Exhibit 8 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

From: Mike Middlesworth [mailto:mike @middlesworth.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:07 AM To: Udovic, Michael Subject: my thoughts Mike -- I know that we talked about identifying problem census blocks, but there are simply too many of them to list. The most troublesome issue in my view is that there seems to be no logic in how they are drawn. Many are not bounded by roads, streams or any recognizable boundary. The variance in size and shape is mind- boggling, and that makes the redistricting process incredibly frustrating. That said, my guess is that there is little hope of change, since many statistical comparisons are probably based on the existing blocks and bureaucrats are loathe to change their metrics. Many of my other concerns will become moot in the next decade, I'm sure, as technology changes. The software we used this time will be replaced or updated and whatever is used 10 years from now will undoubtedly be much different. Using the ESRI package made our task much easier than was the case 10 years ago, I'm sure, and clumsy as it sometimes is, having it was a great benefit. The delay in negotiating its use, however, was a major stumbling block, and whichever state agency is responsible should be encouraged to have all of the tools necessary for the process in place at the end of 2019 for the next reapportionment/redistricting process. The ordinance governing redistricting should be amended to remove the section requiring use of an alternate plan that is more conforming numerically. If it were followed, it would negate many of the other provisions that are intended to insure fairness in the process. I was particularly bothered by the riles governing our meetings. It was very frustrating to not be able to engage in discussions with people who came to testify. I understand the reasoning for the riles, but there ought to be a way for the commission to respond to testimony as it is being heard.