Director Nick Ross leads ethics training for Bozeman Transportation Board on disclosures, recusals and nepotism

The City of Bozeman Transportation Board received its annual ethics briefing Jan. 28 from Nick Ross, the city’s director of transportation and engineering, who emphasized that board members must not “use your public office for private gain.”

Ross framed the training around the Bozeman municipal code and state law, running several hypothetical scenarios to illustrate when disclosure and recusal are required. He said the city’s ethics code requires officials to “discharge their duties impartially and fairly” and that members should disclose potential conflicts on the record and recuse when appropriate.

The training presented recurring situations: a Tax Increment Financing board member who owns a nearby restaurant and stands to benefit from a hotel proposal; a member of the Urban Parks and Forestry board who publicly opposed a tree maintenance district change while serving on the board; a Downtown Urban Renewal Board chair who allegedly kept a hotel incentive request off an agenda; a Community Development Board member who works for a local nonprofit and votes only for projects that benefit similar organizations; and a transportation board member whose daughter works for an architecture firm named as a subcontractor on a downtown parking garage contract.

A committee member urged upfront disclosure as a simple remedy, saying, “The one item I'd suggest is just bringing it up as a disclosure prior to” discussion. Ross agreed disclosure is the first step but added that disclosure alone may not be enough: where a personal or financial interest would affect impartiality, he told the board members should recuse themselves from the vote.

Ross cited provisions of the Bozeman municipal code and Montana Code Annotated. On the example of an agenda set to preserve a board member’s business advantage, he referenced MCA 2-2-105.5 (state statute on misuse of position) and said such conduct could constitute improper governmental action under local code and warrant recusal or other remedies.

On nepotism and contracting, Ross warned that even an indirect family connection can trigger ethical rules: “If a member knows their relation will or may work on this project, they should disclose that and recuse themselves from the vote,” he said, describing when MCA and city rules could bar participation in contracting decisions.

Ross closed by urging board members to consult the city attorney’s office when in doubt and to treat disclosure as a routine, protective step. No formal policy changes or votes followed the training; the session was instructional and intended to guide future decision-making and transparency.

The board moved next to its advisory board work plan and other agenda items.