FIERCE Committee (Elections Commission) Meeting

Tuesday, September 5, 2023

In this page:


    PLEASE NOTE: This is a continuation of the August 24, 2023 meeting.

    VIDEO and transcription of the September 5, 2023 meeting is attached below.


    1. Call to Order & Roll Call

      A member of the Commission will state the following (from the Commission's October 19, 2022 Land Acknowledgment resolution):

      The San Francisco Elections Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.  As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.  As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.  We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the Ramaytush Community and affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

      The Chair has excused the Director of Elections from attending today’s meeting, which is permitted by Article VI of the Commission’s Bylaws.


    2. General public comment

      Public comment on any issue within FIERCE’s general jurisdiction that is not covered by another item on this agenda.

    3. Meeting Minutes - Approved

      Final/approved meeting minutes


    4. Agenda Items for Future Meetings

      Discussion and possible action regarding items for future agendas.

    5. Adjournment

    Date & Time

    Tuesday, September 5, 2023
    6:00 pm to 9:00 pm

    City Hall Room 416

    1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
    San Francisco, CA 94102
    View location on google maps


    To access the meeting by telephone, call: 1-415-655-0001

    To access the meeting using the WebEx application, use the following link:

    Event number / access code: 2662 210 0419
    Webinar password: FairDistricts (32473478 from video systems)

    Join the meeting


    Access code: 2489 943 7914

    FIERCE September 5, 2023 Meeting

    In this video

    Order of Business

    1. Call to Order & Roll Call - 6:06PM / 0:23

    2. General Public Comments - 4:37

    3. Previous Meeting Minutes not part of this agenda; this meeting is a continuation of the August 24, 2023 agenda and a combined meeting minutes will be created and added for review and approval at a future meeting.

    4. Redistricting Initiative • Proposed Reforms for Fair and Effective Independent Redistricting presentation - 15:01

    5. Agenda items for future meetings - 2:49.54

    6. Adjournment @ 8:58 PM /



    welcome everyone to the September 5th 2023 meeting of the San Francisco

    elections commission Fair independent effect and effective redistricting for

    Community engagement or Fierce committee meeting I am the chair Cynthia dye the time is now 606 and I call the

    meeting to order before we proceed further I want to briefly explain some procedures for

    participating in today's meeting the minutes of this meeting will reflect that this meeting is being held in

    person at City Hall Room 416 1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Place San Francisco

    California 94102 and remotely via WebEx as

    authorized by the elections commission May 17 2023 vote members of the public May attend the meeting to observe and

    provide public comment either at the physical meeting location or remotely details and instructions for

    participating remotely are listed on the commission's website and on today's meeting agenda public comment will be

    available on each item on the on this agenda each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak six

    minutes if you are on the line with an interpreter when providing public comment you are encouraged to state your

    name clearly once your three minutes have expired staff will thank you and you will be muted please direct any of

    your comments to the full body and refrain from directing them at individual Commissioners while providing

    public comment while providing public comment remotely please ensure you are in a quiet

    location when joining by phone you will hear a beep when you are connected to the meeting you will automatically be

    muted and in listening mode only to make public comment dial Star 3 to raise your

    hand when your item of Interest comes up you will be added to the public comment line you will hear you have raised your

    hand to ask a question please wait until the host calls on you the line will be silent as you wait your turn to speak if

    at any time you change your mind and wish to withdraw yourself from the public comment line press star 3 again

    you will hear the system say you have lowered your hand when joining by WebEx or a web browser make sure the

    participant side panel is showing by clicking on the participants icon at the bottom of the list of attendees is a

    small button or icon that looks like a hand press the hand icon to raise your hand you will be unmuted when it is time

    for you to comment when you're done with your comment click the hand icon again till over your hand

    in addition to participating in real time instrument interested persons are encouraged to participate in this

    meeting by submitting public comment in writing by 12 pm on the day of the meeting to elections.commission at it will be shared with the commission after this meeting has concluded and

    will be included as part of the official meeting file thank you

    all right we're going to do roll call Commissioners please verbally State Your Presence at today's meeting after your

    name is called I am the chair die and I am president commissioner lavolsi present

    commissioner Parker president with three members present and accounted for

    this Fierce committee meeting we are ready to proceed

    and with that let us go to um

    the land acknowledgment if you will permission yes thank you chair die

    the San Francisco elections commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral home land of the Rama to

    shaloni who are the original inhabitants of this excuse me inhabitants of the San

    Francisco Peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their Traditions the Rama to

    shaloni have never seated lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as Tech caretakers of this place as well as for

    All Peoples who reside in their traditional territories as guests we

    recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional Homeland we wish to pay our respects by

    acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramataj community and affirming their Sovereign rights as

    first people thank you commissioner levolsi all right

    um we are going to move on to item number two general public comment public

    comment on any issue within fierce's General jurisdiction that is not covered by another item on this agenda

    hello awesome

    thank you commissioner Parker

    I'll sit here no yeah perfect uh good evening Eleanor Odell

    um this weekend there was an article pointed in this standard by Annie GAO and it referenced this last meeting here

    and I'll just read a little briefly she said that um uh the controller's office and the

    Department of Elections were both mentioned as possible selection and vetting authorities

    but one commissioner added that the elections commission then

    ruled itself out because of a lot as she puts it any guy on the standards a lack

    of public confidence and that's the reason why this commission decided to rule out the possibility of having the

    elections commission as a vetting Authority or a selection Authority and I

    thought to myself what what could have led to such a lack of confidence in this

    commission and in the Department of Elections that could result in this commission

    believing that it didn't have the confidence of the public

    can you imagine a department of the city not having enough confidence in the public to be politically neutral it

    should be the elections commission for sure but then I went back to April 6. and it

    was 19 or 2022 April 6 and there was a commissioner at the time I don't know

    who it was but I was listening to the tape and it was the meeting where you

    all were considering whether to bring in the redistricting task force members uh to a committed to a commission

    meeting the first question what is our and I'm quoting him directly by the way what is our Authority for taking this

    action number two is there a failure of due process here if so that would require a

    legal remedy but I suppose it could also be a political remedy if it's a political

    problem if so and if it is a

    failure of due process that would be a legal remedy and any political remedy wouldn't

    this wouldn't be the place to handle a political remedy okay is what he said on April 6 of 22.

    number three if this Commission does choose to take the action of replacement what will the process be

    that's required and he wanted some comment after that to

    say is this commission doing the right thing by substituting our judgment for their

    judgment do we replace them in a way that's legitimate

    and does that make things worse okay this is what this commissioner said number four the charter says the

    deadline is April 15th just because there's a no civil or criminal penalty imposed for not meeting that

    type this up thank you for your comment thank you let's see if there are any

    any commenters online

    I say hand raised yes uh you are a muted

    hey good evening uh thanks for continuing this important process oh

    sorry uh sorry so um I'm John say with the League of Women Voters San Francisco I want to say thanks for continuing this

    important process to support much needed redistricting reform assignment consistent reserved Fair

    elections and the foundation of fair elections is an independent redistricting process that prioritize

    the needs of our communities not the needs of elected officials the league looks forward to hearing your discussion

    tonight and is available if you need any assistance finding information on Independent redistricting best practices

    thank you I think you must say

    all right

    seeing no more hands um I'm going to move on to item three actually we're going to skip

    past item three because it was uh we're going to go ahead and treat this

    as a continuation of the last meeting and do one set of minutes which of course means I'm volunteering

    for that so so you guys are off the hook uh moving

    on to the main event um uh

    welcome back everyone from what I hope was a somewhat restful holiday weekend uh

    I I know this has been um it's a difficult day for all three of us and I'm impressed that we all made it

    right after holiday weekend so I want to thank you guys for agreeing to that uh

    as I mentioned this meeting is a continuation of the August 24th meeting agenda where we didn't quite finish

    discussing the key reforms under consideration to improve our local redistricting process we got about

    halfway through and we intend to power through the rest of it tonight uh to distinguish between the ones which we

    largely agree on and those that might require more discussion members of the public can refer to the final attachment

    for this agenda item we will also be sharing uh this deck on WebEx for

    um for those to see but before you launch into that I did want to draw your attention to Sunday's

    New York Times article on the gerrymandering scandal in Los Angeles uh

    our guest speaker from a couple meetings ago Dr Sarah sadwani was quoted in it

    and um you know for me I think it really highlighted the problems with political

    appointees where city council members were appointing bigger guns reappointing

    their guns to square off against other appointees uh only to entirely ignore Community

    input in the end and and the advisory commission's recommendations

    um I also wanted to update everyone on the status of pending legislation

    ab1248 and ab 764 the update to the fair Maps Act both have passed out of Senate

    committees and are now on the senate floor um I will admit I only was able to kind

    of glance at it before today's meeting they got out of committee on on September 1st so I didn't have a lot of

    time to look at it but there is one significant amendment that I wanted to highlight in ab1248

    which I thought I wanted to make sure everyone on the committee was aware of

    and that is with regard to the selection body so it looks like it has been amended to

    allow for more options so remember before there was like a precedence of

    selection bodies that we would have to consider and the City attorney had

    concluded that for us it would be the ethics commission now it's multiple choice so now we can choose from any one of

    those and they've added more options so um anyone can go and just Google ab1248

    and you will be able to find the ledge info

    Dot and you can look it up uh

    so let me see if I can just find that section real quick

    um the new Option they've also added is a panel consisting of one representative

    from three of the following the ethics Commission

    a committee or commission with a holistic view of the local jurisdiction addictions governance process the

    controller City attorney City Clerk or city treasurers if these offices are not

    elective offices a retired judge appointed by the chief

    judge of the superior court of the county or and the Civil grand jury

    of the county so that's a new Option so

    I think that's really interesting uh I think we still agree we don't know what the right answer is for San

    Francisco by ourselves but but that's that's very interesting and so it does look like it's going through very

    thoughtful consideration by our state senators and there were some other

    additional amendments um uh mostly from what I could tell you

    know making sure that candidates for the California citizens redistration commission are um that are not selected

    for that commission are forwarded to local jurisdictions as long as they give their permission so there's some

    clarification around that on 764 there were also some uh

    some revisions that were minor I don't um I think don't think most of them

    reply to us but that was the big one so I just wanted to share that with you guys thank you I

    don't know if uh my fellow Commissioners had any thoughts on the article or any other

    updates before we launch into the slides

    hello nope all right thank you for sharing them commissioner Parker it is Off to the

    Races um before we we talked to the end of our last meeting if we maybe wanted to do allow a little public comment on

    the first three items did you want to still do that in case people had kind of after thoughts after letting it sink in

    that we had talked about that in our last meeting yeah uh and we did not receive any written public comments so

    um we could do uh let's see so we did do

    you want to just recap where we got to and then we and then allow a little comment and then get on yeah sure

    um I could do that um hold on one side

    I'll just share my screen real quick and go ahead and I think you'll want the clerk's PC right yes please

    there you go is that wonder is there any way to make that fill the screen bigger or do you think that's kind of the best

    we can do is there any way to make that the screen

    fill the slide fill the screen more or do you think that's the best we can do

    clinics hard to read If you're looking at a screen

    and then I think be a full screen

    full screen view yeah well that's better right a little better

    um Okay so um very quick recap of what we did last time um

    this was uh this is a oh there you go well yeah yeah thank you

    um this was a deck that would allow us to to guide us through a conversation discussing discussing the various

    components of redistricting form that have been discussed in kind of Reform initiatives and help us consider all the

    questions that San Francisco could be asking should be asking as it considers making changes to the existing processes

    here some of which would require a change to the city's Charter and so last time we just did a quick

    review of some of the context um this is why we are considering the

    topic um which is that San Francisco was a Pioneer in independent redistricting and

    has now fallen behind in best practices and everybody we have spoken with who

    was on the last redistricting commission including that last redistricting task force here in San Francisco agrees that

    some improvements should be made and we on this committee are part of the

    elections commission and we are responsible for ensuring free fair and functional elections which does require

    Fair districts so that's why this is on our plate and then I did a quick walkthrough of

    existing state and local legislation the city Charter the fair Maps act which doesn't apply to Charter cities but it

    still is a pretty relevant document to refer to and also talked about some

    history and previous presentations we've had at the commission and then talked a little bit about the state legislation

    that commissioner died just referred to maybe 1248 and ab 764.

    and and then why we are considering this now is there's a recent range of experiences from the with the public

    that they have had that allows for more meaningful Community engagement before it's too far

    out of people's minds and to provide some input for potential reform and also because it takes time to run a fair and

    Democratic process we want to make sure there's enough time to prepare a new independent redistricting body and

    support City agencies to implement a fair process before the next census so the components that we reviewed I'm

    not going to go into detail about any of the discussion just to tell you which components we did review last time these

    were the seven that we are going to review in total we went through the first three so those are the composition

    of the body itself the selection and removal process and the commissioner

    qualifications and restrictions and just to note well actually I'll

    pause here for one second you'll occasionally see some acronyms throughout these these slides our DTF

    means redistricting task force IRC is independent redistricting commission which is what this type of a body is

    usually referred to in any kind of state level legislation or all the reports

    that you'll read they refer to them as ircs the Board of Supervisors is BOS CCRC is the California citizens

    redistricting commission and FMA is the fair Maps Act so we went through the composition and

    you'll see that each of these slides there's a there's a general structure to them where there's a key question some

    kind of a quote from a report or a key um note to be thinking about and then on the right there's a list of questions to

    consider that let a lot of uh the conversation that we had on each of

    these and then there was always a chart that happened on the second slide for each of the components that shows

    what existing San Francisco law says pending California legislation that ab1248 and 764 the fair Maps act and

    then a recent report that talks about what's been a result of the fair Maps act as it has been implemented in

    various Juris jurisdictions across the state and the next column is

    recommendations from the most recent San Francisco redistricting task force and then the last

    column is the California redistricting Commission

    um and the next one about selection removal process had four subsections

    about Outreach and recruitment qualifications and restrictions betting and selection and removal

    and then um just scrolling through those quickly thank you for your patience and then we

    arrive at the fourth which we will pause for a minute and take any comment on what we discussed

    last time

    okay Alan burrito uh so I hadn't thought

    that I would be commenting on this I'm glad to be up here though

    um first of all the New York Times I'm going to respond to chair uh this

    quote and information that they provided about sedwani and what they're going through down in LA

    you continually try to tie what's happening down there this this board does uh this commission to what's

    happening here and it's totally different they have 20 some council

    members down there at each point a advisory person and you're right that kept letting people go to bring in

    stronger advisors to then only ignore their advice when they close the door and Drew the maps on their own they've

    got a terrible system down there it's got to change it's totally unfair

    to we citizens who pass propel to have these three bodies do the

    selecting and vetting of candidates we do it totally different than LA and

    it's unfair to say that we do it in a similar way um

    second thing 1248 or best practices we hear a lot about that today and

    throughout this whole process best practices according to who it's a political matter we're talking

    about here when we're talking about redistricting there is no best practice with this it's a political matter it's a

    matter of political outlook on what a best practice is no matter how much you try to characterize it as a cut and dry

    clinical matter of studies and data it's just not that and

    then requires Fair districts your mission requires Fair districts the

    mission of this commission which is to oversee the Department of Elections you require Fair districts in order to carry

    out your mission it's not that is just not right

    you don't require that to carry out Fair elections the elections are an event

    that happen and you oversee the process of that event happening

    Fair representation is up to the people to decide whether or not they're fairly represented in their recourse is to go

    to their Board of Supervisors and give them the boot or give them the vote but you are losing your credibility here

    by taking on this matter and that goes to the heart of why you can't even select yourself or nominate yourself to

    be a vetting or selecting Authority this is why you're taking on for the past year and a half this political

    matter it is political and you should let it go

    and that's all I have to say about this item thank you Mr verdell thank you

    all right uh let's see if there's any

    public comment online um

    the unmute okay you are muted

    you say do you want to make sorry I sorry I forgot to lower my hands no

    worries okay seeing no more public comments

    um let us go on with our review

    okay um so we are at the fourth of our seven components and this one is about the

    redistricting line or the redistricting line drawing criteria key question here is what criteria will reduce political

    influence keep communities of Interest whole and increase transparency um this the yellow box to the side here

    is just sharing the definition of community of interest from the California state constitution for

    reference um the Constitution defines a community of Interest as a contiguous population

    which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its

    effective and fair representation some of the key questions that I've

    suggested could be considered here are should San Francisco deviate from the fair Maps act criteria to accommodate

    unique characteristics and if so how some examples might be cultural districts communities of interest

    definition um the five percent population equality between districts just as a reminder we

    are not required to fall under the fair Maps act criteria but it is a suggestion we could look to and that's why I've

    asked suggested this question should San Francisco rank criteria in alignment with the fair Maps Act and the

    California citizens redistricting commission requirements to prevent cherry picking to justify preferences

    um you know of individual Commissioners Etc which criteria can be required to reduce

    political influence for example some of the types that you'll see are no

    incumbency protection so meaning that if you have an existing elected official in

    an area you don't protect where they lived in order to let them stay in that District where they were elected into

    you you don't consider where they live at all consideration of elected's political

    affiliation for instance if you're if they are uh one political party and the

    rest of the district is a different or the same in just trying to consider that um when drawing the lines

    and then the last question here is what should be included in final reports of the redistricting task force to increase

    transparency and accountability regarding adopted lines

    um for our chart here so current San Francisco law

    um the line drawing criteria is not ranked it is just a list of criteria

    um we're asked to substantially comply with the one person one vote rule districts should be contiguous Compact

    and recognized neighborhoods population variations are limited to one percent unless variations are necessary

    um and what and to expand a little bit on that is if they are necessary to prevent

    dividing or diluting the voting power of minorities and or to keep recognized neighborhoods intact

    um must consider communities of interest and there is no prohibition on incumbency production protection I'm

    sorry um let's see

    [Music] um and then for the pending California legislation ab1248 relies on the fair

    Maps act it does not define any new criteria AB 764 prohibits incumbency protection

    and adds some clarity regarding communities of Interest the fair Maps act says that we're

    practicable districts should be geographically contiguous keep communities of Interest

    whole minimize division they should be easily identifiable and understandable by the residents and bounded by natural

    or artificial barriers encourage geographical compactness and the districts must be substantially equal

    and then the promise of fair maps report made recommendations to prohibit incumbency protection and discrimination

    both um ranked criteria must be followed to the maximum extent possible unranked

    criteria cannot be prioritized over ranked so if there are two sets of criteria you can't rank the you can't

    prioritize unranked criteria over the ranked criteria and then I must also do

    or they're suggesting that um the districts also do a gingles prong

    one analysis and publish a summary of racially polarized voting analysis now just pause for a second when I read that

    I was like what the heck is a ginkgo's wrong one analysis so I did a little bit of research for you all and which I will

    share um section two of the Voting Rights Act prohibits the implementation of voting

    districts as well as other laws and practices that result in less opportunity from minorities to

    participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice for example section 2 prohibits red

    searching plans that divide a minority group neighborhood into separate voting districts and thus weaken the group's

    political power to elect a candidate who addresses their concerns this is sometimes called cracking if you've seen

    that in various elections researcher gerrymandering articles you'll you'll

    see that term section two also prohibits discriminatory electoral schemes such as

    at-large elections that tend to dilute the voting strength of minority groups section 2 prohibits such practices and

    devices because all citizens are entitled to realize the full power of their vote and have an effective voice in the political process so there was a

    case called Thornburg versus gingles and the Supreme Court in this case established three criteria for proving

    racial vote dilution under the Voting Rights Act so therefore violating section two and those three prongs are a

    minority group must demonstrate it is large and compact enough to constitute a majority a majority in a single member

    district a minority group must demonstrate it is politically cohesive and a minority

    group must demonstrate the majority group votes sufficiently as a group to defeat the minority group's preferred

    candidate okay so that's what those are hopefully that clarifies a little bit you can do

    additional research if that's helpful um and then redistricting the recent

    redistricting task force here in San Francisco did not have recommendations as a body around the line drawing

    criteria and then the California commission has a priority order population should be nearly equal for

    Congress and reasonably equal for State seats should comply with the Voting Rights Act

    in contiguity respect Integrity of neighborhoods compactness and when

    possible Nest to Assembly districts within one Senate District and there

    should be no protection or discrimination against incumbent candidate or party

    and that uh that is my summary for redistricting line drawing criteria

    very impressive commissioner Parker it's actually jingles and uh uh yeah and we

    on the California citizens redistricting commission had to learn all about racially polarized voting and and all of

    that um but basically it's to prevent minority vote dilution in in summary and

    uh the jingles tests are intended to

    provide some um guidelines around that and

    um one of the one of the challenges we had in drawing

    uh districts that were compliant with section two of the Voting Rights Act in in Los Angeles in particular

    is the fact that uh people are pretty spread out and mixed and so

    one of the comments I made when we were looking at census data and they had a different color for each uh racial group

    is that it looked like a Jackson Pollock painting and that's one of the challenges if they're not

    geographically compact enough then it's it's hard to perform those analyzes but

    generally that's not the case generally there are distinctive neighborhoods and communities where people live together

    and then you have to consider them for the Voting Rights Act so that's just a little little background uh the way that

    um that I explain the the rank criteria for the CRC is that we have six rank

    criteria the first two are federal law so by definition all maps must comply

    with federal law so that's population equality and um and for congress it has to be plus or

    minus one person and then there's a lot of latitude for

    state and local jurisdictions because we're much smaller generally the jurisdictions and so one of the

    questions I had asked because the San Francisco city Charter

    actually has very few criteria it has two basically one was on the population

    and one was on on community input and neighbors neighborhoods

    um is that uh there was actually a tight population deviation as commissioner

    Parker pointed out one percent with the ability to go to five percent and

    um actually case law allows much greater latitude 10

    sometimes even larger than 10 percent have been allowed by Courts for local

    and state jurisdictions because uh when you start talking percentages and the

    absolute number of people is quite small you know right it's you know you get a

    bigger percentage basically um the CRC chose to keep a pretty tight

    population deviation but that's because our state senate districts are like a million people so you don't want to deviate by 10

    percent so so that was one question I had because the current Charter actually

    puts a tighter limit than case law uh and the question is should we because

    the whole reason for having that Latitude is to you know get around physical barriers or if there's a

    neighborhood or or a community you want to keep intact and you have to go deviate a little bit to keep that

    Community intact and that gives you a little more latitude to do that um so the first two are federal law and

    then there are State criteria that are ranked which is the contiguity the respect it's not only for neighborhoods

    at the state levels for respect for cities and and and counties I call that kind of political geography so

    um and and on a local level we're mostly looking at neighborhoods and communities

    uh compactness and then the nesting doesn't apply to us obviously that's only at the state level as well and then

    there's one prohibition which is not to consider candidates or elected officials

    where they live the parties so it's basically not consider them don't discriminate don't consider them don't

    protect them and obviously that's normally what we see happen in these situations because

    gerrymandering is generally about protecting elected officials or candidates um interests or parties interests and so

    so that's a way to break it down the fair Maps Act was basically copied the criteria from the California

    citizens redistricting commission it adds some additional

    comments here which I think makes sense you know making it understandable so other people understand why the

    districts are drawn that way that they're bounded by natural and artificial barriers this was not

    explicitly called out in our state constitution but it was something we absolutely considered so for example

    we'd consider highways as an as an artificial barrier a river or a mountain

    would be a natural barrier re I mean we actually we absolutely looked at topography you know because people live

    in certain places and they don't live in other places and so that changes like the density of the population

    um so uh that's just a little a little background on that

    um but yeah the FMA pretty much mirrors the ccrc's uh criteria with the um

    addition with um 764 which is intend to update the the

    fair Maps act to explicitly prohibit in the same way the state does a consideration of incumbents

    uh because obviously there was still some problems in this last cycle

    so any thoughts on this

    I think I've shared my experience that the the rank ordering really really keeps you disciplined

    uh because you have to check every every district and check to make sure it

    complies in order and I think I described after our first

    draft Maps we had got we were so exhausted and trying to meet this deadline that we did

    the nesting you know we just told our Consultants to put two together and you know just Nest

    them for us and we found out we were violating the Voting Rights Act because once you get a bigger area

    you've got to consider different communities right and so that is a very

    clear example of being a little Cavalier going through the criteria we ended up trying to like

    just do the nesting and we found out in the end we were unable to Nest perfectly uh

    or at all in several cases because of the Voting Rights Act and so we had to go back to the drawing board

    and refigure that we also found that we did our draft maps

    with the with a bigger population deviation just see what we could do and

    then we timed it for the Final maps and by doing that that changed the maps as well

    because again that comes first so just to give you

    guys the flavor of the interaction and I will say we we asked the

    redistricting the two panels of redistrating task force members we had about rank criteria and

    um they were kind of challenged to imagine it because they didn't have to do it but

    um I think one of the criticisms of this last cycle was that people would cite all kinds of reasons

    for drawing districts the way they would like you know I'm from this area and and

    I I want to keep you know this neighborhood whole and what have you um and you know the question is

    okay but what about another neighborhood that also wants to be whole you know how do you how do you

    um break the trade-offs uh and so there's still going to be trade-offs

    there's no question we we did that all over the state you know we had for us it was Criterion number four where we had

    to balance City boundaries County boundaries neighborhood boundaries and then

    community of Interest boundaries uh and they were all the same level so they're going to be trade-offs but

    the clear thing is we didn't make that trade-off against contiguity or population deviation or Voting Rights

    Act issue because those were higher right so we had to fix those problems first before we could make those kinds

    of trade-offs uh and then we had to justify it in a final report and show that for every District we drew then we

    complied with the rank criteria it sounds pretty

    that was the accountability yes no that sounds really great I mean I do think we have to keep in mind that often

    what when you when you look at things that have happened in other jurisdictions and in

    other Maps or other redistricting it's trying to dilute

    the vote of certain communities so I think wherever we can make sure that's not happening especially of a smaller

    Community that's a you know a small minority in a in a in a city

    um in a district I think that's that's where I would want to make sure

    um that our recommendations are that the Board

    of Supervisors really make sure that we the things in place protect particular communities that have

    traditionally been the target of of diluting or dividing around the

    population so for me that would be one of the most important things to make sure that that recommendation is there

    and I also like that commissioner Parker included the definition of a community of interest because that's

    a challenge because then anyone can define a community in fact we we had people come and tell us that you should

    draw a district this way because I live here and I shop in that mall and therefore I should be in the same

    district so there were all kinds of interesting justifications for why this

    was a community of interest and obviously the commissioners

    would take certain ones with a grain of salt and we asked people to provide evidence

    like what makers the community what makes it a pop contiguous population

    that shares common social economic interests right and you know is shopping

    at at two malls does that make them does that mean you should have the same

    elected representative right uh so we had

    um you know we have people come from the league of conservation voters and

    and explain why people living in a certain Watershed were a community of

    Interest so they used environmental justifications uh we had people come and

    show uh their church and uh and the

    community centers around it um obviously we had census data for particular population so we could see

    that um but uh people had to actually show us

    that they were common social and economic interests they couldn't just state where a community of interest and

    you know because we all like the color blue you should give us the same representative but I mean believe me people tried all kinds of different

    justifications but you think having aligning with the state definition uh I

    think is important so that we're clear right what what you

    know constitutes a community of Interest so people um you know provide a historical

    references um and uh economic data

    uh to to show why

    um you know people look at media markets there were all kinds of things but the

    point was to show those common social and economic and cultural ties in many

    cases any thoughts

    yeah um so I

    I mean I have a few I'll just share a few different thoughts here um

    I think that I think it's it is helpful to align with you know a state constitutional definition and you know

    things like that I think um we should

    if we consider deviating from from state law we should ask ourselves why because there could be a good reason I think

    that's one of the questions right is is is should we consider that there should be a good reason to not do that I think

    sometimes we suffer from thinking we're very very special here um and and we do have unique interests

    here for sure so um I just think we should just ask questions before we

    deviate not just do it um and I think one of my main questions

    related to these criteria when I'm looking at um for instance I'll move back to this

    um the chart slide here um the fair Maps act which as you said

    to copy the California redistricting commission and then there's these sort of recommendations

    that were made in the promise fare maps that now 764 has included um

    my question is why why shouldn't we follow those maybe not necessarily should we or should we create something

    new but I'd love to hear if there's a reason we shouldn't do that you know if the public has reasons a lot of this

    makes sense to me um given what the law is

    um so that's so I'm curious about a is is there a reason why we shouldn't just follow the recommendations and what

    exists already in the fair Maps Act and the new recommendations or the the additions to that through current

    legislation um and then

    um and then the other comment I wanted to make was around the

    the equal size of districts and you know the one percent five percent ten percent is you you were bringing up if I recall

    correctly and it's been now a few weeks a couple of weeks since I read the redistricting task force report

    um and and looked at the maps and the distance you know the distance between those they

    I'm not sure if there were any at one percent I think that we're all closer to three four right in kind of the higher towards five

    as they were trying to um to draw those maps and it

    it seems um it seems reasonable to have the one to

    five ten just feels a little big to me that it leaves a little bit too much room to I don't know I mean I I think

    that you know following these priorities um of criteria and then having up to five

    percent seems seems to be reasonable but again I would really love to hear if there's a reason why it shouldn't be

    that and you know one percent that seems very very difficult if you're asked to also be Compact and contiguous and all

    those kinds of things that just that seems like a hard hurdle but if you can do it great if you can meet all those criteria so it just feels like as equal

    as possible so that so that's the other thing I um that seems reasonable and I wonder if there's any reason not to be capping it

    at the five um and hold on I think there was one more thing

    that I maybe wanted to

    um oh I guess the the last thing um was just around final reports

    I do like the idea but I also get like very nerdy about stuff like this and I I

    like the idea of of um you know and I'm sure that there

    are some task forces who do voluntarily you know offer some of this they're not required to they do it you know it's just a measure of transparency in

    building trust the community and I like the idea that final reports do include a rationale for here's why we made the

    choices we do because not everybody can watch all of the meetings you know like that's just that's a barrier for a lot of people we have some it's wonderful

    the people who are able to make it and it's not possible for everybody and so I like the idea that there is something written that we can then go back to and

    refer to and and understand better um so I like that for transparency I

    like that for just wanting to understand better so those are my three comments

    I'll um I'll comment on a few of them so

    my thinking is back to your point that we're not really that special

    um is why not comply with with case law right as opposed to

    artificially putting a cap and the way that state law is is that

    it's it allows up to that kind of deviation but you have to justify it because at the end of the day

    it's one person one vote so if you deviate significantly it has to be something

    that will stand up in court essentially uh so

    um and it's also as I understand it's a maximum deviation in other words the maximum deviation

    from the smallest District to the largest District cannot exceed X so people get confused it's not plus or

    minus 10. in other words okay um and and by

    because case law allows that flexibility it means like one could be minus three and the other one could be

    plus seven in other words so you know as instead of bounding it

    plus or minus five which is awake the charter is written so I think that my

    personal thought is it it makes more sense just to comply with with case law because that may change over time

    and if for a reason you know the justice system decides to make it tighter then

    it would just naturally we would just naturally evolve with that as opposed to

    having some absolute number that's stuck in our Charter so so that was my

    thinking on on you know the case law question and not having our own definition there

    um in terms of um I completely agree with you on the final

    report I have to tell you it really kept us accountable as one of the two Commissioners who had to write most of

    that final report we literally had to slog through every district and say this

    was an agricultural District this way you know we had to describe what that community of Interest was and and what

    were the smaller communities of Interest we included so this included a small Armenian you know Refugee population and

    this included right so that we could describe all of the different communities of Interest Who had

    testified before us and that we were able to keep whole within a single District we had to justify when we split

    cities and then where we split them and why um we had a large South Asian population

    in the Bay Area that we couldn't fit into a single Assembly District and we had to justify why we split them and

    where so stuff like that uh so it actually

    required us to describe these communities of interest if that's what we were using to justify why we drew the

    district that way um it wasn't always necessary for example in the northern part of

    California which has very sparse population we were just able to put a bunch of counties together that were all

    and agriculture or all in the Coast or but again we still had to describe why do we group those particular counties

    together right and so uh so that was the one thing you know the

    public comment that I made when I read the this last redistricting task force

    report was that I was happy they did a report because they're not required to but they didn't actually provide any

    rationale for why they drew the districts they did they just simply reported population deviation they

    didn't explain why they did it so it was purely descriptive as opposed

    to any kind of justification or rationale so

    forcing the body to write a report that describes

    how they created these districts and what communities of Interest are in them and who they had to split and why

    I think provides an accountability mechanism like nothing else so I'm a big

    fan of that I know that it took us a long time to go through and feel good

    that we had actually done right by Californians all around the state that

    we had complied this ranked order criteria for every single district and could justify it

    and I know that there is obviously a rationale you know I've spoken with some of the redistricting task force members

    and they had a very clear rationale that was you know justified by the kinds of things that are listed here communities

    of interest and things like that so you know it does take it does take extra time and they weren't compensated I

    understand that so I think that there's a little bit of a I think a companion to that right is the

    recognition of the immense amount of work that it takes to be a part of a commission like this even if it's not a

    contentious process you know it takes a lot of time and by recognizing that it might be also a little easier to make a

    request like putting together a report with the rational that they already have they just

    um you know just documenting it yeah and then the only other thing that I had

    thrown out there that I was trying I was trying to think about why we wouldn't just comply with

    state law um and the only thing I could come up with were things like cultural districts

    like would that be something that we would want to protect in San Francisco

    um and my thought on that is I don't know that we would need to protect them especially

    like call them out but it could be used as justification as to why this is a

    community of Interest right so you could say San Francisco recognized this area

    as a Cultural District and that's part of the reason that we we believe this is a community of interest

    um to give you an analogy um what some people did as they were

    trying to justify their community of Interest they would bring us School District Maps or utility map I mean

    other Maps right that showed they were in this District together to show us why it was a community of

    interest and to show that there was precedent for recognizing an area right now

    you know not all of those districts are made based on you know

    population and electoral reasons right so why you might draw a certain kind of District may not be the right

    justification but but it was just it's still justification right and and if you can make your case

    to the commission and convince them that this is a reason why you know it it is a

    a real community of interest um that's why you have people on the commission to to try to to make

    those kinds of judgment calls and so so my thought is I was just trying to be

    comprehensive when I would raise these questions originally was I was trying to think of anything that San Francisco had that was special

    and that was one thing that I could think of but I also don't think it needs to be called out separately I think if

    people want to use that as part of the justification and make their case to the IRC I think that it's it's evidence

    right well I think the most important part is the report

    establishes accountability and having to have the report

    means that you have to justify what you're doing and I think that's

    that's for me that's the most important part it it needs to be as commissioner

    Parker said not everyone can attend this not every so having a report that outlines why certain districts were

    created and why things change is going to be essential and so to me that's the that's the meat

    that that needs to be there

    do we um want to talk about any other I don't

    know if commissioner navalsi if you have any other comments on any other areas related to this or if we should just move on to the next

    um no okay just looking at the questions

    um of course I am also also support the update

    in 764 to have the the prohibition that we

    had which is not considering incumbents candidates for office you know where they live or

    political parties uh that prohibits prohibits yeah

    I mean we actually deliberately didn't even look at where people lived we

    deliberately blind blinded ourselves to that and as a result we ended up drawing a bunch of elected officials in the same

    district so that's what happens when you don't look at it when you're not gerrymandering

    okay yep okay

    um the next area is funding um key question is what is needed to

    adequately resource the work as well as decrease barriers to public participation

    um the quote that I listed here in the yellow box is from the city clerk's office report that you can find at the

    end of the redistricting task force report um and that is that in the future it is

    a recommended that a department or division is established to provide a structure that increases the ability of

    a team of individuals to plan and problem solve at a high level um the the main areas that we could

    discuss here are stipends for members and within that what size stipend is

    Meaningful enough to enable those of lesser means to participate and recognize all Commissioners for their time how can compensation be adjusted

    over time without putting another measure on the ballot um budget to support the process how

    much independent budget is needed to fund needed aspects of the work for example a mapping consultant Outreach

    interpreters things like that again there are the city clerk's recommendations are very full and Rich

    if you take a look at those and then generally what parts of funding need to

    be included in the charter versus put in place by the Board of Supervisors through an ordinance and should there be

    an automatic augmentation in subsequent redistricting processes because obviously things get expensive over time

    um so the main questions um and then a couple of other notes um

    the the Brennan Center who you'll see quoted in some of the reports um that I have linked at the end of this whole

    deck I believe that this is maybe from the 2017 redistricting report

    um said that with funding secure the commission may draw the district lines without feeling beholden to the legislature's power of the purse so some

    of the recommendations here like funded up front not just later when you are happy or unhappy with the process right

    like upfront allocate a certain amount of funds and then I just wanted to actually um read a little bit more excerpt from

    the city clerk's report um so who said during the seven month process the entire leadership of the

    clerk's office were committed to planning the critical administrative objectives of the task force the clerking duties were done by an

    assistant clerk from the clerk's office who was still assigned to a committee at the Board of Supervisors additionally

    backup clerks both remote and in person each had their regular Board of Supervisors duties to perform which is

    extremely draining on Department resources and caused Focus to be diverted from the business of the board

    the Board of Supervisors the clerk's office did an extraordinary job of stretching The Limited staff resources

    on hand while executing hybrid meetings at the board that had already doubled the workload of the department

    in the future of course that's a you know unique time we're at the beginning of a pandemic in the future it is

    recommended that a department or division is established to provide a structure that increases the ability of a team of individuals to plan and

    problem solve at a high level at the very least two clerks should be assigned to the responsibility of clerking the

    task force with not much else on their plate given that meetings may occur on consecutive days of the week staff who

    are assigned to the task force especially the clerks should also have an intimate knowledge of the city neighborhoods streets and districts in

    order to accurately capture the voluminous comments and discussions on the various areas the clerks must be

    able to articulate those concisely it must be remembered that supporting duties of staff are in addition to

    regular duties and The Business of the city should not be disadvantaged

    um and then on our chart here um current San Francisco law there's no

    stipend for members operations of the task force are supported by the clerk of of the board and the Department of

    Elections with limited augmentation in budget ab1248 would require a stipend the

    amount to be determined by the local jurisdiction it requires provision by the local jurisdiction of in quotes

    reasonable funding and Staffing of the IRC there's nothing related to funding

    in the fair Maps act in the promise Affairs Fair maps report they do recommend that there are

    required stipends and that jurisdictions invest resources in recruiting efforts

    for large diverse pools of candidates and also fund Community benefit organizations or cbos to engage

    underrepresented communities in local redistricting the recent redistricting task force here

    in the city echoed the clerk's recommendations saying that the city should establish a temporary Department

    to support the task force and its needs for example of Chief of Staff admin support media coordinator a sunshine

    ordinance expert to manage requests because there always are a lot but at

    least two clerks if funds are limited and that the board of supervisor should allocate funds at the outset

    um and then finally the state commission has a stipend for members currently it

    is 378 dollars per per diem um they're required it's required to

    appropriate the state is required to appropriate appropriate adequate funds and they may hire staff and Consultants

    and that's that's it so I I would add that it's a unique

    structure um for the CCRC it's actually a state agency on its own which has some pros in

    it and cons there's actually a lot of overhead trying to run a small agency at

    the state level so um but

    because we're completely independent we had to hire our own staff

    uh once the um state auditor had completed the vetting

    and selection process they're kind of like okay go to It Go hire your own people

    um but we did have our own general counsel we had our own you know executive director who hired

    all of the support staff and I think that's difficult to do at the local

    level and so what but but unfortunately the current

    process is kind of at the other three which is said okay we're going to give you help from the city attorney and the

    clerk of the board and Department of Elections but we're not going to give them any extra money and so even though

    this is a gargantuan test that happens only once every 10 years you're just gonna have to figure out how to do it

    with the existing resources and I think that's that's what we heard from

    um the city clerk came in and addressed us from from Miss felvio uh and it was

    just crazy because of course uh as all of us know the Department of Elections had four elections running you know that

    year too and so they were juggling things back and forth trying to handle it on top of the

    exceptional workload for the Department of Elections so uh so I do think

    consistent with the most recent redistricting task force it makes sense for them to have dedicated staff

    they can still be supported by other departments but they need some dedicated staff

    and you know part of the reason they were they were so late outside of everything else that happened during the

    process is they they couldn't they couldn't get support from the city clerks to you know

    get I mean the same problem we have trying to find a room um you know they were dealing with

    clerks who had existing Board of Supervisors duties and so they couldn't schedule a meeting for several weeks uh

    so and I think uh what the the promise of

    fair Maps reporters pointing out is that you need a budget for outreach and what what happened I think I've

    shared with you folks before what happened with the first CCRC is that the

    state auditor had spent our entire budget before we were even selected

    uh and that's because they had no idea what an independent process was going to cost and so they put in that line that

    required the legislature to appropriate more more funds but we had to go and get it from them

    um so so what we just remind you that we heard from the

    the um the chair of the Long Beach IRC they

    actually budgeted over three years so they had a three-year budget in the

    first year was you know Outreach and Outreach planning and then

    um then that Staffing up uh and setting up the body

    uh and then the actual mapping process and so there are several

    components and I do feel like this is too detailed to put in a charter Amendment uh even

    the pending State legislation basically just says reasonable and adequate but we

    could you know put some guard rails around it and and say that you know they must

    account for you know Outreach uh and for

    example that's a lot of what's in 764. is right is uh ensuring that a proper

    plan is actually written and that uh that you know community-based

    organizations and you know other organizations that

    understand their local communities are consulted and involved in the

    Outreach process to build that large competitive

    diverse pool otherwise you're not going to get the the quality Commissioners out of that

    so I think stipulating that

    you know reasonable funding should include some dedicated staff I don't know how how specific we should

    get um in terms of

    specific roles I don't know if we have a strong opinion on those but you know I do feel like they at minimum

    need dedicated dedicated clerks and if they're going to continue to be you know

    partially supported by City departments those departments need augmented budgets that recognize this as a once in 10

    years and a task and they can't just like figure out how to make it work with their normal allocation right

    that's going to be a challenge um well looking at the deficit

    um but I think um I like the promise of fairmax fair Maps

    required stipend invest resources in recruiting efforts for large diverse

    bull I'm not so crazy about fun cbo's to engage because

    some of our cbo's have political missions and so but I think

    being clear about a stipend I think we are we are asking citizens to do

    something that's very important in the representation of all members of the

    community and so I think where you put your money shows what's

    important to you and I think asking people to do this without a Skype I think a reasonable stipend and I think

    perhaps um it should be weighted you know if you're someone who has needs should you

    really have a stipend this is a question so maybe looking at income levels asset

    levels I I don't think that's unfair um and making sure that there is a

    dedicated reasonable staff for for this work and

    if at all possible any local agency that's tasked with assisting

    should have an augmentation to their budget I mean to me that's just obvious right I mean there was some

    augmentation I mean the Department of Elections got a budget to help hire the

    line drawing Consultants the technical consultants and then I think the clerk

    got a small budget for something as well but it was not nearly enough

    interpretation limited language yeah language access so

    so I think recognizing that uh this is a big undertaking and it cannot be done as

    business as normal so I heard equitable stipends

    the budget must include Outreach um there should be some dedicated staff

    and uh any assisting City Department should happen

    appropriate augmentation yeah

    um I generally what we see on the these this this whole chart

    um I think generally seems like a good idea like I I generally think okay the

    redistricting we're task force uh the redistricting task force that just finished their recommendations yes that

    makes sense they just lived it they know what's needed I think it makes a lot of sense to go with those the clerk also so

    detailed in some ways I could imagine that our ultimate recommendations include read the clerk's report and you

    determine what should be in a charter versus not because we don't want to you know some things are appropriate there some things aren't but

    read those reports as far as recommendations those are really important um but also these other as you know as

    commissioner volsi said This Promise Affair Max report Fair Maps I'm trying to speak too quickly promise Affair maps

    report um you know and what's included in current funding or current legislation

    that all makes sense um and and I would support doing that you know like a

    recommendation could be follow these decide what goes in the charter what doesn't um my wondering the idea of Equitable

    stipends um you know is is interesting and you know and I generally like that and like

    I'm curious how much will that save is it you know

    because everybody's putting effort in and so to me it's maybe there's some exploration of you know what would it cost to do that versus not

    um because everybody's putting in a lot of effort you know and it's expensive people live here

    um but if we were in a budget situation and we couldn't do it all then then yes like let's make sure that those who

    really need it and couldn't participate otherwise yes totally I totally agree with that

    um and the amount like some of the things that stand out to me which I generally agree with that we heard in one of our panels when um

    uh Reverend Townsend was talking about and asked a question that I've thought about too is what's the right amount for

    stipends you know because sometimes we we provide those and it feels good but

    but what's enough to actually make a difference to someone who might not otherwise be able to participate sometimes I think of these stipends is

    they're never going to actually make it's not a job you know it's not the equivalence of a job or a part-time job

    even um however it can help with things like paying for your parking fees and your

    Transit fees and your babysitting and um you know whatever else it takes to do

    that job that would have otherwise been out of pocket it tends to help with that but that is a question for me is what is

    the right amount because this is paying them per diem for the meeting days right not all of the days that you're actually

    doing the job well so um I can I can share my experience at

    the state level we had when why did it was 300 and

    um it increased by the cost of living so that that was stipulated uh it was it

    was 300 for working day and then we had to Define that and so we actually

    defined it um that basically said either it was you

    know a a day that we know we had to meet because sometimes our meetings were 10 or 12

    hours right um or it was

    um a minimum of six hours like if you worked one hour on one day and then

    another hour another day that you could combine those um so

    and there was also discretion as to what you claimed so you know we had

    one commissioner who'd like claimed time for organizing his Finders

    right and like most of the other Commissioners didn't claim time for stuff like that so there were certainly

    some personal it was an honor System uh obviously it was very obvious which days we had meetings and some people had

    to travel and some people didn't depending on what part of the state it was in but you know you couldn't charge for you

    know more than the actual day right uh and then there was that stipulation if

    you had to put in a couple hours here in a couple hours there that you could group it like a number of us had

    Outreach duties so I did a lot of public speaking and you know that would be

    maybe a couple hours one day and so in order to get credit for that the point was you couldn't just claim that you had

    to do other work to get up to a minimum of six hours so that was the rule that we

    came up with the 2020 uh CCRC didn't have that six hour kind of limit

    and so again honor System but it did allow us to differentiate for example

    um two of us who did most of the final report we could actually get claim time for

    that because we put in a lot more time than other people so there were situations we had several Commissioners

    who were assigned to deal with the attorneys because we had a bunch of lawsuits we had to deal with and so

    they got to claim that time and I think that was one of the complaints we heard from Miss Gutierrez

    from the chair of the Long Beach thing is that they they were only allowed to claim time meeting times and so she

    would commented that as chair and the vice chair did a lot of extra work and they weren't able to claim that so so I

    think uh you know providing some discretion to to let the bot the IRC

    come up with rules for themselves to police themselves

    um you know I think there was a pretty big variation in what at least on the

    2010 CCRC what people claimed so there was a pretty big variation because

    people put different amounts of time in right right and so um so I think allowing for that

    flexibility is good as opposed to say just a monthly stipend which where

    everyone gets the same thing um and I do I do really like the model

    of be the jury because there's precedent in San Francisco for doing an equity-based thing and that's one that

    you have to apply for and so there's that thought too is that

    you know that if if you want to make it a means test you let

    people raise their hand you know um you could do it the other way too

    where you could opt out but I mean I think your point is fair

    even if you have a good job uh you know you're still taking you're doing work

    you're doing work and it's extra time and you should be recognized for that I also think that expenses should be

    covered so one of the things that our our travel expenses were covered for sure

    so we were able to you know claim standard State you know per diem

    for meals and when we are traveling and things like that um you know there's not a lot of travel

    within a local jurisdiction but one average of meals and or yeah if you have

    a meeting that goes parking yeah you know I think and and sorry distributed

    yeah that's good I think San Francisco those are the kinds of things that should be thought

    about as a Statewide um

    there's traveling long distances you know San Francisco is an expensive city

    um it's an expensive place for child care for parking for food for for these

    things so I think a a way to compensate people for those

    things like if you're meeting all day yeah yeah you should be able to get food right um parking Local transportation will

    transport I was just going to say maybe clipper cards with a certain amount um that allows for people to to be able

    to use public transportation to get to meetings um yeah because that could be something

    that could be done that you know we could avoid the parking in in some ways if if everyone gets uh yeah you could

    just give everyone a Clipper card and and then say New you manage it right so I mean I think they're these are some

    details I don't think we need to get into but I think right saying that reasonable expenses

    um should should be covered I don't think it should come out of per diem uh

    one of the things we really struggled with on on the ccrcs we had young

    mothers on our commission and they had significant child care expenses and we could not figure out a way to expense

    that under this state regulations and so that was one of our recommendations is

    that you know future commissions figure out how to deal with that because we could not under the normal state

    you know when we were just subject to all the normal State you know travel policies

    we were not able to to compensate our commissioners who were mothers who who

    had to get extra babysitters or really impose on their partners

    I would be very curious if if there was any way for the Board of Supervisors

    when they get to this to find out you know to do a bit of a poll or focus

    group sort of thing you know to find out if there was no stipend would that count you out and then what

    would be the right coverage is it that there is transportation child care whatever you know a stipend of 378

    dollars per day you know something like that would that make a difference and would the answer be yes there might be

    some people who say no and and to be um I mean to be realistic also the the

    schedule that is demanded of a commission like this there are some folks who will never be able to

    participate because they have hourly jobs that they cannot change at the last minute if the meeting goes longer than

    it was supposed to or um if there's another meeting call the next day because the work wasn't finished like they there are some people

    who will not have access to this kind of an opportunity and that that is real that's true and so finding other ways

    for folks like that to participate in meaningfully give input of course is important and therefore funds to support

    that kind of outreach are important that they can participate in an asynchronous Way by filling out a poll by doing you

    know giving written public comment in an easy way you know there there are ways to include folks who are just on the

    position to have a schedule that will allow for participating in a task force like this

    um and there might be some people who are on the edge have the flexibility but have major caregiving responsibilities

    not even small children sometimes with elderly parents you know or people who are chronically ill you know there's who

    they care for so there are people and they have a lot to say and want to contribute so so not everybody will be

    able to be on a body like this they it's just not realistic for some folks and finding the ways for them to still

    participate if they can't so and commissioner Parker I think it it's I really appreciate you bringing up the

    um Elder Care so I think any recommendation would be cons should

    be to consider those extra expenses that people may need support in order and as you

    said it's not going to be a body for everyone but for those who want to participate and have this the schedule

    and ability but are encumbered by a responsibility of taking care of a loved

    one be that a child's a spouse a elderly parent I think as a city we should

    seriously think about supporting that okay so I think it's important to say

    there's this stipend and then there are also reasonable expenses that you incur

    in the course of this work yep um yeah because all of our expenses like I said with the exception of the

    caregiving expenses were covered by the state and I will say that even though

    we're spending a lot of time on stipends that was the smallest part of our budget the vast majority of our budget was for

    litigation defense and um you know

    everything else like I said the the state auditor spent we got we were

    allocated three million dollars by the voters First Act and they had spent I

    think four and a half before we even got started so that just gives you an idea how much

    the Outreach and recruitment piece of it was I think our I think the stipends were

    like maybe a million total or something it was not it was a very tiny part we

    can do a cost benefit you know analysis to something like this too right is how does it decrease barriers and how does

    it have a um create a better um inclusive process you know like all

    of those things not even just like we're not even just talking about on the stipend side but adequately funding the process on the agency who is supporting

    its eye you know in the clerk's office side all of that creates a a better engagement process for everyone to be

    included in and and yes every time you fund something there's something else that doesn't get funded at the city

    that's just the reality and so it's just deciding you know weighing those things

    um you know about what's what's important and in the the scheme of a massive budget

    this we're not talking a huge amount there's always trade-offs yeah yeah I mean it will cost some money so just to

    reiterate since I'm the one who has to summarize this um what I heard was

    um a reasonable stipend that uh Equitable stipend that that uh

    allows for differential effort would that be a fair way to say it

    um and also um related related Local transportation

    meals and caregiving expenses that might

    be incurred in the course of the duty and then

    um just to reiterate that adequate funds must be set aside for outreach

    particularly to underrepresent communities whether you want to fund we don't have to get into whether they fund cbo's do that or not that there should

    be we have as we know plenty of departments in the city that do that regular kind of Outreach and there

    should be some dedicated staff and any assisting departments should

    have a budget augmentation yeah better

    ready to move on yes okay this is just a small one

    um commission processes um how can the commission be properly

    supported and trained trans Did You Adventure slide oh I did it's not

    showing yet there we go it's slow um how can the commission be properly

    supported and trained transparent and inclusive of diverse public input

    um this is a quote from the 2017 redistricting commission's report that says transparency and public

    participate participate let's try that again um transparency and public participation

    in redistricting are essential to drawing better District boundaries maintaining public confidence in the

    fairness of the process and building community support for the Final maps the

    areas we might consider training and support what training and preparation should the task force have

    and when for example legal training Sunshine ordinance training Technical Training redistricting criteria training

    best practices that may not be you know put in listed in the charter but are

    just generally best practices on process what Staffing support and additional resources do they need to be effective

    which we did cover that to some degree but that is certainly part of it um then including the public how can the

    task force meaningfully include the diverse community in the process what additional resources are needed to do that how do meeting times and lengths

    affect this drafting the map what should procedures for the mapping process be what works

    and worked well and where can improvements be made decision making and voting um specifically here talking about the

    voting threshold simple or super majority transparency what should be required in

    the decision-making process to ensure transparency for example touched on this a little bit a written rationale for

    maps what types of communication should be restricted for example ex parte intra

    commission Etc and then missed deadlines what should happen if Final maps are not approved as required by the deadline

    in the voting just to make a quick note on that decision making and voting line

    um I'm just separating those there's a voting on business matters that's the decision

    making just sort of the normal operations of the commission and then there's a voting on maps so somebody's

    like the state commission had a special super majority because they had a different configuration than we would have here in San Francisco they had a

    special super majority we'll just for here let's just go up super majority only for maps and vendor contracts

    um as opposed to the regular procedural decisions within the operations of the

    commission um and then to our chart current San Francisco Law requires a

    simple majority to approve maps and says that they should that they shall make

    adjustments as appropriate again I did it's okay I should just look at the thing to make sure it actually shows

    up before I start talking yeah I did forward it I believe it's very slow

    there you go okay current San Francisco Law requires a simple majority to

    approve maps and then the task force shall make adjustments as appropriate based on public input at public hearings

    that is all that the charter says about processes for the task force

    um pending legislation for the state ab1248 prohibits ex parte communication

    um the existing deadlines and requirements etc for legislative bodies apply

    um they're required commissions ircs would have to publish a draft map seven days before a vote on those Maps there's

    a minimum of three public hearings before final map adoption no incumbency

    or political preference in districts which that's I guess that's repetitive from a different slide a quorum is nine

    people and nine of the 14 um people that are would be part of the

    that would be composing the IRC through that legislation nine affirmative votes is required for

    any action so Quorum is Nine and Nine affirmative votes are required for any action nine off 14. in AB 764

    there is a minimum one public Workshop required and five public hearings required

    they must adopt ircs must adopt education Outreach plan by March 1st of

    the year ending in one so for instance 2031 and other details that I did not go

    into here because there's not room also the ab764 allows for remote and

    in-person comment to allow more participation and also

    oral and written public comments I just want to note this is not written here but they are available they are supposed

    to be available on the redistricting commission's website so when the

    commission receives any oral or written public comments they're required to be available to anyone to see on the

    website I like that um I'll just say that really quickly um the fair Maps Act

    um ircs must hold a minimum of four accessible public hearings make good faith efforts to include

    underrepresented and non-english speaking communities uh so I would just

    detail that means translation interpretation um they it requires to for the

    commission to publish a draft map seven days before the vote same as this ab1248 does make all public comment available

    if the map final map deadline is missed then the decision the final map drawing

    goes to the Superior Court the promise Affair maps report recommends that there is an increase in

    the minimum number of hearings and workshops from four so that's form Fair Maps has that four I just said that to a

    minimum of six to ten hearings and workshops they recommend that ircs must provide

    in-person and remote options for public comment they require the posting of all written

    public comments and recommending requiring redistricting website be up for at least two weeks before the first

    hearing shorten the timeline for publishing the video in minutes to one week from when

    they were received or when when they were um after the uh

    after the meeting happened um also recommending that the commissions the RCs adopt an Outreach

    and education plan and also fund Community benefit organizations to

    engage the community so this is very dense um hopefully you all are following along

    um the redistricting task force here recommended that the task force draft

    bylaws and tentative schedules and proposed timelines or I'm sorry let me

    start again and they recommend that draft bylaws tentative schedules and proposed timelines should be presented

    at the first task force meeting so presumably that means that the agency who is supporting the task force has

    gotten that together as somewhere to start for the task force mapping

    training should be provided very early before mapping begins um that makes sense

    um meetings should begin earlier in the day and run more efficiently more robust Outreach into communities is needed a

    clear scope of work with Consultants as needed there was a bit written there in the report you can look at and then also

    they recommended that um methods are developed to protect members from attacks and threats and

    also that members are shielded from inappropriate influence in the process

    um let's see hold on I had some other notes here I just want to make sure

    um as I was reading the charter I just want to add a little bit more clarity um

    I already said there was really not a lot about processes in the charter um the one line says that they should

    use public input and the simple majority is just standard unless it's defined differently so

    that's just it's just standard right it's not actually listed there in the charter it's just standard unless otherwise defined

    um to be clear about that um they did establish you know just out of practice not because it was required

    or not required in San Francisco law the most redistricting task force did establish a lot of processes themselves

    I think there was a lot of agreement early on um of the members on the processes they were setting up they

    established directions in the beginning um for example electing officers adopting bylaws setting schedules

    um getting briefed and trained they assign this is all in their report by the way and they assigned members to

    lead particular areas work for example community outreach social media and website data and

    mapping budgeting Community input management Etc they also relied on a consultant to

    assist with Outreach and participated in this themselves as well they advocated for language access and they were really

    frustrated when there wasn't enough budget to support more I know there was a lot of criticism about that and they didn't have any control they didn't have

    the budget to have more they also reduced released a free redistricting tool for the public along with a

    training video to help the public with map drawing they they held two

    district-specific meetings in each supervisorial district and they iterated on maps with support from Consultants

    including doing live drawing and then they also made some recommendations for future task forces when working with the

    consultant as I was just referring to um so that's all in their report you can read about that if you like

    um there are also a Civic Edge LED it was the consultant Tire to help with community outreach they had a little bit

    in their report that is in the larger task force report document and some concerns that they received were around

    meeting schedules um and collaborating with the community on what those meeting schedules should be that there are more languages needed

    in interpretation and you know those in language meetings as well and and let's

    see regarding meetings the task force specifically said that future iterations of the task force should consider

    various methods of running meetings more efficiently while allowing for more robust participation including more focused public comment better

    facilitation of discussion and action and they've been recessing until the next day if necessary

    um so this is obviously means that the redistricting task force

    um their processes are very dependent on Who was appointed and how they decide to work as opposed to something that's

    documented and required in some way of them in um in an ordinance or in a

    charter um and then um I'll just just note this the

    California commission and then I have one other note as I was doing some of this research about those majority and

    super majority thresholds so the California commission requires a

    special super majority for maps that's nine of 14 and that means at least more

    than or equal to three Democrats more than or equal to three Republicans and more than are equal to three others who

    are declined to state or Independence and they are required to comply with the Bagley Keen act there is 14 days notice

    for public meetings 14 days of comment on the first draft maps and seven days on others three days on the Final maps

    for public comment they are required to conduct public Outreach and providing the public with mapping software

    they're prohibited from ex parte Communications Commission records are public and they must publish a report

    justifying the final map so the last note that I wanted to make around

    [Music] um majority versus super majority so there's there's a lot of different points of view on this some folks think

    that a super majority forces collaboration and creative problem solving to get closer to though not

    forcing consensus and considering what's best for voter representation rather than personal preferences some think

    that a super majority could paralyze a body and make it more likely a final map deadline would be missed thereby pushing

    the decision to the court who hasn't just done all the work that the commission or the task force has done so

    there are various points of view on those two thresholds okay that's

    that's it thank you commissioner Personnel for

    that very dense um explanation so maybe we can start

    um with the voting threshold just says it it's very concrete

    um so so my experience was the former that it

    um it it really um created an ethos of consensus and

    collaboration and creative problem solving when we saw that we didn't have the votes

    um it caused us to really listen to each other so we could try to convince each

    other so we would we could you know get that and then you know in the end and

    that's why it was so heartening for me to hear Dr sarwani say that they essentially did the same thing where

    they operated by consensus because that way you know by the end of the process that

    you're going to get your nine votes um because otherwise

    I will tell you there was one point in time when we thought

    we thought that we were not going to get enough Independence because it was harder because there were only four of

    them and we had to get three out of four um and we thought two Independents might

    vote against the map and it was pretty stressful [Laughter]

    so you know that that was why

    working by consensus all the way through it similarly to how we're discussing

    this among the three of us um it was really good because then you knew

    you had it at the end and that's what Dr sudmani said that they were not surprised they had an unanimous vote

    because they had worked that way all the way through um so

    the comment that uh you know that would just cause them to miss the deadline that was a comment

    from one of the former redistricting task force members and that was you know one of the

    contentious ones and so they you know had those

    battle Lanes drawn and I guess my concern for San Francisco is

    you know even if we increased it to 14 plus two as we've talked about

    um you know making it nine just makes it a a higher hurdle that they have to to get

    people on board uh because I my concern is what we saw happen this last time is that you know

    once you've got the five people who are always voting together they basically had no reason to listen to anyone else

    anymore right and we want this body to listen to each

    other and to listen to the public and to be able to be persuaded and to listen to somebody else's

    judgment call and that was something that you know I knew on my IRC that we're going to be

    fine because in our very first vote the vote Swank you know swung from you know

    an even split to eight you know to

    to you know eight or nine on one side and then a flipped because we were

    having this very intense discussion and people were convincing each other

    uh and I think what happens if you have a simple majority uh

    and in this case where we had political factions it just means that you're no longer

    protecting my minority right and so so I I like a super majority

    um you know I think nine is not onerous out of 14. uh and it doesn't have to be

    special because it's the local level but that means you need to convince at

    least eight colleagues of your point of view um

    you can't just steamroll over them right and so uh

    I would say it just made a very big difference for us because we were constantly keeping in mind that we were going to

    have to make a big vote at some point and we needed as many people along the way raising

    their hands all the way through as we were going through 177 districts across the state right because you disagree on

    one District you vote against the whole map right so so I can just share that experience

    I I think when we think about um when we talked about uh the types of

    skills that members of the uh admission would need

    I think the consensus is really important because we we want in my

    opinion we should be recommending that we Foster consensus that that you don't

    have factions and if it's a situation where you have to

    make sure as you're going along the way that you've got everybody on board you have to discuss it you have to convince

    each other that will build consensus and I think it'll it'll make it

    I think it'll give the community of San Francisco much more confidence

    in the process and and I think I want to distinguish it from

    you know that you want people who are just going to agree with each other because that was not the case we had we had Fairly

    violent disagreements at some point but but the point was that everyone got

    their say everyone got a chance to try to convince everyone else and then people were moved and they allowed

    themselves to be convinced and in some cases I'll remember I

    remember very distinctly one of the Commissioners who happened to be the youngest commissioner and she

    you know was when she first spoke she was a little you made that comment you know that I

    don't know I'm you know probably in the minority or whatever and and she convinced us to change our minds I mean

    she moved the whole commission a totally different direction um and

    and I think that's what we want to encourage is the ability to listen to

    each other collaborate and instead of just disagreeing find a creative way to

    solve it like we did what we called these like circular rotations of population

    because you know everything's a puzzle piece they all have to fit together so once you you you would you know adopt

    new borders to adjust around communities of interest in one District it changes

    the borders of the neighborhood District right and so we would rotate move the

    population and and rotate it through several districts to find the best combination that would

    you know keep as many communities together as possible

    because you know you're accommodating one Community it means you might be hurting another Community right so so

    that was something we were very conscious of was um looking at where we could do the the

    most good and and making those trade-offs to say hey

    this is this is a better overall map it's not just a

    us against them it's not that simple right so that's the creativity

    that I'm talking about is you're going to have to make difficult trade-offs and

    rather than just saying well I have the vote so I want it this way

    you know it's like no you're gonna have to talk to me about it because I'm not happy with what you did to this community in in this neighboring

    District how do we fix it right so that's what I would want to see at

    the local level as well it's that kind of collaboration to like how do we fix

    it um I I think what what you were just

    saying um resonates with me and actually was kind of say something sort of similar is that I think that the the

    qualification is not that you're somebody who's willing to be consent in

    general but that you will come into a conversation um as a good listener as a creative

    Problem Solver as a critical thinker you know as um collaborative you know those kinds of

    things that are yes we've already discussed the last time we met our

    um their subjective qualifications right of figuring out how to identify those

    kinds of qualities and candidates but I think those are the kinds of skills we hope that this body has and is this as

    I'm thinking and listening to you all talk and just thinking about all of these different points within commission processes it's also just striking me

    that there's this full scope of all of these different components we're talking about that um sort of complement each other right

    is that when you are creating a body that is um

    that is that is compiled through a fair

    selection process that has folks who have some sort of minimum qualifications

    um you know and want to be civically active and when you're resourcing the effort so that you have an agency who's

    running this process who can also support processes in useful ways you know when all these things are working

    together they're complementary to result in something that is hopefully a process

    that the public can trust because it is transparent it was you know and just the way that it is set up hopefully allows

    for trust building so so yes I agree I also wanted to just

    point out that I mean I guess what we're also talking about a majority vote if we have let's

    just say because I think we did sort of get at least get close to saying maybe this 14 8 plus 6. um you know is a

    that might be okay I know we discussed that you know of having the right um

    kind of these minimum qualifications in place eight people would be a majority and then nine would be a super majority

    so it's it's a difference of one person it's not a lot of us yeah no it's not

    yeah and it does allow for you know

    um minority to register discontent right uh

    and what what the way we handled it uh on my our IRC is that

    we we tended to not vote on things along the way with people who were unable to

    convince move the rest of the commission they would say well I see that the will of the commission is is going this

    direction and I'm willing to move on um and so that way

    you know because our we clearly defined consensus doesn't mean

    everyone agreed it means that people have been heard and every conclusion

    they've reached a conclusion they see what the will of the commission is and they're ready to move on they don't have to be beat a dead horse and continue to

    you know rail on it right and so um so when I say that we work by

    consensus it did not mean that we all agreed yeah but it meant that people conceded that a super majority had

    landed somewhere else after hearing them say their piece uh and they and and they

    felt heard and they had put their disagreement on the record and then we moved on to the next topic

    and that's that's how we were able to get through 177 districts because we didn't all agree right on everything

    right and and just to clarify um my statement it's the skills are the ability to articulate

    your point of view to listen um and to be okay with

    we've all discussed it we've all heard our point of views and now we've decided on this

    but I think you can only do that when you have you know that level of

    um required the the super majority sorry I took a long day my words are escaping me

    um that's to me that's fundamental for this to work especially in San Francisco yeah

    and and we did have that bifurcation where we only we've only had that

    special super majority on on maps and then it was uh just um it

    was you know I think it was nine to make any decision but it didn't have to be that special super majority but again we all mostly

    operated by consensus so mostly other stuff didn't matter anyway but I think

    um you also said something that I think is really is also key is that

    if it was if we did a nine if we recommended um a nine uh super majority it does

    still allow for minority discontent right it still allows people to disagree and the process to move forward and

    sometimes that I think not sometimes I think that is really important you know and for having

    people to be able to you know document that and if that's not you know as maps that there there can

    that point of view can be represented in rationale and that's I think an important part of

    Community engagement in our Democratic processes and all of that and so that you know I think that's a really good

    thing yeah majority rules but for you know right minorities have have rights

    right and that is that is democracy right um okay so that's the super majority I

    think we're pretty comfortable with nine um uh we've talked about the report before

    uh ex parte Communications that is something that is consistent with what the

    redistricting task force members requested in the written report and also in person in front of us about being

    protected from political influence that was very clear um you know

    uh if you're not a political appointee then you can't be summoned so that's part of

    the independent selection process but um but in this particular slide we no one

    was allowed to talk about redistricting matters outside of a public meeting

    so um you know elected officials actually

    came and addressed the commission they had to do it in a public meeting with the same three minutes or two minutes whatever it was

    um that every member of the public got so there were no secret meetings basically

    and if you did have a meeting you had to disclose it so I mean that happens people have a

    conversation and I had friends who would start talking to me about their area and I'd say I'm

    sorry you're I'm gonna have to ask you to put it in writing and post it on the website now because I'm gonna have to

    disclose that I had this conversation with you so just please stop talking and write it up as a public comment and

    submit it to our website right so that way everyone's hearing the

    same stuff everyone's seeing the same written comments [Music] um

    so so I personally am in favor of that I

    think it was really important as um an insulation mechanism

    I mean there were public officials I knew that did not talk to me the whole time I was on the commission

    so uh I personally think it's a good idea

    yes yes I know I I remember

    very much the um representatives from the last

    redistricting and the the pressure they felt and I think the the goal of this is

    to to prevent that so having it being an independent body and a Prohibition on exported

    Communications is going to be key to keeping it independent

    so yes I agree yeah well they one of the recommendations from the task force also

    was um to Shield them from inappropriate influence they they requested that I

    think in some ways can make people's it I mean it can be complicated to have every conversation

    about a topic in public like it just you know it's not an easy thing to do and it's a public body that has public

    accountability and transparency is necessary and sometimes it's helpful when there are

    um guard rails you know put around you that say like I I'm sorry you just have to bring it to a meeting like I just

    have to have these you know it can Shield people in a way that can sometimes be appreciated and make the job a little bit easier yeah I mean we

    could do like Outreach stuff right like I said I I was sent out to do a lot of public education

    about what is redistricting how can you participate and all that but as soon as someone who says I want my district to

    look like X then I'm like okay please put it put it in writing and submit it to our website you know so that I don't get called out

    for having a discussion with you about your District right so

    um so that's on transparency we've talked a bit about um the voting threshold

    uh oh I was remiss there was one other thing in the Amendments for

    um the state legislation they clarified the procedure if the

    commission misses the deadline oh yeah and they put some teeth in it so

    they did say it would go to Superior Court and they added a line saying that the court would be empowered to hire a

    special Master to draw the maps this is in 1248 and 12 40 or so

    it might be 764. um well but it's one of them

    okay I remember I read this like 10 minutes before the meeting but there's a specific

    procedure now because remember we weren't sure like what happens when you send a superior court then what

    so now they actually added a line saying that the Superior Court would be empowered to hire a special Master to

    draw the districts if the if the IRC fails to meet the deadline

    and I I'm sure that was a logistics thing to make sure that the

    maps are done in time that candidates can run for office so so that was a addition

    uh amendment made uh September 1st some clarification on that

    mm-hmm so I think that's a good idea because basically

    what happened in our cases uh we lucked out that um the Department of

    Elections had a little bit of wiggle room and they were able to to work with the redistration task force

    even though they were three weeks late but if they had been a lot late

    no recourse we have nothing

    um I think that something again these things are all really interconnected is

    um little talk I think it might be the next section is on timing timing and

    that's also I think a really important thing here right because these are complicated they're just this is

    complicated no matter which way you look at it it's complicated and by allowing the body enough time to do its work I

    think it gets less likely that you miss a deadline um and if you support it with adequate

    resources it's less like right like there's again the interconnectedness of a lot of these things

    um I think can be helpful yeah I think you make a good point and

    it has to be kind of a package deal it's in the same way you know talking about a super majority

    without knowing how many Commissioners you're talking about is difficult right so that's why when I originally had done

    my little tables I was separating these elements and then I would say only if this is also true right so

    um so yeah it's kind of a package of of recommendations

    um let's see the first thing you had was training so I I think there were a lot of

    comments that this last particular registering task force in particular

    um didn't get a lot of training that other ircs have gotten

    um you know I train practically every other IRC in the Bay Area and

    um I mentioned to to the city clerk that he had not one

    but two former CRC Commissioners in in San Francisco and neither of us were

    asked to train so um so I think just requiring that they

    get training on certain topics is just common sense

    and in a timely manner as I said they should get training on mapping before mapping starts right

    which implies they didn't uh for the um

    for the CCRC we we had required training on the Voting Rights Act and

    Bagley keen and you know State hiring processes we had all kinds of training

    and that that all happened very early

    I think that this is um another instance where looking to the recommendations of the recent task force

    here are good I think again they they know what would have been really helpful for them doing

    um the work effectively and just requiring that there be some training and that the task force is

    formed early enough to allow for training before they're having to hold public hearings you know

    um around the mapping I think I read yeah mapping training should be provide

    there was another list I can't remember where it was um might have been from the section I read from their report

    um they did some of it and I think some of the some of it they requested themselves

    but they they definitely needed some I mean how can you be a member of the public and be part of this process without adequate training so I think

    they really did their best given the circumstance to get what they needed um and giving them a little support you

    know behind them um through recommendations of please make sure you do this read their report ask see what they asked for and see what

    is just even the list that I have here in the slide right legals I mean some of it's required right they're a city body

    they're required to do Sunshine ordinance Task Force training or Sunshine ordinance training they're you know but the legal technical all of

    those things well you know we all have to do that training right because that's because we're a permanent commission so

    what I learned is it's often not required of of temporary bodies and so so yeah that so I think we have to

    actually be specific make that recommendation clear oh I didn't know that okay yeah I I learned that recently

    okay so so that's a challenge with temporary bodies that they don't necessarily get the training that that

    even we get as a permanent commission so so maybe that's a the trainings that are

    required a permanent commission should also be required of the task force there you go [Music]


    so I'm looking at your next thing including the public I mean I honestly think and I've said this many times

    before that a lot of the challenge was they just didn't allow enough time and that's why they got so crunched at the

    end so their own recommendation about having a suggested timeline

    you know set up for them that is you know that was the nature of some of

    the training that I did for the other commissions around the Bay Area and elsewhere was just giving them a sense

    of what the timeline looked like and encouraging them to you know get

    draft Maps out early and Etc so that they could come up with a

    schedule that would work as opposed to just winging it right and then leaving themselves three weeks to draw the maps

    which is kind of what happened uh and then that's why they had these Marathon sessions right so coming up more with

    like an action plan for how back planning

    how to get to where they need to be with maybe not with specific dates but at

    least a timeline of of where they need to be so that they're not crunched at the end

    yeah so I think that's um so that is something that could be

    addressed through training and you know so basically what we offered when we were being asked to train these

    independent commissions was was to give them the benefit of our experience and best practices

    um but uh I think your next category is actually more explicit about actual

    deadlines but I think but part of this including the public was you know understanding

    that there it takes time for the public to respond to things I mean it took a

    year before people noticed we were doing this process right so right you know

    there there is um you know Outreach and uh engaging the

    public you know once you've done something so you can even get the feedback and so

    that takes time and they need to allow for that and so so I think

    that is a key issue was making sure there's adequate time and that's what's behind the deadlines

    and the in the state legislation like I said we had a very onerous notice

    requirement 14 days I mean we Scramble now just to do our 72 hours for our meetings it's really long 14 days is

    really long we literally had to just agendize meetings because we didn't know if we would need

    to meet and we if we would miss the 14-day posting deadline we couldn't meet so we literally just that's long we had

    to agendize meetings way out in the future just to make sure that we had a standard agenda that was posted that

    would allow us to meet so 14 was tough um so they have seven for local which I

    think is fair that seems reasonable um and the idea of you know if you post

    a map I mean it takes people a while to say okay do I even agree with it do I

    understand what's going on I mean that's why there's a requirement to post a map for a certain amount of time because

    people need time to absorb and then react to it so I I think the deadlines that are

    proposed in in the state legislation seem reasonable

    like I said 14 was really long that seems excessively long but it's also for a state process you know when

    you've got so many people I I just there's something about the size that I suppose could we make that

    make sense we did 14 days this I will admit like the the concept of making

    sure that there is time before an agenda a map or posted for the public you know

    knowing like I have a very busy job so making sure that if I had 24 hours notice what I can't do it right like

    there's just some things that aren't realistic and so I would need time to look at something

    um and um you know and what is onerous like I

    this is I I just don't feel like I have quite the I just don't have the experience of being on the commission to

    say yes this is realistic or this would be realistic if you started us early so that the whole

    process could take longer so we could allow for the seven days and the three days and all of those kinds of things and if we could extend the process in a

    way that allows for that and um and still allows them to meet their deadlines then I suspect people would be

    in support but I would be curious to hear from people who were involved if they do think that but that's my logic

    says that yeah yeah no I mean if you look at this poor last redistricting

    task force I mean they they were I think appointed right before the holidays and then the pandemic hit and you know they

    spent a lot of time trying to figure that out and then and then they had an April 15th deadline right and so

    you know they were just crunched on time the whole way through they were appointed late they right now well I

    think that that the redistricting task force the last

    three District task force is an example of why you need time because you don't know what's going to happen

    um of course no one could have predicted a pandemic no however

    um we don't know what's going to happen yeah we know that

    the virus is still there so we don't know what's going to happen still happening it's still happening before you know so I do think time and giving

    enough time to prepare for what potentialities we can

    make sense foresee makes sense and I guess I'm just making that point

    as I think that was their biggest challenge of being inclusive because they they

    literally had to have these meetings and went to the early hours of the morning because they were hitting a deadline and they didn't have any time left

    and so whether they were doing something you know

    that was suspicious or not you know it was irrelevant I mean they just they just ran out of time so

    so I think having having adequate noticing giving the public time to react

    um that is how you are inclusive and requiring the Outreach

    I'm not sure we I need to I just I'm noting that it's a question here and that there were some recommendations

    from the task force around meeting times and when they happened and you know and things like I'm not sure that's

    appropriate for us to weigh it on it's just right that's kind of in the weeds and that a commission should think of if

    they are Consulting with a community on when works I have my own questions about

    whether starting something in the morning would actually engage more people but I understand wanting to end before midnight and you know so I don't

    know I I don't know that we should be weighing in on that level of detail I don't think so I think that's something

    for them to decide I mean I know when we did public input hearings we tried to make them on weekends and in the

    evenings because we assume most people worked and so we would try to vary them so that

    there were some choices like if you can't come in the evening maybe you could come on a weekend so like I would

    think that our recommendation should be engage with the community to find out the best time for the community exactly

    that's right that's it so yeah I think that's something

    you leave to the discretion of the body you know you choose good people and you

    you know and you we hire critical thinkers like you said then you have them make a decision with

    community and put it

    anything else on this one should we cover why don't you go to the chart and see if there's anything else there it

    might take a while to vote or maybe it just takes a couple clicks

    well then it'd probably take you to the next slide

    maybe if we stare at it like a watched pot I don't know I think you might have to

    click it again um

    uh maybe all right there we go okay yeah so

    yeah so yeah the the rdtf also talked about robust Outreach I I will note that

    they had real disagreements on the statement of work for the Outreach consultant and this was another

    situation where they're an independent body but the Consultants were chosen for them they didn't have any say in the

    contract and so then they disagreed with the scope of work and so

    this is back to if this is an independent body they need their own staff they need to have some say in

    choosing the Consultants and um you know

    it was very clear a lot of things were outside of their control over the time right

    right yeah there was a lot about that in their report yeah yeah I mean

    yeah I could totally understand um I think they're ready to go the next one

    yeah are you sure it's the last one all right we'll wait for it to load

    um while we're waiting for it to show up on the screen um this is the seventh area timing

    um when should the redistricting process begin prior to the deadline and when must draft Maps be produced oh here we

    go okay great um so I will first just uh read a a

    little clip from the city reports report or the city clerk's report

    who says it would be advised advisable for the Board of Supervisors to introduce and pass an ordinance

    establishing the task force at least six months to a year before the census results are released in April the

    ordinance should include the member structure appointing authorities and and that they serve at the pleasure of those

    authorities seat qualifications deadline for appointments attendance requirements

    minimum number of meetings assignment of administrative clerking legal support language access standards and Outreach

    directives including where the funding will be derived for each of these the earlier establishment of the task force

    will allow the appointing authorities additional time to make their appointments and for the appointees to arrange their upcoming schedules since

    the duties will require a significant portion of their time and energy this will provide the city attorney's office

    additional time to brief appointees with the Cal California Ralph and brown act the sunshine ordinance and in general

    the city attorney's good government guide to ensure adherence to rules and best practices the task force members

    must be made aware of how much time will be required in their schedule would need to adapt to the task Force's majority

    uh and then the two main areas listed here on the slide are seating the task

    force when must the task force be seated to enable adequate time to thoughtfully and inclusively do their work

    um which we've been discussing the city decided to form the task force earlier than standard practice so

    and the city clerk recommends to begin even earlier next time so just to clarify that because we've said that

    they got started late they got started late because the census results were result were released late where they

    were earlier than standard practice is that once census results come out then the procedure is the Department of

    Elections director then says here's what the areas look like there is an imbalance or not an imbalance in the

    districts and so therefore we should you know establish a task force you know get

    one going and to to do its thing and so the earlier is that the city decided to

    seat the redestricting task force before the census results were out and before there was a recommendation from the director of Elections but it was still

    as you've just said was late in terms of being able to get any what they really

    wanted to done because I do think that their intention was to have a really good process that was inclusive and it's

    you know the circumstances were such that you know it's not great so how can how my legislation helped them you know

    to to have a process that they I think that they would want based on what we've read and heard uh

    and then the second area is map deadlines what should the draft map deadlines be to enable adequate time for

    Meaningful public input and collaboration and should the final map deadline stay the same

    all right we'll wait for the chart to appear

    um so we're going to tell Marisa it's not clear that this WebEx is better than the

    other one yeah yeah there we go yeah last week it was slow at last time it

    was slow too I was I was waiting sometimes for it to pierce so this feels a little slower than last time but it

    was also slow last time so okay so here are current San Francisco law the task force is appointed within 60

    days of the director of Elections report if the districts are not in compliance with the law we already have talked

    about what compliance means in terms of size there are no deadlines for draft Maps there's only a final deadline

    stipulated of April 15th in the year in which the related election will be conducted

    um ab1248 would require that the IRC is established not later than 250 days

    before the final map deadline you'll have to do the math um I cannot right now

    um AB 764 the map should be adopted with a minimum of 204 days before the next

    regular election after January 1st in the year ending in two on a Monday not a

    Sunday um

    so uh I also wanted to add that state legislation ties the IRC seating

    deadlines to map deadlines rather than to census data so it's tied to deadlines I'm going to say that again the state

    legislation ties seating deadlines to map deadlines not to census deadline

    data deadlines just to set up so um and then I already shared with you what San Francisco actually did

    um the fair Maps act says the boundaries should be adopted no longer no earlier than

    um August 1st in the Years ending in one and no later than March in years ending

    in two the Pharaoh maps report the promise for maps report

    recommends that we revisit the 2030 redistricting cycle timeline in 28 or 29

    and to change the map deadline to land on a Monday and not a Sunday I have to say I didn't read in detail enough to

    understand the Monday versus the Sunday thing but it was in a couple of different spots although that's that's all tied together because we know AB 764

    is meant to enhance or improve the fair Maps act so I'm sure that that's why those are both the same

    um but I'm not sure why that's the recommendation but there's clearly a reason for it

    um redistricting task force for San Francisco so that the task force should

    start as early as the calendar and Charter will allow and before receiving census data

    um and they also suggested recommending um they wanted to be able to prepare themselves informationally and with

    training and that's why and the city clerk made the same recommendation in their report

    um and I also want to um just provide again I know I'm quoting a lot from the city clerk's report but

    it was pretty comprehensive so um here's another section um due to the covid-19 Health Emergency

    that complicated the completion of the census the timeline followed was not the usual practice from years before in

    anticipation of the delayed receipt of the census results from the federal government the city decided to form the task force prior to receiving the census

    report in order to get the task force informationally ready to begin their duties normally the ordinance that

    establishes the task force is introduced after the director of Elections report on the census results and whether the district lines are in compliance this

    year the city decided to forego waiting for that report and move forward with the establishment and appointing of the task force beforehand

    the clerk's office recommends that the establishment of the task force and appointments be made even earlier additional time to establish the task

    force would provide more opportunities to review the duties established timeline for Action set expectations and

    execute those requirements and additional demands the task force would be able to focus on the actual district lines and duties to accomplish that task

    by the time by the time the census results are released so they're ready to do the the work once the census results

    are available right the census results are released around April the year prior to the task forces April 15th deadline

    to adopt a final map it would be advisable for the Board of Supervisors to introduce and pass an ordinance establishing the task force at least six

    months to a year before the census results are released in April

    so that is so if the deadline is April 15th and the census results are a year prior to that they are recommending that

    the task force be established six months or a year before the census results so that is a year and a half or two years

    before the deadline just to help you out with the math okay the ordinance should include the member structure well I

    already told you that in a previous um so I'll stop there

    um and then the state commission um the 2020 CCRC terms began one year

    before the final map deadline and their draft map is due on June 15th

    now I don't remember Dr sedoni thanked thanked me for that because we only had seven months to draw the math so we gave

    them a full year um so I think one thing's clear it does

    make sense not to make it census dependent yes and it does make sense to go backwards from the final map deadline

    uh and I think the other thing is

    starting this Outreach and recruitment process needs to start even earlier earlier right absolutely so like in our

    case it we had seven months to actually do our job and they took eight months to select us just to give you an idea

    [Music] um so so clearly it needs to start much much

    earlier so I actually think that 250 days that's

    in 1248 is not sufficient for a city the size of San Francisco

    yeah I think it should be at least a year um and that's when they're seated so

    that means the Outreach and the Recruitment and the vetting and all that stuff has happened the year before with education and yeah

    so yeah I like it I like the year sorry a year

    um for seating for seating yeah absolutely and then

    we can get some input on how how long for the for the uh Outreach and vetting

    but like I said eight months to select us well I think what's interesting just in

    the city clerk's report again um just want to note they said

    um six months to a year before census results are released so they're recommending a year and a half to two

    years before the map deadline yeah so does seem reasonable to require at least a year but if the city clerk's office

    who was managing a lot of this said 18 months to two years I guess I guess my question would be about that record

    shrinks because people like I don't know if I'm gonna still be here in two years or or I don't know what my life's gonna

    look like and you might lose people by the time you're drawing draft Maps like it's just a question because anytime you

    ask people for that kind of commitment is How likely is it that you're definitely going to be using your two

    alternates um you know which is why you want your two alternates obviously if you're going to have it's even more important if you

    have a longer period of time the task force is in place and so that would be my one apprehension about super super

    long although I really like the idea of having more time just what's the balanced strike where you start to lose

    people who are willing to participate for that long so I wonder when they said

    seated whether um

    because the city clerk was working with our existing process and so it was not

    anticipating any kind of Outreach and a long Outreach and recruitment process actually here let me give you a little

    clarification I'm going to just read a part of this again so they said it would be advisable to introduce and pass an ordinance establishing the task force so

    I don't know if they mean establishing that the ordinance should be passed 18 to two years 18 months to two years or

    the ordinance to establish the task force where the task force is formed 18 months to tears I don't know which one

    they actually mean it's a good question it makes sense because

    it makes sense that it's the ordinance because the ordinance has to set out the budget and who's doing what who's on

    second right it it puts it fills in all the details that are not appropriate to

    be in the charter how much how much the you know stipend is and all that other stuff

    because they can't take action until after the ordinance has passed so that makes sense to me that the

    ordinance would have to be passed earlier than that two years it's going to give plenty of time for the recruitment to not wait yeah

    um put a plan together you know figure out which department is going to do it right you know well we said ourselves

    the whole reason we're trying to get this done sooner is to give them enough time because we think it's we Step Up

    we've said it multiple times that you know like I said Long Beach said it was a three-year budget cycle they had

    it in three different budget years to cover this um so I think seating the commission itself

    I think if the if the CCRC can do the whole state of California in a year then

    we have to be able to do San Francisco within a year right I think that's fair and

    um and then we have to account back out and

    Outreach and recruitment process and and and the and the vetting and selection

    piece right it's actually Outreach and recruitment been vetting and selection then they get seated then they do their

    maps and they hit the deadline so there's actually three parts right

    and so um excuse me so an ordinance let's just yeah 18 months to two years

    with a minimum of the task force being seated a year before yeah

    I think that makes sense yeah yeah

    you know appropriate funds for the Outreach and and do budget augmentations

    I think that makes sense right and we do two-year budget Cycles so it might have

    to be earlier for the ordinance even in order to account for that maybe

    yeah but anyway we don't need to know that we don't need to know that that's for them to figure out but what we're

    saying is that the the commission itself whatever processes need to happen the

    Outreach and recruitment the vetting and selection have to happen in time to to let give the the actual IRC a full year

    I think that's reasonable yeah I mean I think that

    as much as we can make it clear that there needs to be a a timeline for all

    of these things to and the goal is to give the um redistrict task force the the

    opportunity to do their their job so here's an interesting question so the FMA

    um requires that the boundaries be adopted by March 1st and in San Francisco we

    stipulate April 15th in our Charter and it was because we had our own Charter deadline

    that we were able to quote unquote miss the state that line because we had our own deadline and that's how the

    redistricting task force was able to negotiate with director Arts how much

    can we miss it by right it became a local negotiation it was because we have our own Charter deadline that is not

    consistent with the state deadline okay um so that's I think a question like

    should we have our own deadline or should we should be abide by the fair map stack

    deadline I don't have a strong opinion on that this one is an earlier deadline

    I think what I have a strong opinion on is they need enough time before whatever

    the deadline is to do their job to get trained and do their job well right

    but that's a question I think is should should we you know should we align with with the

    state deadline I uh like I said I don't have a strong opinion on it it's just a good question maybe it's just a question

    maybe it's just a question to share rather than to try to answer right now I agree


    and I do think that a draft map deadline must be specified that was what really screwed up this

    last redistricting task force is there was no deadline for the draft map so they didn't do one on time

    then it became too crunched at the end

    so I am not seeing do does it look like

    only the state Commission of of all of the things here have a draft map deadline

    um I believe there is a draft map deadline for um

    it's stipulated in one of the uh one of these uh state things is it maybe

    I just missed it I thought I looked pretty closely at all that language but I might have missed it

    yeah so just to give you an idea the draft map deadline for us was June 15th our final deadline was August 15th so

    I think having a draft map deadline that's you know something like that three

    months in advance because that forces you to to draw something

    right it was two months before June 15th in August yeah June 15th yeah two months sorry

    yeah so um we originally I think I've shared with you before we originally thought we

    could do two draft maps and then we realized after we had all the tomatoes

    thrown at us after we had our June 15th one and we realized we had violated the rank criteria and all that other stuff

    we realized we were basically going to have to go back to the drawing board and we were not going to have time to put

    out a second draft map and have more Tomatoes thrown at us and not have enough time to fix it and so we actually

    got really criticized for that but I think it was absolutely the right decision because because we had to

    really redo things um and the point that I made when I trained all these other

    ircs and advisory commissions is get a draft mapped out early because until people see what you're thinking about

    they're not going to have specific feedback for you right they're just going to talk in general and say keep my

    community whole but what does that mean right right because I see that not until they see that you drew a line through their Community are they going to come

    back at you say no you need to move that over three blocks right until they see something concrete people

    the earlier it gets out the better earlier the better and so I think the big flaw with the city process is

    there's no interim deadline there was only a final deadline and then there was

    like no recourse if you missed it so um do did like Long Beach do they have a

    draft map deadline to your recollection and do you remember when it was I think it was two months before or

    something like this and what about the Hagen yeah um I didn't bring all of my written notes but uh I have a handy table that

    compares oh yes Michigan and Long Beach and I think I think I yeah I put it in

    there so yeah if it was there I put it in there yeah I don't have it handy with me right

    now but I did try to compare them on that element

    but yeah I think there needs to be a draft map deadline and

    yeah at least two three months would be better but at least two months before the final so

    that I think we can recommend three months and then let the body decide

    but I think having a draft mat dead having a draft map deadline is that the request the

    rest of the requests have a draft map deadline right and then let the body decide on I would say the timing of that

    at least two months before the final map mm-hmm

    but as early as possible because that's that's when you get I mean we had like a

    lot of really nicely nice conversations in our public input hearings that were you know prior to census data and prior

    to our drawing the draft maps of men it seems we had draft Maps out oh my God we got a flood of comments yeah and then we

    had to go through and sort them and understand them and figure out how to fix it and that took a lot of time

    that's why we realized we couldn't do a second draft lab well Okay so

    anything else on that one I think those are the two important things it said that has to be seated with enough time

    and they have to and they have to come out with draft Maps so yeah those are

    the two areas yep um the last thing I oh look how fast

    that turned I saw that I was like wow why is live switch

    um wow something's happened I don't know what's happening um the last slide here is just a bunch

    of hyperlinks to um to reports and documents referred to in this deck

    um I have noticed since then of course but had already submitted this deck so I don't I there were some things I wanted to add like the current redistricting

    task force report which by the way for members of public is very very easy to find if you just enter San Francisco

    redistricting task force in your search bar it will be the first thing that comes up and the report is literally at

    the top of the home page so it's very easy to find but I do regret I did not list this here

    um and there there may be other things would have been useful but hopefully this is a good place to find the source

    information for everything you saw in this everything you saw on this deck you

    can find in these links um and so that is I think that was it

    excellent okay so

    um so I feel like uh we need to

    summarize the things that we have broad agreement on [Music]

    which I think was most of it really we have some questions we have some things that might be General recommendations

    that maybe don't belong in a charter Amendment um but on some of the key issues I I

    feel like we came to a pretty pretty good agreement on a lot of these items

    and we probably just need to see it in writing for us to just read it over

    and you know agree that that is what we all said

    um and then we could actually vote on it and move it forward but I think we could

    I'm not suggesting we meet again before the next commission me but we can certainly uh

    report on what we discussed and you know short of having an actual official vote

    where we believe we had agreement so

    um I think what I'm going to suggest is that

    uh we try to write up and circulate a

    document that that documents where we believe we have agreement uh and then we

    present that at the next election it's the next election commission meaning which is what the 19th the 20th the 20th

    the 20th um because I don't have time to meet again before then I don't think you guys

    see that um does that sound like a a good way

    forward you have other thoughts I have a question so this are you saying you're going to write up

    let's well with your assistance okay like I

    said we all took notes right you know I try to repeat things so I think I got

    where I thought we came out on but it may not be completely accurate so

    so I think we can we can um have a share a document that we add to yeah and just

    make sure that we get it right uh in terms of what we discussed

    uh I'm gonna start on this anyway because I'm supposed to do the minutes so and the deadline

    um for us to look at it review add make

    comments would be when well president Stone likes to try to post

    things a week before our meeting so next week yeah

    possible to post it yeah ahead of time so yeah I think we may not be able to post it but I I want to make sure that

    um you know even if we end up having to give a report verbally that it that we can summarize

    quickly so that uh you know we don't all have to re-debate things then yeah I

    think um having uh you know a report that if it's verbal and then follow because we

    can even work on a written report all the way up until the meeting and then it can be posted after the fact as well

    um to share a summary of the discussion I think identifying like you said where

    there is General consensus where there are questions so that it's pretty easy to track so people don't necessarily have to listen to six hours of meetings

    to hear all of it but there is summary points of here's where we think we are here's some outstanding questions and

    here this is for you again I don't think we want to necessarily redevate those but it's not a formal set of

    recommendations because we won't have had a chance to meet yeah we still have outstanding information we need you know

    we by then we'll also know a little bit more with the the legislature yep you

    know which will also be interesting so you know I'm comfortable with us putting together some sort of Rapport that's

    like here's a summary of where we our discussions all right can I just ask

    the clarification commissioner Parker a report to the full body commission okay

    yeah and I think uh you know given that um uh what we've read in the news about

    um uh our legislative sponsors that they are looking at November it gives us a

    little more time uh to move on this so um we will know the

    at least what the Senate has done with with the two pieces of State legislation by the

    next elections Commission meeting uh and then by the following one we'll know what the governor has done right

    right and I think if we can share with the full body at the next meeting

    kind of uh where we are at because like I said I think there's a lot of consensus that

    where the state legislation is going makes a lot of sense for San Francisco

    um especially now that they actually are giving us choices for for Betty

    um authorities as well uh that the timing might just actually be

    fine it'll work out just fine and uh

    and then we'll be able to take action right after after the next commissions meeting to formally vote on it and

    if we want to tweak anything does that sound like a plan sounds like a plan and we may have some questions or

    input from the commission at the next meeting that might also I agree yeah

    okay any other comments before we open it up for

    public comment no

    all right let's open it up for public comment

    um Alan birdell I'm just going to play something that kind of captures my comments about your presentation tonight

    17th can you clarify

    um what you mean by 90 10 okay commissioner die sure so if you recall I

    had already put a summary of all the recommendations we've heard from all the speakers back in November uh so that's

    been posted for a long time there were still open questions if you recall that I had you know put in the

    right hand column that were questions I had because they're not the

    recommendations were not specific enough for San Francisco and I should point out with you know with the exception of the

    League of Women Voters of San Francisco all the other ones are State organizations and they've been looking

    at legislation like like a b 1248 and 764 that could apply to every city in

    the state of California and like I said they're not dealing with things that are specific to San

    Francisco like the fact that we have so many supervisors right so they have proposed in 1248 a standard a standard

    commission what it should look like and how it should behave and what the world should be um and a lot of the general

    recommendations and best practices are consistent with what we've heard that there's consensus recommendation on but

    uh the parts where we kind of stick out

    like the fact that we have so many supervisors their standard their standard format and they may not work

    that well for us right and so that's the the last that's

    what I mean by the last 10 that's where I really wanted to get these big brains in a room and have them hash it out with

    it make them think about San Francisco and hash it out with us uh because I do

    think that will take thoughtful discussion um I you know and very aware so I just

    wonder are we the big brains is that four of us here were the big brains right

    and I think you gave a different version of really

    what's happening here okay you promised one thing to president Stone but you've

    delivered something quite different and it's obvious to everybody and it's disappointing and I feel

    think that uh commissioner Stone should look back on

    this and wonder uh if you gave her a straight answer chair die and I don't

    think that uh that you did but thank you thank you Mr Verdon for

    your comment um let's see we have uh

    someone on the line hi even I needed yeah hi this is Lauren

    gerardin with the League of Women Voters of San Francisco uh thank you for this great conversation

    there's so many things that uh we feel that you're getting spot on

    right and appreciate that there are a few things to try to keep looking at and asking more questions on um these are

    complicated issues um and it's one of the big brains that you brought into one of your earlier

    meetings to share expert input um I think that you've done a really great process of examining each of these

    aspects getting experts to come in and discuss all of these things with you

    over over a year um so I think this is uh you know a well-informed process one thing I did

    want to point out um is the uh the question of the mapping deadline in the charter uh the league

    feels that there should not be a mapping deadline in the charter in that San Francisco should use the states mapping

    deadline and there's a very specific reason why it's because the City attorney during the last redistricting

    process determined that the remedies in the state law for missing the final math

    deadline don't apply to San Francisco because we have a mapping deadline in

    our Charter uh there's you may what you can do is look at a memo sent to the

    redistricting task of course on April 19th sorry on April 19 2022 and that

    addresses this issue on page one um and so part of the reason things got

    a confusing and delayed and messed up at the end um was because no one really knew what

    would happen if the mapping deadline was missed because there's just no way for the state

    um regulations to apply to us so if we our understanding is if we clear out the

    mapping deadline from our Charter that will open San Francisco up to being able to use so many more of these great

    things that are in state law and that will continue to be improved in state law through redistricting reform

    um and we will um be in touch if we have anything else so we'll go back and listen to the recording but that was one

    thing that popped off so thank so much thank you so much for that information

    that was very helpful uh

    are there any other public comments

    I am not seeing any other hands so with that let us close public

    comments on this item and we are on to agenda item five

    um agenda items for future meetings so

    anything else besides what we just discussed which is hopefully we can look at the package in

    writing and take a vote on it uh going or tweak it as needed

    um anything else that we would need to put on a future

    let's think of anything

    um nothing's coming to mind I think again once we give a an update to the

    full commission later this month perhaps something will come up that they'll say hey I don't I mean obviously we've heard

    a lot of information at this point and um so maybe we'll be able to answer questions but if there's something else

    that they request maybe that might be but but for now I think it's just moving again towards recommendations as we

    capture everything together get some input you know um

    and then you know and then as you said we'll we'll know more about State legislation kind of soon so very soon

    yeah so I don't have anything and I don't know when our next meeting would be maybe that's also just

    well I think that probably will be based on the outcome of uh the election

    commission the full body meeting and the comments that the other Commissioners

    have so I I think at this point we probably should just wait to see when

    another meeting would be um yeah useful for the public and for us

    yeah my guess is it would probably be between

    our next two commission meetings I will have very limited availability

    between those two meetings I will be around for some but I will be gone for a little over two weeks and unavailable

    okay yeah well it's going to depend on our availability for sure but we definitely want you at the meeting to

    discuss this so uh let's see far how far we can get well I'll certainly try to

    provide an update on the state legislation okay um and as you said we'll get more input

    from our fellow commissioners um right

    and let me open that to public comment for item five

    discussion and possible action regarding items for future agendas any public comment

    seeing none let me close public comment and

    we are adjourned at 8 58.

    thank you thank you all that was a good meeting it's good

    all right again commissioner Parker

    I think it's there thank you for that amazing report




    View transcript

    Call in and make a public comment during the meeting

    Call in and make a public comment during the meeting

    Follow these steps to call in

    • Call 415-655-0001 and enter the access code
    • Press #
    • Press # again to be connected to the meeting (you will hear a beep)

    Make a public comment 

    • After you've joined the call, listen to the meeting and wait until it's time for the item you're interested in
    • When the clerk announces the item you want to comment on, dial *3 to get added to the speaker line
    • You will hear “You have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you"
    • When you hear "Your line has been unmuted," you can make your public comment

    When you speak

    • Make sure you're in a quiet place
    • Speak slowly and clearly
    • Turn off any TVs or radios
    • Speak to the Commission as a whole, not to specific Commissioners

    Make a comment from your computer

    Make a comment from your computer

    Join the meeting

    • Join the meeting using the link above

    Make a public comment 

    • Click on the Participants button
    • Find your name in the list of Attendees
    • Click on the hand icon to raise your hand
    • The host will unmute you when it is time for you to comment
    • When you are done with your comment, click the hand icon again to lower your hand

    When you speak

    • Make sure you're in a quiet place
    • Speak slowly and clearly
    • Turn off any TVs or radios
    • Speak to the Commission as a whole, not to specific Commissioners

    Commission packets

    Commission packets

    Materials contained in the Commission packets for meetings are available for inspection and copying during regular office hours at the Department of Elections, City Hall Room 48. Materials are placed in the Elections Commission's Public Binder no later than 72 hours prior to meetings.

    Any materials distributed to members of the Elections Commission within 72 hours of the meeting or after the agenda packet has been delivered to the members are available for inspection at the Department of Elections, City Hall Room 48, in the Commission's Public Binder, during normal office hours.

    Cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices

    Cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices

    The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. The Chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices.

    Disability access

    Disability access

    The Commission meeting will be held in Room 408, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA. The meeting room is wheelchair accessible.

    The closest accessible BART station is the Civic Center Station at United Nations Plaza and Market Street. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: #42 Downtown Loop, and #71 Haight/Noriega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the Metro Stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For information about MUNI accessible services call (415) 923-6142.

    There is accessible curbside parking adjacent to City Hall on Grove Street and Van Ness Avenue and in the vicinity of the Veterans Building at 401 Van Ness Avenue adjacent to Davies Hall and the War Memorial Complex.

    To obtain a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in a meeting, please contact the Department of Elections at least 48 hours before the meeting, except for Monday meetings, for which the deadline is 4:00 p.m. the previous Friday. Late requests will be honored, if possible.

    Services available on request include the following: American sign language interpreters or the use of a reader during a meeting, a sound enhancement system, and/or alternative formats of the agenda and minutes. Please contact the Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375 or our TDD at (415) 554-4386 to make arrangements for a disability-related modification or accommodation.

    Chemical based products

    Chemical based products

    In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical-based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals.

    Know your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance

    Know your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance

    Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.


    Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
    1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
    Room 244
    San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
    Phone: (415) 554-7724
    Fax: (415) 554-5163

    Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, at the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's website.

    Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements

    Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements

    Individuals that influence or attempt to influence local policy or administrative action may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 2.100 – 2.160) to register and report lobbying activity.

    For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please contact:

    San Francisco Ethics Commission
    25 Van Ness Avenue
    Suite 220
    San Francisco, CA 94102
    Phone: (415) 252-3100
    Fax: (415) 252-3112

    Last updated October 31, 2023