The Economic Vitality Board held a work session September 2 to review and provide feedback on the Belonging in Bozeman Decision-Making Tool, a structured framework intended to guide examination of city policies, practices, and decisions to ensure alignment with equal access goals.
Courtney Smith, presenter, led an interactive walkthrough using the MSU ex officio board member position—adopted by the City Commission in March—as a case study. The tool consists of six core questions: identifying the policy proposal and desired outcomes; reviewing available data on who is well-served and underserved; assessing stakeholder engagement and missing voices; analyzing who benefits and who may be burdened; planning implementation addressing diverse community needs; and establishing accountability measures and evaluation checkpoints.
Board Feedback and Recommendations
Board members offered several suggestions for refining the tool. Kelsey Larson recommended adding specific criteria or "shoulds" for each section to clarify when sufficient review has occurred before approval. Andrew Hill suggested reordering questions to lead with broad desired outcomes separate from the proposal itself, and to identify stakeholders before planning engagement. Nathan Stein proposed examining data before finalizing goals, allowing data to inform outcome definition. Natsuki Nakamura suggested dividing the tool into two components: the "why and proposal" phase for City Commission decision-making, and an engagement and strategy phase for board feedback.
Daisy Romo raised concerns about applicability, clarity on which decisions require the tool, and risk of checkbox compliance rather than genuine analysis. Board members also noted the tool appeared complex on first review but became clearer through guided example walkthrough. Multiple members recommended simplification, suggesting a one-page matrix or flowchart format rather than lengthy paragraph instructions, and highlighted the need for plain language and limited English proficiency considerations.
Data and Implementation Challenges
Chair Danielle Rogers emphasized data availability as critical, stating the tool cannot function without adequate data and urging the city to address data collection before implementing the framework. Commissioner Douglas Fischer acknowledged current data gathering is unstructured but expressed confidence that city staff, school district partners, and community organizations possess methods to work with small sample sizes while protecting anonymity. Courtney Smith noted data dashboards include disclaimers when sample sizes are too small.
Kelsey Larson cautioned that incomplete data should not halt tool use entirely, but rather highlight gaps and inform engagement priorities. Regarding timing, Kelsey Larson proposed using the tool at two key stages: initial drafting of proposals and as a final checklist before implementation, to avoid excessive box-checking. Board members also noted the tool would benefit from explicit guidance on when and by whom it should be applied.
Next Steps
Staff Liaison Brit Fontenot indicated the tool will be incorporated into city community engagement processes. The board requested specific guidance on implementation standards and criteria. Chair Rogers announced the next meeting will focus on the C. Bozeman Creek plan with presenter John Henderson.
Regular procedural votes—approval of minutes and meeting adjournment—were conducted. The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.