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