all right let me see if I can get this started
can we do the land acknowledge here yes I don't know
it's just like very unfortunate City behind you
okay we are ready to begin I think everyone can hear both online and in the
room uh welcome everyone to the June 26 2023
meeting of the San Francisco elections commission Fair independent and effective redistricting for Community
engagement or Fierce committee meeting I am the chair Cynthia dye the time is now
6 12 and we I called a meeting to order
before we proceed further I want to briefly explain some procedures for participating in today's meeting the
minutes of this meeting will reflect that this meeting is being held in person at City Hall Room 408 1 Dr
Carlton B Goodlett Place San Francisco California 94102 and remotely via WebEx as
authorized by the elections commission's May 17 2023 vote members of the public May attend the meeting to observe and
provide public comments either at the physical meeting location or remotely details and instructions for
participating remotely are listed on the commission website and on today's meeting agenda public comment will be
available on each item on this agenda each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak six
minutes if you are on the line with an interpreter when providing public comment you are
encouraged to state your name clearly once your three minutes have expired staff will thank you and you will be
meeting you will be muted while providing public comment remotely please ensure you are in a quiet location when
joining by phone you will hear a beep when you are connected to the meeting you will be automatically muted and in
listening mode only to make public comment dial Star 3 to raise your hand when your item of Interest comes up you
will be added to the public comment line you will hear you have raised your hand to ask a question please wait until the
host calls on you the line will be silent as you wait your turn to speak
if at any time you change your mind and wish to withdraw yourself from the public comment line press star 3 again
you will hear the system say you have lowered your hand when joining by WebEx or a web browser
make sure the participant side panel showing by clicking on the participants icon at the bottom of the list of
attendees is a small button or icon that looks like a hand press the hand icon to raise your hand you will be unmuted when
it is time for you to comment when you are done with your comment click the hand icon again to lower your hand in
addition to participating in real time interested persons are encouraged to participate in this meeting
by submitting public comment and writing by 12 pm on the day of the meeting to election stock commission at sfguff.org
it will be shared with a commission after this meeting has concluded and will be included as part of the official
meeting file thank you so now we will take roll call
um Commissioners please state your name at your presence at today's meeting after
your name is called I am commissioner dye and I am president commissioner levolsi
present and commissioner partner president let the record show that three members
are accounted for and we are ready to proceed
okay uh
all right good evening everyone and uh welcome to
the second meeting of the fair independent and effective redistricting for Community engagement or Fierce for
short committee meeting as noted on our webpage we are a temporary Committee of
the elections Commission and I'm sorry I can't uh I'm not I'm actually this short I apologize
um uh we advise the full commission on improvements to San Francisco's redistricting process
um so uh uh before we begin uh let us have
commissioner levolsi go ahead and read Our Land acknowledgment resolution yes
the San Francisco elections commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral homeland of the ramatasha
aloni who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula as the
indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their Traditions the ramaphashaluni have never seen it lost
nor forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place as well as for
all people who reside in their traditional territory as guests we
recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional Homeland we wish to pay our respects by
acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramataj community and
affirming their Sovereign rights as first people thank you very much okay that is the end of item number one
we're going to go ahead and move to item number two which is general public comment
this is public comment on any issue within Fierce it's General jurisdiction that is not covered by another item on
this agenda is there any general public comment
hi commissioner how you doing good foreign
you know I I would say for you that's for you I would probably be seriously concerned
about sitting on a condition with uh Sylvia Diane she kind of accurately Edge
be actively participating passport members off the commission inflation
submission even though there was no basis coming from them uh she tried to remove the director of the Department of
Elections because he was a white straight person someone's skin color and their sexual preferences are protected
classes under the state of California or United States Constitution I believe actually
um I mean that's racist and that's that's racist you understand that but
you can't tell someone they handed their job because they're a straight white guy that's actually racist and this process
you know like last minute latch a day if you call it and it said suddenly exclude WWE
passport members in this process to cover up the fact that if it's gonna slide my bias it's nonsensical
and it goes against everything we stand for sin die you go for it you go against
everything we stand for it's a democracy people are racist and the only way for this commission to be fair is if you
resign and the two of you to really think about your proximity to her you should decide simply and I understand
that you are a racist person thank you thank you for your comments Mr Liu are
there any other public comments on items not on this agenda right that I'm just getting a text
that's saying that the cold numbers is in 2489-943-7914
. thank you um
this number is 2489-489
-943-7914 is that correct that says the access coding
yeah that's the the telephone number is four one five
four one five six five five zero zero zero one and it should be right on the
all the instructions are in the bottom of our agenda
the the access code number is what you read off that is that is a access code
there uh there's also oh that's for the phone online there's a separate event number an event password
for online but they're trying to call in yeah see
I mean
yeah we want to make sure people online can hear yeah so uh
can we got a thumbs up do we not can you can people online here can you give me a
thumbs up we got thumbs up so we'll say something please can you hear the speaker at the podium
yes yes okay um
okay yes go ahead and if you can help us write your name if if you're willing to
identify yourself it helps us with spelling on the minutes
h m a m R I'm here giving public comment as a formal elective development
I'm here giving public comment as a former elected delegates for California Democratic party and a current concerned
sampling system I'm terrified that appointed officials are blatantly wearing the lines between what they are
and are not legally authorized to do residents happen to take time to police our appointment officials to defend our
laws and our Democratic processes is more than robust civil engagement it's a disgrace sadly these subtle power grabs
are happening everywhere in the city but the self-appointed fierce committee's attempt to force an unauthorized
incomplete and premature Charter Amendment onto the 2024 ballot so there is nothing I'm Sorry Miss Lehman and
that's actually related to the main redistricting item so if you wouldn't mind holding your comment until later thank you
that's all right we're happy to hear from you um is there anyone who is speaking on
something that's not related to tonight's agenda item which is to to discuss the redistricting initiative
if not we will go ahead and move on to uh anyone see anyone online raising a
hand not actually fun just double check to see if there's
anyone else online particular
the microphone over there yeah let's um Chris is listening to him okay
is that better try that again
testing ah there we go sorry we're our own tech support so okay
so I will keep this brief my name is Paulina fair and I am calling on
commissioner Cynthia zai to resign from your duties on this commission thank you
thank you for your comment any other comments if not we will
hi I'm Gabe schreier and I'm also calling on Cynthia dye to reside thank
you all right thank you for your comment if you comment on the general
redistricting process that's what the next item is so if we if
we can just move on to the next item there are no more other general public comments
okay uh I don't see anyone else online so I'm going to close item two
and move on to the main event here
all right so I'd like to make a few introductory comments here
for those of you who missed our previous meeting on May 31st and maybe joining us for the first time I'd like to orient
you and provide a little context as part of our mandate to ensure Fair free and functional elections and fair
representation the elections Commission embarked on a public study of how to improve our
redistricting process over a year ago as some of you no doubt recall many San franciscans expressed concerns about our
appointees to the most recent redistricting Task Force at a protest in front of City Hall and at our March 2022
meeting at a special public Hearing in April of 2022 we heard many hours of
testimony about political interference and Secret side meetings lack of transparency and concerns that
communities were not being held it exposed both the flaws and the lack
of remedies for these issues in the charter removing our appointees a week before the map deadline which some
wanted us to do seemed like a blunt instrument at best instead we urged our
appointees to do better and finish the job which they finally did several weeks past the legal deadline
our response was the redistricting initiative project San Francisco has always been a Pioneer
in protecting democracy as you wouldn't expect we were among the first to establish an independent Citizen's
redistricting commission the redistricting task force 10 years before we the people passed the voters First
Act creating the California citizens redistricting commission which I had the great honor of serving on in the 20 plus
years since the first task force however San Francisco has not kept up with the times as a charter City we did not adopt
the crc's best practices which have been recognized nationally as the gold standard in independent redistricting
and were codified into state law as part of the fair Maps Act of 2019. at the
elections commission's May 2022 meeting we discussed these differences which you
will find as the last attachment in the agenda packet
as you can see in the second attachment in the agenda our project plan we spent
the latter half of 2022 Consulting with historical experts in San Francisco redistricting including members of all
three past redistricting task forces City support staff and the elections
task force which preceded the creation of the elections commission as an independent body
we read all the rtetf's final reports we heard from Good Government groups
uh as well as from other successful citizens Commissions in California and
in other states at our March 2023 meeting we spoke with the author of the
promise of fair maps California's 2020 local redistricting cycle Lessons
Learned this is a copy of the report um this was a report evaluating
local redistricting Statewide which called out Los Angeles the city of Los
Angeles especially but also San Francisco for four practices this report and all the expert testimony
is available for download or for viewing from our archived website
the commission the committee has been charged by the commission to refine and
finalize best practices we've been studying for San Francisco which are summarized in the first attachment in
the agenda packet these are structural and process improvements to ensure that
future redistricting task forces have qualified members representative of the
city's demographics and free of political conflicts of interest that they have the benefit of tested
guidelines to ensure transparent Community engagement protected from political interference to draw Fair maps
for all San franciscans to clarify the elections commission has no legislative Authority
but we do have a forum to discuss and recommend appropriate reforms to our legislative body the Board of
Supervisors some of you may be skeptical that the board cares about good government but
remember they also approved previous Charter amendments creating supervisorial districts ranked Choice
voting the redistricting task force the elections commission and other Democratic reforms
and now for the purpose of today's meeting which is a continuation of the
March 31st Fierce committee meeting to consider the impact of pending State legislation on San Francisco
ab1248 and 8764. you will find these in the agenda packet
as well along with a the city attorney's legal
analysis of ab1248 in response to concerns
uh expressed at our last meeting we reached out to all former rdtf
members for whom we had contact information and all three former chairs agreed to
join us virtually tonight along with another another member in person um actually
we have two we have uh one of our most recent chair here in person and I'm
sorry to say that uh Gwen Craig who was from of the very first redistricted task
force just texted me and said she will not be able to make it uh others have and will submit written
comments but first we have a very special guest from the 2020 California citizens
redistricting commission who has graciously taken Time Out From A CRC meeting in Sacramento to be with us
so allow me to introduce Russell Yee a CRC rotating chair and a
report co-author of the final recommendations report they are currently working on Mr Yi is an Oakland
native but traces his roots to San Francisco almost a century ago he's a fellow Cal grad go Bears uh an
author teacher pastor and a museum docent and I do not know if we have been able
to throw his uh image up there but at least you'll be able to hear him uh Mr Yi I know you've been incredibly
busy trying to finish up the recommendations report so thank you for speaking with us tonight you are
actually the first 2020 CRC commissioner to address us so I guess I'd like to start by asking
how you got to a successful unanimous decision on the maps despite a
multi-partisan composition the census delay and a global pandemic and what
aspects of the design of the CRC structure and process
helped you succeed go for it Mr Yi thank you so much
commissioner dye and thank you all of you in the room for caring about elections and our democracy and the
efforts you're making to help us form a more perfect union uh the 2020 commission is the second
state commission and succeeded in passing its Maps
um on time despite the pandemic despite the census delay and not only passing
our maps on time but also face no lawsuits which was uh nobody expected
everyone you just expect lawsuits when you do this work and our Maps um we
believe we're done yeah it was such an open process and with clear criteria and with such
impartiality that in the end we received no legal challenges fabulous I think the three things in my
mind that contributed most to Our Success number one the selection process
focusing on impartiality it's kind of like a jury you're looking for people who will simply put
all other considerations aside except the criteria they've been given and of
course we were given the six ranked criteria that are constitutional and um
and our goal was to apply those and the impartiality selection process
you know it focuses on getting people who can tell you in their
lives what have they done to show their impartiality that they are capable of changing their minds in discussion in a
group uh are have associated in mixed groups with different backgrounds politically and otherwise uh looking for
people like that and the group was strikingly impartial I think uh so much
so that I think if you'd watched any of our sessions you would have been hard-pressed to quickly identify our
political associations um rank criteria of course
gave us a clear goal of course you have to apply the VRA Voting Rights Act of
course you have to have contiguity of course you have to have equal populations within a specified percentage and so forth and in a certain
order and so that just gave us a clear goal and allowed us to focus on objectively as much as we could applying
those criteria uh with the impartiality by the way I should mention that you know the 14 of
us each represented all of California we were not Regional representatives and so
we were not trying to promote Regional interests uh of course each of us came I come from the East Bay and you know we
brought special knowledge and interest in that sense to the work but each of us
had equal say about all of the different parts of California and uh if San Francisco uh goes the same
route I know you have certain requirements about supervisorial districts and how you're going to represent those but hopefully each of
the commission members would represent the whole city not only their own District's interests
uh so impartiality uh ranked criteria the third one is adequate staff you know
especially a citizen commissioners you go in and you need to learn open
meeting laws you need to learn all kinds of things often from scratch just how to
navigate the um the the government uh Contracting laws
and all those kinds of things and so uh thankfully the California state commission I would say had adequate
staff and uh full-time legal counsel and so forth and that helped enormously
to propel our work and keep us going on time in my own hometown of Oakland we had an
independent redistricting commission for the first time this last round it did get its Maps done but three or four
months late and a lot of that I think was because uh the netiquette Staffing unfortunately
you know you have one part-time City staffer and you know so on it's just really hard to
keep the work moving along as Citizens you know volunteer citizens to um to
meet that deadline so adequate Staffing in partiality range criteria I think
were the most important ingredients to Our Success thank you very much Mr Yi
um I don't know if you you how familiar you are with uh 1248 and 764 but if you
are are there you know since its model left of the CRC are there any particular
elements that uh outside of the ones you've mentioned that you particularly like or not for local registering based
on your experience at the state level and perhaps any observations of the Oakland process
yeah I've read uh both but since I have not been on a local registering commission it's hard for me to have a
sense of informed sense of how they would actually work out I like that they do replicate or
the uh so much of the state registry and commission structure and the reducing
criteria and so forth the use of random draw it does add the
um um use of alternate Commissioners the state does not have that the state has
14 Commissioners You're simply selected and um the 2010 commission did have one
replacement uh 2020 did not um we have discussed whether alternates
would be a good idea it would you know it's more cost and expense and effort uh luckily we didn't have to face that but
if we had it certainly would have been convenient or would have been useful to have alternates available so that's one
difference all right uh yeah we had to replace the
commissioner before we even started anything so that was definitely challenging uh
Commissioners do you have any specific questions for Mr Yi before we open it up to the other redistricting task force
numbers this is our this is your chance we finally got a 2020 CRC Commissioners go
ahead commissioner Parker um thank you so much for being here um I appreciate you sharing those
specific uh things that you think were really important and worked and I'm wondering as I look at some of the
various components of these assembly bills that are forward I'm wondering about um
I mean there are several that I think people have varying perspectives on and one of them wondering for you is this um
the requirement of a vote to get to agreement on something you know a super majority versus a simple majority and
wondering if you have an opinion about that I've heard I'll just leave it at that and not sure what I've heard the
various opinions about that being sure so as a reminder the commission is
composed of five members of the largest uh registered political party in California Democrats uh five for the
second largest Republicans and then four that are neither of those two and a super a majority a vote on any
business takes nine votes out of Fourteen and then a vote on the Final maps as well as on contracts and and
staff hiring requires a super majority which is a majority of each of those three subgroups so three out of five Democrats
around five Republicans three out of four uh neither of those two uh that worked well for us and um
you know it doesn't require a unanimous vote like a jury but it certainly pushed
us to um to find that consensus that we needed the only times that it was a problem was
when we might not have had Quorum in a particular meeting you know for one of those three subgroups then sometimes a
vote had to be postponed uh but otherwise it worked well for us as it did for the 2010 Commission
um and um you know both commissions easily passed uh their final Maps uh with this
majority vote so you know if we found that if you have people that are focused on the same goal which is fair Maps it's
not it wasn't that hard to find consensus you know because you have the reducing criteria in front of you
and you have the data in front of you and of course there are some differences of opinion that you have to hash out but
really uh it's not that hard to find a consensus when you have people dedicated in that way to the same goal
thank you mystery yes this is commissioner lavalsi uh
thank you Mr Yi for being here with us I have a question when we you talked about the selection process and it being akin
to a vadir and looking for a jury at a trial how and what my question is what agency
or organization should vet the application in that process I think some
of the concerns from the public are who is a body that can actually do that here in
San Francisco San Francisco given the goal is to remove political influence
that is the goal for the state Condition it's the state auditor's office that
does The Selection that runs the selection process and the three state Auditors who run
that process are themselves selected through a random process and represent uh one from the largest
one from the second largest and one neither of those two political affiliations so um and and they were admirable also
in their impartiality and their focus on the Constitutional selection criteria so
um whichever body can do that well incredibly and be perceived as being
impartial uh can do that can do that work I think do you have an opinion being that you
are familiar with San Francisco area what agency that might be for San
Francisco I do not know okay thank you any other specific questions for Mr Yi
before we open up to the rest of our panelists nope okay uh all right so I am going to
ask we have a a couple of um this is really annoying we have a couple of
uh panelists in person so please join me in welcoming from the uh
2021-22 registering task force our most recent one um Jeremy Lee appointed by the Board of
Supervisors and Reverend Townsend did he step out no he's back if you
would come up as well if you if you wouldn't mind coming up to the mic
they're two here yeah thank you commissioner Parker
um and then virtually we also have the check test yep good we also have the
chair of the uh 2011-12 uh registering task force um Mr
Eric McDonald Who was appointed by the Board of Supervisors
did we succeed in throwing that up there it's on okay great so we can see uh
oh okay and then unfortunately as I mentioned we
will not be joined by Gwen Craig who is the chair of the very first redistricting task force
and she also chaired the elections task force that actually brought districts to San Francisco to increase representation
but she was appointed by the elections commission so we have a mix of folks
yes feel free to sit we do not intend for you to stand um
for the benefit of the public in case uh you know play a lawyer on the internet
like I do I'm going to go ahead and try to provide a summary of of
uh the key points of ab1248 and also AB 764 my fellow
Commissioners can uh tell me if you read something different in these bills so ab1248 puts
in a default independent redistricting commission structure that's modeled after the CRC if a jurisdiction does not
have its own version of an independent redistricting Commission in place by the next redistricting cycle San Francisco's
current model is not acceptable due to its political appointment process at the
beginning of the bill it states quote political appointment of Commissioners has been found to create potential
conflicts of interest an opportunity for corruption of the redistricting process so San Francisco
was targeted and is swept up by The Spill as some of you may have read in the city attorney's legal analysis it
requires reasonable funding and Staffing to address a point that Mr Yu made uh it
requires an opening competitive selection process from a large representative pool whose numbers and
demographics must be made public it has minimum qualifications to serve
including residency history Civic engagement and ability to be impartial
also mentioned by Mr Yi analytical skills and an appreciation of San
Francisco's diverse demographics in geography it has pre-juring and
post-service requirements and conflicts of interest checks including for family members we also
don't want people drawing districts are going to run in for example lobbyists staffers major donors are also
not allowed to serve a vetting agency to check to make sure
all candidates meet these requirements which commissioner levolsi was asking about in in the case of San Francisco
the City attorney has confirmed it would be the ethics Commission uh if we were
to accept this default form it calls for a commission of 14 members
including two alternates eight randomly selected from the 40 most
qualified applicants as determined by the vetting agency the ethics commission and they all need to
be from different districts these eight then select six of the remaining candidates to balance out the
diversity because randomness can do bad things for diversity
and while the multi-partisan structure is not appropriate at the local level it does require that that all 14 cannot be
from the same party there is a ban on ex parte communication meaning
electeds cannot speak to Commissioners outside of a public meeting no public
interference I think we saw a lot of that this last cycle it sets a minimum of 250 days before the deadline for this
commission to be established our last redistry task force was started
kind of late uh so this would force it to be started earlier and it does specify a super majority of
nine Commissioners must approve any map and it also has a removal process so one
of the challenges we had was there's no removal process so if there's a problem it's kind of currently is just up to the
appointing authority there's no removal process that allows the task force itself to make that
decision moving on to AB 764 it strengthens the fair Maps act which was passed in 2019
that San Francisco was exempt from it would no longer be exempt it requires a
published education and Outreach plan mapping tools and a website to make this information available to the public it
has the ranked mapping criteria that's identical to what's in California's constitution
requires a five-day notice for meetings seven days for the final map so increase increased transparency requirements it
requires a final report which is not currently required but in San Francisco although every single redistricting task
force has done one but in specific this final report must identify and explain why neighborhoods and communities of
Interest were split uh it accounts for hybrid meetings accessibilities weekend and evening
meetings for greater uh accessibility to the public
and it requires a minimum number of public hearings before the draft map and uh and seven at least seven afterwards
and finally it provides recourse if the commission fails to meet the deadline
which again there was no recourse in in our in our Charter right now there's no recourse it's there's just a deadline in
this case if the task force was unable to come to an agreement it would be
punted to Superior Court and they could hire a special Master to draw the districts note that both bills indicate
that good local redistricting is a matter of State concern so Charter cities are no longer exempt
however we did get clarification that the San Francisco Unified School District would not be subject to AB 764
as it does not have district election so this would again still apply mostly to supervisorial elections so
with that background I hope that was consistent with your reading of both bills I'd like to open it up to any and
all of our panelists to comment on what you liked about these different
elements uh in both 1248 and or 764 and
or didn't like things that you think would have helped your process or things that might hinder it and
I will point to our two in-person panelists first whoever would like to
jump in feel free um so uh first off thank you
Commissioners for the opportunity uh to speak here um I did have a chance to listen to the
May 31st meeting in full um and was very enlightening uh I will say I am in very strong support of
ab1248 uh just really the the selection process
um the idea that eight people are chosen at random and they get to pick the uh
remaining six I think would have immensely helped um if that was in place during uh the
2012 2022 redistricting task force um because uh like as uh you
commissioner die said that um our process is inherently political and that
was on full display throughout the the entire life of the task force okay
right thank you Reverend Townsend do you have any thoughts things favorites
um I haven't
made in my mind clearly on what changes or how the changes
ought to be uh administered certainly I'm uh convinced that the problem with
the red District in task force or even your own body which I served on for way
too many years um is that the biggest problem for me is
trying to hold the tide against an activist commission or an activist body
that is trying to get a specific outcome for one side or another
um I have my own preferences I have my own political beliefs on what I think is
right or wrong and as much as I may find a a
some other people's beliefs to be rather painful I work hard to recognize that
they are entitled to them and that I have a responsibility to
recognize them even they though they may go against what I personally believe I I
don't know if this is the right spot to say it but during the whole redistricting process
the idea of that the task force members were encouraged to
create safe districts for one political belief another is something that I consider so
dangerous that it almost destroys of the the the the importance or the
cleanliness of Elections you know having an activist body is fine when they're my
activist but then I'm going to take another view when the other side holds power and
those are not my activists so trying to um you know because what I think
we confuse forget is that the mentality to create a certain uh safe district for
a certain kind of politician in San Francisco is no different
than the people in Alabama trying to create safe districts that deny black
people they're they're voting rights or in Georgia or Mississippi or anywhere
else and I think it's dangerous no matter who's doing it and and I think
that was for me uh the biggest problem throughout the whole process there are
some other nuances there that we may get to I will also say clearly
that the almost
hostile attitude in the room to the this to uh with the discussion of
the desperate crises that the black community is in especially when it comes to voting was
real difficult for me to endure and uh I can answer answer questions
about that or get into it later I don't want to monopolize the time but I really
think that it it it's something so ugly that I think no one talks about it
because no one wants to face it because in this city I've discovered that the
problems of black people have pretty much uh become uh like the wallpaper you
know it's there but you can't really remember what it looks like and and uh I I think that's uh really
sad and really dangerous and carries a real real potential
ugliness for the future of San Francisco period
and when we get to the place where the problems of certain segments of our city
are too difficult to address I told someone recently I might have
even said it during the task force I had to stop using the term bipok
when I found out that the bee was silent thank you for your comments Reverend
Townsend do you think that um I mean what you describe is actually
consistent with what Mr Lee described as well that there were apparently task force members that had agendas
um and part of this non-political selection process is to try to weed that
out in the vetting process do you think that would have helped
well as I say when I start I don't know how uh you people people cannot divorce
themselves from their own subjectivities sure to say that I'm objective
is uh usually a lie you can say I'm trying to be but we all
have our own beliefs and preferences but the way to deal with that is for people
to voice them at the beginning where they're coming from what they
believe in I tried to do it when I started out I I made it very clear I was
concerned I'm concerned with the city I am especially concerned with the plight of black people when we're the only
ethnicity in this city that's losing numbers every year and there's a real good chance by the time they do this
again there may be only ten thousand people black people left in San Francisco if we're lucky
and but but I said that out front so people would know where I was coming from the response was if you bring it up
if you keep bringing it up we're going to sue you though we talked about almost every
ethnicity in the city during this whole process and never heard that threat
voice except the times when I would bring up the issues with the black men so I think to that people need to be
clear when they come on who they are and and and and and and then I know
where your decision is coming from and and so I I that that's the only
thing I can think of because you know if you if you find people
that are that that let you know their objective uh and you appoint them they
probably didn't tell you the truth because it's pretty hard to live that way in this world
okay um uh Mr McDonald do you want to share something
I will point out that your your registering task force was uh unique in
the three that we've had in that it had a unanimous decision um any thoughts about
ab1248 and 764 uh that would have helped
uh that you did anyway even though it wasn't required
a thank you again to you um commissioner die and the other Commissioners
um for holding this important series of conversations so I appreciate being being a part of it
um just before answering directly your your question I just want to kind of um
affix a point of view to all that Reverend Townsend just share on um the
other hat I'm wearing currently is the chair of the San Francisco African-American reparations advisory
committee and the reality that there is a debate over the conditions of black
saffron siskins and whether or not there should even be a discussion around
repairing those harms is concerning so just want to to again underscore that
reality in terms of the um both 1248 and 764. just directionally
I uh affirm if you will the intentions around
impartiality the removal of the influence of of political perspectives
and yet again with with all of the good intentions to again what Reverend
Townsend has already underscored it will not completely remove subjectivity um
and that'll just regularly be a part of it the the I don't have concerns about the random
selection but with just underscore and and recognize that that doesn't that has
its own challenges um in terms of skewing that could happen um even randomly
um and then there would need to be obviously a confidence that those eight
um could then round themselves out um with impartiality as well to ensure a
balance um beyond that again the overarching intentions I I concur with
um there was a reference made to our
um redistricting task force in our quote unquote success around
um being unanimous while I'm certainly you know proud that we were able to achieve that I personally don't hold
that as the uh the mark of success in comparison to
others who had less than that um so again it's just just my point of view I don't I don't have a problem with
dissenting voices dissenting votes um just on the face of it
now again if they are overly contrived if they are as Reverend Townsend again
alluded to if they are um with particular agendas that's you
know different but just on the face of it um as frankly sometimes maybe a little uncomfortable that somehow we're the
we're the success because of of what we're able to achieve so
um the last point I would make is the I'm
of a mixed mind quite honestly with regard to simple versus um super majority we were unanimous so I
don't know that it would have um made a difference with our our task force
um again because I I am open to dissent
um I'm I'd be comfortable with simple majority um and would not deem into something
less than successful if you know it were um you know
um nine five um and and folks that have full
opportunity to share their perspectives both on the front end as well as throughout the process I'd be comfortable with that so I'll I'll stop
there okay and just to be clear 9-5 would be okay it's just eight six would not be okay so nine is the is the
requirement for this for the super majority um Mr Yi if you're still with us I'm
curious given what you've heard if you have any uh any Reflections based on
what you heard if you're still with us yeah I am um
um yeah I [Music] um that's an interesting thought I just
I'm reflecting on this idea that um would not need a a
super majority um in our case um you know we drew 176 districts and
not one line came down to a hard vote you know it was on all done by consensus and talking it out and I think that's
pretty remarkable again that speaks to the impartiality that we were able to achieve on the on the commission
um but certainly there isn't any just one way to do it and the most important thing is that it's done openly it's
unfairly some with clear criteria and uh that it builds the Public's trust in the
system uh and in the process and in democracy
thank you Mr Yi uh yes yes I just wanted to kind of uh respond and uh Echo just a
lot of the comments that were mentioned uh by uh our panelists uh the idea of
kind of a task force with an agenda um I think that was very much a part of
this uh the task force uh most recent one the vast majority of all of our
contentious votes were done by a five to four vote with the exact same five in
the majority uh I would say moving on to uh the selection process of
our the uh task force members you know you know first off you have an
inherently political process second you have one third of the entire task force
with like no idea of how these people were selected
the elections commission that process was full and transparent the Board of
Supervisors uh all the applicants were heard at the rules committee uh but the mayoral appointees the mayor just Picks
Them um when it comes to a majority versus a super majority I think a super majority
would have immensely affected our uh my or the task force that I was a part of
given that all all the contentious votes were five to four having a super
majority would have really completely changed the calculus we would not have the maps today had we
had had a super majority uh been instituted yeah that's very interesting uh your
colleague Mr Cooper uh who was who was the elections commission appointee that
we heard from last September he actually said well we might still be drawing the maps
exactly right sir I don't think there's anything wrong with the simple majority
that's why there were nine people uh that's why I was that's why there's an odd number because that might happen
and uh and and we've got to go with who we have now if you don't want to do that
in the future that may be fine but then how do you get the people appointed the
one thing I want to make it very clear I am unalterably opposed to a lottery
and the reason I am my only experience with the lottery in San Francisco is the lottery we've
had to select people who get into affordable housing at the mayor's
awesomeness of housing a few years ago when two of our supervisors breed and uh uh former
supervisor uh Cohen created the neighborhood preference
initiative is because they commissioned a study on about 30 years of the lottery
and out of the lottery selection of those who get affordable housing African
Americans had gotten less than one percent sure you create
a lottery to select members you're going to get what you get
and that won't be two African-Americans on a task force of nine people as we had
this time you will probably have none unless somebody who applies in this
African-American is real lucky and I don't believe in luck
yeah Reverend Townsend you you bring up very valid concerns about the random selection which is why
um originally this was amended this bill has been amended a couple of times
originally it required that uh there be at least one person
from each district that was randomly selected which was one of my big concerns because out of 14 that would
have been 11 you could have gotten you know probably wouldn't have gotten
11 11 black people but you might have gotten 11 white people right um so you spend a way better chance of
that than getting any black people right I I you know so so it has been changed
it has been amended and and it now it's basically you know whatever whatever
eight out of 14 is I don't perform math in public but it's it's you know a little bit over half but there's also uh
they're actually required to reflect that that you know diverse um demographics of the
city the so the charter to the first eight and I was one of the first eight when I was on the California
redistricting commission is to balance the diversity I think it's an effective an effective way to exclude black people
all right I think you if you do if you do that yeah that you'll probably be
successful at that uh your chances are better at that than than having a representative voice of black people on
there I mean you know uh I was surprised we had two I wasn't surprised we had one
because I knew who the mayor was I was a little surprised it was me up you
know like I said I've never been lucky so uh you must be good then so I but I
am really um but I I I would say in that if you go that way the way you're intended to
going there's a real good chance because I mean you need to look people
need to look at the population numbers
of not only what what exists now but what's trending
going forward for the next 10 years I don't know what you'll be selecting from
within the black community and by the way we probably already
talked about black people in this meeting more than we did the whole time we were on the task for it Mr Lee you
had a uh yes uh I I do want to Echo uh Reverend Townsend's concerns about a lottery uh really because a lottery is
only as good as the Outreach for it so um I think uh one thing that we
struggled with and the most recent task force was uh reaching out to uh kind of
marginalized communities uh you know uh I think uh Reverend Townsend and the
task force brought up the um the digital divide with the black community so um
you know having our clerk's office just kind of push things out on Twitter or or on the Internet that doesn't work to
fully get a representative pool as as diverse as our city right
um and also I just want to quickly clarify that we we actually had three African-American members uh Reverend
Townsend uh Michelle Pierce and Reynold Cooper right that's right
um yeah so that is a stipulation in AB 764 that the plan be published it'd be
published a year in advance there's a requirement to reach out to community organizations uh so again that
probably wasn't done that well this time given that we only had 35 applicants for the nine spots that we know of again as
you pointed out correctly Mr Lee we have no idea how many were considered for the mayor's process but there were 35 for
the board of well between the borders I think the Board of Supervisors had eight and we had 35. so and there was a big
overlap between them so yes if I may I and I agree completely
with the importance of of the Outreach and so that I'm not being presumptuous just
want to underscore the importance of in that Outreach that there really be significant
um investment in public education around the process around obviously its
importance around its the mechanics of it because
for many this is a foreign
effort that you only hear about if and when it makes the news if it doesn't make the news you really don't hear
about the work of the redistricting task force and so again that public education in
particular into those communities black brown and otherwise of of
um uh disenfranchised communities will be really really important
and and if we're going to do this I think we
ought to include that the city be very careful and thorough about the
Consultants it that they that the city brings on board what their experiences are in
every Community we had Outreach Consultants show up that had a team of a
number of people and nobody on the team that looked like me what is their experience uh when we ask
the questions what's your experience in reaching out
to the faith community which is different in my community than it may be in another it may be more
important in my community you know and and no experiences so I think all
through the process not just with who's appointed but who's doing the work it's very
important that it be reflective of our city in some way and so
um and I think that was a big one because it really concerned me that the Outreach for this work I I
don't know Jeremy might agree but the outward the real Outreach with this for this work I thought was done more
effectively by the task force members than than by the task force consultants
and including Mr Lee and many other people on our body we're doing the work
to make sure the word got out and and we shouldn't have had to do that
and and people were paid to do that right and and and then and after you
express your concern they don't even contact you and ask you what should you
suggest and those are the kind of things that we ought to be focusing on because
the work of the task force is can only go as far as the people who
Supply it the staff if what they do is limited what we're going to be able to
accomplish will be limited and so I think that
uh is absolutely essential going forward and and I think some people have already
spoken this uh because I talked to a couple of task force members but just in case they haven't certainly this process
which whatever staff that the election commission is going to vote devote to
this Etc have to gear up a little earlier in the process than I was dead because
there's so much work to be done and so much great work could have been done getting people ready like having enough
time to get public service announcements on the television radio stations online
or you know all the various things that you all do online I I think that's uh
and I think that's absolutely essential to the work because it is finally the
same because uh and I'm not complaining I mean you agree to do what you come on and you do the best damn job you can but
we were put under the gun and a pandemic had a lot to do with that but uh it it
was an amazingly difficult uh process and while we didn't
agreeable a lot I am a real proud of all the folk
that served and and served with uh were generally the professionalism that we
served with I I uh I was really uh overwhelmed and proud to be a part of
that of this process even with this difficulties yes um actually we we heard
significant testimony from the city clerk that had to support you and she in fact recommended that you have dedicated
team dedicated staff and a dedicated budget and it was you know clearly noted
that it's very difficult to be an independent body if you don't have your own staff in your own budget and so one
of the things that I saw in in the legislation is that it actually requires
reasonable funding and Staffing which would have to be determined but at the
local level but um uh there's a very detailed report from the city clerk on
what should have been done and was not provided to this last redistricting task force so yes you you guys uh
lived along quite a bit and also whatever you do
and you have you be understand that we live in a world now
where uh we try to accomplish things frequently not through conversation not
through dialogue not through uh uh exchanging ideas and thoughts and
processes but we do it now we do a lot of politics by bullying
and so you have to uh insulate people as much as you can and
then hire people with uh real strong repellent
uh activities and because if not uh they'll come to the pressure yeah well
in the part of the insulation is for example the ban on ex parte Communications you know it's to provide
protection for the redistricting task force members who our public servants trying to do a job
and and until and up till now I have not been paid
commissioner levols the other question please this is commissioner walsi um for those of you who've served on a
com um redistration Commission to your point um Reverend Thompson
do you feel that removing the political appointment will remove to some extent
The Bullying that you're talking about
I refuse to accept that the legislators
the mayor and the uh um
and the elections commission I refuse to believe that they can't appoint good
people I think they did I think they picked X I thought I think
the people on that dashboard was excellent and I think there's a certain group of people
not a city-wide group of people but there was a certain group of people who were very loud who didn't like what
happened and that people are listening to that group
and and you know because in the world we live in if you do a good job folks do not show
up at the Board of Supervisors at the elections commission or at the mayor's office and say you really did a great
job people just don't do that if they're satisfied they go to work and they get
along with their lives but the folk who are disappointed will
scream and yell somebody said to me during the process how could you do what
you did and you heard from a thousand people I said no I didn't yesterday I said no I didn't I heard from 100 people
10 times each that's not a thousand people
I was there I'm looking at who's in front of me so because of that
we're kind of here because some people are very vocal which is their right
I'm not saying that and it's your right to do what you're doing but I don't think it was as bad as
obviously I don't as some others do because it didn't go their way one of
the reasons I didn't think it turned out that bad I didn't have a way I was there to do what had to be done
and you know we've we got it done and
you know when I look at the last election of the board of super life
after the lines of original I don't think it was that bad for any
faction I don't in fact I think it worked better
for some of the people who were the loudest I don't think they were hurt even though they're still unhappy
because I guess they wanted to win it all I don't know what the deal was but you know if you if you if you look at
the board as it's constituted where is it so bad for anybody
we're still crying about the this because folk were not trying to so many
people were not concerned with an effective process their concerned with
winning and and their side winning and that's the problem with politics in this
city we don't work together anymore because my side got to win and I don't give a damn
if it doesn't work out well as long as I win and that's why we are less effective
sometimes when I got this down there were Republicans in office but they were
people you could talk to and I've always had problems with well not always you know there was a time in this that I
used to hear or Grown Folk argue over who had the best civil rights planks in
their platform the Republicans are the Democrats so but but yeah I'm that old but I'm
gonna tell you what happened they started creating safe districts and now the Republicans don't even have to try
anymore and that's where we're moving in this city if we're not careful
that's exactly it's the direction we're headed in because certain folk we've got low
numbers so they don't even bother to come to the black community they say well I don't have a lot of black people in my district I said you are a San
Francisco Citywide supervisors elected to represent a district but that's not
the only thing you're supposed to care about in this town but we're moving in that direction
because people are crying for districts they can't lose and therefore they not only
they don't have to be held accountable if they don't do what they promise
Reverend Townsend I I want to kind of bring us back to the legislation so I do
rant so cut me off yeah the whole idea of of the bills that are being
considered are to take the politics out of it uh and to provide protection uh
for the members that are serving on politics out of it recognize what the
politics are and I would I would agree with that that you can't take the politics out of it
and I think it's important to recognize that certainly for the task force that I
chaired and for this most recent task force I don't believe it was simply a factor
of the um the appointments that brought with them bias as much as Community organized
themselves it was true during our task force even though we ultimately landed
where we landed in terms of unanimous decisions but there was considerable
Community activation around what folks believed was important perhaps not as
polarizing as this most recent but it was present and there's that part of the
dynamic that I don't believe will go away simply because the selection process was improved it's not intended
to go away right the whole point is to engage with communities and activation of communities is good because then they
can Define what their boundaries are and we can make sure they get Fair representation so when I say get the
politics out I'm talking about the conflicts of interest that might be present in the selection process I'd
like to hear from um Jeremy Lee yeah thank you uh commissioner uh I I would say that it's
it's so incredibly important to take out that conflict of interest
um you know because we we are all like at this task force we were all appointed by our appointing authorities and you
know the task force I would say the majority of us were well connected in
the San Francisco political scene so um you know we we know the ins and outs
and we have relationships with people with supervisors with different
political groups so you know for example if one of the supervisors came to me and
told me hey Jeremy you need to vote this way do I vote my conscience or do I defy
what this this person of authority has has told me to do and um
you know uh and for full disclosure I I never discussed any vote with anyone
during the entire course of uh I served okay yeah like like I said part of this
is to to insulate members and exactly um I mean I will share since uh
unfortunately we lost uh Mr yay since uh he had to go back to his CRC meeting uh
you know I knew some electives and they would like see me and cross the street and walk on the other side because they
were not legally allowed to talk to me outside of a public meeting and it was very freeing
so so Mr Lee in your opinion you feel removing
doing a random selection process or a selection process that is not embedded
in political appointments would have in your opinion been uh
better for the last redistricting most certainly no certainly again you know we all have our political connections I
mean it's hard to divorce that but I think the it just like those political
connections were just amplify it even more because we had an appointing authority and
um you know there they weren't barred from speaking to us right thank you
thank you commissioner Parker you've been thinking for a while do you have um some
questions I will point out one particular danger is that you know the way the
appointments are now structured if you get a board that has a majority
of the same political bit and the mayor shares that political
event you could then have some real problems of people not being represented
in the uh in the appointment process and for for being left out so and and then
there may be a real potential for creating quote-unquote safe districts for one ideology or another so I I think
that's the one thing to uh that we need to be aware of one potentiality right
so so again that's that is what 12 48
proposes to completely eliminate that our structure would not be allowed under
the the current uh there will be other structures that arise
trust me well because people are who people are right
um but the question before this committee is to whether we recommend uh
whether it's specifically 1248 or something that's modeled after 12 48 which appoints an impartial vetting
Authority no appointing authorities um with very clear standard criteria
that requires people to not have political conflicts of interest uh
or their family members so we can't be the spouse of a candidate or a lobbyist
or a major donor to really remove those political conflicts of interest I was
struck by Mr yeast comment that you couldn't tell you couldn't tell partisan
affiliation and I will know that I will Echo that for our commission on the CRC
we travel to other states and we always traveled as one Democrat one Republican one independent and we would ask people
to guess and they were usually wrong they couldn't tell and that was because those political conflicts of interest
were removed and impartiality was important I would be very interested since all all
of you are San franciscans what you think about the elect uh the ethics commission seeing the yeah
because Mr Yu was not a San Francisco but you guys are San franciscans I'm not what you're not I well
I've probably been here longer than you have but then you've been alive I I I
grew up in uh an all-black town in Oklahoma and in Los Angeles mostly in Las Vegas but do you
live in San Francisco but I've lived in San Francisco for 56 years okay so you
qualify so I would like to hear from all of the panelists their opinions on
the ethics commission being the vetting Authority or if you think some of the
other choices in the legislation include uh the elections commission which I
personally would not be in favor of since we have no staff and no budget either uh and are also all volunteers
um and then there was a panel of three judges um there could be controller controller
a controller which would be akin to the to the auditor who do you think is
trusted in San Francisco to to decide who are the most qualified
applicants against the standard set of criteria a question how do you become a member of the
elections Commission all of us are appointed by a different appointing authority well that kind of
kicks the hell out of the impartiality Theory
that's the idea that the voters voted on was to have seven different appointing
authorities so no elected could have any control so but anyway back to the question who
do you think the elect the ethics commission is the right one and if not
who should it be just a point of clarification how was the how are election Commissioners appointed or like
power selected oh for all of us I'm sorry ethics ethics ethics
do we know the answer to that question but once again if they're all appointed by seven of several other different
appointed authorities how do you keep the appointing authorities from talking before they make their appointment so
that that just kind of blows what you're trying to do if that's where the
finality is I mean it's something you need to think about well the the question that I asked Mr
this is commissioner lavosi the question I asked um Mr Yi was was
to get to this um and I would like to know from you
do you think there is a body in San Francisco that can can do this in
the most effective and impartial way and I would like to have your your honest opinions about that
oh that is a really hard question you know like like this is San Francisco
like we breathe politics here so it's hard to find like a truly impartial body
um I I think in my view it really is I I think the the structure of
like how these people are chosen it matters far more than which body goes
through and and chooses like the what is it 40 or so that that are random then
randomly selected so um I I think there will be in the next
task force cycle there will be a lot of people a representative sample of San
Francisco applying for these um positions and if you take just a swath of just a
random 40 of them I think you you'll have a pretty decent pool uh Mr McDonald do you
have that opinion excuse me I guess the only objection that I would have well let me start in the affirmative I I
don't think I agree with um Mr Lee that that there is no
impartiality um from a purity um perspective and so I personally will
be comfortable with the ethics um committee there are five appointing bodies for the five members
um and I'd be comfortable with that because again I've been overseeing the process
um absent the actual selection that would be driven by the random um
um identify a selection process I think would would suffice um and I would not I guess to finish my
thought I would not be in favor of an individual um because I think that's just too
fraught with the potential for whatever again subjectivity and or bias he or she
might be holding I have an additional question for you Mr
McDonald would you want to see that if
it were to be the election excuse me the ethics commission that there be
um a bar on Communications for those members who during this election process
that they not speak or have any communication with their appointing authorities during the process so this
is a little bit different going beyond what um the the proposed legislation would
have it would you know to me it would be interesting to have that piece and do
you think that would be effective so during the process if we were to go this way and the ethics commission who is who
are appointed would you like to see and I also would like to hear from the other panelists would you like to see that
there be no communication with their foreign Authority during that time outside of the public yes okay I would
agree with that completely uh Mr Lee and Mr Thompson you have an opinion on that uh yes I think that would be a very
prudent move Mr Johnson well I think you run into a problem
I uh what I think you uh you know we have a
way in this country of making sure that people become criminals I think what you
do is you require that if there is communication of any kind it has to be
divulged and and because and and if it's not
that that automatically uh ends your time of service
because you know if I run into somebody and I'm seen
talking to them are we talking about that it's you know it it can frequently be people you know
as far as the ethics commission is concerned I you know I wasn't going to
say anything because I sound like a broken record because I am I'm I'm I'm
I'm I'm 80 years old and I've been black pretty much all of them and I've been
broken and because of that my experience with the ethics commission and it's dealing
with the African-American Community I have not seen as very friendly or
understanding and when I say understanding I don't mean that in they don't want to be my friend I mean they
don't know much about our community and so that would be a problem for me but
I'm only an individual and I'm aware of that but I hope I'm speaking for others
which body would you be comfortable with if any I don't know I can't think of
hardly any that are any better unless you're gonna pick a body that's in the African-American community so some of
the other choices were um a civil grand jury that was the other one right the silver grand jury could be
the vetting body a a panel of three retired judges
would be another choice or in our case the controller the controller's office which you know
they're the ones who publish the fiscal impact of every measure I'll commit to think about it and getting back to you
I'm thinking about the judges um as a as a possibility
um but let me I think this is a hard question I think
as Mr Lee said San Francisco is a political it's a very political environment and if we understand
if we understand going in that people who come on anybody are going to have
biases and we do our best to get to what those are so once again we understand what
their decisions are coming out of we know what kind of work they've done what
kind of uh organizations they've worked with and so forth if we can know those
kinds of things and then and and and we create rules that says you can't talk to
your point appointing authority unless you let us know you know you can't I
I have friends and I get free Giants tickets
but it was last spring when we got through all of this at this end of spring beginning of Summer and I
couldn't get Giants tickets because my friend said by the way I can't give you any ticket before I ever
ask for any because I'm on the uh redistricting Commission and there's a
limit on any gifts you know if you make those kinds of rules
then you you but to to make a rule and say there's no
communication and there's no way of knowing whether there is or not
you know you you require that if there is there should not be
or you can say there is not supposed to be but if there is you better divulge
and divulge what you talked about yeah because if not you're automatically dismissed
and same kinds of things down the line I think we're much more honest that way if
a reporter writes a story and they're supposed to be objective I'd really rather know their biases
before I read the story sure then I know what to make of it rather than they try
to tell me that they're unbiased and they actually are
I know commissioner Parker this was an issue that was important to you too did you want to ask any other questions
around the selection of the vetting Authority uh no not specifically around this um I
think a lot of the things I've been thinking about have been discussed here um but um but I will maybe cover something else
um I listening to all of uh all of your comments today and I also read the most
recent um redistricting task forces report um and saw all and all the statements
that were associated with it um and it seems that there are there are
actually a lot of things that people agree on um you know the things that are probably a bit no-brainer like making sure you're
able to start as early as you can this this is an anomaly sort of a year we of course just had because the pandemic
affected you all so much in the ability to do Outreach how early you could start
because the census was delayed all of those kinds of things um so the starting early
um the support that was needed from the clerk's office having dedicated staff you all are pretty pretty solidly in
agreement on those kinds of things um Outreach I know you've already discussed
that tonight um and I know that there were a lot of criticisms around interpretation services for instance that you had no
control over it was the budget like you couldn't do anything about that um you know so and there were also some
some pretty clear statements about the composition of the task force and um in the the main report you know
without any involvement of elected officials or appropriate and reinforce the independence um and then alternates you all were
pretty United around needing to have alternates so so that's um that's all encouraging I feel like
the more that we can talk about the things we agree on the better and then we can find the ones that we want to try to improve on
um this is maybe for a lot of people no-brainers but actually have found that there is some disagreement as I've been
doing my own research and talking to folks last few weeks um so I wondered about stipends for task
force members and how you all see that particular issue because that is something that's included in the legislation and it's referenced in a lot
of these stipends so paying giving paid stipends to task force members for their
service obviously there's various reasons we do that in a lot of these instances to try to make it possible for
um folks to participate who may not have the time to give because they need to work and recognizing the labor you know
that it takes to be part of these kinds of efforts so I just wondered all three of you what your perspective is on
having stipends for task force members why don't we start with um uh Mr
McDonald first because we always make him go last so thanks I appreciate that
um I I support um providing stipends um for a couple reasons for me it it
um is consistent with um intentionality around being as Broad
and inclusive as possible for reasons that actually you just stated you know in terms of needing to work
um and the amount of time it is a it is a it is a significant time commitment
Amendment um that I think warrants um a stipend and
um again I think it aids in the con in you know the efforts to ensure a diverse
makeup of of the body right Mr Lee um I I I'm in full support of a stipend
uh for task force members um I think uh our uh the most recent task force we we were all fortunate
enough to where we didn't need to have a stipend but uh when you think of you
know working class folks single mothers um the idea of those type of people
serving on the task force um and staying for these long meetings
into the middle of the night is is inconceivable and so you know I I think
it would do well for us as a city to you know provide some financial assistance
to increase the the pool of applicants thank you Reverend Townsend your
thoughts uh certainly I I I I don't see anything wrong with stipends if if I know the
city it's uh not going to be enough money to give anybody a reason to want
to do it but uh but I certainly think it's appropriate
uh certainly for people who work in the city and are not highly paid
you know right now it just means there's certain people that just can't do this
volunteer because they can't afford to and nobody should be priced out of
participating in government so for that reason I certainly think uh it's
important um and then it was so unreasonable uh
because of covet I don't know how working you know I'm old but some of the
people who work you know I don't know how they gave us all that time it really
meant you could only have a certain kind of job and that was wrong I I think that
was bad okay thank you and and I will for commissioner Parker's benefit since
you didn't hear the September testimony from the other uh
redistricting task forcement there was General support from all of them as well um and Miss Craig who unfortunately
couldn't make it tonight said she supported a stipend but it should be modest that was her but don't make them
Rich yeah that's right yeah and and I will say um on the California citizens redistrict
we had a modest stipend it was 300 bucks for you know for a working day which is substantially less than what a lot of
people on the uh on the commission made in their day jobs and the we had
um a young mother uh two uh who had significant extra
expenses because of child care expenses in the commission you know noted that in
our final report that it was unfair to mothers with young children because they
had additional expenses that we couldn't figure out how to reimburse them for and in San Francisco
we in most of the service type things that citizens do we don't give seconds
and most of them and that's really you know by saying we're saving the city money really a
slick way of keeping certain people out of the decision-making process right
yeah during the task force we were lucky if the clerk would order us lunch right
over finally would it be retroactive
not sure we can are we gonna help you there we're trying to figure out how to make it better for this then yes can't
believe you for trying um other questions that came up as you
reviewed this uh
I'm just looking through my notes Here on everything it covers I I feel like the legislation is fairly comprehensive
uh in terms of the universal recommendations that we receive from all
of the good government groups that we met with over the course of the past year
um it seems like everyone supports the alternates including Mr Yi we certainly
wish we had alternates uh since like I said we had to replace someone almost immediately and go back to the drawing
board again we have in fact we had um our oldest member was in his 80s and we
were like stay healthy Vince with the 10 years you know do not make us have to replace you and so if we had alternates that would
not have been a problem any any other items that
you want to reflect on no not with our guests not with our
guests okay well um I think we can let them go then we've already lost Mr Yi uh Who had who only
gave us an hour um any final comments that any of the panelists would like to make
um feel free to make any final closing remarks if you have any sure uh I'll
I'll speak um I just want to just first thank
um all of you Commissioners for for embarking on this this work it's it's just so incredibly important to to
Really remove the political aspect out of redistricting as much as you can
um I will say that serving on the redistricting task force was truly the most grueling experience
of my life uh and I I say that not in in the sense
that it we long meetings and and listening through
um you know hours and hours of testimony it was really the injection of the
political aspect it felt um like anything I said or did wouldn't
have changed the course of the task force um it's
um you know I'll even share that because of how divisive this task force was
in direct response to that I started taking medication for anxiety and
depression um I'm currently on two different kinds of antidepressants
so um it it's it's had a profound personal effect on me
um you know and um and that was really on on full display I I will fully acknowledge I am
likely the most infamous member of the redistricting task force um and and I carry that
so um you know and I'm I'm here today because I
don't want a future task force to inflict that same level of trauma that
was afflicted upon me and that's why I hear and I I truly want
to change this process thank you so much Mr Lee for sharing that I'm very sorry that you had to go
through that and I hope that whatever we do we can protect future redistricting task force members thank you
um anyone else would like to make a final remarks without due respect I find some of those comments insulting but uh
um uh to suggest that uh with no evidence that there was
an agenda is really a disservice
to everyone on that commission they gave of themselves and endured a great deal
of pain and more pain than should have been generated
to people who were given of themselves to serve the city
I don't know any of our task force members who got rich because of any
decision that they made I don't and and for people to suggest
that there was an agenda because you couldn't sway me
to vote another way does not mean that I'm a crook
and that's what I hear being this that suggested I believe that the people who did not
vote with me honestly looked at the same criteria
that I looked at and came to a different conclusion based upon what they
perceived as a different need and their perception was honest for them I don't
count any of them as being in collusion are being disingenuous or crooked We
Just Disagree and if you don't disagree you will never accomplish anything worthwhile uh they
used to say down south the old folk used to say if everybody in the room agrees
on the first vote somebody ain't thinking and that's what I believe this these
processes are about that we we work hard
and we come to a conclusion that I knew when I agreed to do it
reluctantly that I was probably going to make more of my friends angry
then I was going to make happy because that's the nature of this kind of work and I thank God for the people who are
willing to do it all of them whether they agreed with me or not they got a right to disagree with me
and that doesn't make him a bad person yeah and so we we we we've got to change
some thinking in this town if we're going to get back to the creative City
that we used to be creative ideas don't come out of this town
anymore because we're all too locked into what we claim then we are locked into what's best for
the citizens of San Francisco all right thank you Reverend Townsend and we
absolutely thank everyone for their service and you know just asking for any
final remarks Mr McDonald do you have any just briefly thank you
um I appreciate all of the efforts in terms of enhancing and improving the system and
processes in particular around impartiality and I guess I would just want to equally underscore
um the importance at least in my view of the enhancements including raising the
bar on intentional inclusion that is important as impartiality is
um inclusion of the diverse again City that we are is in my view equally as
important so thank you all right I think um all of you gentlemen you are free to
stay while we discuss uh and for you to make additional public comment later if you would like but we thank you all for
sharing your insights only you guys have had that direct experience in San
Francisco and we absolutely appreciate uh you're sharing them with us as we
consider this important set of potential recommendations and thank you for having
us thank you thank you so much thank you
all right Commissioners a lot to chew on
and uh thinking about what to take back to the
full commission um
we have a a couple of uh options
one is to
one is to uh recommend that uh
that we generally like the uh the provisions uh in either or both of these
pieces of legislation that uh that we would support it as a foundation for
either San Francisco's own Charter Amendment or
uh as something that would be a good result if
if the existing language for the redistring task force were removed from the charter which would allow 1248 to
take effect essentially there's the possibility that it doesn't pass it's
past the assembly uh both both bills have passed the assembly it may or may
not pass the Senate it's going through its process right now and then it may or may not be signed into law
uh so they're there's a question whether we would want to just do that given that possibility
or whether we we would be better off doing our own version of 1248
essentially um that bakes in what we feel is important in
the charter and then we don't have to worry about what happens to those bills we heard at the last meeting for those
of you who may not have had a chance to listen in the good government group
Representatives feel that it covers we heard a percentage as high as 95 percent of of
the key elements that they recommend for San Francisco to kind of um
create the structure that that results in Fair maps and fair representation with
hopefully more consensus so
how are we feeling here
I will share that I did ask the City attorney what happens if 1248 doesn't
pass and we heard last time I believe it was a
representative from the League of Women Voters had suggested that if we struck all the language about the redistricting
task force in our Charter and 1248 doesn't pass it would still be
a better outcome because uh San Francisco would then fall under
the fair Maps act regardless putting in the rank criteria and many of
the other structural improvements however the what I heard back from the
city attorney is if we don't have an independent redistricting Commission in place and 1248 doesn't pass creating
that default commission then it would fall to the Board of Supervisors
they however would have to follow ranked criteria and the transparency requirements and the public hearings and
the Outreach plan but they would be the redistricting body for the city then so that is a possibility if we were to
recommend that the simply that the language should be cleaned up and the
references to the redistricting task force removed so
any thoughts on that
um um I have been I mean I'm sure all of us
have been thinking about this a lot um because I'm pretty new to the commission I've been I'm trying to do a
lot of catching up I've read a lot of meeting minutes from the last year
um yeah last year plus um and I've been reading and having a lot
of conversations to try to understand this really well and as I think my fellow Commissioners know I think that
this is important for us to do to to align with best practices make sure we're putting ourselves as you know our
job as a commission is to ensure that there are free fair and functional elections in San Francisco
um and that is you know it makes sense for us to take the time to educate both ourselves and the public on this issue I
don't know that there's another body that would be taking the time to talk about it um uh so so there is that
um and I also um so it's I have found myself in kind of a
um an interesting spot as I'm reflecting on all this is is believing that and I am understanding that there are there
are some in our community who are seeing the process that we're going through right now and how we've been having these and trying to bring something
forward to the Board of Supervisors it's it being somewhat one-sided or political um and so trying to square that word
there's some good ideas and there's a perception um you know on the work that we're doing and so how do we navigate that
um because I think that matters I think the trust in our commission really matters and the trust in the process and the trust the that people have that will
be inclusive and hear lots of varying viewpoints come before us and and invite those
um and we can't know the work intimately the way many of our task force members have is they've been involved in it and
some of this work can feel theoretical so so anyway so that's just background on the kinds of thinking that I've been
doing over the past um few weeks since we last met and I know some folks are thinking that
we are rushing this a little bit and I've had also conversations with the mayor's office and others as I've been sort of charged to and I'm wondering
um you know I hear these options that you're proposing commissioner die and wondering should we in order to invite
more voices take a little bit of time wait and see what happens with AV 1248 before we make a recommendation because
we've already seen amendments made which I actually think are probably good amendments that have been made in the assembly and because it hasn't even
gotten to the Senate do we want to see what they're going to do because if we try to adhere with what ab1248 says or
ab6764 they might change and so would it be better for us to pause for a minute I
know that this um this process for lots of people clearly we are hearing in public comment is still really
triggering and really feels really fresh and raw so I wonder if it would be good for us to wait and see what happens at
the state level with this legislation see what actually happens and then once
we see that we we know how what the implications will be it'll feel much more real to us here in San Francisco
because it's going to affect us and while it might be most the way there I have some concerns with some pieces of
1200 create um that I don't think are great for us but
it almost feels silly to State those now because I don't have any control how that bill is going to come out so maybe
wait and see what happens to see if we want to then make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors who is
everybody hears and I just want to State it again we are not legislative Authority we cannot write this we should
not write this and and so that is that's not what should happen but I'm wondering if we should wait and see what happens
with 1248 and then react accordingly and and you know continue to bring in as many
different perspectives and voices as we can to shape our recommendations which we then as we've talked about many times
we just hand over to the board um and let them take it with more resources than we have to do a really
even more inclusive process so that's that's where I'm sitting right now
commissioner levelsi um yes this is commissioner policy I
am processing a lot of what I heard today and [Music]
it's apparent that
those citizens of San Francisco who served on these commissions had an
experience um as you said commissioner Parker net that evoked some trauma and so I really feel
that we need to take this
um and listen to as many I keep I wrote down I keep thinking about what Mr
McDonald said intentional inclusion um what you talked about about child
care um the fact that there is legislation that is not yet
passed and so we don't know what's going to happen so I would agree with you commissioner Parker that we need to take
our time and we may need to step back a bit um on this process and so thank you for
raising it um but I I do feel that there is a lot after listening to our three speakers to
to process about moving forward and moving forward in a way that will be
effective and one of my chief concerns is that the community at large or as
much as possible has confidence in the vetting process of the applications and
those who apply and so I'm still yeah that I think yeah that that's where
I'm still the mo I'm doing the most processing in my head because I think they were very clear
um about that um so I I do think that
when and if we have have legislation that could be a best practice a guide
for us I think we'd be in a better situation
so um I completely agree I think the vetting
the vetting you know agency is the biggest question in my mind I'm I'm not
sure the ethics commission is the right wedding Authority
um I don't think we need to decide that I mean I think that
the goal of 1248 is to make sure it's a non-political appointment process
and if that's something that we can all agree on you know then the question of
what should it be replaced with is something that the Board of Supervisors is in a much better
situation to take input on since we don't have the resource to really
to run the kind of inclusive
community input process I mean we've had this discussion repeatedly at the elections
commission as much as we would like to do that it is not something we are resourced to do
and so when I spoke with um president puskin about what we needed
to give them he said high level Concepts they're going to do the drafting of the
legislation so we do not need to specify it should be this organization or whatever
uh so he said Concepts
so for me the concept would be a non-political appointing process with a
trusted vetting agency that they should check with the voters of San Francisco to see
that's the reason we did our little mini survey with the three folks that we had uh and they couldn't decide right so I I
don't think that's something we need to decide I think what we heard very clearly from our panelists tonight
is yeah help us get the politics out um the fact that we had a redistricting
Task Force member who is so traumatized that he's on two antidepressants it's really disturbing to me
uh and the kind of pressure that people felt from their appointing authorities if even one Task Force member felt that
way I think that's terrible I I do really contrast that with how it was on
the redistricting of this California CRC for me I mean it was very freeing
because basically nobody would talk to us so we did we really didn't have that
pressure we had public pressure we were in a crucible we were always being you know live streamed and
uh in the media and all that but we did not have pressure from from uh elected
officials and that was very helpful as we were drawing their districts
so my concern is I don't want us to you know get stuck on details that
we are not supposed to come up with anyway because we are not drafting legislation and I'm wondering if
we can agree on the broad Strokes of 1248 and whether it
means you know it's something the elections commission still has to consider whether
we would like to ask the board to support it or not we could choose not to
um the question is are the proposals that are made in 1248 a good basis for the
Board of Supervisors to draft specific legislation I really think that's what they're looking for
is do these different elements make sense and is it something that
there's broad support for because it it makes the process better it helps to
insulate the members of the task force from political interference it helps to make sure the people who serve on the
task force you know that no one can tell right they
can't tell them apart because they are united in trying to draw Fair maps for all San franciscans that they're not
trying to represent their District they're trying to represent San Francisco uh that was something that was very much
the ethos on the CRC in fact I very distinctly remember being interviewed by
I think it was a Bay Area reporter and they kind of came up to me and they said hey you know San Francisco used to have
two state senators and the way you're drawing the maps San Francisco is only going to have one
and I said how big is the state Senate District and how many people does San Francisco
have what do you think is the right number for San Francisco and that was
very much how everyone on the CRC felt is we are not representing our hometowns we are representing California and we
want to make sure everyone gets Fair representation and how do we get people like that on the redistricting task
force that they don't come in with agendas we had some mixed responses on that but
again you favor there were even a few task force members that came in with an agenda to try to skew things to obtain a
certain outcome that is completely at odds with the idea of independent redistricting
if they're coming in to draw safe districts that is literally the definition of gerrymandering
so
um I you know I think I think ab1248 definitely includes the
areas that have to be considered you know I mean it's certainly comprehensive and the components of redistricting
whether it has nailed down the things that I think maybe I know a lot of them are based on California District joint
commission and um you know and a lot of best practices and there are you know I know we don't
want to change we wouldn't want to change too much to make San Francisco so special we get into some trouble with those kinds of things but I I think
really what I have been thinking about a lot is this idea that maybe we should
not that we shouldn't end up getting to it let's give broad Strokes to the Board of Supervisors I'm I don't think that we
necess shouldn't necessarily get there but I think that by using that as the model we still just
should wait until we know what the state's going to do because it could change you know and so if we say just
align with this and it changes and again this this theme of I think we want it we
want to do what we can to build inclusion and Trust in our body and by pausing for a minute and waiting to see
what happens and inviting others to join us as long as we get to those kind of broad strokes and then hand it over
um then that might be able to help us get there and I think the trust in our body
is really important and so I think that that is something that can help us get us there and so that's that's part of why not because I don't think that there
are some really good things in ab1248 I do I just it's not final and
um and I want to increase trust in our body uh this is commissioner Wilson and it
just makes good sense to wait and see what the state
legislature is going to do um we could give broad strokes and or broad
Concepts excuse me to the Board of Supervisors and they are going to do what they're going to do
um SO waiting until we know whether this legislation
has passed and become state law gives us a solid foundation to move
um on and I don't think it will hinder the process or hurt the process I think
it will um it will remove doubt in my mind that
we're acting on some kind of agenda and I and I think that that's what some
people may feel and so um doing this work that we've done so
far has been excellent extremely informative and
is not wasted but it can it allows us to build on
something um with a solid validation because right now we don't have a solid foundation
okay so
um I'm hearing that we'd like to I guess report on what we heard
uh and pause for a bit um
so is the thinking that that we would not continue to work on this or is there
are there some things that this this committee should explore because I think um the reason this committee was formed
was to take this off the agenda for for the for the full body because thoughtful discussions like this take
time and elections commission meetings only happen once a month and so
um do you think it would be useful to to delve into some of this further
rather than just waiting to see what happens because it's you know the legislation is going to move at the pace
that it moves and can I I think that
us delving deeper um getting more information um educating ourselves even more is a
good idea I don't think the work has to stop while we wait um
you know this this committee is temporary and in its nature for obvious
reasons but the pace that it will take for this legislation to get through the
process pass hopefully be signed if if it passes is a
time that we could take to kind of step back in and also get more information from the public also educate ourselves
also educate ourselves as far as what different bodies in San
Francisco think about it so I I don't think it means that we need to stop
it just means we need to do more work
okay I think that's fine too you know I mean if we were not to meet you know often
before we know what happens with the legislation I think that would be okay I'm trying to think about what
what kinds of issues I'd like to see us Explore More and that's something I'll need to think about more and actually I
would invite the public when you get public comment now if you have suggestions of things you think we should cover in future committee
meetings if we decide we're not going to actually make any recommendations or take action until after ab1248 has a result of some kind
um I would really be interested in hearing that um and I would certainly like to think about it and I'm willing I'm absolutely
willing to continue meeting and learning and and some of that honestly is as you all know we we are all volunteers also
and have very busy lives and so trying to squeeze in and all the edges to do all the reading and learning that I've
been doing um and so even just time for me to continue doing that being a newer
commission member I'd appreciate um there's lots of videos I'd like to go and re watch instead of only reading all
the minutes from the meetings I've been reading um and so that's another thing I would invite the public to share if there's things that you think that we should
review as we continue trying to be responsible in our coverage of this issue I would invite that and welcome it
so okay okay well with that um
uh why don't we open it to public comment so um I I
uh again I want to yes I just want to remind everyone that the commission has
a limited this committee has a limited scope of kind of finalizing recommendations to the full commission
uh that you know would then be referred to the Board of Supervisors to consider
uh and that the board is is much better resource to run a really comprehensive
public input process if and when specific legislation is drafted so there
will be ample opportunity to share specific thoughts on anything that they actually propose I do want to
acknowledge the many written comments that we got before this meeting and they will become part of tonight's meeting
record and shared with board uh having said that I hope there are some
reactions to what we just heard from this incredible panel of people who've
been through the process and well it's kind of tough when you pre-write your thing and then you have all this information come up because my head
about to explode yeah yeah with all the new information that I wish I was commenting on
um feel free to I mean okay take a minute and then I'll I'm sure I'll have
extra time so all right all right thank you so I'm here giving public comment as a
former elected delegate to the California Democratic party and a current concern San Franciscan I'm
terrified that appointed officials are blatantly blurring the lines between what they are and are not legally authorized to do residents having to
take time to police our appointed officials to defend our laws and our Democratic processes is more than robust
civil engagement it's a disgrace sadly these subtle power grabs are happening everywhere in the city but the
self-appointed fierce committee's attempt to force an unauthorized incomplete and premature Charter Amendment onto the 2024 ballot when
there is nothing anywhere giving them the authority to do so is by far the most egregious as you know redistricting
is an issue that is fundamental to our democracy the last redistricting effort was a success because the task force
members remain true to the law the process and to their task they did not yield to The Fanatic ideologues who
viewed compromise as a dirty word and I really want to repeat this the process itself was not the problem and
many of the task force members unwavering commitment to the process was what actually kept the partial partisan
and unethical influences a special interest at Bay the process was the Savior not the problem some members of
the commission and some members of the task force however were the problem the result of the task force steadfast
effort is a legal map not everyone was happy but not everyone is going to be happy in politics there is a legal
process to redistricting there is limited Authority and scope in practice for the elections commission and both
are being brazenly ignored by this Fierce Commission eroding and dismantling are democratic
Norms just because you don't like the outcome of a fair and impartial process is straight out of kindergarten and the
Trump Playbook and yet here it is being brought into our heart of our San Francisco elections commission appointed
officials abandoning the rule of law should terrify us all but participating in such Behavior should distinctly
humiliate this Commission um one of the things that you're talking about is bringing this to the Board of
Supervisors you're you're simultaneously talking about removing the politics from
it and bringing it to the Board of Supervisors the Board of Supervisors is the most political entity you could
imagine bringing this to when you talk about the pressure that these people felt there was a commissioner standing
right here who was insulting to my dear friend and Task Force member Lily ho and
on behalf of her and women everywhere his apology is still not accepted it the
the behavior you're talking about in terms of uh influence and bullying Dean
Preston rallying his crew to threaten legal action to the Commissioners in the
task force when they didn't like what they heard this is becoming a trend in San Francisco politics but it cannot become
a trend in your work redistricting is just too important and
you cannot let people think out of it thank you
I'll go next I guess I'm Alan berardell um I uh had some comments prepared
tonight but I think uh I'll just be brief and say that I'm encouraged to hear some comments tonight about taking
a pause and uh waiting to see what happens with the state bill uh Stephanie really made a lot of the
points that I was uh prepared to make uh their uh important to hear because this
body um there's some there's some real questions
about what's Happening Here uh it looks uh like you're legislating
instead of policy making for the Department of Elections and policy
making for the Department of Elections is really what we're here for in preparing for next year
and many of us are wondering what's falling through the cracks while you're just making this Relentless push
for this reform around redistricting so uh
and thank you for this panel tonight uh I want to give a special uh
uh prop to uh Reverend Townsend I think what Reverend Townsend said tonight just
most everything he said was so right on we have to uh really take in wisdom from people
like Reverend Thompson so thank you thank you Mr burdell next
and if you want to write your name and help us with the spelling for the minutes that would be most appreciated
sure I'll spell it for you when I give my comment okay what is this process commissioner die
what is it if not political fodder an agenda a spectacle catering to a
contingent of activists given a map that followed the criteria outlined
the prematurity of raising this absence necessary State legislation on the books
and the facts fact that no individuals or body will ever be
impartial I appreciate your acknowledging that you're not resourced to run this process
nor are you qualified to draft legislation nor is the ethics commission impartial
nor is the Board of Supervisors commissioner Parker is correct that
trust is in this body is very important and what this process does is betray
Trust that's all it does is betray Trust
please do pause no full stop
um and then for you for the spelling my name is Pauline Affair my last name is spelled f as in Frank a y e r
I'm speaking as an individual I appreciate the opportunity to provide
public comments and I hope I do hope that I do not need to come back on this issue
thank you thank you Miss Fair
hi my name is Marguerite Hutchinson I live in District Two I want to congratulate all three of you today by
for the work that you did to basically come to an it seems to come to the conclusion that you will somewhat pause
and slow down the work by a super majority I think that is a good outcome where you're not being preemptive and
not overreaching into the process that has been set Before You by The Board of Supervisors or others who are able to
legislate I look forward to learning more about this process the panel that you convened today was very very
interesting and enlightening I'm hoping to follow this process slowly as we see
the legislation proceed through this the state legislature thank you
thank you massage yourself
hello my name is Todd Davis and I'm from District three
in San Francisco nine citizens were appointed to a redistricting task force they spent
nearly a year holding Community meetings San Francisco
their task force they had drew the lines in open not behind closed doors
and they supported good government already
what you guys are trying to do by rushing this process is provide a
medicine to San Francisco that we don't need the fact is what you guys should be
doing with your time on this task of course is figuring out why the
redistricting task force was drawn into the political Fray rather than left
alone to do their jobs thank you thank you Mr Davis
okay hello my name is Michael Lauer and I
live in District 8. I'm a local and I grew up in District 7. first I'd like to thank two of you for recommending a
pause to this ridiculousness I'd like to remind the San Francisco elections commission what San Francisco
voters charge it with on November 6 2001. on that date San Francisco voters
amended our city Charter to add a seven-member Election Commission and charge it with a narrow scope of
authority to do two things one set General policy for the Department of
Elections and two set general policies for the proper administration of the
general practices of the elections Department creation of the new elections commission
was designed to require public deliberation of Department of Elections policy and to increase the opportunity
for public comment on elections Administration despite this clear and narrow narrowly
written scope of authority the following appeared in a recent email from
elections commission member Cynthia dying the fierce committee including my
colleagues commissioner Renita lavosli and Michelle Parker has been charged
with refining a final set of reforms for the election commission to refer to the
Board of Supervisors for consideration of a possible Charter amendment in 2024.
this election commission should stop focusing on redistricting Charter
amendments that it seems to believe it is charged with creating and focus a lot
more on the charter Amendment voters passed back on November 6 2001 at The
Ballot Box that 2001 Charter Amendment lays out the scope of your duties very clearly please
stop exceeding them thank you thank you Mr Laura
you'll have to forgive me since I'm losing my voice I'm already I'll get people proposing silly legislation
but good evening my name is Jay Connor B Ortega and I see this document where we
can write our name so I'll take care of that thank you um but I did want to First say that while I had something
prepared written here I want to thank you all for proposing putting a pause until we see what actually happens with
the state I know that with these recent days we've seen so many people make an Impulse decision without even taking
time to think and about their decisions but I do want to say this so you all may
take this with you this evening in 2022 two supervisable candidates
upended the political Battlefield by defending defeating two expected winds
after their Victory and up to this day accusations have been made that these
winners only won because the way the maps were drawn now we vote we practice democracy by
voting for our mayor and our Board of Supervisors and yes the redistricting
was a huge messy situation and that's okay because we the community was able
to see all the changes all the decisions and most importantly who chose who to be
on the task force now our democracy in most recent
districting made by fascists upset they made them upset because their enemies won and the ones
they prefer did not win so the new plan is to control to give the control over
to unelected unchallengeable spectators these fascists are trying to undermine
our democracy by changing a process that allows us to voice our distaste our
trust and our pleasure at what we see being proposed this is Maga Republican
Behavior should be left to Republicans around the country not in San Francisco
I come here encouraging you all to not support any changes but to leave the
charter alone we hold our elected officials accountable at The Ballot Box and we are
not going to relinquish it for any size thank you and have a great evening thank you Mr Ortega
good evening good evening good evening Commissioners my name is Richard Perino I'm 77 years old a lifelong San
Francisco and I live in District three in 2022 the redistricting task force
performed their duties and was organized to burst respectful of all our cities
community and in my opinion was highly successful so if it isn't broke
let's not fix it thank you thank you Mr Farina
any other public comments in the room let's check online see
okay I don't see any hands either
okay with that I'm going to close public comment
um any further discussion on this uh
Okay so um I was going to try to put a summary
together for our meeting on Wednesday but I wonder if it might be better if we just individually shared our Reflections
from the last two meetings I think that's a good idea
um yeah as you both well actually I don't know if I'm commissioner will snooze but I won't be able to attend the commission meeting on Wednesday I have
to leave town and I will be at an airport um but I I can write something up and
attach it to the agenda um in order to share some thoughts and not make you all feel obligated to share
mine okay so it would be great yeah I can do it I wouldn't try to share your thoughts
foreign okay with that um I'm going to close item three uh moving
on to item four agenda items for future meetings
back to what else would you like to explore
um I think considering that I think we are
clear about a pause I would like to see what happens at our regular meeting and
get input from our other Commissioners um on commissioner Parker's Reflections
that she's going to write our Reflections and get a sense of the the
entire body and I would also be open to um
postponing so that commissioner Parker's there but I now realize that we're not having a regular August meeting so
I will take that back and um we are having a July meeting however
right that's right this is June sorry um I mean I would I would like to hear
and have you participate I would hate to have
you not be there to answer questions that may come from other Commissioners so now that I'm realizing I'm in June
and on July my apologies um if we could bring it to the July meeting
I think that would be would be nice because I think it would be really good to have a full commission for this
discussion but that's my opinion I mean I don't know whether that's um do
you mean in addition to so having it on both agendas or just moving the whole redistration moving this discussion to
the July meeting so that you can participate in the discussion I I leave I I have you know I it doesn't
I know we have our agendas already has been already been published um for Wednesday
and we're now you know less than 48 hours out from that so
um so I don't know if that's necessarily possible um but uh as president Stone knows that
I won't be there and I told her that I might write something if it felt appropriate after our meeting today and
so um I can minimally do that and if if you all it could be that
you want to put it again on the July agenda because there may be some maybe people want to have their own Reflections because they want to hear
how these conversations have gone because we haven't had other Commissioners join us right you know maybe there's an opportunity for you all
to just invite people to reflect and see what else do you want us to learn and um I'm sure that they have also been
hearing from folks across the city right you know about concerns or support or whatever it is and so maybe there's an
opportunity to ask the Commissioners for um for the requests of other things that we
should learn um and do or other people they think we should invite to make sure that we're including perspectives into our you know
whatever that is maybe maybe that's an opportunity to ask for that and then it can be be a short agenda item in July
perhaps okay um so okay well I think we owe the full
commission an update we've had two meetings and we have none of us have had time to write minutes so let's at least
skip a verbal update and we'll have a written update from you and get input from the rest of the commission on
future agenda items that's fine okay so let's uh uh we can consider that offline uh and
decide on a next meeting and when that might be okay uh with that I'm closing uh oh is
there any public comment uh there was a request from uh from commissioner Parker if you have
ideas uh on on things that you would like us to explore I I would direct you
to our archived website unfortunately we haven't been able to migrate everything over to the new format yet
uh if you look at the project plan which is in the current agenda packet uh it
indicates what we covered at each of the previous meetings in the latter half of
2022 and there are some excellent recordings from experts
everything from how we moved to District elections in the first place uh to
Reflections we had a September panel of redistricting task force members uh
different ones so you can hear their thoughts and we also had a testimony
from the Michigan independent redistricting commission The Long Beach Independent redistricting commission so
all of that is archived and we invite all of you to take a look at that and if
there are additional topics if anyone would like to give public comment on other other items that you
would like us to explore we welcome you to come to the podium if you want to think about it that's fine
too you don't see any hands online
uh double check me
yeah I do not see any ends online anyone else want to okay closing public comment and with
that we're closing agenda item four and we are adjourned at 8 39.
thank you all for taking the time to attend thank you