Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSU expert briefed commission on optimal board size, charter powers and manager options
Summary
A representative of the MSU Local Government Center told Butte-Silver Bow’s Study Commission that research favors smaller deliberative bodies (commissions of five to seven) and explained charter versus statutory options and how a city/county manager role might work.
Dan Clark of the Montana State University Local Government Center told the Study Commission on April 21 that research and comparative charters show advantages to smaller commissions and explained the options for adding a professional manager or modifying the chief-executive role in the charter.
Clark said studies commonly find an “optimum” board size of five to seven members for deliberative effectiveness, though he advised the commission to consider local circumstances, including the county’s consolidated government and rural areas.
“Five to seven, they find that there’s less ability to hide,” Clark said. “Decisions can be more streamlined with 5 to 7. And if you get diverse opinions represented on that board, you can get, you know, good conversation.”
Why it matters: The Study Commission’s work includes reviewing representation, districting and executive structure. Clark said revisions to the charter or a shift to a manager form of government can be put to voters, but each approach has trade-offs in continuity, accountability and administrative capacity.
Key points Clark made
- Charter versus state code: Clark described a charter as “your local written constitution” that can grant self-governing powers, noting that municipalities with charters can customize governance where state law does not expressly prohibit it. He advised caution with embedding detailed statute citations into a charter so the charter does not become quickly outdated.
- Manager options: Clark outlined choices used elsewhere in Montana — an appointed professional manager with a ceremonial mayor or a manager with a presiding chair drawn from the commission. He described typical manager duties (administration, department hiring and budget development) and noted how a manager prepares the budget and works with the commission on priorities.
- Size and representation choices: Clark said smaller bodies often promote fuller engagement and faster decision-making, but also noted trade-offs: at-large elections in growing communities can concentrate representation in the urban core, so some communities adopt district or hybrid systems to ensure rural neighborhoods are included.
Commission concerns and legal points
Commission members raised a statutory threshold tied to taxable valuation (a $50,000,000 figure invoked in discussion) and asked whether that constrains the commission’s ability to change its size. Clark said the charter’s self-governing powers can give flexibility and that he had not found a compulsion in Title 7 that would prevent a locally adopted structure; he suggested the county attorney’s office for definitive legal guidance.
No formal vote was taken. Clark provided written materials and sample charter language to the commission and recommended the study commission consider a small slate of concrete options to present for public input.
