Sunday Night Special— Opinion-Editorial: The November 2025 Election
Opinion Editorials state the views solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Community Journal.
With less than one week the upcoming November election looms leaving many wondering which contenders for Livingston City Commission emerge viable following a lengthy campaign season that began with nine candidates registered before the June 16th deadline—a sizable field now narrowed to seven remaining contestants competing for two seats vacated by Torrey Lyons and Karrie Kahle, and a third held by incumbent Quentin Schwarz, who currently serves as chairperson and is seeking reelection for a third term. Seated commissioners James Willich and Melissa Nootz respective terms are set to expire in 2027.
The commission operates as the legislative body for the municipality, formulating and modifying policy for governing the city, working in tandem with the city manager (the chief executive officer of the city, currently Grant Gager). The commission approves the budget and collaborates with various entities (the school district, hospital and county, for instance) both public and private to address community needs. Commissioners also serve on a plethora of subcommittees throughout the city and in joint effort with the county—the consolidated land use board, urban renewal agency, and board of health, to name a few.
Commissioners serve four-year terms and are required by law to govern in a non-partisan capacity—though, some candidates have received unofficial endorsement from or are openly affiliated with the conventional two-party system. Commissioners elect a chair—the master of ceremonies responsible for facilitating weekly meetings—and vice chair and are appointed to the aforementioned subcommittees annually in January. Commissioner’s subcommittee appointments are typically rotated each year. There are currently no term restrictions for commissioners.
The 2025 election is, simply put, of great consequence and magnitude, given that the final outcome may reflect a substantive change in the political composition of the commission—three of five seats may, contingent upon who is elected, shift the ideological orientation and overall direction of the city in terms of policy. Hypothetically, a sub-faction may surface and control the commission with unhinged power, resulting in potentially drastic effects regarding the city’s trajectory—an unlikely scenario, yet nonetheless worthy of consideration.
As the city faces a crucial turning point, several all-too-familiar issues have taken priority—growth management, commercial development, annexation, housing, infrastructure, and affordability, amongst others—in and of themselves and intersected within a highly nuanced system.
Housing, for example, is largely unaffordable and sparse, a classic case of supply-versus-demand created by inexorable growth in recent years—exacerbated in part by short-term rental conversions and accessory dwelling units (ADU), a topic recently addressed at the AAUW (American Association of University Women) forum on Monday, October 21st, where candidates were asked to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of these units amidst this crisis. Like other issues facing the community, this factor is one of several serving to further complicate a multifaceted dilemma with limited means for intervention by city officials.
The Park County Environmental Council (PCEC) recently administered a questionnaire to survey candidates on several topics, including the housing crisis. Most agreed that infill and density development were preferable solutions. Livingston HealthCare Foundation Executive Director Jessica Wilcox, who has served on the planning and land use board, invoked the growth policy, suggesting that responsible development involves reducing sprawl, protecting community character, and ensuring access to emergency services for northside residents—insisting, like former commissioner Patricia Grabow and several other candidates, that housing development strategies consider the inevitable railway overpass—an issue, according to commissioner Willich, that has plagued the community since the 1960s.
Grabow, an advocate for planned unit development (PUD) with extensive experience in urban planning, has at length insisted on using nearly 20 acres located just west of the new wellness center for housing development projects. This strategy, she says, “is smart growth, expanding the central business district out,” a potential solution to incorporate empty and underutilized spaces proposed by Becky Bird, who discussed how future zoning code updates would lend greater influence to city officials regarding housing-related decisions.
Cindy Daniels, who has spent nearly two decades performing public service, including a stint in the Delaware legislature, calls the crisis an “environmental and community sustainability issue,” warning that housing extrication may further strain existing infrastructure, threaten our sense of community, displace the local workforce, and increase fuel expenditure—considerations for focusing housing development projects within city boundaries. This, she says, would “protect open spaces, river corridors and agricultural lands that define Park County’s natural character.” Clearly no shortage of tenable answers to the housing crisis exist.
But the patent complexity of these issues in a community of diverse opinion presents an unenviable challenge for incoming commissioners—compensated a mere $5,400 annually for countless hours of public service while enduring periodic beratement by an otherwise disengaged constituency. This disillusioned reactivity is long customary in the American politic.
Some candidates, like Josh Congleton, are running on a platform to promote “communication and transparency” in local government, or in his own words “to bridge the disconnect of people that don’t have access or don’t understand or don’t realize that something is being decided on,” a statement professed at the AAUW forum when asked his motivations for seeking office—something he expressed at a commission meeting concerning a salary increase for the city manager, when on Tuesday, February 18th he openly disparaged the decision just months prior to filing for his candidacy.
In truth, however, civic participation in America has long fluctuated between pure apathy and casual indifference—voter turnout, attendance at public meetings and political involvement wane within and between election seasons. For as many issues provoke mistrust and frustration, many fewer constituents actively participate in the political process, instead electing for a detached brand of reactionary politics.
The irony, perhaps difficult to stomach for some, is that a large contingent of locals insist on limited government in favor of self-determination but then complain about the city’s lack of “communication and transparency” rather than assume personal responsibility for engaging more consistently and staying informed.
At the AAUW forum, Bird noted that, ‘I’d like to rebut the notion that the city doesn’t listen to the community,” before saying “in fact there have been community members over the years who have provided great suggestions to the commission, which they take very seriously. So, it’s not like the commission just marches off and does whatever they want, whenever they want.”
Take the Parks Master Plan, for example. A hotly contested issue and, to some degree, justifiably so. Arguably, the plan calls for recommendations better suited for urban areas, a controversy leveraged by some candidates as evidence indicating a “lack of communication and transparency” by city officials. However, long before implementing the contentious bulb-outs downtown, the City hosted survey efforts and focus groups, including an open-house forum, beginning last fall, as the initial planning process unfolded over eight weeks. These surveys were employed to garner feedback from the general public prior to executing a plan.
The city attempted to encourage engagement in this process through several avenues, albeit imperfectly, though relatively few citizens offered comment when considering the collective outcry in response to the bulb-outs.
“I just want to touch on the Parks Master Plan. All that is, is a plan. If and when it is adopted, it’s still only a plan. Nothing more will be implemented until the citizens have a chance to weigh in on these issues,” Schwarz explained at the forum.
This is by no means an attempt to absolve city officials of responsibility. For one, though it may be technically operating within both budgeting restrictions and Montana Annotated Code, the city must discern communication strategies proportionate to the overall impact of decisions and whether dedicating more resources to public relations is necessary—balancing tax implications, budgeting considerations and operating efficiency with respect to state sunshine laws.
According to 2023 census data, the median age in Park County is 43.1 years. A third of the population is over the age of 60. Might the city consider barriers like age and other demographic variables when devising communication strategies to ensure equitable accessibility? The media, protected by the First Amendment, is an essential mechanism through which democracy can be optimized, like speech and assembly. Might the city form a stronger relationship with local media outlets? Does law permit our commission to form a press relations subcommittee or create districted alderman councils?
“Communication, yeah, we can do better. We can always do better [with that],” Schwarz continued.
But ultimately this is government for the people, by the people. Closed mouths do not get fed. If stronger communication is a matter of policy, each individual is well within their right to affect change through advocacy. This is related to quality of service and whether policy enforces conduct that reflects the expressed needs and expectations of the.
Insisting that the City lacks transparency is not only false and unproductive but implies malicious intent by local officials either elected or appointed, and in effect, your neighbors. This cynical outlook underlies an inflammatory rhetoric fueling the divisive atmosphere in American politics, resulting in strife and antagonism turned intimidation and political violence. City Manager Grant Gager has been, on at least three occasions this year, subjected to death threats—an unnerving commentary on the precarious state of our democracy no longer centered around civil dialogue, where officials and activists are instead dehumanized.
The election will be a referendum on the direction of the city. Consider each candidate carefully—their desire and ability to soothe the tension by uniting a community equal parts eager to embrace change and remain stagnant. Livingston is at a crossroads, and the crux is a value compromise, a merging of the old guard and new order.
But regardless of the outcome Tuesday, tune in, show up, and earn your right to bitch and moan.