Study commission approves release of survey responses in randomized, redacted format

The Bozeman City Study Commission voted 4–1 on April 24 to authorize the city clerk’s office to fulfill a public‑records request from the Gallatin Valley Sentinel for raw survey data, but ordered the material released in a randomized, per‑question format and redacted to remove personally identifying information from long‑form responses.

The motion, offered by Commissioner Barb and seconded by Commissioner Becky, directed the clerk to provide every response to each survey question as a separate list — rather than grouping all answers from individual respondents — and to redact privacy‑sensitive details in written answers. "I move to authorize the city clerk's office to fulfill the records request submitted by the Gallatin Valley Sentinel and in doing so find that to balance the privacy issues of those who responded with the requester's right to know, the raw survey data only be released in a format that shows every response to each question rather than all responses provided by each respondent," the motion read as presented to the commission.

Mike, the city clerk, had laid out the legal and practical options before the vote, saying the body must balance Montana’s constitutional right to know with the right to privacy. He described three main paths: release the raw data in full, provide a modified dataset (the "scrambled" or randomized approach), or deny the request in full. Mike told commissioners the surveys were presented to the community and staff with an expectation of confidentiality and that long‑form responses may require redaction to remove details that could reasonably identify individuals.

"That creates the expectation of privacy," Mike said during the staff presentation, adding that the clerk’s office and records coordinator had examined sample responses and found that, combined with demographic questions, long answers could enable someone to narrow responses back to specific individuals.

City Attorney Greg Sullivan advised the commission on the formal requirements for responding: if the commission withholds information it must issue a written response explaining the findings. Sullivan emphasized that the study commission, as custodian of the record, must make the balancing determination.

Several commissioners and public commenters pressed staff on whether a randomized, per‑question release would materially alter the usefulness of the data. Opponents said "scrambling" could weaken analysis by removing the ability to correlate answers across questions or link responses to geographic quadrants; supporters said randomized, per‑question presentation is standard practice for preserving anonymity while providing transparency.

Daniel McCarty, a resident, criticized the underlying survey methodology and warned that decisions about how to release data would affect the value of analysis. Supporters of the motion said the study commission must honor commitments of confidentiality while complying with public‑records law.

The commission’s motion authorizes the clerk’s office to: provide raw survey responses organized by question rather than by respondent; redact privacy‑related information in long‑form answers; and work with the study commission to fulfill other aspects of the Sentinel’s request. The chair announced the motion carried 4–1.

Next steps: the city clerk will coordinate the redaction and randomized formatting described in the motion and work with the study commission on any remaining components of the request. The commission did not adopt a detailed schedule for release at the meeting.