Here's the back and forth on procedure. Given the likelihood that my suggestions will not prevail and that any substantial alterations to the original draft plan will face an uphill battle
1. because of the chair's proposed insistence on a formal amendment process without recourse to the informality of a public Committee of the Whole procedure; and 2. because the extremely brief time between the end of the public hearing Thursday evening and the commencement of the decision meeting at noon the next day suggests faint interest in opinions brought to the Commission the night before; My intention is to move and to vote for the NAACP draft plan as currently configured. I could have been more flexible were there provision for flexibility, but it seems power, not dialogue, is the agenda at hand. I agree with Matthea Little Smith that new market-rate construction planned for the Loring Park area when coupled with the Kenwood area and the North Loop gold coast will be an accumulation of wealth in one ward - as configured in the published draft plan - that will take a generation to diffuse if then. I agree with list member Shawn Lewis who does "not support the current redistricting plan because the newly created Ward 5 residents are too isolated from downtown's wealth. [Shawn continues] I find it interesting that areas like Warehouse District/North Loop, which will be no longer in Ward 5 but now into Ward 7, benefited the most from governmental economic revitalization, but are no longer part of the Ward 5 as currently proposed by the redistricting commission. Why did the redistricting commission make this change? Who will benefit? Who will lose? Does this change truly create "minority opportunity" when economic wealth will be removed?" [end Shawn Lewis quote] You may well ask, dear reader, "Qui bono?" from the plan proposed by DFL Commissioners Stafford, Pettiford, and Claypatch and Independence Party Commissioners Collier and Ferrara. I see numerous neighborhoods split between wards for the benefit of incumbents, pure and simple. I see an enactment process meant to cripple opposition to this arrangement. Here is the Commission Chair's proposal for process: April 5, 2002 To: Commissioners From: Parker Trostel Re: Amending and Audience Participation. 1. I would like to discuss the amending process at our Monday, April 8, meeting, after we deal with the Park District guidelines. On Friday, Aapril 12, there may be several people wanting to make one or more amendments to the proposed plan. The Commissioners might think that some of those changes are not substantive and do not materially alter the maps or tables. This will not be true of all of those changes; some will be substantial and substantive. At first, I thought we could draw a distinction between the substantive and non-substantive with a number - 100 people plus or minus - or with a percentage - .4% or 1%. However, the more I think this through and the more I talk to others, Commissioners and staff, the more I think that you will have to come in with a full blown map and table for each change. And the motion will be a substitution, not an amendment to the proposed plan. If there are a group of non-controversial changes, what some might call "technical" changes, for instance, ones to meet problems with the legislative boundaries, then I think that all of those should come in on one map and its accompanying table. The proposers should make a motion to substitute this map and table for the tentative map now in play. The problem with this approach is that one person's technical change is another's substantive change. So, you will have to talk with each other to make sure that this non-controversial substitution is really non-controversial. A significant reason that I think that each new proposal should have a map and table is that these will be needed to dertermine if the charter, statutory and case law rules are being followed. Using this method we could have a whole series of substitution maps and tables to prepare before next Friday which would mean a lot of work from now until next Friday. On the other hand, that is exactly what should happen. We should have our ducks in a row by next Friday. On Friday we should have a plan which at least five Commissioners, hopefully more and not including the Chair, can support. The bottom line here is that I recommend that any change to the tentaive plan be made in the form of a new map and table which any one Commissioner can move as a substitute and get a second. 2. I do not intend to take any comment from the audience at the Monday, April 8, or Friday, April 12, meetings. We made an exception at the Tuesday, April 2, meeting. .SEND INTERNET [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]! MRC! A A *** End of original note *** I (Commissioner Markus) replied: I see by the draft agenda for Monday, April 8, that there is no recognition of my letter to you today (hand-delivered this morning to Dani Connors-Smith at 10:00 am, who said she would promptly fax the request to Attorney Norton) asking "City Attorney Norton to clarify for us on April 8,2002 what freedoms of action we will have with reference to altering the draft plan we have put up for public hearing on April 11, 2002 when we meet on April 12, 2002 to conclude our process. Commissioner Todd Ferrara shares my interest in this clarification." Please add this request to the City Attorney to the draft agenda for Monday's meeting. My personal understanding until instructed to the contrary by the City Attorney - or rulings from the Chair under Roberts Rules - is that the draft plan presented on hearing is just that - not a draft document that excludes any other draft document or draft language offered for inclusion in or as substitution for any or all of the language in that original draft document. Concerning Process: May I also suggest that Maptitude for Redistricting permits a given iteration to be created instantly and that derivative tables are also instantly available. If this capacity is used "live", any iteration can routinely be saved as a map and will be a complete map and any derivative tables will be complete tables. Thus moving one block from one proposed ward to another generates a new complete map. One can print hard copies of this new map and its derivative tables or one can simply save this new iteration as one proceeds through as many iterations as are needful. Grouping changes in a given iteration is also routine - one moves a series of changes as a group and then saves (and identifies) the new iteration. One can print hard copies at any point but the redistricting software is designed to permit instant revision and retention digitally. I urge our understanding and use of this convenient capacity via our contract GIS technicians who can each separately keep track of what's being done via their laptops with one laptop being used to send a projected image to a large screen so all of us can see what's going on and the other creating an independent duplicate record in the event anything goes awry on the primary machine. I ran all this past Brian Shekleton, who suggests that Todd Bleese would be the better qualified to operate the primary machine but had no other qualms about the methodology I'm suggesting here. One or more Commissioners can easily further accustom themselves to the digital process by meeting with the GIS technicians in interim at the TriTech building or elsewhere and the need for many paper maps may be obviated. Having proposed changes prepared in advance as formal amendments is certainly possible but we will have been inundated in testimony just hours earlier which will no doubt suggest changes to the draft plan. I suggest considering resolving into a Committee of the Whole on April 12 in order to evaluate these possible revisions informally through the "live" use of the technology before making formal motions. One Commissioner then replied: I think Parker's suggestion makes sense, Fred. All she's asking for is that you work with the techs on Maptitude ahead of time. They can save the maps, just as you suggested, but it would save time to have that done ahead of time rather than to take up the Commissions time while each person works with the tech. Frankly, I don't plan to bring my jammies on April 12 and I think we would have to if we don't do this ahead of time. And Commissioner Stafford chimed in: I think that Parker has proposed a reasonable process for Friday's meeting after the Public Hearing. I would suggest that commissioners having amendments to the proposed plan consider contacting the commissioners that made of the 5-3 vote for the tentative plan and see if their planned amendments would gather enough votes to change the tentative plan. That is what I am going to do. As I stated at our last meeting I could not vote for final adoption of the Tentative Plan unless substantive changes were made in the 8th Ward and some changes were made in the 11th Ward--which then affects the drawing of the 9th Ward. On Saturday morning, Scott Benson and I are going to meet with Commissioner Schwarzkopf to see if a concensus can be reached on Ward 11 lines. I have also talked with several neighborhood leaders in the Phillips community about their views regarding splitting Phillips. (I should note that CM Zimmerman on the Mpls Issues List stated that he saw no problem with splitting neighborhoods, even his own!) Commissioner Finch and I have traded phone calls and my hope is that we can connect and talk about commonality and differences to the Tentative Plan. I also know that CM Benson is trying to arrange a meeting with CM Zimmerman in regard to possible divisions of the Phillips communities. I would hope that if Commissioners CAN NOT work out concensus changes (majority of five commissioners) that they would like, they should have amendments prepared with maps detailing the change prepared in advance of Friday's meeting. But, I would hope that any Commissioner would consider strongly whether they can possibly get four or five votes for their amendment before they present it at the meeting. I will be asking the five commissioners that supported the Tentative Plan to prepare a technical corrections amendment to the Plan--i.e., where legislative district boundaries in relation to the proposed ward lines would create precincts with less than 200 or so population; areas like in Cooper where it was the majority's intent that Lake Street be the border between Ward 2 and Ward 12; and the census block issues where line were intended to be drawn straight across in certain areas. It is my hope that all Commissioners would support these changes first before we consider any amendments or a full substitution of another plan. I have finally come to the realization that it may be impossible to get a unanimous vote on any Final Plan. In fact, a plan may be adopted by a 5-3 vote. But, I think unnecessary posturing by virtue of numerous amendments not agreed upon before Friday's meeting would be truly unproductive. Rick Stafford And I (Commissioner Markus) sent one last message around the Commission circuit earlier this morning: > Checking with council members rather than preparing to respond to > testimony from the public certainly signals firmness of intent. > Alleging a profusion of amendments is hyperbole. Requiring all > amendments to be drafted in advance chills debate and denies the > benefit of many thousands of dollars put in place for the purpose of > facilitating open exchanges of views. > > I can't in good conscience agree to anything until I've heard the > public's response to the draft plan as presented by Commissioners > Pettiford, Ferrara, Stafford, Claypatch, and Collier and if these five > are intransigent there'll be no joy in Mudville. The heart of an > increasingly diverse city will have been delivered up for the sake of > a few personal conveniences. My little bit of hyperbole while I'm > still in my jammies this Saturday morning. This message, BTW, is not "agreeing to anything", it is a statement of intent. I have my bib overalls on so I mean business! Fred Markus, Horn Terrace, Ward Ten, Redistricting Commissioner _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
