OFFICE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL
CHERYL L. BROWN 117 WEST DUVAL STREET,
DIRECTOR 4TH
FLOOR, CITY HALL
OFFICE (904) 630-1452
FAX (904) 630-2906
E-MAIL: CLBROWN@coj.net
RULES COMMITTEE REDISTRICTING MEETING MINUTES
September 22, 2011
2:00 p.m.
Location: City Council Chamber, City Hall -
In attendance: Committee Members Bill Bishop (Chair), Ray Holt, Matt Schellenberg, Clay Yarborough, Lori Boyer and John Crescimbeni
Excused Johnny Gaffney
Guests: Council Members Robin Lumb, Kimberly Daniels, Warren Jones, Doyle Carter, Denise Lee, Jim Love, Bill Gulliford, Reggie Brown (arr. 2:12)
Also: Bill Killingsworth and Soliman Salem – Planning and Development Department; Jerry Holland – Supervisor of Elections; Jason Gabriel and Peggy Sidman – Office of General Counsel; Jeff Clements – City Council Research; Philip Zamarron – Legislative Services Division; Scott Wilson, Kevin Kuzel and Debbie Delgado – ECAs; David Champan – Financial News and Daily Record; John Libby, Dick Berry, Celia Miller, Glorious Johnson,
Meeting Convened: 2:08 p.m.
Chairman Bishop convened the meeting and asked any council members with ideas for amendments to pass out copies of maps of their proposed changes. The group will discuss all of the proposals in the order they are distributed and take questions and answers, then will take motions for amendments. Handed out were the 6/29/11 at-large map, 8/8/11 district Plan D, EDITS – Compact w/Party 9/22/11 (Schellenberg proposal), SE Compact w/Party 9/22/11 (Bishop). Council Member Doyle Carter discussed a council district plan (not handed out), and Kimberly Daniels discussed an at-large residence area plan (not handed out).
Council Member Brown asked what is the definition of a “substantial change” that would require additional public hearings. Peggy Sidman stated that, in an abundance of caution, an additional public hearing has already been scheduled regardless of whether there is a “substantial” change or not.
Doyle Carter proposal: Mr. Carter discussed a council district proposal labeled JPDD EDITS 8/30/11(Carter plan) – this map was intended to deal with the Whitehouse problem by putting the whole area in District 12 and make associated changes nearby in District 8. Council Member Lee expressed disapproval of the map and stated that she and Council Member Carter had intended to meet to work out a compromise but have not done it yet. Council Member Love stated that the constituents he’s heard from in District 14 have liked the changes the Carter plan represents. In response to a question from Council Member Holt about whether the plan made any changes to Districts 2 and 11, Mr. Killingsworth stated that it did make minor changes on the southeast end of the district border south of the Wonderwood Expressway. Mr. Holt was generally favorable about the proposal, as it seems to solve several of the problems brought up at the public hearings including the San Marco/Southbank area and the Argyle area.
Matt Schellenberg proposal: Mr. Schellenberg read the list of criteria adopted by the Redistricting Committee at the beginning of its work which included compactness, contiguity, minimizing river crossings (at least to start), and preserving communities of interest. He also noted the common themes raised by the public at the four public hearings, including keeping the Argyle area together in one district and unifying the Durkeeville area in one district. He believes the proposed map labeled EDITS – Compact w/ Party 9/22/11 (Schellenberg plan) meets the original criteria and incorporates the changes the public requested in the public hearings. Council Member Lumb indicated his approval of the plan. Council Member Jones stated that the proposal favors compactness over representation of the minority community of interest and indicated his opposition. Council Member Lee stated that the speakers at the public hearings held thus far did not represent the full range of opinions she hears in the community and indicated her opposition to the plan.
In response to a question from Council Member Brown about the reduction of “minority access” districts from 4 to 3 under the new proposals, Peggy Sidman stated that there can never be 100% assurance that someone won’t challenge any plan that is adopted, but the Office of General Counsel is confident that any of the plans that they have reviewed, including the maps distributed today, are legally defensible.
In response to a question from Council Member Boyer about “retrogression” and how that legal concept applies to the maps being proposed today, Jason Gabriel cited the legal precedent in Thornburgh v. Gingles on this point. The Gingles case establishes several tests for determining whether a voting plan dilutes minority voting strength: 1) is the minority community in a jurisdiction sufficiently large and compact enough to constitute a majority in a district; 2) is the minority community politically cohesive and does it usually vote in a bloc for the same candidates; and 3) in the absence of special circumstances, does bloc voting by the majority community usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidates? Council Member Schellenberg stated that many white voters citywide voted for mayoral candidate Alvin Brown, indicating that white voters are not voting as a bloc to prevent black candidates from being elected.
Council Member Lee asked if the revised plans presented
today reduce the number of minority access School Board districts from 2 to
1. Supervisor of Elections Jerry Holland
stated that to his recollection
Bill Bishop proposal: Mr. Bishop presented a plan
labeled SE Compact w/ Party 9/22/11 which is based on the Doyle Carter plan
with an additional change to District 13 to remove the “fishhook” the
incorporates UNF and instead gains population for the Beaches district in the
Isle of Palms area. He did not intend
that any changes be made to the north/west districts. Council Member Daniels expressed
her opposition to her residence being shifted from District 11 to District
7. Council Member Brown objected to both
the Carter and Bishop proposals because they propose to split the
Council Member Lee objected to committee consideration of the Carter proposal until she and Mr. Carter have had the opportunity to meet and attempt to work out a mutually acceptable compromise.
Kimberly Daniels proposal: Ms. Daniels objected to
the map labeled 1st At-Large Draft 6/29/11 splitting what is
currently at-large residence area 1 on the northside and attaching the eastern
portion of the residence area to
Council Member Lee asked the Rules Committee not to vote on any plan today and to schedule another special meeting next week after she and Mr. Carter and the at-large members have had an opportunity to schedule their meetings and develop positions on the proposed maps.
Motion: recommend approval of 2011-554.
Motion (Holt): amend to recommend approval of SE Compact w/Party 9/22/11 map (the Bishop proposal).
Motion (Schellenberg): amend to recommend approval of EDITS – Compact w/Party 9/22/11 map (Schellenberg proposal) – dies for lack of a second.
The Holt motion to approve the Bishop proposal was approved 5-1 (Schellenberg no).
Motion (Yarborough): recommend approval of the Council Member Daniels proposed revision to 1st At-Large Draft 6/29/11 to move the eastern boundary of At-large Residence Area 1 back to the Atlantic coastline and retract the area on the western end – approved 4-2 (Boyer and Schellenberg no).
In response to a question from Council Member Boyer about whether it would make a difference to City Council’s action on the bill if it was dealing with the Rules Committee recommendation instead of taking floor amendments next Tuesday, Peggy Sidman stated that there was not really a practical difference since the Council always accepts floor amendments. There’s no need to have a special Rules Committee meeting next week to incorporate additional amendments to the plans proposed today simply for the purpose of having a completed Rules Committee proposal for Council to consider. If City Council makes any changes to the existing maps on file, either as a result of Rules’ recommendations or additional floor amendments, then another Rules public hearing will be needed, and that has already been scheduled for Thursday, September 29th at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber.
Council Member Jones asked for confirmation by next Tuesday from the Planning Department that the Carter and Bishop proposals do not make any changes to the north/west districts and that the small population discrepancies in the tables on the tops of the maps are due to a technical error and not a district boundary change. Council Member Lee asked the Planning Department for a comparison of map and district population changes between the Reapportionment Committee’s Plan D and the SE Compact w/Party (Bishop proposal) plan just adopted.
School Board districts
Soliman Salem read into the record the proposed pairings of City Council districts that will comprise the new School Board districts as follows: districts 12 and 14, districts 9 and 10, districts 7 and 8, districts 6 and 11, districts 5 and 4, districts 1 and 2, and districts 3 and 13.
Motion (Yarborough): recommend approval of the council district pairings for School Board purposes as described above – approved 5-1 (Schellenberg no).
Technical amendment
Peggy Sidman requested that the committee approve a technical correction to the attachments to 2011-554 regarding the narrative boundaries of the council districts and at-large residence areas – the attachments are labeled incorrectly and need to be reversed in order.
Motion: recommend approval of the technical amendment to correct the order of the narrative boundary description exhibits – approved 5-1 (Schellenberg no).
Chairman Bishop stated that the amendments will be rolled into one Rules Committee amendment for consideration by City Council on Tuesday, after which the bill will be re-referred to Rules for the additional public hearing on Thursday, September 29th at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
Jeff Clements, Council Research Division
9.22.11
Posted: 6:00 p.m.