FIERCE Committee (Elections Commission) Meeting

Transcript

 

 

 

1. Call to Order & Roll Call

um apologies for that let me let me start over again if you don't

mind uh again tonight's the culmination of a year of inquiry that the elections

commission has undertaken to study best practices in local redistricting it was the redistricting initiative was

born out of public concerns about the redistricting task force which uh of course was brought to the

commission's attention by a protest in front of City Hall at our March 2022 meeting we responded by holding an

eight-hour public Hearing in April of 2022 to consider whether to remove our

appointees which we ultimately declined to do in May of 2022 based on my experience as

a California citizens redistricting commissioner I put together a discussion document on potential reforms to our

local redistricting body and process with the support of the full commission

we launched the educational phase of the redistricting initiative in June of 2022

starting with the basics of why we even have districts in San Francisco

since then we have had this agenda item at almost every elections commission meeting

which like all of our meetings are open to the public and archived on our website this background is summarized in

the second and third packet items the project plan and summary of recommendations

I want to invite any members of the public who have not been with us on this year-long journey to review these and

our meeting recordings which include expert testimony about what works and doesn't work to achieve

Fair redistricting based on years of experience at both the state and local levels Commissioners levolsi Parker and I were

appointed by commission president Robin Stone to do the heavy lifting of

examining further refinements beyond the universal recommendations we have heard

in the past year I want to remind everyone that the elections commission has no legislative

Authority we can only recommend specific reforms to the Board of Supervisors who will

then draft legislation in our March and April meetings we also

determined that the commission itself could not take on the important step of soliciting public input

because we're all unpaid volunteers as you can see tonight with only a half-time commission secretary instead

we will rely on our legislative Champions who have full-time staff to do this

as mentioned in our May 17th meeting we have approached supervisors Mirna

Melgar Matt Dorsey and President Aaron peskin about co-sponsoring this

legislation and so far they have indicated an openness to doing so if they ultimately agree they will hold

Community input meetings to iron out the final details if a majority of the board approves any

reforms will go before the voters for final approval

that was a long introduction to set expectations for the purpose of

tonight's meeting I want to welcome a distinguished and diverse panel of good government experts

to focus specifically on what we should do in San Francisco they are sharing their expertise at our

request and are not voting members of the fierce committee their buyers are provided for reference

as the first item in the agenda packet so I'm just going to introduce their names and titles please join me in

welcoming Russia Chavez Cardenas voting rights and redistricting program manager of

California common cause Lauren gerardin redistricting team and

Jenny say advocacy chair both from the League of Women Voters of San Francisco

goffard senior program coordinator voting rights Asian Americans advancing

Justice Asian law caucus and last but not least chema Hernandez Gill a member

of her most recent redistricting task force who is here to give us a reality check

I do want to thank those who took the time to submit written public comments before tonight's meeting which expressed

concern that we were only hearing from certain former redistricting task force members I want to assure you that I

alerted the entire 2021-22 redistration task force before our May 2022 meeting that I would be

introducing this topic and personally invited them to share their experiences and reflections with us

honestly it has been challenging to get responses uh perhaps due to the traumatic nature

of the last process but we have heard from at least four former members of past task forces and I want to give a

special shout out to chema as well for volunteering his time as a panelist

with that I'd like to start a panel discussion for the benefit of those new to our

discussions San Francisco used to be a Pioneer in independent redistricting establishing

an independent citizens commission 10 years ahead of the State of California being a charter City however

San Francisco was exempt from all of the best practices enacted in the fair Maps

Act of 2019 which really played out in the last redistricting process

the real question is why should San Francisco not conform to state law and

update its task force to best practices assembly Bill 1248 C packet items form

five um which just passed the assembly encompasses many of the best practices

recommendations we've already reviewed according to the City attorney

see packet item six San Francisco would absolutely be subject to its provision

if it becomes law so

would any of my fellow Commissioners like to raise any concerns or

considerations for our panel given that ab1248

encompasses many of the reforms that we looked at last year including rank

ordered redistricting criteria pre and post service requirements for the

Commissioners or task force members in this case an open selection process a

non-political appointment process any specific questions that you would

like to start with about ab48 and have our panel weigh in on

them go ahead um

about specific commissioner Parker um I'm not sure that I have specific

questions about ABA 1248 or 764. I mean I other than

um wondering if they've passed the assembly just where we're looking at in the trajectory of support within the Senate and uh and then more broadly with

the governor if anybody has any insight on that recently then last we've heard a few weeks ago I would be curious to hear

that I do have lots of questions about General components that are included in these and where we might sit in general

in San Francisco and the experience of our redistricting task forces in the in the past and especially the recent past

about some of them seem some of the the areas seem a little bit more nuanced and

there are different ways we could go with them they're not so straightforward and some feel more straightforward and so I'm interested in a lot of discussion

on those that's where I think the rubber is going to hit the road um and also um so so that's that's it

and also just while I have the mic I appreciate um the folks on the panel tonight for

all of the time that they have spent getting to know these issues and coming forward and I also want to appreciate

all of the members of the pub who have submitted comment um to us in the last couple of days I

know I've been talking to a lot of folks also and just appreciate that and invite you to come and please share your

various opinions because I think that as we move through this process it's really important that it feels and

is inclusive and inviting of all of the different viewpoints because this is such a

if the goal is that we find something that's really easy for all of us to wrap our arms around and I believe that

there's not a lot of debate that we need to make improvements um here in on this process I haven't heard anybody debate that

um and so I think when we can find where we are when we have commonalities in the

different components of these proposal of the different the different pieces of redistricting reform let's find those

and then let's kind of debate the the nuances um of the other pieces but I do know

everybody wants to see Improvement and so I'm grateful for that I think we're all on the same page on that and so I'm

looking forward to hearing from everybody to see where we can land to coalesce around the other parts that are

a little trickier and do what's best for our whole city and make make sure that

everybody feels included in the conversation

business commissioner Lavelle for the distinguished panel thank you for being here for the public as well

um the question I'm that's on my mind is what are some of the ways that this can

really happen for us in San Francisco based on the State Legislative

legislation and the fact that there is a need and a

public desire to change what was done the last redistricting task force

anyone on the piano so anyone on the panel um I am trying to see how I can

maybe project you up onto the video in the room and it's not unfortunately very

obvious how to do that I did figure out how to do this once but if you would go

ahead and share your video and feel free to jump

in I'd love to

I'd love to hear from any of the panelists to address

the questions from commissioner Parker and levelsi and feel free to

speak at will you are all able to unmute but I hope this is a discussion

and I don't know if it would be helpful for for one of you to start with kind of

the update I know there was action that took place just yesterday

don't be shy I I was going to ask Sita to provide that update or I think I

3. Redistricting Initiative

think the update that you're talking about is that both ab1248 which is the independent redistricting Bill and then

AB 764 which is the fair map Sac Reform Bill which we're not really it's not the focus of today's conversation but both

of them got out of the assembly floor and have moved on to the state senate so

very excited about that and for the record it's something that

the Asian law caucus and other groups here I believe had a hand in at least drafting or supporting

so great

my question for uh Sunset is can you talk about why your organization Asian

law caucus is supporting those two yeah I mean unfortunately we saw a lot

we I think as everybody here knows we saw a lot of issues in in local redistricting both in SF but also in

counties and cities across the state we monitored we put out a big Report with California common cause and a number of

the ACLU League of Women Voters California a number of other organizations that we monitored over 100 jurisdictions around California and saw

issues related to incumbency bias and incumbency protection redistricting processes that just

weren't fair and transparent or Outreach wasn't conducted at all or very effectively and these bills really you

know aim to address that in very specific ways so there it gets very

technical and you know I'm happy to kind of you know we can we can dive in and walk through piece by piece but at a

very general level we see that there's a big need across the state but it also gives cities like San Francisco the

opportunity to form uh their own independent commission and you know it outlines it sort of offers up a

structure but it also says if you if cities like San Francisco go want to adopt by 2029 I believe is the deadline

their own model they can do that within certain guidelines that are outlined

thank you yeah Lauren did you want to say something

I I wanted to point out especially for the benefit of folks who maybe this is their first uh conversation about redistricting in a

while that they're listening in on uh the uh ACLU of Northern California and

of Southern California uh Asian La caucus California common cause and League of Women Voters of California

which is the parent Organization for the League of Women Voters of San Francisco

um released a report um uh called the promise of fair maps and it's a wonderful to report to dive

into it examines the problems that happened across jurisdictions across the

state and looks for common reform Solutions particularly based off of best

practices from jurisdictions that had processes uh that went smoother at times

or overall it's a really great report and a great basis for a lot of the specific reforms

that came out in those assembly bills and for the record these were posted

um for our I believe February and March meeting so

you couldn't find that report in our agenda packet for those meetings

I'm wondering if anyone could talk to the amendments there were some amendments uh recently uh for it you

know for to get out of the assembly uh I noticed that there was an addition for

for example school districts um over 500 000 constituents I was

wondering if someone could comment on that was there an attempt to consolidate um AB 764 and ab1248

uh I'm not sure if there was a I don't think presented to consolidate them I think we're just trying to be mindful of

um you know the budgetary implications this would have and the implications of this would have on smaller jurisdictions

that maybe are less well staffed and maybe don't have the capacity to carry out every single one of the provisions in these bills and so you know we

obviously want to be thoughtful about what's realistic but make sure that this process is still done fairly adult

jurisdictions small and large so I I wasn't super super plugged into

the Amendments processes so I don't have too much Insight beyond that but

generally I think we were just trying to address those incidents

and commissioner Parker um I wonder if your question was addressed

I I said a lot of things so yeah I mean that I was wondering about

um the pro so I appreciate the the update that we just know that it's moving on to the Senate um

uh what else did I ask [Music] um I think I'm more just had a statement

you know just about like I am looking forward to the conversation with everybody about the the detailed

um pieces um within that actually there's actually one I don't know actually if these folks will be able to answer this but one of

the questions that come up for me when I was reading the memo that the city attorney's office provided for us about the implications of ab1248 passing on

San Francisco was that um the ethics commission would be the appointing body and so

um and I will admit that there are still some even finer reading that I need to do

um on some of this but that was interesting to me knowing that there are multiple options and so I just

I wondered if you all have some more detailed information about why that is the body that was that would be

happening automatically if we don't do anything differently in San Francisco

um to change our Charter before AB 1248 would pass and and force changes here

any comments it's okay if you don't know I just I'm curious about it I believe

uh seriously uh searching our documents in these very large bills for the

specific reference uh so that we can point you to the subsection

um I believe it is section 11 question 11

3006 uh section h uh so section H uh essentially just

lists options uh well it calls them um uh anyway it lists options in order of

priority uh for the bodies for uh selection uh they're the the language is

now selection rather than appointing um because of the reasons and um so the first one

that's listed is the local jurisdictions ethics commission if one exists

um so I you would have to ask the City attorney what they're using as their basis for their memo but that is uh the

section that they're referring to and where they would have gone that information the second choice is a

committee or commission with a holistic view of the local jurisdictions governance processes including but not

limited to an elections Commission so that's number two

um and so you know there are other choices on that list as well some of those might not work for San Francisco

because some of those are actually elected roles and offices um so the City attorney may have also

been looking at that but again I would recommend that you ask them about their memo

okay and actually that's something um uh I think it's perfect to get

community input on um because there's a multiple choice uh

that are acceptable you know vetting slash selection bodies and that's

something we would you know encourage our legislative Champions to to ask the public yeah who who is a trusted uh

selection Authority for San Francisco with our circumstances with you know who

we knew I believe one of the options was a grand jury as well uh a panel of retired judges as I recall

was another one so I think that's a perfect item that we would want public

input on like what would be best uh who would San franciscans Trust

to to you know really make a fair and

unbiased decision and choose qualified qualified task force

members on that so I wanted to again go ahead I was

going to say that's also something where the research that this body has done before of inviting speakers from other

jurisdictions might also come in handy to see what their experiences have been with um you know who is a trusted impartial

um decision maker you know person authority to select the people on the on

the redistricting Commission because that is sort of one of the central questions of this all is how do you

ensure its independence and who is kind of setting this whole commission up so right

yeah and again this is the big bone of contention for San Francisco and the

reason we will be swept up by state legislation is because we have a political appointing process and so that

uh according to the legislation says that we would have to we would have to

change it right and so the question is how

um so one of the big questions I had was uh and it looks like this was one of the

Amendments and I would love one of you guys to weigh in on this if

if you have knowledge of it uh one of the concerns I had before was it required

um random selection for um I think the all having at least one

representative from each district and the standard body is only supposed to have 14 members and because San

Francisco has so many districts since we have 11 districts that would only leave

you know wiggle room um for three you know other Commissioners at large Commissioners if

you want to call them um if there's a problem with representation

because the problem with Randomness is that it's random and so you may not you may end up with a

body that's not very representative so uh I would love

this panel to kind of weigh in on that what San Francisco should do

yeah Jen um has raised her hand in Russia I'd love to hear from both of

them are you thinking the same thing too uh

because um with the uh May 18th um Amendment to the bill they actually

have reduced or they've they fix the number of um the amount of

existing districts um that so in this election so when they

did around the selection they only select up to eight exit eight

um Commissioners and for eight existing districts so that means that

um afterwards the remainder will be selected by the eight but it will be

similar to the previous um Bill uh previous um like the previous how it was

previously written where um each each of the eight Commissioners cannot live in the same district as the

other so now it's kind of um what the May 18 Amendment that's reduced to eight or

it's six to eight because um not all uh cities have eight districts

um yeah we're lucky we have an abundance of districts uh so that that makes it much more

similar to the state process where ate a randomly supposedly randomly

selected from a highly vetted pool of applicants and then those eight select the final six is that correct

and the alternates as well and I sorry I just wanted to point out Russia is unable to turn on uh her video

um so she'll be raising her hand uh and it's gonna be a little harder for her to figure out when to talk okay well Russia

um you should feel free to talk as panelists you are all have the ability to talk at will so

go ahead Russia thank you I think the one thing that you guys may want to be thinking about for San Francisco

um is because the way the state law I saw I'm reading is that the proposed law

um is that it would have the Commissioners randomly selected based off of the council districts if there's

at all a concerned in our desire to want to de-emphasize current uh districts

there are other ways to consider where those individuals would be randomly selected from if you were to do

something outside of ab1248 so if the city went forward

um and did uh redistricting that wasn't Bound by 1248 you may have some more wiggle room to think about how you would

de-emphasize some of the political boundaries that are already in existence

um there are Regional planning areas you could use census hummus data there's

other geographies that may be more uh see that may better be representative or

may have a more representative sample of individuals that you'd want to use if you guys decided to do something that

wasn't Bound by 1248 um because 1248 as my readers would keep

you tied to current Council like boundaries that already

exists uh excellent point Thank you for pointing that out

uh I'm curious Gemma with your reflection on what happened in the last

redistricting task force process what um this kind of selection process

what are your Reflections on how how it might work so eight for 12 48 8 would be

randomly selected uh from up to eight

current supervisorial districts

um yes thank you um I I think this is a an important

question and I I think that this would bring us closer

to a truly independent body um I think the current process

does invite that that political influence that's unnecessary

um and I think Harms if not the actual work of the task force

but the perception of the work if that makes sense um and what I really do appreciate of

course is the existence of alternates something that was completely missing in

San Francisco um and I think it is crucial to have alternates because it is a long

difficult process and uh in the back of my mind I kept thinking what if somebody gets sick or decides to leave it creates

an even more challenging situation so I I think this hybrid approach of having

some uh number of of uh task force members randomly selected from a pool of

qualified applicants and then having them select the remainder I think would be an improvement

thank you um what about the default size of 14 task

force members anyone think that is

you know too big too small about right for a city the size of San Francisco is

14 enough to represent the diversity of San Francisco yeah I've been thinking about this one a

lot and talking to some folks and you know I think the number kind of comes

from what we want the number to do and how that we want the number to be formed

um there's a little cart before the horse there um but then there is the reality of

large bodies have trouble making decisions um and that's where having the number of

votes required can be very helpful so the 80 1248 has nine uh as the

requirement for votes um there are other redistricting models where they have different numbers of

votes for mapping votes versus operational votes um simply because sometimes it's hard to

get more than a simple majority on some some things um but the having more than just a

simple majority on mapping can be very helpful for encouraging task force members to find

more compromise so that it isn't one versus the other it's it's all of us

together um there there can be some uh benefits too if we if this might be a place for

some Community input um would it make sense to have one Task Force member per District

um does that help does that hurt is that is that are we giving ourselves the opportunity for diversity and

representation which has been a challenge on past task forces um so I think that you know those are

the things that would lead me to a number and my lead the elections commission to a number for its

recommendations or it might lead San franciscans the Board of Supervisors to your number we might have different numbers for a while but

um I think there's also you know the models that work in other cities it's challenging to find a comparison

since other cities and Counties have different numbers of districts um they have you know different amounts

of participation in their redistricting processes as well so um I think you know the what we really

need is a large applicant pool no matter what size body we wind up having

um having you know a dozen applicants is it's not great so we need we definitely

need to make sure that the size of the body and the diversity of the body and the ability to participate through

applicants encourages people to be really optimistic about applying um and to see it as an opportunity to

serve in something that can be a joy perhaps

perhaps yeah go ahead commissioner Liberty uh this is

commissioner volsi I I had a question because I as you were speaking I was thinking about that what are some of the

ways considering the process last time

um in your experience that could help educate the public on the importance

because I do think with a city like San Francisco I would be very concerned

um for small communities of Interest I would be very

concerned that perhaps people with certain

education would be more apt to be a part of this I wouldn't want to see a body

that has only phds and JD's those are great degrees however we have members of

the community who don't have those degrees and who have good Insight so I would love to hear ways that you think

we could get this interest to a broader group of of the

community in San Francisco wow I see lots of hands

um go ahead Chima do you want to open up first

ah thank you and that is an incredibly important uh question and observation

and certainly something that I saw and experienced in the last process I kept

thinking um that it is one of the few uh uh jobs lack of

a better term right that really does require a certain level of professional

flexibility the ability to take time off the ability to have uh the support of

where you work or a family or something right and that is I I think a huge

barrier I I think there are a lot of people in San Francisco who are very uh

uh politically engaged who have this Civic experience but who would be

completely unable to participate in this process and this connects to one of the

recommendations that has been made I I think by many people and that is establishing a process for stipends so

that folks who are participating in this process can participate fully in it

um and I think offering something that is fair um would increase the number of uh

people who would consider even applying uh for for this uh role right so I think

that's important um uh what's also important is making sure that there is a plan uh in place

around Outreach well before this uh process begins and that the word gets

out to all communities not just the vulnerable communities of interest but

all communities get uh uh notice months if not a year or two ahead so that they

can begin preparing their application right um and making sure that there is Clarity

I I think that was something that I um that I saw in the process uh last time

around um that a lot of people just did not have that ability to to participate in

fully thank you um Jen

uh hi yeah so you know totally agree with trema I mean the um the reason why

we didn't have so much Outreach time you know in the last process it's because it's baked in into the charter

um in the charter it states that um after the sunset it's kind of you know it's very linear after the census the um

the uh the department Department of Elections will decide whether there's a significant change in population that

merits a redistricting you know process and so it's kind of and so it was very

frustrating because we had you know because the census was late so because the census was late everything got bogged down everything got delayed and

it's kind of you know the issue like if you um if we had set up that you know

every year we all we always do redistricting by default you know if if we had you know deleted that into

Charter you know by default we would have to do redistricting ahead of what we did prior and um and the thing is so

it's really like you know I was trying to set a time I mean I think maybe someone might know this but I think in the Oakland redistricting process they

started back in 2019 in their search for uh their redistricting Commissioners and

so you know they definitely had like two years like two years ahead of us to even pick a commissioner yeah so I think it's

something yeah I think time is really important and having that time to really find our commissioners is important

that's all thank you thank you yeah I just want to Echo that and say time is

really really important in building in a tough time um both for the commission to do its

work you know and do the mapping and and the Outreach but also for that in terms of this election and that actually is

one of the uh I guess well the one of the concerns I do have with ab1248 is that uh it sort of sets this this

deadline if you will of 250 days before the the final map deadline for the

commission to be set up um you know and and that was decided on sort of as a compromise for smaller

jurisdictions that you know can finish up the process much more quickly but for a city is large and diverse and complex

in San Francisco you know 250 days is certainly not enough time um for the commission to do the actual

mapping and the actual Outreach and then of course the Recruitment and the vetting of applicants needs to take

place well well ahead of that so that is one of the things that the election commission should pay attention to is

giving itself enough time um to be set up for success and then I also absolutely

um second China's um important suggestion of having a stipend you know they're a real financial and time barriers that include

people from participating in this process even if they they want to and have interest um so I think that's absolutely

something that should be pursued okay we have a plus one on stipends I'm

curious um how much time uh you think San Francisco should

stipulate if that is an area we might deviate from ab1248 because remember

we're kind of looking at 12 48 as model legislation but how would we tweak it

you know to to really meet the needs of San Francisco and are

you know unusually diverse City so

what should be the um what should be the time that we should stipulate if we had a

choice of writing our own version of this yeah I I've been thinking about those seats and I talked a little bit about

this as well um you know Long Beach uh is a very good model

um you're you know they they are different but uh they have they had given themselves much more time

um and I still we're still picking

until um don't have a City attorney memo on the other assembly bill which might be

helpful to request um it's a long it's a long bill it's a

long bill but um to know what they think will apply to San Francisco but there is something in there about requiring an Outreach plan

um it's uh in section 21160 again I'm

not an expert on this legislation but it does require an Outreach plan prior to

March 1st 2031 which is well before the uh body would

be established um and before any Commissioners would be selected and so that's an Outreach plan

to educate the public about what redistricting is and also about the opportunity to apply

um and you know one of the things that Jen I think someone mentioned was the linear like the linearity of a lot of

things and the Order of things that come in so because our Charter kicks things off in a very different way

we start recruiting for applicants here the appointing bodies do before there's

a website for people to find out what redistricting is and you know as as

lovely as it was for the League of Women Voters website to be the only information about that redistricting

process for many months I believe that that was also part of the challenge not having those operational and

administrative resources that would come from Staffing the task force or that IRC

whatever we do wind up calling it before we start doing the application process so things like the website could be in

place so that there could be someone who could answer questions about the application process

um that could hold public hearings or town halls or whatever would need to be to reach out to communities and to even

help people apply if they were having technical difficulties a lot of those things starting those earlier those are

a budget issue but I think those will go a real long way to increasing the number of applicants as well

um and you know as for the stipend I think that's a great question for Community input how do we set an

equitable statement there are groups that can help us figure that out I don't think that most of the other committees

and bodies in San Francisco that receive a stipend are a great model I would characterize most of those stipends as

small uh so you know that's worth looking at

um and you know making sure that that really does create opportunities and Equity um and make it more possible for people

to participate um and you know I believe I think it was

the California commission there's also the question of per diem um which some of this may or may not

need to go in the charter um so that's something to also think about is what's a recommendation versus

what what do we need to write into the charter right yeah so um so I realized we got to a late

start unfortunately that just seems to be an ongoing challenge with hybrid meetings especially when there's no

support staff uh I just want to do a time check because I

know we had originally said that uh we would only keep our panel for an hour and we obviously have not had you for an

hour yet and I wanted to uh

I wanted to ask a question and then I wanted to see like how much more you're

willing to to give us tonight uh and the question is

how good or bad would it be if we were to remove all the charter

language uh and this is I'm going to give Jen say

full credit for raising this question a couple of months ago uh that instead of trying to develop our own

special Charter uh amendment that we simply eliminate

all language in the charter about the redistricting task force and

therefore allow us to fall under state law which already as we've discussed puts in many of the key best practices

recommendations that we've been talking about for a year it you know puts in the default

commission uh 14 with the eight randomly selected

and those eight selecting the six uh it would bake in the idea of those eight

being chosen by whatever the current supervisorial districts are so it

doesn't allow us to consider the option of other geographies that we might use uh so that

was a good point that Russia brought up um you know does require Outreach requires

a diverse applicant pool if you know it puts in like I said many of the other

reforms the basic reforms that there's no debate on

so how good or bad would it be if we just simply eliminated all the language in

the charter and allowed ourselves to fall under state law assuming if it passes if it

passes yeah assuming 1248 actually passes

anyone want to opine on that and I don't know if this is like a quick

thing or or you know something we can discuss in a few more minutes or if this

is going to take a lot more discussion Russia I'll open quickly I think if you're

thinking about the high level principles of redistricting and what we want to see in it's moving fair and independent and

transparent independent redistricting condition um 1248 gets the job done because it

really does hinge on those tried and true practices of what we've seen across

jurisdictions across the state and at the state level for an independent redistricting commission I think it

holds true to things of you know thinking about the composition of the

the commission you know registering criteria um

you know qualifications uh expertise communication bands

um those really high level principles that are normally for folks who are supportive of a truly independent

redistricting commission it takes those off and so if you are wanting to have a

a look at what is going to align with like some of those tried and true breast practices I think ab1248 doesn't

um but each jurisdiction has its own nuances as you've talked about earlier about San Francisco and so

you may not capture everything just because of those nuances but I would say

1248 will get you further than where you are today

it's an improvement okay thank you Jen your thoughts uh yeah well like after

you as you know as you mentioned commissioner die I always Advocate you for you know deletion but you know that

way by default we would be so you know we would you know be required to follow um everything in the uh in AB

849 the Fairmount stock back in 2019. you know we were as I mentioned in the

past we were we pretty much had to follow most of ab um 849 with the exception of um mapping

criteria which um the uh the city attorney's office has teamed up we have we have written enough

in our Charter that exempts us from the mapping criteria as stated in the framex

act and um you know regardless if uh AV 1248 passes or not we still have a 849

that we can follow [Music] okay

so uh in other words I just want to restate this to make sure we all understand uh

even if ab1248 does not pass by eliminating the language in the

charter about the redistrict task force we would still fall under the fair Maps Act of 2019.

okay good that's what I wanted some clarity on um any other like quick

um opiny uh based on what you've seen of 12 48 uh go ahead seats oh no go ahead

Lauren okay I'm sorry I missed my hands button uh so yeah I I see it's uh Jen

both know that I have been going through these assembly bills with a very fine tooth overthinking comb as I am want to

do and uh you know I keep trying to poke holes in it I keep trying to say why

would we need to do so much work of writing our own stuff if it's just going

to wind up being almost exactly the same as these assembly bills would gift Us gift us is really how I've started

thinking about it um you know this is you know not that San Francisco cannot do the work and

come up with a plan that works for us but I think there's there's so much really thoughtful research and best

practices and testing of a lot of these principles that have been done in other jurisdictions

um so I I do like it um you know there's if anything the only

things that I'm always like is earlier dates right these these assembly bills have a little time I'd like a lot more I

see that as a minimum I'm not sure I know it's mostly written as a as a you know at least or as a minimum I don't

think that we'd ever it's not the tendency of legislation to ever inspire

people to do more than the dates required uh so some of these dates

depending on if ab1248 passes some of these states kind of still land at a bad

time for San Francisco um you know we would uh have to establish uh whatever established means

we would have to establish our IRC uh I think it's by early July or early August

um and that's smack in the middle of when San Francisco government takes a break which is what happened last time

which is why we didn't have our first redistricting task force meeting until September even though the ordinance was

actually months before so you know anything we can do to to give more time for this process would would be the only

thing I would ever recommend at this point but you know we might find some more things if I keep going through with

that fine tooth comb we're counting on it Lauren she'd say what what do you what say you

I I agree I think it gets you you know 90 95 of the way there uh as Lauren and

others have said there you know there are certainly ways that you could improve upon it or tailor it more towards San Francisco

but you know this piece of legislation has been in the works for a year and a half two years at least and built on the

research of dozens of community organizations across the state and good government groups and non-profits who

have been involved in in drafting this and been involved in the consultation so I definitely think it is a really good

model um yeah I I I think it's a great option and it's

certainly um it may be one of the easier options for this this group to consider

right um so uh I would love to hear

chema's reaction if yeah this had been put in place instead any thoughts on

how things would have gone I I think that would have gone better right um I I

think as you well stated uh commissioner die at I think San Francisco was ahead

of the curve uh when we implemented the charter I think uh we are now behind and

there's a lot of uh um challenges that the current language

presents right uh and some of it is really fundamental like the ranking of

the criteria something that is really basic right um I I think that this goes a long way

of in addressing those it isn't perfect I I think you know in a perfect world we

can come up with our own tailored version specific to San Francisco but I don't think we ought to let what's the

term uh perfect be the enemy of the good I I think this uh brings us a long way and I I think it would be better for San

Francisco to have something like this than to stay with the current process

okay that sounds fairly definitive um I um

so I'm happy to hear of 95 I've been saying 90 so that that 95 sounds even better

um you know my thinking uh is that even if

1248 doesn't pass um and it may simply be that it doesn't

pass on the first try I want to remind people it took like you know 30 years to

get redistricted reform at the state level it's eventually passed um

uh something for our legislative Champions to consider to just use you know 12 48

as the as the model uh and maybe tweak a few things maybe be

more specific about you know defining what a reasonable stipend is for example or

um you know putting in a longer timeline uh things that you know

we know might be a little problematic um if there's a strong

sense that there's another geography or Regional um uh description we can use besides the

core of existing supervisorial districts is there something else that

you know maybe describe certain neighborhoods or parts of the city that

that might be better for San Francisco independent of whatever the supervisorial district currently is that

is more you know representative of certain parts

of the city yet I think there there's an argument that could be made for that

um but that that 1248 is for San Francisco

model legislation that is something that we we would agree is a good base and if

nothing else and we let ourselves just get swept up by it it would be fine is what I'm

hearing any any any commissioner wanna

challenge that a little bit and ask a specific question any specific concern

um this is commissioner Parker um I don't have a specific question but I feel I feel uncertain whether that

certainly it seems like a a reasonable option and um you know these these different

aspects that we've talked about where we've repeatedly heard that well we should ask the community about this and we should think about this so even if we

are 95 there the appointing authority you know the there's a few things that

feel like we should probably talk about a little more that feel significant enough to not just wholesale just Model

A B 12 40 48 to meet um and and I'll acknowledge that I'm you

know obviously our newest commissioner and so I'm still getting up to speed on all of this and so

um and feel like there's more I want to dig into and more conversations um that I would like to have before I

feel confident in suggesting that the commission um recommends that sort of wholesale you

know I would like I would like us to have at least one more meeting as a committee here and maybe invite some

other folks you know um maybe it's inviting again you know the past redistricting task force members to come

up and participate and share their points of view I think chema's points of views have been really great to hear and you know maybe there are some others who

might might be a little bit past the traumatic experience you know who might like to join us and if there are some

others who might also weigh in I those are just the areas that to me feel like I want to think about them a little more

and like and just also talk to a few more people to see what they think about that

um you know and and it may be also worth having some conversations with folks who are considering being our legislative

sponsors to where what do you think about these issues and is where how much

do you want to have worked out before you take it to community hearings because I think we have such a responsibility as a commission that

they're not going to spend tons of time completely reworking something that we suggest to them so you know that's what

I'd say you know and I I have for instance also meeting with the mayor's office tomorrow

um to talk about some of these things in here what they think about how this is moving so far see if they have

suggestions in other groups they'd like to see again with this idea like let's let's get a broad-based support to move

this all forward so um that's that's where I'm sitting right now thank you commissioner Parker can I

um get some clarification from the panel on the options for the selection

um agency uh as I've read it it seemed like it was

multiple choice like here are some options and you have to

have a commission that uses one of these um and I I heard uh one of you

maybe it was Jen I can't remember now said that that there was actually a rank ordering of choice maybe it was pizza

um could could you guys elaborate on that a bit more because I think if it's um

a multiple choice that you know that that's something like I

said we could definitely get community input on and and see who's like the the most trusted and you know would would

create the put a new uh task force on the best

footing uh to start with um but if it requires a certain precedence

then you know then I would agree that we might run a weigh in on it a bit more

because that's what it says right there yeah yeah I I this I think it was me uh

this is the part where I I recommend you go back and talk to the City attorney about their memo um their memo says

quote if the bill applies to San Francisco uh AB 1248 would require the Board of Supervisors to designate the

ethics commission as the selection entity uh that's the city attorney's

advice to the elections commission um they they did however issue their

memo before uh the Appropriations Committee for the assembly issued its

memo uh which uh may have had other information uh that

the City attorney would benefit from um it does say uh

uh order priority uh in that in the language of the bill

um what does order of priority mean legally that I am not a lawyer so I cannot advise you

yeah so um you know there there are other options there um do you have to go one two three four

five down the list can you skip down to five if you want to City attorney seems to think no

um so that's I think that's where that stands for for the elections commission until you talk with them

okay so it sounds like there's there's a question about the the selection agency

um it sounds like most people were okay with kind of the default structure

um 14 members eight randomly selected eight selecting the six I I will say that's a complete copy of what's done at

the state level so 14 Commissioners choose for the entire State of California and eight are randomly

selected and eight select the six so it's the same model there

um we got lots of thumbs up on a stipend with some questions on how you would

Define that I think that's something we would certainly I don't know that that would need to be

in the charter amendment I will say that you know that uh for the California CRC

it was stipulated as three hundred dollars per day uh with a inflation adjustment

knowing that you know it's a constitutional amendment they didn't want to lock it in Forever

so um so there's a question of whether you'd want to actually put an amount or

or Define it one of the former redistricting task force members had

opined that it should be that it should be a compensated position but it should be a modest stipend so if she used the

term modest so it could use language like that that could then be interpreted when it's it's

actually implemented um yeah just a one quick note on the statements uh the so Jen and I talked um

she is our advocacy chair so she knows this a bit better than I do but the league has uh some barriers to

supporting ballot measures that include specific dollar amounts uh as set asides

um so our our preference um and I it would be sad if we couldn't endorse a

charter Amendment we liked because of a number but our preference would be to include a mechanism

um or a formula or some sort of statement that allows for uh that to be

determined um there are you know there are lots of ways that that can be done

um and there may be models for that uh that the City attorney could advise on what exists for other committees how do

they determine it and then looking at uh other uh jurisdictions that do have

payment for their IRC So Long Beach for example their redistricting commission I

believe they made 200 per meeting um and then I this is again where you know I'm a little bit out of my depth

but uh we also would want to look at San Francisco's prohibition on Dual office holding

um and make sure that the language around that is correct um we did have someone who worked for SF government who

served on the redistricting task force and we wouldn't want to exclude everyone um who has a role already with the

government um so making sure that so that this stipend language allows for that usually a stipend would but we gotta check the

language yeah I'm not a lawyer but I play one after hours yes well I used to say that

all the time I'm not a longer able to play one on the internet so yeah so that is another

um question for you guys you know another way of asking the same question

is if we eliminated all the language uh referring to the registering task force

in the San Francisco Charter and that is the charter Amendment um

you know would your organization support that and I guess that is a way of saying

is it like mostly mostly good so better than it currently is

I'm seeing some nods um and Russia I can't see you nod so

maybe you can say something yeah I would say

[Music] we do we you know we stand behind 12 48

um as a really good catch-all of some of those best practices that you're looking

for okay so even for San Francisco even for San Francisco

even though we think we're very special all the jurisdictions are special and

that's that's why everyone comes over there and you love all your children too I you do exactly

okay great so um so again I want to do a time check

um out of respect for our panelists and also for my fellow Commissioners who thought this was going to be a one-hour

meeting and not that we're going to spend you know 20 minutes doing a normal technical difficulties

um it sounds like at least I heard from commissioner Parker that she would like to have at least one more meeting to

discuss this further um where are you on that I I would like to have more Community

input I'm I really want where I feel it is essential is the appointing authority

um because of what we experienced last redistricting uh commission I think

it'll be really important for us to make sure that we get community input on the

appointing authority so I think what we could do um I just want us to think about this is

recommend to the full commission that 1248 be used as model legislation and

identify certain areas of concern because one of the questions that the commission

was trying to consider was whether to send a letter to the Board of

Supervisors asking them to write a letter of support for 1248 and if you'll

recall commissioner jordanick asked would we make any any amendments right

so we just endorse it wholesale so one thing that we could take back to

the full commission is we like 12 48 you know here are some areas and we'd

like to learn more um and and make sure that this is

something that we could support right and here are the areas that we're

going to roll out that that we have some concerns about right

um but I I do think it would be important to hear from people and I

think that is something that you were saying commissioner Parker who don't see it as the model just to to make sure that we

have a balanced perspective so that so the talent challenge we have

is the commission already made clear that we don't have the capacity to run public input hearings and that is

something that we would like our legislative Champions right so uh so in

terms of additional meetings for this committee um

basically I want to know if we are ready to to make a recommendation about 12 48

with caveats right or if we want to have another

session possibly with our panelists possibly with other invited guests

um to hash out a few more issues before we can make that vote

and with the Proviso of course that you two are up for that knowing that I will be out for most of you

I would prefer to have another meeting just to let you know I know that we that is definitely something we talked about on the commission we don't have capacity

to run a bunch of hearings but you know we're a committee that is I

don't it feels appropriate to have more than one meeting you know to just continue being able to get into depth

about this to talk about that specific question I think we all have you know some concerns around that especially the way that City attorney has interpreted

it um it'd be nice to have a chance to maybe even um consult with the city attorney before we have our next meeting to try to get a

little more specificity on why that was their interpretation and if it's changed at all with the Amendments

um and other things as the panelists have recommended and just give you know another opportunity for people to to

come in and make some suggestions and again you know as I did suggest if we wanted to invite anybody else to have a little more time than just a typical

three-minute public comment you know might be nice and if they don't want to that's okay you know if that's fine if

people want to just do public comment but I think offering an opportunity for a few more voices I would feel more comfortable before making a full

recommendation to the commission by having at least one more meeting and allowing a little bit more of that okay

I agree all right so so we can defer action until we've had another meeting

but I think we've had really good input tonight um are there any more specific questions

we have or for our panelists tonight not for me tonight I really appreciate

it's been it's great to hear all of your input and obviously you have all spent a lot of time you know on these issues so

I appreciate it okay thank you great thank you to our panel

um so um at this point I am going to

open it up to public comment um

I'd just like to remind everyone that this committee has a very limited scope and the commission as a whole

has decided that the Board of Supervisors is better resourced to run full public a

full public input process once there is specific legislation that is drafted so

there will be ample opportunity for you to share your thoughts during those hearings if you have already submitted a

written comment we heard you it's become part of tonight's meeting record

um having said that we welcome any additional reactions to the discussion

that we just had um three minutes for anyone

friends if there's anyone in the room first

yes yes go ahead

3a. Public Comment

you know I'm reading this uh document the San Francisco Election Commission redistricting uh

initiative and paragraph four uh on page one uh you know the Mandate for for you

all is to ensure a free Fair functional the election Administration okay that's

a very reasonable goal um and you're going to introduce

redistricting initiatives to offer a public forum for Education dialogue soliciting strategic recommendations but

again uh that's fantastic but things start to go a little sideways in this document for me

quite frankly and when you look at page four

at the top of page four to achieve our goal of a charter

Amendment and redistricting reforms you know the public is really interested in

reform okay we need reform uh around this process but I really think that it's beyond the

scope of what you all do here to say that your goal as a charter ribbon legislation happens uh in the

legislative chamber not here in this unelected Commission further here

you say we recommend targeting the March 2024 presidential primary election

you're targeting primary election date for legislation

it's it's way out of your scope to be doing that this uh

this reminds me of a Consulting report is what we have here do you hear what

you're doing you're targeting a particular date for the legislation that's how we're feeling okay that's how

the public is viewings now turning to the next page on page

five when the expertise of this channel we hope to ask the debt

we hope to expedite this phase you're going to expedite why do we need

expediting think about it we've got until 2032 and

you want to expedite not only are you targeting 2024 March of

2024 10 muscle now for charity but you want to expedite this process I

think you really need to explain to the public why you need to expedite anything with this much time

you talk about legislative champions and what you're doing to push things

through with the Board of Supervisors again I think you need to present your

findings a lot of great findings okay you've had a lot of meetings and a lot of good input

present those thank you sir yes thank you thank you

um is there anyone else who has a public comment in the room

yes sir

okay two minutes or three three you have three whole minutes three minutes okay my name is Forrest uh so I'm a stop

Asian can you hear me yes we can use I'm a stop HP activist

um and I joined the reticity meetings because of like shocking anti-asian

sentiment uh that I was witnessing um for example a 70 year old Asian rap

I may call the comment that said that she gained weight of the 20 years to see forla invis Valley come together again

right this one specific dish the things she wanted she was laughed at making fun of for speaking Chinese

um and so I say all this because like I'm the first McDonald's like there'll be

District process is definitely means some some change it's not perfect but

yeah commissioner died you remember that the agent Community writing um or at least you'll say that publicly

and you can't remember this moment the amazement history when uh Arnold Townsend chair of Liberty District in

task force recent about the island at the Asian Community to give up on this one year dream and keep you portal and

debating in the name of black nation solidarity the name of you know coming together

I'm sure you remember this right so you can empathize with how it feels to look

a 70 year old Asian grandma and I and tell her thank

you for thinking about today we have six hours to make all the times you now have to wait 10 more years until

this Valley and Portland come together right but if you don't know anything about

that you could have invited reducing task force Tara count them to

this meeting right born and raised in the Portola San Francisco native casually could have

invited him set up this perspective right he just found out about the existence of this committee yesterday I

was on the phone with him he was shot um in case we'll put a weight in not be

Distributing through the weight in on the Asians being released in the portal on your community

were they invited I have a hard time honestly commissioner died I have a hard time

feeling comfortable with you representing me my community

on the elections position because I mean the the flavor disregard for

process that I remember he was spearheading the 11th Hour attempt to remove three sitting

redistricting task force members who were appointed for due process halfway

through their assignment when it was made apparent on the commission that there were no grounds for removal you

continue to try and go your fellow commissioners to support you with no regard for

profits this caused one of the Commissioners that's out with you to resign

you tried to remove a senior and respected staff member of the elections

commission thank you sir the only crime of being a being a standard straight white man

thank you sir it's been three minutes thank you for your comments

all right is there anyone else who would like to give public comment

oh no

Josephine I'm a community leader of the Chinese speaking Chinese immigrant and

Chinese American uh I admit that I haven't been

actions and to your commissions work and I should have because we have been

sitting from president uh API especially at the school district the smus team

here in advisory Council have issued um racially

charged letters to reject applicants in the Chinese system we think that there are too many Chinese and there are too

many West Side parents so that's what we have been saying and we are working on we can't be here does not mean that we

don't want you know and I know that there are so many terms that we throw around today that you know we have no

idea they need 1228 187 49 84 14 8 49

things like that so I would love to encourage you that

when you are talking about the Nichi British House of how to acquire how it seeds what is the model one of these

things it'll be great to inform us to get bring us along to be inclusive don't

be like those problems that like Zoom us out but you have the responsibility to bring us along we are part of the

community we can have the issue figure out here with your permission or we can play it out again Big World when things

happen in a district in about 10 years from now uh I mean like it would be

pretty that together also and we can get to know your issues and we can figure

out of course none of the important process is perfect you know somebody's

still not going to be happy even with certain things how this play out neither side was happy but there was a good

process that people like really have the chance to talk through things through and I would love to have this same you

know Outreach to be done in the community when people are not at the table does not mean that we don't want

to participate I would love for me to be more inclusive and and don't they spoon

us I'm not to be part of the conversation thank you so much thank you thank you for your comments

are there any other folks in the room

okay let me just check and see if there's anyone online who would like to

make a comment I

I do not see any hands

4. Agenda items for future meetings

okay so with that I will go ahead and close

um item number three for this meeting

and let's move on to item number four agenda items for future meetings so it

sounds like we definitely want to have another meeting um and I am open to suggestions on

what those topics should be if there are particular panelists you would like to

see thoughts

I don't know did you like commissioner will see it didn't look like I couldn't tell if you're about to start speaking um I wonder if um you know we have this

um the summary you know of recommendations I wonder if it's worth pulling out you

know specifically the ones that are a little bit more uh nuanced and controversial and and agenda is those

specific items and invite the public you know as maybe individual agenda items to allow people to give comment on each one

um could be an idea um as far as folks to invite to speak

you know I think it'd be fine to have our panelists you know again to be able to speak more maybe they they can also

speak with others out in the community um I know I will do some Outreach too

um and maybe we could reach back out to those the most immediate redistricting task force members and invite if any of

them would like to join to add their experience to this especially as they've had time to reflect a little more you

know see if they want to um I'm not sure who else I would love to have other suggestions from the public

of people to have joined I'm not really sure I would like to I would definitely like to hear from as many members of the

last redistricting task force as possible and I do think it would be huvas to have as you said

got some elements from this summary and allow the public and give the public

time to actually comment on it because I think that's that's what's going to be most important

moving forward I I I personally don't think we need to hear from another panel

of experts at this point I think at this point it's going to be crucial to hear

from the public and give the public opportunity to make suggestions talk about

what appointing authority they think would be most suitable because that's

where the trust is going to come and so I personally would would like to

give ourselves a little bit of time to kind of think about having a few agenda

items not a long meeting because people are busy people um you know are

parents schools ending I think we need to think about all those things but I think we need to open it up to the

public comment I'm I personally don't feel I need anymore um expert testimony or comment

okay so um I guess my concern I think it's

fine to have a comment at the next meeting I um the concern that we originally had

with the commission running a public common public input process is that our

ability to do Outreach and and really have it be any any you know no you're

right it's I think it's I think it's problematic I I personally would feel more comfortable sticking with what the

full commission said which is letting our legislative Champions Run a much more comprehensive Outreach to get

public input um and for us to be able to recommend

you know hopefully in when we're meeting you know uh what are what our statement

is on ab1248 as model legislation uh you know if you were to eliminate uh

redistricting language and call out a few areas that we have questions about right that

we believe there will need to be public input I think it's fine for us to no

that's not not have an opinion yet right um because for example those those I

think there were five options for the for the vetting Authority the selection Authority

I think it's fine to say we we don't have an opinion on it and something that

the Board of Supervisors should seek to refine through public input but

I think the point is that any one of those five is better than the current process right

um thank you commissioner die for managing my expectations

uh I am busy we are all busy and you're

correct I think at this point if there's another meeting I guess I

know that you're going to be away I guess commissioner Parker and I we need to figure out what we want that to be

and if it's not um public comment then what would be the

focus and I'm open um but I I I can just speak for myself that I'm

I'm not ready to pull the trigger in the sense of moving forward with the legislative with the proposal but I am

ready to pull the trigger to what we can recommend to the full commission and I

think putting this on the agenda item for our next commission meeting which is coming up fairly soon

would probably be a better idea and then if there's a desire for a next

meeting schedule it after that what do you think commissioner Parker um just I want to make sure your

understanding so you're suggesting having another committee meeting after the next commission meeting if we want

to have another meeting I I don't think we should have one before the next commission meeting in my opinion

um that's that's fine with me I think we should have another committee meeting just because we can get more into Nuance because there's other items that are on

our commission agenda and that's why we formed a committee that's right okay so um I do think that we should have another meeting

um and if that means that we have uh a commission meeting to bring kind of a

report back you know just a status update on how this went today and then have another committee meeting after that and then come back with a

recommendation after that we can do that you know that's that's fine with me and that maybe allows for it not to be quite so compressed gives us a chance to get

some um further specifics from the city attorney's office about our question right um that's what I was suggesting I

was I was definitely suggesting another meeting but for us as a committee to meet after our next full commission

meeting so just to clarify that would mean we would have nothing to report at

the next Commission meeting I think it would be just a simple report you know a report of

the suggestions the questions we came up with and comment from the public I think it would

be important to just to stress what we've what we heard here you'll probably

be a short update and but it would give a chance both for our fellow Commissioners to hear you know kind of

what the general sentiment has been around this and what those kind of hot button issues are that we want to work out so that they know that

um it also you know as we do it because always with our commission there's a

There's an opportunity for the public to also give comment there you know as on the committee report section

um so and then we could schedule afterwards just so they're not so compressed and I know you'll be out of town and you probably prefer to be part

of the next committee meeting well I do so but I asked you guys to carry forward I mean I guess one question I would have

for you is does it make sense for for you guys to hold another committee

meeting possibly with an explicit invite again to the former 2021-22

redistricting task force members inviting them to comment on 1248

in particular um and and any of the other summary items that we've had

um I do want to stress that that's been an open invitation the whole time but we

can we can make it a special effort and make another invitation if it's not accepted then that's fine that's fine

but yeah just doing another invite now that it's kind of moving it's getting closer to some action right

um I think it would be great to invite the rest of the task force members um so whether that is before our next

commission meeting or after doesn't really matter to me but um we want to give them if we want them

to actually respond to what do you think about the recommendations in 1240 it would probably give them a little bit of time to review that and be able to right

give some feedback so I don't know if a week is enough time that's fair right yeah I just respect their time

just thinking about my schedule because school is ending um that I've got graduation and

okay so yeah that sounds that sounds like something quite specific falling

short of trying to do a public input process that we've had right Billy do you demanded right now have no ability

to do thank you I would hate for it to be thank you for the reminder I have like a couple of loud voices really

scale us right right I I the Board of Supervisors has full-time staff and they

can do real Outreach and right um make sure the public is informed so that everyone's included and everyone

can come and and and give their input um all right uh let me open this up to

public input um for items for future meetings and I

see that we already uh have someone in the room Josephine would you go ahead

of all these terminologies that you have been involved first over here and I really appreciate you know your

generosity of the time and your energy that really wanted to make a difference

thank you very much any other commenters in the room

okay uh online um I see we have

gen say from the League of Women Voters San Francisco go ahead hi um I also want to bring up that um I

think earlier Lauren mentioned about possibly um getting a memo analysis about AB 764

from the city attorney's office so maybe considering um since we're asking the

previous task force members to read up on uh ab1248 it might be

um you know uh worth it to also how give them the memo for ab 764 as well

thank you thank you we will make that request uh

is there someone else who would like to make a public comment online

looking for hands I do not see any other hands

so I'm going to close item number four and uh

we are adjourned only 51 minutes late um I uh

we're going to have to coordinate offline on a possible meeting time so we'll go ahead and do that Logistics

exercise and we will of course post a future meeting on our website

uh at least 72 hours in advance as is required by the sunshine ordinance and

again I want to encourage members of the public who are just joining us to go ahead and look at all the packet items

which has the description of the bills and everything as well as very

informational videos from past meetings for the past year unfortunately it's on

the archived elections commission website so you have to go away to the bottom of our new website click on the

archive website and then you can go back and look at past meetings and just a

little tip our video recordings are on YouTube and you can right click and go to the specific agenda item which is

very helpful because we've had some very long meetings so if you know if you look at the agenda and see where the

redistricting initiative was you can just right click and select go to agenda item 8 and then you can skip the hours

of Preamble of stuff that you're not interested in okay with that I will

officially adjourn the meeting and time is 8 52. thank you all for participating

and we will see you at our next meeting I think