My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MIN RDC 2011-12-22.tif
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Redistricting Commission
>
2011 Redistricting Commission
>
Minutes
>
MIN RDC 2011-12-22.tif
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2011 8:50:58 AM
Creation date
12/25/2011 1:49:12 PM
Metadata
Document Relationships
MIN RDC 2011-12-22
(Original Version)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Redistricting Commission\2011 Redistricting Commission\Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MR. KANUHA: I just wanted to - - -I'm trying to figure out what our motion was in the <br />beginning, because I think I had a comment about it, but I don't really know if it was on the <br />original motion or not. <br />MR. UDOVIC: We look at the four recommendations on COMM. 60.3; we have a fifth <br />recommendation regarding the deviations, right? And a sixth recommendation is that the <br />Council - -I would phrase it this way, if I possibly can - -that the Commission members be <br />encouraged to discuss the Redistricting Plan among their constituents outside of a board <br />hearing; which might just kind of - -- <br />MR. MELROSE: Isn't that part of our job already? I don't see a value in that. <br />MR. UDOVIC: That's what I think the discussion is now. <br />MR. KANUHA: Yeah, I think it turned to that from the original discussion about the <br />deviation, which I kind of had a question about. I understand the reason to think of raising it <br />to a higher deviation which would have considerably helped in our case, for this <br />redistricting. But we try and imagine our community ten years from now, and the 5.99% <br />might not help at all. It might do the same exact thing we are doing; it might split - - -For <br />recommendations of this past redistricting, I agree, yes, the deviations should have been <br />higher. It should have been a little bit higher than 4.99 %. The total deviation wasn't totally <br />what the communities wanted. <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: We could have done a better plan, if we would have had that leeway. <br />MR. KANUHA: Absolutely. <br />MR. UDOVIC: I don't know, I think your plan is pretty decent. <br />MR. KANUHA: I do agree; we have a great plan. <br />MR. UDOVIC: I don't think you should castigate yourselves, quite frankly. <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: We wouldn't have had to make as many compromises as we did. <br />MS. POINDEXTER: However, I think it was a great opportunity for the public to see and <br />learn about compromises and what we had to go through in compromising and like a lot of <br />the public has testified, I hope the County Council has learned from this and work as a team <br />and know that there is compromises that needs to take place and everybody can agree to <br />disagree at some point. But we work as a team, and we had to compromise. And that was a <br />good learning experience, I think, for everybody. <br />CHR. SIRACUSA: I have a question. We have this motion on the floor about adding <br />possibly two more points - -- <br />MR. UDOVIC: It was a motion to amend, I think, COMM. 60.3 <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.