idea of how often the topics we address do impact
[17:37] the university or students living in the community.
[17:41] >> Yes, that is helpful data -- on who is being impacted
[17:45] by different policies.
[17:53] Okay, here are some data points that I wrote about.
[17:59] Generally, the city of Bozeman's population is about 5000,
[18:02] maybe closer to 60,000.
[18:05] MSU student enrollment is approximately 17,000.
[18:08] That means students make up about 34% of Bozeman.
[18:12] And MSU students historically have not
[18:15] been represented in Bozeman City Commission.
[18:17] 15% of MSU enrolled students identify
[18:20] as some underrepresented race or ethnicity.
[18:22] The average student at MSU is about 20 years old.
[18:27] And young people aged 20 to 29 make up about of about 32%
[18:31] of Bozeman's population and have been underrepresented
[18:34] in community service and public comment input, like you said,
[18:39] Albert.
[18:39] And young people under the age of 25
[18:41] are going to be more likely to be renters and low income
[18:45] earners.
[18:46] Community engagement.
[18:48] How stakeholders have been engaged,
[18:52] what happened in the process?
[18:55] >> Can we go back a moment?
[18:57] Just to the previous slide.
[19:01] Just to understand this tool a little bit more.
[19:05] I'm just kind of getting used to it.
[19:09] I guess I'm kind of --
[19:14] I guess I'm kind of wondering, should we
[19:17] go into the sort of thing where you want to go into more detail?
[19:22] And I guess I was even thinking for the previous point,
[19:25] as a proposal, the other part of that question
[19:30] was this broad desired outcome.
[19:33] Where, I guess I'm getting a sense --
[19:38] this is pretty detailed.
[19:42] I was thinking, like, we've got the students, but what about --
[19:49] I, is there more to it?
[19:53] We want to hear the young people's voices
[19:55] but they're not students.
[19:57] In the back of my head, I'm trying to go to that question
[20:00] that we come to later.
[20:01] I guess I'm thinking forward about this type of thing.
[20:07] It's moving quickly for me.
[20:11] That's what I'm saying.
[20:13] >> That is a great point.
[20:14] And I think it's important to look at all of the data,
[20:18] as much data as you can.
[20:20] But also, see where there are gaps in that type of data.
[20:23] There are a lot of young people aged 20 to 29
[20:26] who are not enrolled at MSU that might be missing out by not
[20:30] having that representation.
[20:32] And that is a good point to think about.
[20:35] It will help us to stuff out -- suss out where those gaps
[20:43] in what we're doing in some of our policies and decision making
[20:46] by using this type of tool.
[20:48] Any other thoughts?
[20:57] >> For example, when I read these, I'm thinking to myself,
[21:00] what issues are the students most concerned with
[21:02] in our community?
[21:03] And I realize that students doesn't
[21:06] capture everyone in their age range you just described.
[21:08] The sake of discussion, that's what I'm talking about.
[21:12] Does the university survey the students in a way that --
[21:16] where the results (Indiscernible) get any
[21:20] information out of those results on city-related services?
[21:23] That might be where those students might be impacted.
[21:28] We can't solve all these problems
[21:30] but the thing that comes to mind, I hear about parking.
[21:34] I hear about housing.
[21:35] Those are the two primaries that come to mind.
[21:40] The question is, when you talk about data,
[21:43] can we get any info out of the surveys
[21:45] at the university might already be putting out that we
[21:49] just maybe aren't aware of?
[21:51] That was my comment.
[21:54] >> I know that the registrar's office does a survey of incoming
[21:58] students every year and asks them specifically what issues
[22:02] are important to them.
[22:03] So that could be important data for us
[22:06] to have when we think about this.
[22:13] >> This may be just a distinction to be made,
[22:15] I see this as context data.
[22:18] Whereas later on in the sequence of analysis and implementation,
[22:24] maybe there's a role for performance data
[22:26] as well to practice the recursive editing
[22:29] of the plan in real time.
[22:32] But yeah, there's almost two different types
[22:35] of data that are helped without this life cycle.
[22:40] And maybe that's a distinction worth making
[22:42] in that second step.
[22:45] >> Yeah, I think what you're saying is spot on.
[22:47] Especially down the line when you think about accountability,
[22:50] and are we actually meeting the goals that we
[22:53] want and are intending to meet?
[22:57] The next is community engagement.
[23:00] How have stakeholders been engaged?
[23:03] Whose voices are missing from the conversation
[23:05] and how can we gain their perspective?
[23:08] I don't have all the details of how this came about,
[23:12] but I have a couple of things that I've written down.
[23:15] But if you are in a situation and you came up
[23:18] with the MSU ex officio board position, how would
[23:22] you engage stakeholders?
[23:42] >> (Indiscernible)
[23:43] >> (Laughs)
[23:45] >> I guess it all depends on who is passing this decision, right?
[23:48] In this case, I would assume that the MSU students
[23:54] and the people who had a say in whether this
[24:00] MSU ex officio role should be part of the board plan.
[24:06] I guess it all depends on what's been passed
[24:10] and what's in front of us.
[24:13] In this case, it would be us if it comes in front of us.
[24:18] And then whoever the other side is for MSU.
[24:24] >> For sure.
[24:26] >> Since this is community engagement for college students,
[24:30] and they are a huge stakeholder, so I would begin their.
[24:35] I would talk to members of student government.
[24:38] I would talk to members of community groups
[24:42] that represent marginalized groups to see
[24:45] what they are thinking.
[24:47] I would talk to professors that are knowledgeable in areas
[24:52] that we represent.
[24:55] And obviously, I would talk with other organizations that maybe
[25:02] help with highlighting voices of young people,
[25:04] just to see what they are doing and how they are doing it.
[25:08] So that's what I would do.
[25:12] Anyone else have any thoughts on how
[25:16] you could engage stakeholders?
[25:22] yes.
[25:25] >> Is part of the process what we're doing now is thinking
[25:28] about slight changes to the framework?
[25:32] Because I guess I'm intrigued by the first,
[25:37] who are the stakeholders?
[25:39] Almost before, how have the stakeholders been engaged?
[25:43] And this specific policy, maybe it's
[25:46] very broad because the stakeholders are essentially
[25:48] everyone, because this is going to be a city wide kind of thing.
[25:52] But for my thinking was, who are the stakeholders?
[25:56] And recognizing that.
[25:58] Then, how have stakeholders been engaged?
[26:00] And then -- that's just a thought I had on reading these
[26:05] questions.
[26:05] I don't know if that's useful or not.
[26:08] >> I was thinking the same thing.
[26:10] But I would almost move the analysis step
[26:12] in front of the community engagement step.
[26:16] Because to me, the analysis part where
[26:18] we are thinking about who's being differentially impacted
[26:21] is really useful for identifying some of the stakeholders
[26:24] and who they are.
[26:26] For example, if there's something that we are not really
[26:29] saying that women or men are going
[26:31] to be differentially impacted.
[26:32] I'm not too worried about the gender balance of who's
[26:35] been engaged in this process.
[26:38] But if we've already said, we think
[26:40] this is going to be having a big impact on women in particular,
[26:43] then I would say, do we have a plan for how we're
[26:46] going to make sure that we are engaging both men and women
[26:50] in this particular process?
[26:54] >> I think it makes sense to ask the question of, who are
[26:58] the stakeholders, before beginning engagement.
[27:05] So some ways that the public is engaged.
[27:10] Communication with staff and MSU students
[27:12] including multiple organizations across campus.
[27:16] And public comments solicited during City Commission meetings
[27:19] from community members with different perspectives
[27:22] on the issue.
[27:26] >> I'll just note, one stakeholder we didn't identify.
[27:30] And I think (Indiscernible) the advisory board
[27:36] chairs (Indiscernible) to talk about getting extra or different
[27:40] representation on the board.
[27:43] >> I will say that this is also something to think through all
[27:47] of these things.
[27:49] So you're not actually doing the community engagement yet.
[27:52] You're just thinking through all of these steps
[27:54] before you consider your proposal, even.
[27:58] So that way you've thought about all of these things
[28:00] before you've proposed.
[28:02] We're going to have this board member position.
[28:06] I've already thought about who should engage,
[28:09] what that analysis looks like, what engagement looks like,
[28:13] how we can implement it -- before even saying we're doing
[28:17] a thing.
[28:18] That way, hopefully, you'll mitigate
[28:21] some unintended consequence and leaving people out.
[28:24] So this is kind of a tool to use before you even
[28:26] make this decision.
[28:28] The next question kind of asks us
[28:32] about the analysis and strategy.
[28:35] Who will benefit from the MSU ex board member position proposal?
[28:39] And who will be burdened by the proposal?
[28:45] Any thoughts on this?
[28:50] >> This actually might be a good spot to add in age groups
[28:54] specifically as something to start for consideration.
[28:58] Youth, children or families of children, and the elderly. --
[29:06] families with children and the elderly.
[29:08] But obviously, in this case, one of the groups
[29:11] that will benefit from the proposal
[29:13] will be MSU students in particular,
[29:15] and the youth of the population, and could perhaps
[29:19] give a stronger voice to the renter population as well.
[29:30] >> Any other thoughts?
[29:32] >> I believe students come in all kinds of different colors
[29:35] and genders, and economic status, and all of that.
[29:40] So a lot of what you have in here,
[29:43] when it comes to consideration, it's
[29:46] (Indiscernible) the example that you gave us with the toothbrush.
[29:49] Where, if you help one, you help many.
[29:53] And this may be the case on that one as well.
[30:07] >> I think it's super useful to recognize all these different
[30:09] groups here.
[30:10] I was also wondering, I know that's helpful
[30:13] starting considerations as a useful toolkit.
[30:17] But picking up on what Daisy was saying, for city-level policies,
[30:26] I think you could (Indiscernible) geographic
[30:31] neighborhoods and more city-level analyzes
[30:33] and types of things in addition to these important things.
[30:38] But just recognizing what Bozeman looks like.
[30:41] We've got southwest, Northwest, and that type of thing.
[30:46] More Bozeman-specific categories,
[30:49] I guess could be useful to include
[30:51] as a starting consideration.
[30:54] Which is kind of like what was being talked
[30:56] about with the renters and owners and that type of thing,
[31:00] making that distinction.
[31:03] >>, yes, for sure.
[31:06] Some of the things that I pointed out
[31:08] when I was doing this.
[31:10] MSU students make up all of the demographics listed to the left.
[31:14] Daisy, (Indiscernible).
[31:16] And students in the broader community
[31:18] will benefit from learning opportunity and representation.
[31:20] The potential for increased student
[31:22] engagement in the local government.
[31:23] Students could be burdened by additional responsibility
[31:26] and need to represent their peers.
[31:29] Even though we're representing students,
[31:31] what young people who are not in college may be left out of this.
[31:36] And that is an important consideration.
[31:39] And then city commissioners, board members,
[31:41] and city staff will be responsible for ensuring that
[31:44] our representatives are prepared and can provide input within
[31:47] the board's.
[31:47] And those are all important to consider
[31:49] when thinking about this.
[31:52] Next, what is the plan for implementation?
[31:55] Again, I don't really know what the plan is for implementation,
[32:00] but what do you think the plan could be?
[32:02] Making sure that the timeline, communications, and the process
[32:07] address the needs of a variety of these groups
[32:09] that we talked about.
[32:25] >> Can you just repeat the question that you're asking?
[32:28] (Laughs).
[32:29] >> So, thinking about the MSU ex officio board member position,
[32:34] how would you make a plan to implement that,
[32:38] ensuring that the timeline for, the communications,
[32:41] in the process address the needs of a --
[32:45] and the process addresses the needs of a variety of people.
[32:52] >> Anybody want to share on implementation?
[32:54] How are you going to implement it?
[32:58] >> I'm guessing what the City Commission might have been
[33:00] thinking about finding a target group (Indiscernible) students
[33:07] union or students association.
[33:08] Thinking, we will reach out to this group
[33:11] and we'll use them as leverage and lay out a timeline.
[33:14] But I'm just guessing what the city commissioners
[33:17] might have been thinking.
[33:20] >> Yeah, I don't know either.
[33:22] But this is just an example to think through how you would do
[33:24] something like this as some -- >> As someone who attended
[33:29] the discussion about it, I think the plan proposed at ASMSU will
[33:37] be represented -- will recruit students to start in the fall.
[33:41] And it will be a one year term and it
[33:43] will make it a little bit more easier to students
[33:45] who may not have to commit to a two year
[33:47] like most board members.
[33:49] And they are responsible for recruiting and interviewing
[33:52] and then proposing to the commission to approve.
[33:57] >> Some sample things that I said to think about
[33:59] for the timeline communications,, -- timeline,
[34:09] communication and process is ensuring that MSU students
[34:13] on campus have adequate notice and opportunity to be appointed
[34:18] to various boards with outreach from MSU to various student
[34:22] groups and departments across campus.
[34:25] Assigning current board students to provide training for newly
[34:30] selected MSU student Board members to make sure that
[34:32] the training meetings -- meets the needs of the busy students
[34:35] and their schedules.
[34:36] And the student board member will be given opportunity
[34:39] to regularly attend meetings in between meetings
[34:41] that they can meet with staff and can
[34:42] be successful in their role and prepared.
[34:44] Those are some of the thoughts on how
[34:46] to roll it out so that it meets the needs of the students.
[34:48] And then come accountability and communication.
[34:51] How would you ensure accountability
[34:53] to meeting the proposal goals?
[34:55] How will results be evaluated?
[34:58] And making sure that plans include checkpoints for review,
[35:03] reporting and addressing outcomes.
[35:05] Any thoughts on that?
[35:15] >> I'm assuming results be evaluated by having an actual
[35:17] role where you see a person sitting in front of you,
[35:20] and they are an MSU ex officio.
[35:23] And you have a pipeline of upcoming students
[35:26] that are coming for the role once the term ends.
[35:30] And then, plenty of other candidates
[35:33] to choose from to be able to make a good selection.
[35:39] And then, accountability, I would assume that as long as --
[35:45] you had mentioned that MSU takes accountability for selecting
[35:49] and making a proposal for that candidate.
[35:53] Then, the accountability is truly just on the MSU body.
[36:00] And just holding accountable -- hold them accountable based
[36:04] on timelines, similar to any other role.
[36:07] Unless I'm oversimplifying.
[36:12] >> I think it all goes back to the why.
[36:14] Why do we want to do this?
[36:16] Why do we need representation?
[36:18] And that will kind of help answer these questions.
[36:22] I'm thinking for how results will be evaluated.
[36:27] You could also implement self-surveys after someone has
[36:31] finished their term to just give their opinions on how their time
[36:37] was used -- if they thought it was valuable,
[36:41] what they got out of being a member.
[36:42] But again, I think that the city always
[36:45] has to go back to the why.
[36:47] Why do we want their representation?
[36:50] And then once you have that, the checkpoints and the reviewing
[36:53] becomes a lot easier.
[36:57] So that's where I would start, is to always ask the why
[37:01] and then follow up with the members.
[37:08] >> I think that is a good point to always come back to.
[37:10] Some things that I said as an example -- accountability,
[37:15] regular evaluation of the position with input from
[37:18] the boards and MSU students on any changes that they would
[37:20] make.
[37:21] Regularly updated changing for board members.
[37:23] Annual review of the position by city commissioners
[37:26] to ensure the role is in alignment
[37:28] with meeting the stated goals.
[37:30] And then regular review of student representation
[37:32] and attempts to continue to gain different perspectives.
[37:35] So that is what I have for you.
[37:39] I would appreciate any input that you have.
[37:42] Did we hit the mark on what should be included in this tool?
[37:46] Was there anything that was confusing or unclear
[37:49] about how to use the decision-making tool?
[37:54] And how would you recommend we incorporate this
[37:56] into our city operations?
[38:06] >> One thing that I think might be useful would be to give a few
[38:08] shoulds for each of these items in terms of ,
[38:15] when should I feel that I've reviewed the data adequately?
[38:20] What should have -- what sort of criteria do you want me to hit
[38:26] before I give this plan a thumbs up and start moving forward?
[38:30] And of course, one of the challenges
[38:33] here is you're talking about such a wide range
[38:35] of different decisions.
[38:36] It's hard to have a consistent (Indiscernible),
[38:42] but for something like community engagement, you might say,
[38:44] you should have plans to engage most
[38:46] of the groups you've identified as likely to be impacted
[38:50] by this policy.
[38:53] So, just a little bit of should to it.
[38:57] >> I like that.
[38:58] Maybe some more specificity on when to use this,
[39:02] and what is the absolute must haves for this.
[39:05] I will say that the (Indiscernible) is already
[39:10] thinking about how to incorporate this
[39:11] into all of our community engagement processes
[39:14] so that leaders think about this during the engagement process
[39:17] in particular.
[39:25] >> Yeah, to piggyback on what Kelsey said earlier,
[39:27] although I understand your thinking of this as one document
[39:32] where you're thinking about things all together.
[39:34] I do think possibly rephrasing some
[39:37] of the order of these questions could be helpful.
[39:40] And I have a few other things, but I
[39:44] guess the main first thing that I would hit
[39:48] is potentially separating the goal as the very first thing.
[39:51] Again separating that from that proposal.
[39:54] Like, the very first question is,
[39:57] what is the board's desired outcome --
[40:02] broad desired outcome?
[40:04] And what is the proposal?
[40:06] It's always come back to the why.
[40:08] As always, you have that at the very top of everything
[40:11] as what you are trying to do, as its own category.
[40:14] And I think it would be helpful --
[40:17] and going through this was super useful.
[40:18] When I did this when I was reading through the agenda,
[40:23] a concrete example makes it so much clearer what's happening.
[40:29] And to Kelsey's point about the stakeholders getting
[40:33] recognized earlier, but also then be
[40:37] very useful for how to think about some of these questions.
[40:41] That's my take after a few moments.
[40:44] I'm sure there might be cons to what I'm suggesting,
[40:47] but that's kind of my initial thoughts.
[40:52] >> Do you think there is value to actually pushing the goal
[40:55] after the data?
[40:57] Like, look at the data and then see what the goals should be.
[41:01] And almost have the goal be reflective of that.
[41:04] >> Yes, I guess in some sense you're saying,
[41:07] what is the problem , as the first question.
[41:13] And making sure to look at the data,
[41:14] and make sure this is (Indiscernible)?
[41:18] Or you're saying, we don't have any MSU engagement.
[41:21] We should make sure because maybe MSU students were coming
[41:24] to present and we just didn't even realize
[41:27] and so we anecdotally thought they were having opinions.
[41:31] I guess that's what you're getting >> Sort of.
[41:38] I'm thinking of telescoping our way
[41:39] from the proposal to the goal.
[41:42] The proposal is, here's the recognition of a potential gap.
[41:46] But then the data tells you the specifics about might --
[41:53] about a gap that might exist.
[41:55] And then it gives you some clues on what outcomes could actually
[41:57] plug the gaps and drive you towards your goal definition.
[42:10] >> For me, just in regards to a tool,
[42:11] I would want something that's really useful -- usable,
[42:14] that straightforward, that lends itself to many different areas.
[42:18] This was really hard, to be honest.
[42:21] But once we got into it and we had you explain,
[42:24] it did get a little bit easier.
[42:28] But I want to know how other people felt using the tools.
[42:33] We are coming in completely green and fresh,
[42:37] but maybe if they had a little bit more time with this tool
[42:39] it would feel a lot familiar and would work.
[42:43] So that's what I would say.
[42:45] Is it usable?
[42:46] Is it straightforward?.
[42:50] That's my advice.
[42:53] >> I guess I'm curious, do you see the city Commission using
[42:57] this before they direct staff to work on something?
[43:01] Or does the City Commission make the decision and then staff
[43:05] uses it when they're crafting an engagement plan
[43:08] or figuring out how to do a public survey or something?
[43:13] >> My hope is that this tool is used in many steps along
[43:16] the process.
[43:17] But for a city commission to actually use the tool
[43:20] before they even think of their idea or make a proposal,
[43:24] go through the tool, look at the data,
[43:27] and then present something for the community.
[43:31] And then same with internal leadership.
[43:33] Let's say they have a directive from the commission,
[43:36] but they need advice on how to do it.
[43:39] Think through these items before even beginning that, before
[43:42] beginning an engagement process, just
[43:44] making sure to look at all of the school items first.
[43:50] >> I just wanted to add to this third question which I believe
[43:54] gets at that two.
[43:57] We want to hear from-- gets at that too.
[44:06] We want to hear from you all on what
[44:08] you think is the best time to use this tool for the city
[44:12] and provide feedback on that.
[44:16] >> I myself was also confused.
[44:18] I think what I struggle with the most is the applicability.
[44:24] When in time and who can use this?
[44:29] And if this is a tool, what kind of decision?
[44:35] Is it every single decision?
[44:38] I just struggled with finding focus more than anything.
[44:43] And then also, when you roll out a tool, you have to think about,
[44:49] is this just a check the box item?
[44:51] Is this a template?
[44:53] A guide?
[44:54] Will it be enforced?
[44:57] Will it just be a nice thing to have?
[45:03] Those things are what I'm thinking about when
[45:06] it comes to implementation.
[45:07] It was a bit difficult to follow, and I think a lot of it
[45:11] is because I didn't have enough context.
[45:13] In my mind, I was thinking this decision (Indiscernible) for us.
[45:20] So if something comes to us, and we are like,
[45:22] are we asking the right question?
[45:24] In my mind, I kept thinking, this would be good for us
[45:27] so that we can address whether we have enough data,
[45:29] whether we have heard from everyone.
[45:31] But at the same time, sometimes we have little to no time
[45:34] to really think about and ask other people
[45:36] outside of this group what their thoughts are
[45:38] on this or the other.
[45:40] And so it does require a little bit more preparation.
[45:43] I do not know how it is that this
[45:47] can go and be applied to other areas of the city Commission.
[45:53] But I would say for anything, we could probably
[45:59] benefit from a little simplification and a little bit
[46:03] more focus on what decisions are meant to be rolling down
[46:09] with this tool.
[46:12] And certainly not everything requires
[46:14] all seven different aspects of this, right?
[46:19] There are things where you may not even have data.
[46:22] And if you don't have data, should you have a proposal?
[46:25] If you don't feel any of these questions,
[46:28] does that mean that you don't have a problem?
[46:30] And therefore, we don't get to work on it,
[46:34] and you can't be heard.
[46:35] It's just those things.
[46:37] And I don't know if I'm going in circles,
[46:39] but I think you need some refinement.
[46:41] And I still don't know what stage
[46:44] of the process this should be.
[46:47] Whether, should this be at the beginning?
[46:49] Or should this be part of our group
[46:51] so that we can evaluate things as we go along
[46:53] when a proposal does come to a body of approvers.
[47:06] >> As far as timing goes, personally,
[47:08] I see this as being useful at a couple of stages.
[47:10] One of them is when we have either a data or a policy idea,
[47:17] or a big goal, and we're trying to figure out,
[47:23] what kind of things do we want to consider?
[47:25] What possible method do we want to use
[47:27] while we're implementing it?
[47:29] So it's in the initial drafting stage of some kind of proposal.
[47:34] And I'd also maybe think it could be useful to run through,
[47:38] we've gone through a couple of iterations
[47:40] of what seems feasible, we've gathered some more data.
[47:44] Before we sign off and make this thing really happen,
[47:48] let's use this as a second last check --
[47:53] as a last checklist as we're bumping things off and seeing
[47:57] if we've lost anything in the process or changed anything.
[48:01] I don't want to make it at too many stages
[48:05] because I think the more times people need to fill it out,
[48:07] the more likely it is to turn into a box checking exercise
[48:10] that people don't think about enough.
[48:12] And so trying to identify talking to the commission,
[48:17] maybe talking to us about, here's
[48:20] a key place in a proposal's life cycle
[48:24] where we want to go through this tool and make that standard.
[48:28] And hopefully the questions will lead themselves
[48:32] through other part of the process as well.
[48:36] It risks unnecessarily slowing things down as well
[48:40] if we try making it in at too many points.
[48:42] I also wonder if you might be able to make a flowchart version
[48:48] of this to help people see the connections between
[48:52] the different questions , and it might be interesting to play
[48:59] around with.
[49:07] >> For me in my mind, I would split this into two parts.
[49:09] Like, the proposal and the why.
[49:12] I think that's something that the city commission decides
[49:14] when they set their priorities and they pass a resolution.
[49:20] They say, whereas because of this data,
[49:24] whereas because of this problem.
[49:26] They might use that whenever they're passing a resolution.
[49:30] The city commission is in charge of the piece of the proposal
[49:34] and the data that seems relevant to define the problem.
[49:36] That seems beyond our pay grade, I would say.
[49:40] But maybe the part that we could help with (Indiscernible) more
[49:46] tool-based is when you guys put the public engagement plan
[49:48] for either you're talking about the urban forest outreach plan
[49:51] or how it's going to reach people.
[49:53] You could come in front of the board and say,
[49:55] we've came up with these stakeholders.
[49:58] Who are we missing?
[50:00] And given these stakeholders, what
[50:02] are the best ways to reach them?
[50:04] That might be a way that depending on the boards
[50:06] expertise, they could weigh on the most effective ways of who's
[50:11] being impacted, what would be the best ways
[50:13] to engage those groups?
[50:16] Maybe through community engagement and strategies --
[50:20] the last four pieces might be helpful to go in front
[50:24] of the relevant board to get feedback before the public
[50:28] outreach kicks off on the relevant project.
[50:31] At
[50:32] >> I'm just curious about the data component and how we are
[50:36] accessing data.
[50:37] This has been a huge issue in the last five years,
[50:42] particularly with belonging in Bozeman
[50:44] and trying to get data for a very small population of people.
[50:48] And considering that it's a major vital part of this tool,
[50:52] I'm interested in knowing, how are we gathering that data?
[50:57] Who's responsible for that?
[50:59] And when the data is very small, how
[51:01] are we making sure that we protect people's anonymity so
[51:05] that they will feel like they can actually
[51:09] answer the question without people knowing, that was Daniel.
[51:14] You know?
[51:15] Those are some things that I always
[51:17] think about with the data.
[51:19] Because we are in a unique situation in Bozeman.
[51:22] We don't have large populations of marginalized groups.
[51:26] And the people that are part of those communities,
[51:28] I think we need to be respectful of their anonymity
[51:31] when we ask questions.
[51:33] I'm curious to note, maybe you could speak to that,
[51:37] how are we finding >> First of all, this discussion is helpful
[51:48] and I really appreciate this tool.
[51:50] It is a question of how do we make decisions as a community
[51:52] and as a commission?
[51:55] What I like about this is that it brings a certain amount
[51:59] of structure to that.
[52:01] Or it could bring some structure.
[52:05] I think the data right now, how we
[52:09] get the data is there's a variety of ways.
[52:12] We have city staff.
[52:14] We have double Dutch all of your commissions have been elected
[52:19] and knocking on doors. -- all of your commissions have been
[52:23] elected and have been knocking on doors.
[52:24] We bring different things to the table in a different sense
[52:27] of what the community is.
[52:29] We hear different things from constituents via public comment.
[52:32] So how we get data is not right now terribly structured.
[52:38] But I think having a tool like this,
[52:41] and having that muscle memory of the City commission
[52:45] could get into this.
[52:48] And we are very upfront about where we see this
[52:52] and where the data comes from as we make decisions.
[52:56] What's the problem?
[52:57] What's the why?
[52:58] These are great questions to be thinking
[53:00] about as your commission.
[53:09] >> You can't do this tool if you don't have the data.
[53:11] We can't utilize this tool if we do not have the data.
[53:14] That is a component that you really need to lean into.
[53:17] And I understand the limitations of that, and the money involved.
[53:22] And the resources that are involved.
[53:23] And everyone works so incredibly hard.
[53:26] But I want to make sure that this tool is useful
[53:30] and that it is actually going to do what it's supposed to do.
[53:35] And I know I'm speaking frankly, but we
[53:39] need to make sure that that is a component that
[53:43] is 100% addressed.
[53:45] And I would do that before moving forward with this tool.
[53:50] >> I will say, just regarding the data privacy piece,
[53:55] in all of our dashboards, we do make sure if there's a certain
[53:59] number that seems too small, then we will either group some
[54:03] groups together or just make a disclaimer at the bottom,
[54:08] there was less than x number, so we decided not to share this
[54:12] particular data set.
[54:14] >> Thank you.
[54:16] >> About the data, right?
[54:19] So I sat on the school board.
[54:23] The school board or the school district
[54:25] grapples with this all the time.
[54:27] And they have small groups of data.
[54:30] And they are really careful about protecting anonymity
[54:35] and protecting confidential information.
[54:38] But yet, they do make decisions.
[54:41] And they are able to use that data to drive policies.
[54:46] So some of it may be, as policy makers in the public,
[54:50] we don't necessarily see that public.
[54:53] But it is kind of kept in confidence with staff.
[54:56] And we have to rely on staff to be that extra filter.
[55:00] But there are definite ways to get to data from small sample
[55:08] sizes.
[55:09] Five of you on here already know how to do that, right?
[55:14] So I think we can get to that.
[55:18] And we have partners in the community
[55:21] who are already doing that.
[55:25] >> All right.
[55:26] This hurts my heart to say a little bit and --
[55:33] bit as an economist.
[55:36] But if you get to the data step and you
[55:38] realize you have garbage data for the most part,
[55:40] that doesn't necessarily mean you have
[55:41] to throw away the whole tool.
[55:43] And I think that's something that you can make clear
[55:45] of in the should section.
[55:47] If you just have a collection of anecdotes that say something
[55:51] seems to be really a problem, but nobody
[55:54] has collected any statistics that can tell us something
[55:56] one way or another.
[55:58] The fact that we don't have that information
[56:00] is something that we should be thinking about
[56:02] as we are moving forward with the plan.
[56:05] And in particular, in the feedback step we might say,
[56:09] okay, I don't actually know whether MSU students feel
[56:13] underrepresented or not.
[56:14] For example, if we didn't have any data on that.
[56:18] So maybe as we start thinking about how
[56:19] we're going to do the community engagement step,
[56:21] maybe a really important part of that
[56:23] is going to be to start by talking
[56:25] with MSU students and student groups
[56:27] about whether they feel underrepresented or not.
[56:30] A lack of data doesn't need to mean,
[56:33] full stop, we can't do anything, not moving forward.
[56:36] It just maybe shows some gaps in some places where
[56:40] we want to be a little humble and continue
[56:43] to get feedback in as we figure out
[56:46] what approach we want to take to the possible problem.
[57:03] I would say come on to add on to that,
[57:07] that is with any of the questions. -- >> I would say,
[57:12] to add on to that, that is with any of the questions.
[57:16] I think the subjective interpretation,
[57:17] depending on who's using the tool,
[57:20] I think what I was suggesting about the shoulds
[57:23] to help clarify each item.
[57:25] Just by passing because there's not enough data,
[57:28] or what about the rest of the other questions?
[57:31] Just reducing some subjectivity would help clarify.
[57:37] >> I'll just say one thing, I'm very happy that limited English
[57:41] proficiency is on here.
[57:42] As someone who used to work with that population a lot,
[57:45] having everything in plain English
[57:47] is one of the things that benefits
[57:49] more than just people who speak English
[57:51] as a second or third language.
[57:53] So I'd be happy if that could be something that's incorporated
[57:56] in the city outreach stuff.
[57:58] It's simplifying (Indiscernible) plain as possible.
[58:03] I think that would be something good to practice.
[58:13] >> Any other thoughts?
[58:15] Well, I appreciate all of your input and your thoughts
[58:19] into this tool.
[58:20] And it's going to be helpful.
[58:21] Go ahead.
[58:23] >> I had one more which is just piggybacking what's already been
[58:28] said.
[58:28] In some sense, sometimes less is more in some ways.
[58:37] And sometimes, I guess I'm just imagining, working with this,
[58:45] maybe you might have one column which is suggested questions,
[58:51] rather than listing them all in the main heading.
[58:54] So some of them could be relevant and some of them won't.
[59:00] And related to that, is some of the categories,
[59:03] I felt we asked too many questions under one heading.
[59:07] That was another thought I had in my mind.
[59:12] I think that was a very interesting exercise for me.
[59:16] I think it's very, very useful.
[59:22] And I think this is something that could become
[59:24] very >> I was thinking a table.
[59:29] Like a matrix.
[59:30] I'm going to use banking jargon, and I apologize about that.
[59:38] It's very complex sometimes.
[59:40] And we have to decide whether to get a loan
[59:43] or not to get a loan, similar to a decision.
[59:46] And when you have to translate complex ideas,
[59:49] typically tables help a lot -- and reduce wording.
[59:55] As Andrew mentioned, make it simple.
[1:00:00] And then, no more than one page.
[1:00:03] Because if you have multiple pages
[1:00:04] with paragraphs of instructions, you may lose the reader.
[1:00:08] It's just things like that.
[1:00:11] The content is still good.
[1:00:13] It's just refinement (Indiscernible)
[1:00:17] a little bit of help.
[1:00:20] >> Okay.
[1:00:20] Thank you.
[1:00:21] >> Thank you so much for coming tonight and sharing the work
[1:00:24] that you have done.
[1:00:25] We really appreciate it.
[1:00:27] And I hope that it's been helpful in some way.
[1:00:29] And if it hasn't, I'll make it up to you.
[1:00:33] I promise.
[1:00:35] >> Thank you, again.
[1:00:38] >> All right.
[1:00:39] I am going to take some public comments because this
[1:00:42] is such a fruitful discussion.
[1:00:43] I want to make sure that we give folks at home an opportunity
[1:00:48] to give public comment.
[1:00:49] I'm just going to remind people to please state your name,
[1:00:53] state of your resident of a city, please state if you're --
[1:00:59] please state if you're a resident of the city,
[1:01:01] please state if you're a property owner.
[1:01:03] Again please, only speak for three minutes.
[1:01:05] Do we have anyone who would like to give a public comment that
[1:01:09] is currently online?
[1:01:11] >> There are two members of the public online,
[1:01:13] but neither has their hand raised for public comment.
[1:01:16] >> Okay.
[1:01:17] Thank you very much.
[1:01:19] Before we move for adjournment, is there anything
[1:01:23] that we need to know for the good of the order, Brett,
[1:01:27] that you would like us to consider for our next meetings?
[1:01:33] >> Thank you for asking the question.
[1:01:35] I would like the board to know that the next meeting
[1:01:38] topic, if I'm not mistaken, is going to revolve around the C
[1:01:42] Bozeman Creek plan.
[1:01:43] I believe John Henderson will be here.
[1:01:47] Maybe some of the Bozeman Creek group
[1:01:49] that's been working with him as well.
[1:01:51] That'll be the topic for next month's agenda.
[1:01:55] >> Wonderful.
[1:01:56] And one other thing, can you just
[1:01:59] remind everyone where their term ends
[1:02:01] and how to reapply if they would like to reapply
[1:02:04] for Economic Vitality Board.
[1:02:07] >> Yes, thank you for that.
[1:02:09] I don't have the terms in front of me
[1:02:11] but I will email that out to everyone tomorrow.
[1:02:14] And I can't say that the application process --
[1:02:18] I'll include the link in the email.
[1:02:20] That way you have it right in front of you.
[1:02:23] >> Wonderful.
[1:02:23] Thank you so much, Brett, for all that you do.
[1:02:27] And thank you, Commissioner, for being here.
[1:02:30] I hope that --
[1:02:31] I hope I didn't come a little too much for the data.
[1:02:34] But I just strongly believe in that,
[1:02:37] so strongly that we find a way to work around that,
[1:02:40] to get that data.
[1:02:43] I don't want things to not be pursued
[1:02:45] because we don't have it.
[1:02:46] So, thank you for being here and answering.
[1:02:51] >> Certainly, I agree 100% about the data.
[1:02:54] It's helpful to inform what to pursue and not to pursue.
[1:02:58] Can I take a few minutes?
[1:02:59] I wanted to call attention to an effort that Brett is doing.
[1:03:03] The model and mentor initiative we
[1:03:06] have with the Ukrainian delegation
[1:03:08] visiting later this month.
[1:03:12] And I've got a 15 page, in exquisitely small type,
[1:03:18] an outline of goals and what the program initiatives are.
[1:03:24] How many delegates are coming?
[1:03:28] >> Eight delegates.
[1:03:30] >> Eight delegates from our Ukrainian --
[1:03:32] it's more than a sister city.
[1:03:34] It's a model and a mentor initiative.
[1:03:37] And it's really an effort to exchange ideas.
[1:03:39] They will be here for almost a week, right?
[1:03:42] >> They will be here for nine days.
[1:03:45] >> Nine days, exactly.
[1:03:47] And Brett has been working incredibly hard on this
[1:03:49] to make them feel welcome, to make them feel involved, to plug
[1:03:53] them into the community.
[1:03:54] So I think he's setting them up for success.
[1:03:56] And I just really appreciate the work
[1:03:58] that you're putting into >> Thank you, deputy mayor.
[1:04:02] I appreciate that.
[1:04:03] I'm happy to share that in more detail
[1:04:04] if you are interested in the content and in the programing.
[1:04:10] I'm happy to share that at a time that's convenient for you.
[1:04:15] >> All, I'm going to go ahead and call -- all right,
[1:04:20] I'm going to go ahead and call for adjournment.
[1:04:22] This meeting is adjourned.
[1:04:25] It is 6:59 p.m..