Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Communication And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners and residents flag communication limits, enforcement gaps and charter wording
Summary
At the June 30 Study Commission meeting, speakers including commissioners and a neighborhood representative said charter language and internal practice limit direct commissioner contact with executive‑branch employees, complicating enforcement of ordinances and routine service follow‑up.
Butte‑Silver Bow Study Commission, Butte — Commissioners and residents raised concerns on June 30 that charter language and administrative practice restrict commissioners’ direct contact with executive‑branch employees and weaken enforcement of local ordinances.
Resident Rick Vanderab, speaking during public comment for the Greeley Neighborhood Community Development Corporation, urged the commission to clarify the meaning of “duties” in the Butte‑Silver Bow charter and called for more systematic channels between commissioners and staff to ensure constituents are served. Vanderab said duties in the charter should be treated as mandatory rather than optional.
Several commissioners described recurring enforcement problems and unclear communication lines. Commissioner Trudy Healy, who framed her background as a neighborhood advocate, described using informal outreach to address blight, junk vehicles and garbage and said stronger, consistent code enforcement and neighborhood‑level support would help. Commissioner Dan Callahan and others described examples where department actions conflicted with council intent: Callahan said a park at Big M had been closed by a department director despite earlier council action and that the parking fund had shown a $200,000 shortfall.
The Study Commission reviewed charter language quoted at the meeting. Chair Raelynn Bridal read section 3.04: “Except for the purpose of inquiry or investigation under this charter or the administrative code, the council of commissioners or its members shall deal with local government employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of any elected or appointed officers solely through the appropriate elected or appointed officer. Neither the council of commissioners nor its members may give orders to any such employee either publicly or privately.” Commissioners said that clause creates practical limits on how they get information from staff and hampers quick response to constituent problems.
No formal change to the charter or staff policy was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to compile written clarifications of existing staff‑commission communication procedures, to identify enforcement gaps (trash, snow removal, parking and weed control were cited) and to provide cost estimates for remedies so the Study Commission can consider specific recommendations.
