Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transparency Advisory Boards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public and commissioners press for clearer oversight of advisory boards, contracts and spending
Summary
Public comment and several commissioners on June 23 urged greater transparency around contracts, minutes, and advisory‑board appointments. A public commenter asked whether duties in the charter are mandatory or discretionary; commissioners discussed posting minutes, searchable contract lists and external audits.
During public comment at the June 23 meeting, Arder van Rupp, representing the Greeley Neighborhood Community Development Corporation, urged the Study Commission to clarify whether duties described in the Butte‑Silver Bow Charter are mandatory or discretionary.
"We are still waiting for a reply as to whether or not duties as stated in this section are mandated or optional," Arder van Rupp said, asking the Study Commission to recommend clearer charter language if needed. Van Rupp specifically referenced "Section 3.03, powers and duties of the Council of Commissioners."
In a later submitted email read into the record by a public speaker, Diana Olson McLeod asked for more transparency in county business: she urged posting meeting minutes, publishing scanned contracts, and conducting periodic external audits of county finances. The email was entered into the meeting record and will be placed with public comments.
Several commissioners responded on substance. Commissioner Russell O'Leary acknowledged the charter language but questioned whether practice matches written duties, noting the charter calls for the council to "annually evaluate the goals set by the chief executive and publish them in the newspaper." Commissioner Cindy Shaw, a member of an earlier study commission, noted the charter's expectation that goals be developed and evaluated annually and said she was unsure it has consistently occurred.
Commissioner Patty Thatcher told the Study Commission that weekly expenditure lists are available on the county website, noting that the weekly claims and budget materials identify recipients and amounts. She said those documents provide a degree of transparency on expenditures.
The Study Commission did not formalize a policy change at the June 23 meeting. Commissioners and staff discussed next steps: (1) clarify charter language where ambiguous (duties vs. powers), (2) improve public access to contracts and scanned documents, and (3) explore procurement and audit processes — including whether to seek an external audit contract through a competitive bid process.
No binding action or ordinance was adopted at the meeting; commissioners repeatedly stressed that any formal charter amendments would require voter approval.
