EVERYONE, BY THE WAY. WE'RE READY ON THE GO.
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 5:00 P.M.IF WE COULD ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I WILL LEAD US TODAY.
PUT YOUR RIGHT HAND OVER YOUR HEART.
MR. CITY MANAGER. MR. RUSSI, MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? YES, MR. MAYOR.
CALL] WE ARE READY TO START HERE.
[4. The City Council will meet in a study session with City staff and a consultant on District Voting.]
MR. RUSSI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE DOING ON ON OUR STUDY SESSION TONIGHT? YES, WE HAVE A STUDY SESSION ON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REDISTRICTING.AS COUNCIL IS AWARE, WE HAD SEVERAL RESIDENTS WHO EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT AND THEN THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT REQUEST THAT CAME FROM YOU, MR. MAYOR, TO HAVE THIS ITEM AT LEAST BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE COUNCIL TO ALL HEAR AND UNDERSTAND JUST THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS THERE ARE ABOUT IT.
WE WERE FORTUNATE TO GET DOUGLAS JOHNSON AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY WILL INTRODUCE HIM IN A MINUTE, WHO IS VERY VERSED IN THIS SUBJECT, AND BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS GIVE YOU A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT ENTAILS AND WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER AGENCIES THAT HAVE GONE TO IT ARE.
TONIGHT'S ITEM IS JUST A STUDY SESSION.
THERE WILL BE NO ACTION THAT'S TAKEN.
OF COURSE, COUNCIL CAN GIVE US DIRECTION TO GO DO FURTHER RESEARCH OR WHATEVER THEIR DESIRE IS. BUT THERE WILL NOT BE A FORMAL ACTION TAKEN AS A RESULT OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.
SO WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS IN THE ONSET, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. KRESS. THANK YOU, BOB AND COUNCIL, IT'S MY PLEASURE TONIGHT TO INTRODUCE DR. DOUG JOHNSON.
HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC'S CORPORATION.
HIS CORPORATION HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN OVER TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DISTRICTING AND REDISTRICTING PROJECTS, A WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE, HE'S DONE A NUMBER OF PRESENTATIONS TO GROUPS.
HE PRESENTED TO THE LEAGUE CITY ATTORNEYS CONFERENCE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
AND WE'RE JUST VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE HIS EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE TONIGHT TO TALK GENERALLY ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND AND KIND OF WHAT HE SEES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND IT IS INDEED MY PLEASURE TO BE TALKING TO YOU THIS EVENING, JUST AS A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON MYSELF AND MY FIRM IN D.C.
WE ACTUALLY STARTED JUST ACROSS THE CITY LINE FROM YOU.
WE GREW OUT OF THE ROSE INSTITUTE AND ALL OF US AT THE BEGINNING STARTED WITH THE ROSE INSTITUTE AT CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE.
WE STARTED OUT DOING KIND OF MORE ACADEMIC RESEARCH.
AND THEN WHEN WE STARTED GETTING CONTRACTS, WE SPUN OUT THE CONSULTING FIRM SO THAT COLLEGE WOULDN'T GET INVOLVED IN OUR INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 1979.
FAIRLY, WE'D HAVE OUR BUSY REDISTRICTING YEAR AFTER EACH CENSUS AND THEN IT'D BE FAIRLY QUIET, DOING A COUPLE OF PROJECTS EACH YEAR.
UNTIL 2002 WHEN THE CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT CAME ALONG, AND REALLY 2006 WHEN THE LAW'S CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS UPHELD BY THE STATE APPEALS COURT.
AND INSTEAD OF DOING THREE OR FOUR OF THESE PROJECTS A YEAR FOR WHICH WE'D DONE FOR 30 PLUS YEARS, NOW WE'RE DOING 30 OR 40 PROJECTS A YEAR.
AND A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I'LL TALK ABOUT, THE MOST OF THE FOCUS STARTED WITH SCHOOLS AND MOST OF THE CHALLENGES WERE BROUGHT AGAINST SCHOOLS IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE ACT.
AND THEN STARTING ABOUT 2015, WE REALLY STARTED TO SEE A SWITCH TO CITIES.
AND SO AT THIS POINT OF THE LITTLE OVER FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY CITIES IN THE STATE, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SIX OF THEM, BY OUR MOST RECENT COUNT, HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CHANGE ELECTION SYSTEMS BECAUSE OF EITHER A FEAR OF GETTING AHEAD OF THE CURVE OF THE CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT OR BECAUSE OF AN ACTUAL CHANGE.
AND JUST TO PUT THAT IN CONTEXT, BEFORE THE LAW PASSED, THERE WERE ONLY TWENTY NINE CITIES
[00:05:04]
WITH BY DISTRICT ELECTIONS IN THE WHOLE STATE.SO WE'VE GONE FROM TWENTY NINE TO WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY NOW IN THE SPACE OF ESSENTIALLY TEN YEARS, WE'RE STILL STILL DOING RESEARCH ON THIS STUFF AND GATHERING INFORMATION VIA THE ROSE INSTITUTE.
AND WE PUT OUT A PAPER TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS IS REALLY A VERY QUIET TSUNAMI SWEEPING ACROSS THE STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
AND IT IS SO, AS I MENTIONED, ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SIX CITIES.
WE'RE WELL OVER ONE HUNDRED SCHOOL DISTRICTS, A COUPLE DOZEN SPECIAL DISTRICTS, I MEAN, EVERYTHING.
WE USUALLY THINK WATER DISTRICTS ARE GENERALLY THE MOST HIGH PROFILE SPECIAL DISTRICTS, BUT WE WORK WITH HEALTH CARE DISTRICTS, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, EVEN AIRPORT DISTRICTS THAT HAVE FACED CHALLENGES AND FORCED TO CHANGE HOW THEY ELECT THEIR BOARDS.
SO THIS REALLY IS TURNING UP EVERYWHERE.
AND IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE FOUR HUNDRED PLUS JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE WE'RE VIOLATING ONE'S VOTING RIGHTS ACT OR VIOLATING ANYONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS, IT REALLY IS A COUPLE OF CLEAR CASES WHERE THERE WAS A PROBLEM AND THEN THE REST ARE ALL DRIVEN BY FINANCIAL FEARS.
WHAT'S HAPPENED IS IF A CHALLENGE IS BROUGHT TO YOUR JURISDICTION.
THE IMMEDIATE COST IS IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
WE'VE HAD JURISDICTIONS WHO SETTLED ON THE DAY THE LETTER DEMAND THAT ARRIVED AND EARLY ON THEY USED TO GET HIT WITH A QUARTER OF A MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN FEE DEMANDS. THE LEGISLATURE DID EVENTUALLY STEP IN ON THAT FRONT AND IN 2016 SAID NOW YOU HAVE TO A POTENTIAL PLAINTIFF HAS TO SEND A LETTER AND THE JURISDICTION GETS FORTY FIVE DAYS TO RESPOND.
AND IF YOU DO RESPOND TO THAT FORTY FIVE DAYS THEN THE ATTORNEY SAYING THE LETTER IS LIMITED TO ONLY THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.
SO WE'RE NOT SEEING THOSE IMMEDIATE IMPACTS.
BUT THOSE JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE CHOSEN TO FIGHT HAVE SEEN HUGE BILLS.
PALMDALE WAS THE FIRST BIG CASE.
THEY END UP LOSING AND HAVING TO PAY FOUR POINT SEVEN DOLLARS MILLION IN ATTORNEY FEES TO THE PLAINTIFFS. MODESTO HAD TO PAY THREE MILLION DOLLARS.
AND THEN, AS YOU PROBABLY HAVE HEARD, ACTUALLY, I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD THE BIG ONE RIGHT NOW IS SANTA MONICA, THEY LOST IN THIS TRIAL AND THEY ACTUALLY HAD A FOUR WEEK TRIAL.
THEY LOST THAT. AND THE PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR TWENTY TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN FEES.
AND AND SO THE JUDGE HAS NOT YET RULED ON THE FEES.
AND, OF COURSE, AT THAT WHEN IS UPHELD, THEY WON'T HAVE TO PAY IT.
BUT THAT APPEAL HAS BEEN VACATED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT OR I'M SORRY, NOT VACATED.
THAT TERM IS DE-PUBLISHED, I BELIEVE, BUT AS THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS PICKED UP THE CASE. BUT NOW WE HAVE A NEW TWIST.
YOU KNOW, ELECTIONS BRING INTERESTING CHANGES.
AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME, SANTA MONICA SAW THREE NEW THREE CHALLENGERS BEAT THREE INCUMBENTS. SO NOW WE EVEN HAVE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY'LL EVEN CONTINUE THE CASE. SO A LOT GOING ON.
BUT REALLY WHAT'S DRIVING THIS IS THAT MOST JURISDICTIONS JUST CAN'T EVEN AFFORD AT MINIMUM SIX FIGURES AND LIKELY SEVEN, SIX FIGURES TO DEFEND YOURSELF IN A LOW COST CASE AND CERTAINLY IN THE SEVEN FIGURES IF YOU LOSE THE CASE.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING THOSE HUNDREDS OF SWITCHES.
WE'RE IN AN INTERESTING TIME RIGHT NOW, BOTH OBVIOUSLY FROM COVID, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF THE CENSUS AND THIS LAW.
SO RIGHT NOW, EVERYTHING IS KIND OF ON HOLD THAT FORTY FIVE DAY CLOCK I MENTIONED.
AND THEN ONCE YOU AGREE TO MAKE THIS SHIFT, IF YOU DO, THEN YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO MAKE THE SHIFT. THE GOVERNOR HAS PUT THOSE CLOCKS ON HOLD.
SO JURISDICTION IS GETTING LETTERS RIGHT NOW.
THE CLOCK DOESN'T START UNTIL THE STATE OF EMERGENCY ENDS, BUT SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE GONE FORWARD. BUT THE SECOND FACTOR PUTTING US ON HOLD RIGHT NOW IS THE CENSUS, WHEN WE WILL GET ALL NEW CENSUS DATA.
WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE THAT IN EARLY APRIL.
THERE'S A LOT GOING ON WITH THE CENSUS, AS YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY'LL MEET THE MARCH 31ST DEADLINE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WILL BE DELAYED A COUPLE OF WEEKS OR MONTHS.
SO THAT'S STILL UP IN THE AIR TOO.
BUT IN TERMS OF TIMING, IF A JURISDICTION DOES DECIDE TO SWITCH, OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THAT CENSUS DATA BECAUSE NO NEED AT THIS POINT TO DRAW A MAP AND THEN HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY REDRAW IT JUST A FEW WEEKS LATER.
BUT ONCE THAT DATA DOES COME OUT, THEN ALL THE JURISDICTIONS THAT ALREADY SWITCHED WILL NEED TO START THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THEIR LINES.
AND THE JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE THE SWITCH POST CENSUS WILL START THEIR
[00:10:01]
PROCESS. IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFUSING SITUATION ONCE YOU DECIDE TO SWITCH, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF STATE LAWS MANDATING PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.IN PARTICULAR, YOU HAVE TO HOLD AT LEAST FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
BUT WHAT'S A LITTLE BIT ODD ABOUT THIS IS THAT TWO OF THOSE HAVE TO BE BEFORE YOU EVER DRAW DRAFT MAPS.
SO IT'S AN OPTION FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DRAW A MAP BEFORE YOU START YOUR OFFICIAL DRAFT MAPS.
BUT WE DO GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS ABOUT MAPPING. WHY CAN'T WE START MAPPING? WELL, STATE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO AT LEAST TWO HEARINGS BEFORE YOU DRAFT MAPS.
AND POST THOSE AND THEN HOLD AT LEAST TWO HEARINGS TO TALK ABOUT AND BE OPEN TO REVISIONS TO THOSE.
WHAT'S GOING TO GET REALLY CURIOUS IS THAT JURISDICTIONS MAKING THE SHIFT FOR THE FIRST TIME, AS YOU WOULD BE IF YOU DECIDE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD, HAVE THAT SET OF RULES, CITIES GOING THROUGH REDISTRICTING HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF PROCEDURAL RULES.
AND THEN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS HAVE A THIRD SET OF PROCEDURAL RULES FOR HOW THEY'LL GO THROUGH THEIR REDISTRICTING.
SO IF YOU DO DECIDE TO GO DOWN THAT PATH, DON'T LOOK AT THE JURISDICTIONS AROUND YOU AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING. FOR EXAMPLE, IN YOUR CASE, WE'VE ALREADY WORKED WITH THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, AND SO THEY ARE ALREADY IN DISTRICT ELECTIONS, AS YOU PROBABLY SAW IN NOVEMBER. SO THEY WILL BE GOING THROUGH A CITY REDISTRICTING PHASE IN THROUGH THE CITY RULES FOR REDISTRICTING.
YOU WOULD BE GOING THROUGH AN INITIAL DISTRICTING PHASE WITH DIFFERENT RULES AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHICH ACTUALLY WE'RE CONTRACTING WITH TO DO THEIR DISTRICTING WIQA1LL BE GOING THROUGH A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF RULES BECAUSE THEY'RE A SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SO IT GETS REALLY CONFUSING WHEN PEOPLE START LOOKING AT THEIR SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS BECAUSE NO SURPRISE TO ALL OF YOU DEAL WITH ALMOST EVERY DAY.
SACRAMENTO MAKES THINGS CONFUSING AND THEY JUST CAN'T SEEM TO WRITE A SIMPLE SET OF LAWS.
BUT THAT'S WHERE WE COME IN AND WE WORK WITH MR. KRESS AND YOUR TEAM TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE RULES YOU'RE GOING THROUGH AND THE CRITERIA YOU'RE UNDER.
IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT WHERE YOU'RE AT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF FACTORS WE LOOK AT AND LOOKING AT POTENTIAL LIABILITY.
DO YOU NEED TO MAKE THE SWITCH? AND YOUR YOUR SITUATION IS DEFINITELY VERY, VERY COMMON.
THE ANSWER IS GRAY, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE GET A CLEAR BLACK AND WHITE SITUATION.
THE CITY OF MERCED, HALF THE CITY'S LATINO.
THERE'S A VERY CLEAR SEGREGATION LINE ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND THEY NEVER HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM SOUTH OF THE TRACKS.
THEY GOT A LETTER. IT TOOK THEM ABOUT 30 SECONDS TO SAY, YES, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
AND THEY IMMEDIATELY AGREED TO SWITCH AND THEY IMMEDIATELY SAW, I THINK, TWO LATINOS ELECTED IN THE VERY FIRST ELECTION.
SO SOME SITUATIONS LIKE THAT ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR.
BEFORE THE SWITCH, THEY ACTUALLY COULDN'T VOTE ON A ZONING ISSUE BECAUSE FOUR OF THE FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS LIVED WITHIN 500 FEET TO THE PARCEL IN QUESTION.
IT WAS THERE WAS ONE OF THOSE.
BUT MOST SITUATIONS ARE MUCH MORE GRAY AND NO SURPRISE TO ALL OF YOU.
YOURS IS IN THAT WAY. YOU'VE HAD LONG TIME LATINO REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNCIL.
LATINOS REELECTED FREQUENTLY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY LATINOS NOW.
SO DOES THAT HISTORY OVERWEIGH THE CURRENT SITUATION? WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THERE HAVEN'T BEEN VERY CLEAR JUDICIAL RULINGS ON THIS AND THE LAWS OF [INAUDIBLE]. AND ULTIMATELY, THE ANALYSIS GETS DOWN INTO LOOKING AT WHO WERE THE PREFERRED CANDIDATES OF THE WHAT THE LAW CALLS PROTECTED CLASS VOTERS, ASIAN-AMERICAN, LATINO, AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR NATIVE AMERICAN, AND THAT GETS INTO SOME REALLY.
DETAILED STATISTICAL ANALYSIS WHERE WE LOOK PRECINCT BY PRECINCT AT AS A PRECINCTS GET MORE LATINO OR AS PRECINCTS GET MORE WHATEVER THE PROTECTED CLASS IN QUESTION IS, DOES IT GIVE AND CAN DO BETTER OR WORSE? THAT WORKS REALLY WELL IN, SAY, THE SANTA CLARITA OR LOS ANGELES, WHERE WE HAVE A HUNDRED PRECINCTS TO LOOK AT.
THAT KIND OF DATA ANALYSIS GETS VERY KIND OF HARD TO PIN DOWN WHEN WE'RE IN A CITY THE SIZE OF LA VERNE WHERE WE HAVE MAYBE A DOZEN PRECINCTS.
IT'S WORTH NOTING FOR FOLKS THAT ARE THINKING ABOUT IT, EVEN THOUGH WE WENT TO THE VOTE CENTER MODEL AND SO TRADITIONAL PRECINCTS DIDN'T REALLY COME INTO PLAY THIS ELECTION, THE REGISTRAR IN THE BACK END IS ACTUALLY STILL TRACKING THE RESULTS BY OUR TRADITIONAL SMALL PRECINCTS. SO WE STILL DO GET SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREA ELECTION RESULTS THAT WE USE IN THESE
[00:15:03]
ANALYZES. BUT THE ANSWERS COME BACK GRAY.YES, THERE'S ALMOST ALWAYS SOME CONCERN THAT A PLAINTIFF COULD USE AND THIS IS WHERE THESE CASES GET SO EXPENSIVE IS THE PRIMARY GUY WHO BRINGS THESE LEGAL CHALLENGES AS AN EXPERT WHO ESSENTIALLY ALWAYS FINDS POLARIZATION.
AND WE END UP IN THESE DEPOSITIONS WITH, YOU KNOW, THREE ATTORNEYS, TWO STATISTICIANS ARGUING ABOUT MARGINS OF ERROR AND FUNKY STATISTICAL THINGS.
AND IT'S VERY, VERY HARD AND VERY EXPENSIVE FOR A SMALL JURISDICTION TO FIGHT THAT SITUATION. I WOULD SAY SOMEBODY IS GOING TO WIN ONE OF THESE CASES ON THE NUMBERS SOMEDAY, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE BECAUSE THEY GET A JUDGE WHO HAPPENED TO MINOR IN STATISTICS. AND AS MR. KRESS CAN ATTEST, THERE ARE VERY, VERY FEW JUDGES OR LAWYERS WHO MINORED IN STATISTICS.
AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION DOES NOT TEND TO DRAW PEOPLE WHO LOVE MATH AS THEIR PURE PASSION. [INAUDIBLE] SO THAT'S WHY THESE CASES GET SO EXPENSIVE, IS THERE ISN'T A CRYSTAL CLEAR ANSWER.
AND TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE SOME OF THE PLAINTIFFS OUT THERE REALLY FIND THEY GET STRENGTH IN THEIR CLAIM BY RUNNING THOSE COSTS UP.
IT HELPS INTIMIDATE THE NEXT JURISDICTION.
SO. ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT LA VERNE'S HISTORY, AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THOSE MERCED SITUATIONS THAT OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE HAD LATINOS ON THE COUNCIL FOR A LONG TIME. DO YOU HAVE VOTING PATTERNS, YOU KNOW, PRECINCT BY PRECINCT THAT A PLAINTIFF COULD USE. JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY DOES, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ARGUE THEIR RELEVANCE, WE COULD ARGUE THEIR STATISTICAL RELIABILITY AND ALL THOSE FACTORS, BUT IT'S ALWAYS A TOUGH CASE, CERTAINLY, TO MAKE.
AND WHEN IT'S A TOUGH CASE, IT'S EXPENSIVE.
THE KEY THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS KIND OF GOING BACK TO MY EARLIER POINT.
SWITCHING BECAUSE OF [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF ANY KIND OF PREJUDICE, IT'S NOT AN ADMISSION OF ANY KIND OF DISCRIMINATION.
ACTUALLY, MOST OF THE JURISDICTIONS THAT MAKE THE SWITCH PUT IN THERE, THAT THEY'RE NOT ADMITTING LIABILITY AND THEY DON'T THINK THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
IT'S PURELY BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL COST THAT COULD COME IN.
SO, AS YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE A DEMAND LETTER YET.
THAT'S GOOD, THAT'S A SIGN THAT YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THOSE KIND OF RED FLAG JURISDICTIONS.
BUT IT DOES LEAVE YOU OPTIONS, SO YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO VOLUNTARILY GO NOW BEFORE YOU RECEIVE A LETTER. THERE ARE JURISDICTIONS THAT DECIDE, WELL, NO NEED TO JUMP INTO THIS IF WE DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY.
SO WE'LL JUST WAIT FOR A LETTER AND ACCEPT THAT THAT WILL COME WITH A THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR FEE TO THE ATTORNEY, SENDING IT IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF MAKING THIS TRANSITION.
OR, OF COURSE, YOU CAN WAIT FOR A LETTER AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT TO SWITCH OR FIGHT IT AT THAT POINT. SO IF YOU DO DECIDE TO MAKE THE SWITCH, THEN WE START THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE DEMOGRAPHIC POCKETS IN THE CITY, TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT ARE YOUR COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST IN KEY NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN THE DISTRICT, IN THE CITY IN YOUR CASE, AND THEN COMING UP WITH A VARIETY OF DRAFT PLANS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES US VERY POPULAR WITH OUR CLIENTS IS WE ADMIT WE DON'T KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE YOU AND YOUR RESIDENTS DO.
YOU KNOW, WE GONNA SAY [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE THE EXPERTS ON THE DATA AND THE PROCESS AND HOW TO GET THIS DONE SMOOTHLY AND EFFECTIVELY.
BUT OUR JOB IS TO PRESENT OPTIONS TO YOU.
WE ALWAYS LOOK FOR LOCAL LEADERSHIP ABOUT WHAT MAKES SENSE WHAT LINE SHOULD GO HERE OR THERE. THE LAST FACTOR TO BE AWARE OF IS THAT.
STARTING JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR, SO.
A LITTLE OVER 11 MONTHS AGO, THE STATE CHANGED THE CRITERIA FOR HOW THE LINES ARE DRAWN.
SO THE RULES THAT CLAREMONT AND GLENDORA AND OTHERS AROUND YOU FOLLOWED FOR HOW THE MAPS GET DRAWN NO LONGER APPLY.
NOW, THE STATE BACK THEN, WE HAD A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY.
YOU HAD TO MEET EQUAL POPULATION, MEET THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THEN YOU HAD A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY, HOW THE LINES ARE DRAWN.
NOW, THE STATE HAS PUT IN A SET OF CRITERIA THAT ARE THINGS LIKE KEEPING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER. THE TRADITIONAL LOOK OF IF YOU HAVE A DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD, A LOT OF CITIES WANTED TO DIVIDE THAT.
PASADENA IS THE CLASSIC ONE WHERE EVERY COUNCIL DISTRICT IN PASADENA TOUCHES OLD TOWN.
SO THE WHOLE COUNCIL FEELS INVESTED AND RESPONSIBLE FOR OLD TOWN.
NOW THE STATE IS PUTTING RULES TO TRY TO SAY NO.
EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD MUST BE KEPT TOGETHER.
[00:20:02]
AND IT HASN'T RULED OUT LOOKING AT WHERE THE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS LIVE, BUT IT HAS LEFT THAT OFF THE LIST.SO IT COMES IN KIND OF LAST IN THE CONSIDERATIONS, WHEREAS BEFORE WE COULD PUT A LOT MORE CONSIDERATION INTO THAT.
SO THAT THAT IS A BIT OF A SURPRISE TO SOME FOLKS WHO HAVE SEEN OTHER JURISDICTIONS GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO KNOW THAT NOW CITIES HAVE THESE NEW SETS OF RULES, AGAIN, IMPOSED BY SACRAMENTO, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO I COVERED A LOT OF MATERIAL THERE.
I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL OR ANY OF IT OR TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JOHNSON? I HAVE A QUESTION TO START OFF WITH, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A SCHOOL DISTRICT MOVING FORWARD.
WAS THAT OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BONITA UNIFIED? OH, NO.
[INAUDIBLE] CLAREMONT UNIFIED.
MR. JOHNSON, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, IF I MAY.
APPROXIMATELY THE COST OF THIS PROCESS FOR A COMMUNITY, OUR SITE.
COULD YOU GIVE US A RANGE? YEAH, IT'S HEAVILY DRIVEN BY TWO FACTORS.
ONE IS HOW MANY MEETINGS YOU DECIDE TO HOLD.
AS I MENTIONED, YOU HAVE TO HOLD FOUR.
WE'VE HAD JURISDICTIONS HOLD TWENTY EIGHT.
WE REALLY WANTED TO GO OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT THAT'S PRETTY EXTREME.
THE OTHER IS THERE ARE NOW SOME ONLINE MAPPING TOOLS AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A WE'RE ABOUT TO SIGN AN EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT WITH ONE THAT PROVIDES A VERY SIMPLE TOOL THAT WE THEN INCLUDE IN ALL OUR PROJECTS.
BUT THERE ARE SOME VERY POWERFUL FANCY TOOLS THAT SOME JURISDICTIONS WANT TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE RESIDENTS.
AND THOSE ARE FAIRLY EXPENSIVE.
SO. AT A BASIC LEVEL, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT TWENTY FIVE TO FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THEN IF YOU ADDED A TON OF MEETINGS OR IF YOU WENT FOR ONE OF THE HIGHER END TOOLS, THAT WOULD ADD A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK ON TO THAT.
AND THEN TIMELINE, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU SAID THE DATA AT THIS POINT, THE EARLIEST IT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE IS APRIL, AND I KNOW THAT FOR [INAUDIBLE] IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER THE COVID EMERGENCY ORDER HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
BUT WHAT IF WE WERE TO START FROM BEGINNING TO END DOING FOUR MEETINGS? WHAT WOULD BE THE TYPICAL AMOUNT OF TIME? TYPICALLY, YOU PROBABLY WANT TO TAKE.
LET'S SAY THREE OR FOUR MONTHS TO DO THAT.
WE HAVE, I THINK, OUR RECORD WHERE SOMEONE HAD AN EMERGENCY, WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO GET IF THEY MISSED THE ELECTION DEADLINE, THEY WERE GOING TO GET IT SOON.
AND SO WE'VE DONE IT IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS.
BUT WE THAT'S ALL SPECIAL MEETINGS.
CRAZY. BUT, YEAH, I WOULD PLAN TO TAKE THREE TO FOUR MONTHS TO GO THROUGH THAT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN IN THIS COMING YEAR.
THERE'S IT'S GOING TO BE SO HECTIC AND CRAZY WITH ALL THE JURISDICTIONS GOING THROUGH THIS. IT'LL BE TOUGHER TO SCHEDULE THAN NORMALLY, BUT.
MR. MAYOR. IF I ASK A QUESTION? [INAUDIBLE] DOUG CURRENTLY, WHILE LA VERNE HAS AN AT LARGE ELECTED MAYOR, RUNS EVERY TWO YEARS.
COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE 4 DISTRICT VERSUS 5 DISTRICT OPTION? SURE.
EARLY ON, THIS WAS A BIG GRAY AREA, ONE OF THE LEAD PLAINTIFFS WHO SENT MOST OF THE LETTERS CLAIMING THAT IF YOU KEPT AN AT LARGE MAYOR, YOU WERE STILL IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. AS I MENTIONED, THE STATE HAS DONE SOME VERY LITTLE THINGS TO HELP WITH CLEAR, CLARIFY SOME THINGS. AND THEY DID CLARIFY THAT CITIES CAN KEEP AN AT LARGE MAYOR, THAT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
YOU CAN WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, YOU CAN KEEP THE AT LARGE MAYOR.
OR YOU CAN SWITCH TO DISTRICT TO FIVE DISTRICTS.
MOST JURISDICTIONS END UP KEEPING AT LARGE MAYOR IF THEY HAVE IT ALREADY, BUT SOME HAVEN'T. THE MAIN FACTOR THAT DRIVES THEM IS MOVING TO FIVE IS THAT IF THE PROTECTED CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD ISN'T BIG ENOUGH TO BE A MAJORITY LATINO OR WHATEVER SEAT IN A FOUR SEAT MAP, THEY MIGHT BE LARGER, LARGE ENOUGH TO BE A MAJORITY OF A FIVE SEAT MAP.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE CHANGE, BUT THAT HAS LED SOME JURISDICTIONS TO CHOOSE TO MAKE THE CHANGE.
BUT THE NICE THING IS THE STATE HAS CLARIFIED, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR AT LARGE MAYOR, YOU CERTAINLY CAN. COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY.
YEAH, THANK YOU. AND THROUGH MY SCHOOL DISTRICT WHERE I WORK, WHERE I WORK AT, WE GOT THE
[00:25:02]
LETTER ABOUT A YEAR AGO.SO GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE AT LEAST GOT PUSHED BACK AFTER THE LAST ELECTION.
SO. BUT SO IF WE IF WE DON'T GO THROUGH DISTRICTS TO DISTRICTS AS A CHOICE, WE CAN GET THE [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN IT'S GOING TO COST US AN ADDITIONAL 30 TO 35 THOUSAND DOLLARS PLUS WHAT YOU SAID THE FEES OF GOING THROUGH TO GO TO DISTRICTS WOULD BE.
CORRECT, I WAS NOT INCLUDING THE PAYMENT TO THE PERSON WHO SENT THE LETTER AND THOSE AMOUNTS. AND IF WE AGREE AS A COUNCIL TO GO TO TO DISTRICTS PRIOR TO ANY SUIT OR LETTER FOR SUIT, THAT WE THEY CANNOT SUE US FOR THAT EVEN IF WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO GO. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE THIS TIMELINE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THEY CANNOT COME AFTER YOU FOR THE MONEY.
THAT'S CORRECT. ONCE YOU ADOPT YOUR RESOLUTION OF INTENT, THEN THEY CAN'T COME AFTER YOU FOR THE MONEY AS LONG AS YOU FINISH.
IF THEY DO SEND YOU A LETTER THAT TRIGGERS A CLOCK.
AND IF YOU DON'T ACT IN TIME, THEN THEY CAN SUE YOU.
THEY CAN'T GET THEIR THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, BUT THEY COULD SUE YOU FOR TAKING TOO LONG. EXCEPT THAT CLOCK IS FROZEN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE COVID EMERGENCY.
SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF JURISDICTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF COVID WERE TO END IN, THE COVID EMERGENCY STATEWIDE, WERE TO END IN, SAY, MARCH, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO QUICKLY FINISH IN FORTY FIVE DAYS.
BUT THAT'S A VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION.
AS LONG AS YOU FINISH IN TIMELINE, THE PLAINTIFF WILL NOT GET ANYTHING, SO THAT REALLY REMOVES THEIR INCENTIVE.
SO IT'S REALLY BASED ON IF WE WANT TO DO PRIOR TO A LETTER OR AFTER LETTER.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO FIGHT A VERY EXPENSIVE LAWSUIT.
YEAH. A COUPLE OF JURISDICTIONS HAVE, BUT AS I MENTIONED, A COUPLE OF HUNDRED HAVE NOT.
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MR. JOHNSON? COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER WAS.
YEAH. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T SEE YOU.
THIS IS WHAT'S GOING THROUGH MY MIND IS THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY VOTED MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO TO HAVE A SEATED MAYOR.
NOW WOULD THIS GO BACK TO THE VOTERS TO DECIDE, DO WE WANT TO GO FIVE DISTRICTS ARE FOUR AND KEEP THE MAYOR, OR WILL THIS PROCESS ELIMINATE TAKING IT BACK TO THE VOTERS? IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION, THERE'S ARE DIFFERENT THEORIES AND NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN TESTED. DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND IF THE IF THE COUNCIL PUT THAT MEASURE ON THE BALLOT, I THINK MR. KRESS TOLD ME THIS BUT I FORGET AND FORGIVE ME IF THE COUNCIL PUT IT ON.
I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL DID, IT WASN'T AN INITIATIVE PROCESS.
OK. SO IF THE COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE].
PARDON ME. TALKING ABOUT ARE YOU, YES.
THERE'S A THEORY OUT THERE THAT HASN'T BEEN TESTED THAT IF IT WAS PUT ON BY SIGNATURES, THEN THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE IT IS TO BY SIGNATURES.
BUT IF THE COUNCIL PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND THE VOTERS APPROVED IT, THEN YES.
THE COUNCIL CAN CHANGE THAT, ESSENTIALLY, IT'S ONE STATUTE COMPETING WITH ANOTHER STATUTE AND THE CVRA SAID THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE YOU'D BE PURSUING THE GOALS OF THE CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT REQUIRED.
IT'S SIMPLY SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE TABLE.
AND OF COURSE, YOU COULD CHOOSE TO PUT THAT TO THE VOTERS IF YOU WANTED TO, RATHER THAN MAKE A CHANGE YOURSELF.
WE CAN SEE YOU, BUT IT'S A PICTURE.
COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER AND COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I GUESS THE, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THIS OR WHETHER WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP IT ON COUNCIL, BUT.
I MEAN, MY OVERALL ARCHING PIECE IS I LIKE TO THINK OF US AS ONE COMMUNITY.
AND SO I LIKE THE WAY EVERYBODY RUNS AT LARGE RIGHT NOW.
I UNDERSTAND THE RISK THAT IF SOMEBODY COMES AND PUSHES US, WE CAN BE PUSHED INTO DISTRICTING. AND IN SOME SENSE, FROM AN EARLY PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRED THAT WE'RE BEING PUSHED THAT WAY.
SO THEN IF WE DO GO TO DISTRICT, WHAT DO WE DO THEN? AND.
[00:30:02]
I GUESS THE CHALLENGE I SEE IS, IS HOW DO WE HOW DO WE GO ABOUT CREATING DISTRICTS IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T INVITE TRIBALISTIC BEHAVIOR? AND I HAVEN'T I HAVEN'T FULLY THOUGHT THROUGH IT.BUT MY EARLY INSTINCT IS, IS THAT WE GO TO FIVE DISTRICTS AND ROTATE THE MAYOR SO THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME A TRIBALISTIC EVENT OF GOING AFTER THE MAYORAL POSITION EVERY CYCLE FROM THE OFF CYCLE COUNCIL.
SO AND MY MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION LETS ME KNOW THAT FROM A GAMESMANSHIP PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHAT THE THE OPTIMISTIC OUTCOME FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO UNSEAT A MAYOR WOULD DO IS THEY'D BE ON COUNCIL AND RUN AFTER THE MAYOR DURING THEIR OFF CYCLE AND BE PROTECTED.
AND WHILE FROM A MATHEMATICAL PERSPECTIVE, IT MAKES JOHN NASH HAPPY.
I DON'T CARE FOR THE GAME THEORY PERSPECTIVE ON THAT.
SO I WOULD I WOULD WANT TO VEER AWAY FROM THROWING US INTO THAT MIX.
SO THAT'S AT LEAST WHAT I'M THINKING RIGHT NOW.
WELL, AND I'D LIKE TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT MUIR IS SAYING.
IS WE ALL RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS SENT TO US AND ONE THAT REALLY HIT ME WITH EXACTLY THE THOUGHTS I HAD.
MARLENE CARNEY SENT AN EMAIL TO ALL OF US, AND HER WORDS WERE QUITE SPECIFIC TO THE POINT THAT SHE IS A LATINA WOMAN AND SHE HAS ALWAYS FELT WELL REPRESENTED IN OUR CITY.
AND SHE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE STATUS THE WAY IT IS.
WE ARE A SMALL CITY AND IT'S SO NICE THAT ANY RESIDENT CAN CALL US ANY TIME, NOT JUST THE PEOPLE IN OUR DISTRICT.
THERE IS I COULD TALK FOR FROM EXPERIENCE.
THERE'S A I HAVE A BUSINESS IN POMONA.
OUR REPRESENTATIVE NEVER GETS BACK TO US, BUT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CONTACT ANOTHER COUNCIL PERSON BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS TURN US BACK TO THAT ONE PERSON.
SO THIS SHOWS YOU THAT IF YOU HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE, YOU'RE KIND OF STUCK WITH THAT PERSON. AND I KNOW OUR CITY IS SO ACCOMMODATING, BUT STILL TO THAT POINT, WE ALL RIGHT NOW WE'LL TALK TO ANYONE AND WE'RE OPEN TO THEM.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE MARLENE'S EMAIL.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I FEEL STRONG ABOUT KEEPING IT THE WAY IT IS.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE MR. DOUGLAS JOHNSON GETS BACK TO HIS.
YES, SO I KNOW THAT OBVIOUSLY THERE HAVE BEEN THE LETTERS THAT HAVE GONE OUT TO OTHER CITIES CHALLENGING THE WAY THAT THEY'RE HANDLING THINGS.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW, I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL NECESSARILY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF LA VERNE BEING ONE OF THOSE CITIES THAT GETS TARGETED IN THE NEAR FUTURE? AND I ASK THAT NOT BECAUSE I DON'T YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO REALLY SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHICH WAY I WOULD LIKE TO GO.
HOWEVER, I THINK IN THE MIDST OF A PANDEMIC, THERE ARE OTHER FISH TO FRY THAT ARE MUCH MORE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT IS TAKING UP OUR TIME.
NOT THAT THIS ISN'T IMPORTANT BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE TAKING UP OUR TIME. SO IN TERMS OF LIKELIHOOD OF US BEING ONE OF THOSE CITIES THAT ENDS UP HAVING TO GET THAT LETTER, HAVING TO PAY OUT THIRTY TO THIRTY FIVE GRAND JUST TO SETTLE THAT OUT AND THEN ANOTHER HOWEVER, FORTY THOUSAND OR WHATEVER THE AMOUNT WAS TO GET THE BALL ROLLING AND GET THE DISTRICTING HAPPENING.
WHAT DO YOU THINK, WHERE DO YOU THINK WE STAND? YEAH, WELL YOU'RE DEFINITELY NOT ONE OF THE WHAT I CALL RED FLAG JURISDICTIONS WHERE I'D SAY YOU NEED TO GO BECAUSE A LETTER IS COMING.
AFTER YOU GET OUT OF THAT TIER, THEN YOU GET INTO AN INTERESTING SITUATION WHERE IT'S VERY HARD TO PREDICT, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE LOCAL ACTIVISTS, IT COULD BE A VOTING RIGHTS GROUP THAT DRAWS ATTENTION.
THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH THIS LAW IS IT'S BEING USED FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
COUNTY THAT APPROVED A VERY CONTROVERSIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, HAD AN ELECTION.
THE NEW COUNCIL MAJORITY VOTED THE PROJECT DOWN.
AND THE LETTER, THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT LETTER ACTUALLY CAME FROM THE DEVELOPER'S LAWYER. AND THE PRIMARY SPEAKER AT EVERY PUBLIC HEARING WAS ACTUALLY THE DEVELOPER'S LAWYER TALKING ABOUT THE DISTRICTS.
SO THEY WERE USING IT JUST AS A WAY TO DISRUPT THE COUNCIL.
SO I CAN SAY YOU'RE NOT A RED FLAG, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WON'T ATTRACT ATTENTION.
RIGHT. AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU WON'T GET IT COME UP BECAUSE ONE OF THESE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, WE SAID THE SAME ABOUT ONTARIO.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LAWYER HAS SUDDENLY SHOWN UP IN ONTARIO,
[00:35:03]
FILING A LAWSUIT, SENDING A LETTER AND FILING A LAWSUIT.AND MAKE A QUICK COMMENT ON THAT TOO.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE AT LEAST TWO RESIDENTS THAT HAS MADE PUBLICLY CALLED ON THIS.
ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS CALL THIS LAW FIRM IN A LETTER CAN COME TOMORROW.
SO IT'S NOT WHAT OUR MAJORITY OF OUR RESIDENTS SAY.
IT'S NOT IT'S JUST ONE PERSON CALLING THIS LAW FIRM.
AND THAT IS, I BELIEVE, HOW WE GOT IT IN MY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
IT WAS SOMEONE THAT WAS UPSET AND DIDN'T MATTER.
IF WE HAVE A MAJORITY OF LATINOS ON THE OUR SCHOOL BOARD, IT'S WE GOT THAT LAWSUIT.
AND TRYING TO FIGHT THEM IS OF WHAT MR. JOHNSON SAID, A VERY COSTLY THING.
AND SO IT'S CHEAPER TO PAY OFF.
AND IT'S REALLY THEY SEND BOILERPLATE LETTER TO YOU AND YOU'RE PAYING THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR BOILERPLATE LETTER.
I DON'T [INAUDIBLE] ATTORNEYS BUT.
AND THAT'S WHAT GIVES, I BELIEVE ATTORNEYS THE BAD NAME ON THAT.
AND BUT IT'S THEY'RE GOING UP AND DOWN THE STATE.
I DON'T NECESSARILY I BELIEVE THAT OUR CITY IS A GREAT CITY AND IT'S BEING HEARD ALL THE WAY ACROSS. LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER SAID, I JUST I DON'T LIKE PAYING THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS TO SHARKS TO MAKE US CHANGE.
AND I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD DO AHEAD OF THE GAME TO PREVENT US FROM BEING FORCED INTO DISTRICTS? IS THERE SOME MANEUVER WE CAN MAKE TO PREVENT IT? AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY'S ALREADY INDICATING WHAT THAT ANSWER IS, BUT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING I'D BE INTERESTED IN DOING IT.
IF THERE ISN'T, THEN WE MIGHT WANT TO JUST GET AHEAD OF THE GAME.
FOR A VERY FEW LUCKY JURISDICTIONS.
AND CLAREMONT ACTUALLY HAD THIS HAPPEN.
SOMEONE ACTUALLY CALLED THE CITY SAYING, DID YOU GET OUR LETTER YET? AND THE LETTER HAD NOT ARRIVED, AND SO THEY QUICKLY CALLED AN EMERGENCY COUNCIL MEETING AND ADOPTED THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT PRIOR TO THE LETTER ARRIVING AND THUS DID NOT HAVE TO PAY THE THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
BUT UNLESS SOMEONE FROM THE POTENTIAL PLAINTIFF GROUP MESSES UP LIKE THAT, YOU REALLY HAVE VERY LIMITED OPTIONS OTHER THAN STARTING THE PROCESS.
AND YOU CAN DO A RESOLUTION OF INTENT FOR THE FUTURE.
A NUMBER OF DISTRICTS WERE ABLE TO DO THIS.
DOROTHY MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM WHERE THEY SAID THE CENSUS IS COMING UP.
SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SWITCH FOR 2020.
CLAREMONT UNIFIED AND LOTS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS WERE LIKE THAT.
THEY TOOK A LITTLE BIT OF A RISK THAT NO ONE WOULD SEND THEM A LETTER AND DEMAND THAT THEY DO IT NOW. BUT ALL OF THEM SEEM TO HAVE MANAGED TO GET AWAY WITH THAT RISK.
BUT THAT MADE SENSE BECAUSE THE CENSUS WAS COMING UP AND SO SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT FOR 2022, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT FOR 2024, THERE'S NOT NEARLY THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT. AND ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO ATTRACT A LETTER NOW.
SO REALLY, THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO OTHER THAN EITHER STARTING A PROCESS AND GOING AHEAD OR GETTING LUCKY AND GETTING TIPPED OFF THAT THE LETTER IS COMING BEFORE IT'S ACTUALLY ARRIVED.
UNFORTUNATELY. MR. JOHNSON, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU, WE NEED TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT HERE.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT YOUR LAST MR. JOHNSON, ARE YOU PRETTY WELL WRAPPED UP WITH THAT WHERE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT NOW? SURE.
AND I'M HAPPY TO STICK AROUND FOR [INAUDIBLE].
OK. COUNCIL MEMBER LAU. MINE CAN WAIT TILL AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION PENDING THAT.
SO THAT'S FINE. I THINK WE SHOULD GO TO CLOSE THIS SESSION AND GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT RIGHT NOW. JR DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT PEOPLE? WE DO, MR. MAYOR, WE HAVE THREE THAT I KNOW OF, TWO ARE QUEUED UP, SO I WILL GET THE FIRST ONE GOING.
I MIGHT SUGGEST, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TIME.
WE JUST TAKE ALL OF THE QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY, AND THEN WE CAN ANSWER THEM BACK AFTER WE'VE CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT.
OK, YEAH, WE'LL KEEP IT TO A THREE MINUTE TIME, PLEASE, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING AFTER THIS. SO JR.
OK, MR. MAYOR, I HAVE SHERRY BEST ON THE LINE.
HELLO SHERRY BEST. MY NAME IS SHERRY BEST AND I RESIDE AT 3949 WEST STREET IN LA VERNE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE DISCUSSION BY MEMBERS OF THE LA VERNE CITY COUNCIL ON THE MERITS OF DISTRICT BASED VERSUS AT LARGE VOTING FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS DISCUSSING TODAY THE VARIOUS MERITS OF AT LARGE VOTING VERSUS DISTRICT BASED APPROACH IN WHICH LA VERNE RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE FOR CANDIDATES ONLY FOR THE DESIGNATED DISTRICT.
[00:40:03]
LEGISLATION THAT SUPPORTS DISTRICT BASED ELECTIONS IS GROUNDED IN FEDERAL AND STATE VOTING RIGHTS LAWS THAT WERE CREATED TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS WHO HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE VOTING PROCESS.HOWEVER, MY CONCERN LIES WITH THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ENGENDERED BY PICKING A DISTRICT BASED VOTING APPROACH.
MY RESEARCH RELATED TO AT LARGE VS.
DISTRICT BASED VOTING FAILS TO UNCOVER ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING UNINTENDED NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD ARISE FOR MAKING SUCH A CHANGE.
HERE ARE MY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
ONE, HOW CAN A SENSE OF COMMUNITY BE STRENGTHENED OR EVEN MAINTAINED WHEN A SMALLER CITY LIKE LA VERNE IS BALKANIZED BY A SYSTEM IN WHICH VOTERS ARE AT RISK OF BECOMING FOCUSED MORE ON THE NEEDS OF THEIR PARTICULAR DISTRICT AND ON THE CITY AS A WHOLE? WE HAVE SUFFERED ENOUGH FROM POLARIZING INFLUENCES THAT DRIVE US AWAY FROM MORE PRODUCTIVELY COMMUNICATING AND INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER.
TWO, HOW WOULD THE CITY ACCOMMODATE DISTRICTS WITH [INAUDIBLE] POPULATIONS? THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE COMES TO MIND WITH A STUDENT POPULATION THAT SWELLS AND DIMINISHES BASED ON THE TIME OF YEAR.
MANY STUDENTS REGISTERED TO VOTE WHERE THEY LIVE AND MUST BE REPRESENTED AND REPRESENTED, AND THEIR VOTE WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
COURSE, I'M TALKING ABOUT NORMAL TIME, NOT [INAUDIBLE] SIDE, SO THAT WILL CHANGE.
AS THE LA VERNE CITY COUNCIL FAILS TO RESPOND TO STATED MADE BY RESIDENTS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.
BUT WE AND ESPECIALLY THAT LETTER TO ROBIN CARDER SUGGESTS THAT HAVE THESE CONCERNS BEEN BASED ON A LACK OF RESPONSITIVIY TO DIVERSE INDIVIDUALS? THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD CONCERN ALL RESIDENTS.
BUT I'VE HEARD NOTHING TO THAT EFFECT.
FOUR, WHAT HAS TRIGGERED TODAY'S DISCUSSION? DATA THAT REFLECT ATTENTION TO DIVERSE INDIVIDUALS, COST CONCERNS, PERCEIVED SELF-INTEREST OPPORTUNITIES BY SPECIFIC GROUPS OR SOMETHING ELSE? IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO KNOW WHAT IS DRIVING THIS CONVERSATION.
HOW DID IT GET HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, ASIDE FROM MEETING THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE RESIDENTS . IF YOU COULD FINISH UP.
[INAUDIBLE] AND OTHER FORMS OF DIVERSITY WITHIN ITS MAKEUP.
AND IS THIS A PERCEIVED GOAL OF DISTRICT BASED REORGANIZATION? IN ADDITION TO RESPONDING TO MY QUESTIONS, APPROPRIATE LA VERNE'S STAFF NEED TO EXPLORE THE RESPONSES OF THE DISTRICT BASED VOTING TAKEN BY CITIES OF COMPARABLE SIZE.
MS. BEST? IF YOU COULD IF YOU COULD FINISH UP, PLEASE.
EXPERIENCED BOTH IMMEDIATELY AND OVER TIME.
WHATEVER OUR DECISION MUST BE MADE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF LA VERNE AS A WHOLE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL OF VOTING RIGHTS LAWS THAT SUPPORT THESE CHANGES IS APPROPRIATE AND JUST.
MY CONCERN LIES NOT WITH THIS ARGUMENT, BUT WHATEVER ELSE ENTAILS LA VERNE RESIDENTS TO SUPPORT DISTRICT VOTING.
IF MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCES DO NOT EXIST, A DISTRICT BASED APPROACH COULD ACTUALLY CREATE CONFLICT AS PERSONS RETREAT IN THEIR SPECIFIC INTEREST BASED CORNER AND THE PRESENCE OF EXISTING CONFLICT DISTRICT BASED VOTING COULD ACT AS AN ACCELERANT.
MR. MAYOR, I HAVE CATHY [INAUDIBLE] ON THE LINE.
MS. [INAUDIBLE] GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.
CATHY [INAUDIBLE], 53 YEAR RESIDENT, I'M ON THIRD STREET IN LA VERNE, AND MY ORIGINAL CALL, OF COURSE, WAS TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE DISTRICT VOTING.
BUT SEE, THE PRESENTATION HAS BEEN VERY INFORMATIVE, AND I UNDERSTAND POTENTIALLY WE MAY NOT HAVE A CHOICE.
WE'RE A SMALL CITY, EIGHT POINT FIVE FIVE SQUARE MILES.
SO I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GEOGRAPHICALLY LARGE ENOUGH THAT WE NEED TO DIVIDE INTO DISTRICTS FOR VOTING.
WHEN I VOTE FOR COUNCIL PEOPLE, I'M LOOKING FOR FIVE PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE WELL-BEING OF THE ENTIRE CITY OF LA VERNE, NOT JUST A SMALL PORTION, BUT I UNDERSTAND THIS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF OUR HANDS.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THE DISTRICT VOTING.
WHAT HAPPENS IF NO ONE RUNS IN A DISTRICT?
[00:45:02]
WHAT HAPPENS IF ONLY ONE PERSON RUNS OR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING IN THE DISTRICT AREN'T QUALIFIED BECAUSE THE COUNCIL IS.IT'S A BIG DEAL, A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST THINK IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT IT REALLY IS, YOU HAVE TO BE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND FLEXIBLE AND HAVE THE TIME FOR IT.
SO THOSE WOULD BE MY QUESTIONS.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE DISTRICT WHEN THOSE OCCUR? BUT I APPRECIATE THE TIME AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE INFORMATION.
THANK YOU. MS. [INAUDIBLE]. WE'LL HAVE MR. JOHNSON AFTER OUR LAST ONE COMMENT ON THOSE, JR YOU HAVE ONE OTHER.
IT'LL TAKE ME ONE SECOND TO GIVE THEM A CALL.
SORRY ABOUT THAT, WE HAVE A SEEMINGLY WRONG NUMBER.
MR. MAYOR, I HAVE JEFF BASLER GO AHEAD, JEFF.
JEFF BASLER. I'M ON ESSEX AVENUE, NORTH OF LA VERNE, NORTH OF [INAUDIBLE].
LET ME TURN OFF MY SPEAKERS FOR LISTENING IN ON YOU SO I CAN NOT BE DISTRACTED.
WE HAVE THE MOST GEOGRAPHICALLY DIVERSE COUNCIL RIGHT NOW THAN IN THE 28 YEARS I'VE LIVED IN LA VERNE. WE'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH REPRESENTATION THAT I'VE EVER HEARD OF.
AND I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CITY ENOUGH THAT I THINK I WOULD HAVE HEARD OF IT IF IT WERE AN ISSUE AND DISTRICTING LIMITS PARTICIPATION.
ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU'VE GOT A GOOD COUNCIL PERSON FOR YOUR DISTRICT, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THE WORK AND EFFORT OF TRYING TO CHALLENGE THEM? SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO STEP UP, BUT THERE MAY BE A NEED FOR A BETTER COUNCIL PERSON, JUST NOT IN YOUR DISTRICT.
AND IT KEEPS GOOD PEOPLE OUT, UNFORTUNATELY.
AND WHAT IT ENDS UP DOING AND DOING THAT ALSO IS PROTECTING BAD OR LESSER POTENTIAL COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHICH AGAIN HURTS THE CITY.
LEADS THE COUNCIL TO FOCUS ON THEIR DISTRICT, LIKE ROBIN WAS TALKING ABOUT IN THE POMONA SITUATION, INSTEAD OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
AND WE'RE JUST NOT A BIG ENOUGH CITY TO DIVIDE LIKE THAT.
AND IF WE ARE JUST WORRIED ABOUT BEING BLACKMAILED INSTEAD OF JUST CAVE IN TO THE BLACKMAIL, WE SHOULD BE PARTNERING WITH OTHER ENTITIES, OTHER CITIES, ET CETERA, GOING BACK TO THE STATE AND TRYING TO CHANGE THIS AUTOMATIC 34000 DOLLAR DISBURSEMENT OR LOSS.
IF YOU SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE PROOF THAT YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG BEFORE, YOU HAVE TO OBLIGATE MONEY OUT.
AND THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED AT THE STATE LEVEL.
THAT WOULD BE A BETTER DIRECTION TO PUT OUR EFFORTS ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT WOULD DO DAMAGE TO OUR CITY TO BREAK IT DOWN IN THIS MANNER.
THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, MR. BESLER. THANK YOU, JEFF.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE, JR? THERE ARE NO OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THEY WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL GIVE IT A MINUTE, MR. JOHNSON, YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS YOU PROBABLY CAN ANSWER.
WHY DON'T WE GO WITH ONE OF THEM? WE'LL CHECK BACK WITH JR IN A MINUTE.
BUT WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THINK OF ONE WAS A WHAT IF NO ONE RUNS OR WHAT IF THAT PERSON RUNS? THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. AND I KNOW SHERRY BEST HAD SOME COMMENTS, BUT I THINK THAT WAS MORE JUST A GENERALIZATION ON HER COMMENTS.
YEAH, CERTAINLY SOME VERY GOOD COMMENTS AND GOOD INSIGHT INTO THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE.
IF NO ONE RUNS, IT'S JUST LIKE ANY OTHER VACANCY.
AT SOME CITIES AND YOU HAVE UNUSUAL VACANCY PROVISIONS.
BUT IF YOURS IS A STANDARD, THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD EITHER APPOINT OR CALL A SPECIAL
[00:50:03]
ELECTION. AND WHEN YOU DO APPOINT OR CALL A SPECIAL, THEY STILL HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF THAT DISTRICT. BUT TYPICALLY WE FOUND PEOPLE ARE MUCH MORE WILLING TO APPLY FOR AN APPOINTMENT THAN THEY ARE TO RUN FOR AN ELECTION.WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE JURISDICTION, AND THAT WAS A SCHOOL DISTRICT WHERE NOBODY APPLIED FOR THE APPOINTMENT. AND WE CALLED MALDEF HAD ACTUALLY FORCED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT INTO DISTRICT ELECTIONS. AND ON THE LAST DAY WE GOT A CALL, WE CALLED UP MALDEF AND SAID, YOU MADE THEM DO THE SWITCH, GET SOMEONE IN THERE.
AND WITHIN ABOUT HALF AN HOUR LEFT, THEY GOT TWO APPLICANTS IN THERE.
SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS GOTTEN AN APPLICATION WHEN THEY HAD THEIR POINT.
BUT WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS THAT HAD TO APPOINT.
MR. JOHNSON, IF I COULD JUST STOP REAL QUICK, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND JR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO OTHERS RECEIVED, SIR.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT NOW AND GO AHEAD, MR. JOHNSON, CONTINUE. THANK YOU.
SO IF ONLY ONE PERSON RUNS, IT'S JUST LIKE IF ONLY TWO PEOPLE RUNNING THERE ARE TWO SEATS OPEN.
THE CITY HAS THE OPTION TO CANCEL THE ELECTION AND THAT PERSON IS SIMPLY SWORN IN.
THERE WAS A COMMENT IN THERE, TOO, ABOUT BEING TOO SMALL.
AND ACTUALLY THERE ISN'T TOO SMALL PROVISION IN STATE LAW, BUT IT'S IF YOU'RE LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED REGISTERED VOTERS.
SO IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY PROTECT ANYONE.
AND SURE ENOUGH, EVEN IN SOUTH PASADENA, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ONE SQUARE MILE HAS SWITCHED.
YOU MAY BE AWARE TO, BRADBURY HAS HAD DISTRICT ELECTIONS SINCE INCORPORATION IN THE 1930S, AND THEY ONLY HAVE ELEVEN HUNDRED PEOPLE AND THEY HAVE BY DISTRICT ELECTIONS.
SO. SO BEING TOO SMALL IS CERTAINLY A LOGICAL POLICY DEBATE, BUT IT IS NOT A LEGAL PROTECTION IN ANY WAY.
I WAS GOING TO MENTION TO YOU THE LAST COMMENT ABOUT PARTNERING UP WITH OTHER GROUPS TO FIGHT. THAT DOES COME UP A LOT.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA WAS ACTUALLY SUED BY MISTAKE.
THE PLAINTIFFS MEANT TO SUE CHINO AND ALL THE DETAILS AND ALL OF THE FACTS IN THE LAWSUIT WERE FOR WERE CHINO, INCLUDING THE POPULATION COUNTS.
AND SO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EASY WIN? IT WASN'T.
THAT PLAINTIFF GOT A JUDGE WHO LET THE PLAINTIFFS REFILE.
THE MAYOR OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AT THE TIME WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF CITIES.
AND SO HERE WE HAVE A LAWSUIT FILED BY MISTAKE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF CITIES IS MAYOR.
HE TRIED TO RALLY FOLKS AND THERE JUST WASN'T ANY INTEREST IN.
NUMBER ONE IT'S VERY COMPLICATED TO SET UP A LEGAL DEFENSE FUND FROM ONE JURISDICTION TO ANOTHER. IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.
AND THERE JUST ISN'T THE SPIRIT FOR THAT, BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE MADE CLEAR THEY WILL DO LITTLE TINKERING HERE AND THERE.
BUT THERE IS NO APPETITE IN THE LEGISLATURE TO REVISIT THIS LEGISLATION IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE LEAGUE OF CITIES ACTUALLY SPENDS MOST OF ITS TIME PLAYING DEFENSE TO TRY TO KEEP THE LAW FROM BEING MADE WORSE RATHER THAN TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR CITIES TO AVOID THE FINANCIAL IMPACT.
UNFORTUNATELY. OH, GOOD, COUNCIL MEMBER LAU, YOU GOT A QUESTION BEFORE WE WENT INTO PUBLIC COMMENT, DID YOU WANT TO ASK MR. JOHNSON? IT WAS A COMMENT THAT I THINK MAY LEAD TO POTENTIAL, I GUESS, DIRECTION FOR NEXT STEPS. BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, ON MY MIND, ESPECIALLY SEEING A FRIEND OF MINE RUN FOR OFFICE IN THE CITY OF CLAREMONT WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE IN DISTRICTS AND HEARING A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT CITY COUNCIL WORK TOGETHER IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU REPRESENTING YOUR DISTRICT AND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU REALLY LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE CITY? AND I THINK THERE'S SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THAT.
AND I THINK THERE'S WAYS IN WHICH THAT CAN BE DETRIMENTAL TO A CITY AS A WHOLE BECAUSE OF THE FACTIONIZATION OF A POPULATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO LOOK MORE INTO DISTRICTING IN PART BECAUSE WE THINK THAT MAY COME AT US AT ANY MOMENT DUE TO SOMEONE DECIDING TO CALL A LAW FIRM AND ISSUE THAT LETTER.
YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT SOME OF THE BEST PRACTICES MIGHT BE IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT THAT FACTIONING DOESN'T OCCUR, BECAUSE THAT WOULD YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN, TOO. AND SUCH AS SUCH A SMALL CITY AS OURS, WE DON'T NEED TO CREATE MORE DIVISION THAN IS NESS THAT NEEDS TO BE THERE.
SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT IT.
AND I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT SOME OF THE PROS, CONS, YOU KNOW, BEST PRACTICES, SORT OF INFORMATION MIGHT BE THAT MIGHT HELP US NAVIGATE OUR PATH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FOR MR. JOHNSON? WELL, I GUESS I WAS GOING TO JUST SIMPLY CLOSE OUT.
I MEAN, I SORT OF MADE THE PREAMBLE BUT DIDN'T QUITE GET THE PUNCHLINE IN.
[00:55:01]
JOHNSON'S RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT THERE REALLY ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE PATH TO DEFEND OUR CURRENT AT LARGE PROCESS.IS THAT CORRECT? NOT REALLY OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT [INAUDIBLE] DID IS THEY DECLARED THEY GOT A COMMUNITY GROUP TO DECLARE WE HAVE A TWO MILLION DOLLAR CHECK THAT WE WILL WRITE FOR THE CITY'S LEGAL DEFENSE.
UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMEONE WILLING TO WRITE THAT CHECK YOU OR YOUR OWN WILLINGNESS TO ALLOCATE THAT MUCH OF YOUR RESERVES TO THIS, THERE REALLY IS LITTLE YOU CAN DO OTHER THAN GET OUT AHEAD OF IT OR, YOU KNOW, WAIT.
AND WHO KNOWS, MAYBE YOU WON'T GET A LETTER, BUT THEN YOU'RE LETTING THE POTENTIAL PLAINTIFF DICTATE YOUR TIMING.
HAVING A SWORD OF DAMOCLES IS NOT A FUN POSITION TO BE IN.
WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY AT A DISCUSSION HERE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
IT WAS SOMETHING A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS BROUGHT UP JUST TO DISCUSS HOW, WHEN AND WHERE AND WHY DID YOU DO THIS AND HOW DO YOU DO THIS.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S THAT'S GOOD.
IT'S JUST THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, IF IT DOES HAPPEN, WE KNOW WE'RE NOT REALLY WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MANY CHOICES, WHETHER IT'S UP A FOUR AND A ONE, A FOUR, YOU KNOW, DISTRICT ELECTED MAYOR OR FIVE WITH A ROTATION.
BUT I THINK REALLY ANYTHING RIGHT NOW UNTIL WE GET THE CENSUS, WE CAN'T REALLY IT'S MOOT AT THIS POINT ONCE YOU GET THE CENSUS TO MOVE DOWN THE ROAD AND SEE WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT. AND THEN I GUESS, MR. RUSSI OR MR. KRESS, THAT REALLY THIS IS JUST A STUDY SESSION, WE'RE REALLY THERE'S REALLY NO DECISION BEING MADE TONIGHT.
IT WAS JUST TO BRING IT OUT TO COUNCIL AND ALSO TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM RESIDENTS, BECAUSE WE HAD A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS THAT WANTED TO DISCUSS THIS.
BUT MR. KRESS. NO, THAT'S CORRECT.
I MEAN, WE JUST WANTED TO PUT IT ON THE TABLE AS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS WE MOVE ALONG.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE WAITING ON THE CENSUS.
AND, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THE PRESENTATION FROM DR.
JOHNSON THIS EVENING GIVES YOU ALL LOTS TO THINK ABOUT FOR THE NEXT TIME THAT WE HAVE A STUDY SESSION, MAYBE WILL BE REQUESTING SOME SPECIFIC ACTION AT THAT POINT, BUT.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS WAS AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION OF THE STAY OF THE LAW AND WHERE LA VERNE STANDS IN ALL OF THIS.
THANK YOU, MR. COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY. THANK YOU, BUT IT'S I JUST TO MAKE A POINT.
IT'S NOT OH, WE CAN WAIT FOR THE CENSUS AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.
IF WE GET A LETTER TOMORROW, WHICH COULD BE POSSIBLY THAT, THEN WE DON'T WE CAN'T MAKE DISTRICTS UNTIL THE CENSUS COMES OUT.
BUT IF WE HAVE THE INTENT ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL, THEN WE WILL NOT BE SUED FOR THAT. BUT IT'S NOT WE IT'S NOT THERE'S NO TIME.
BUT IF WE HAVE A LETTER PRIOR TO THAT TIMETABLE, THEN IT'S EITHER FIGHT OR AUTOMATICALLY MOVE TO DISTRICTING.
JUST LIKE OUR GREAT RESIDENT SAID, WE ARE WE ARE PUT IN A HARD PLACE WHERE WE CAN'T EVEN FIGHT FOR THIS, EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT.
AND HAVING HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS PUT TOWARDS THIS IS SOMETHING I DON'T FEEL LA VERNE HAS FOR THAT EITHER. WELL, AND I JOIN COUNCIL MEMBER CROSBY'S NOTION THAT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO BANKROLL SOMETHING TO STOP IT OR TO DELAY IT, SO.
I MEAN, I GUESS, MR. MAYOR, ARE YOU SAYING LET'S JUST WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE CENSUS SAYS BECAUSE WE DON'T GET TO DRAW ANYTHING UNTIL WE START THE PROCESS? SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE'RE EITHER WAITING TILL WE GET SERVED BY SOMEBODY TO PUSH US THAT WAY OR TO TAKE A PROACTIVE STEP INTO DETERMINING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DELAY OR THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IN SOME SENSE.
MR. RUSSI, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, I WASN'T PREPARED TO BE IT WAS MORE OF INFORMATION TONIGHT.
BUT IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE SOMETHING, MR. RUSSI, I MEAN, IT'S NOT AGENIZED, SO WE CAN'T VOTE FOR SOMETHING, BUT WE CAN PUT THAT ON ANOTHER AGENDA IF WE CHOOSE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT.
[01:00:04]
YEAH. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING LIKE.TO SET SORT OF THAT SENSE OF WHERE WE'RE GOING FROM HERE.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO PLUG YOUR OPTIONS.
IF YOU WANT TO BLOCK THE OPTION FOR SOMEONE TO GET THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND YOU'RE ACCEPTING [INAUDIBLE] NOW, WHAT THEY CALLED IS A RESOLUTION OF INTENT THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AGAIN SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE CHANGE ONCE THE CENSUS DATA COMES OUT AND THAT BLOCKS SOMEONE FROM GETTING MONEY FOR SENDING YOU A LETTER. SO THAT WOULD BE YOUR OPTION.
AND YOU CAN DO THAT, AS MR. CROSBY IS SAYING. DO THAT WHENEVER YOU WANT.
THE OTHER OPTION, OF COURSE, IS JUST TO WAIT AND SEE AND THEN YOU AVOID COMMITTING YOURSELF. WHEN THEY ADOPT THAT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION WOULD THAT NEED TO HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE OF FOUR VERSUS FIVE DISTRICTS? [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, I THINK IT USUALLY SAYS, BUT WE HAVE HAD JURISDICTION HAS CHANGED OUR MINDS.
THE TRICK IS IT'S A RESOLUTION OF INTENT, WHICH YOU COULD ALWAYS I MEAN, YOU CAN ALWAYS CHANGE YOUR MIND COMPLETELY AND NOT FINISH THE PROCESS, WHICH IN WHICH CASE, OF COURSE, YOU GET TO DO IT IMMEDIATELY OR YOU CAN CHANGE FROM FOUR TO FIVE.
WE WERE [INAUDIBLE] WAS PLANNING TO GO TO FOUR THE WHOLE TIME.
AND THEN IN THE LAST THREE WEEKS OF THE PROCESS, THEY DECIDED TO GO TO FIVE SEATS.
SO YOU CAN CHANGE THAT AS YOU GO THROUGH.
AND MAYBE I'M INCORRECT, BUT I THOUGHT THE SCOPE OF THIS QUESTION WAS TRULY, IS IT JUST A NOTICE OF INTENT THAT SAYS WE INTEND TO DISTRICT PERIOD.
AND THEN THAT LEAVES US OPEN TO FIGURING OUT IF IT'S FOUR OR FIVE DISTRICTS OR DO WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY LAY OUT THE SPECIFICS IN THE NOTICE OF INTENT WITH LEAVE TO CHANGE? YEAH, TO BE HONEST, IT'S A QUESTION I HAVE WRESTLED WITH BEFORE.
I THINK YOU CAN CERTAINLY BE SPECIFIC AS THIS IS OUR PLAN, BUT THEN CHANGE YOUR PLAN AND WE'D PROBABLY NEED TO WORK AND MR. KRESS. WE COULD DO SOME DIGGING TO SEE IF YOU CAN JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO DISTRICTS AND WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT AS WE GO ALONG.
THE MAIN THING IS TO DECLARE YOUR UNEQUIVOCAL INTENT TO GO TO SOME FORM OF DISTRICT ELECTIONS. AND IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE TIMING WAS IN AND NEEDED TO BE IN THAT INTENTION VERSUS NECESSARILY FOUR OR FIVE DISTRICTS WITH FIRMNESS.
BUT CERTAINLY WE HAD TO PUT THE CALENDAR OUT THERE.
YOU COULDN'T JUST SAY SUNDAY, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS.
WHAT IS THERE? IS THERE A TIMEFRAME ON THAT? OBVIOUSLY, THE CENSUS HAS TO BE WE HAVE TO GET THE CENSUS OUT.
YOU KNOW, THE ONE QUESTION I HAD IS AFTER READING INTO THIS WAS THE FACT THAT SO THAT HAS CHANGED AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT SOME COMMUNITIES WENT TO A FOUR WITH FOUR DISTRICT WITH AN ELECTED MAYOR. AND THERE WERE SOME LAWSUITS ON THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T IT WASN'T REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIVERSE COMMUNITY.
AND THAT THE FIVE WITH THE ROTATION MAYOR, THE FIVE DISTRICT ROTATION MAYOR WAS THE PREFERENCE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OR NO POSSIBILITY OF A LAWSUIT BECAUSE THEY HAD FULL REPRESENTATION.
IS THAT BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE ANY LONGER, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND IN PALMDALE AND IN WHITTIER AND OH, AND IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO GOING TO AN AT LARGE MAYOR OR KEEPING AN AT LARGE MAYOR.
AND IN EACH CASE, THE JUDGE LET THEM DO THE AT LARGE MAYOR, BUT LEFT THE DOOR OPEN TO A FUTURE LAWSUIT ON THAT QUESTION.
BUT AFTER THAT, I THINK IN TWENTY I FORGET IT'S 2016 OR 2017.
THE STATE DID CLARIFY THAT YOU CAN GO TO DISTRICTS OR DISTRICTS WITH AN AT LARGE MAYOR.
WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SUED BECAUSE THEY DO A DIVERSE MAKEUP OF IT.
THE ONLY THING I GUESS I'M WONDERING IS IF THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO.
THERE WERE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE WE WANTED TO BE RESEARCHED. WHAT THE EFFECTS I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER LAU POINTED OUT ON AGENCIES THAT HAVE GONE TO IT.
YOU KNOW, THAT STARTS TO AFFECT THE TIMING OF WHEN REALISTICALLY SOMETHING CAN BE BROUGHT BACK, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE THE DOING THAT LEVEL OF RESEARCH, IT WAS JUST SIMPLY A MATTER OF COUNCIL WANTS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE WANT TO BLOCKAID.
WELL, THEN WE CAN START LOOKING AT WHAT THE TIMING IS GOING TO BE AND JUST THROW THAT OUT FOR YOU. SO I GUESS NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE NO MATTER THE EFFECT, WE'VE GOT TO GO TO THIS AT SOME POINT.
I MEAN, IF THE FEAR IS TO AVOID THE THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR PAYMENT, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT THIS ALL CENTERS ON, RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE LETTER TO COME, AND THEN WE HAVE TO DO IT. SO I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M CURIOUS WHERE COUNCIL IS AT WITH THOSE ITEMS.
[01:05:02]
AND THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION BACK TO MR. JOHNSON IS, AND IF WE ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AND RIGHT NOW THERE'S THIS HOLD ON THE CLOCK TICKING UNTIL WHATEVER PERIOD OF TIME IN THE FUTURE, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WILL BE, WE CAN MAYBE ASSUME IT'S JULY.DOES THAT LEAD US TO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OUR DISTRICTS DONE BY WHATEVER THE START OF THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE WOULD BE, DOES THAT REASONABLE WOULD PUT US TO 2024 BEFORE WE REALLY HAVE TO PUT THINGS IN PLACE? I MEAN, IF WE SET THAT TIMING UP, NOT KNOWING ALL THOSE PIECES RIGHT NOW AND A RESOLUTION OF INTENT. YEAH, IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE DOABLE FOR 2022 ELECTION, IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
TALKING ABOUT DOING THE RESEARCH IN THE PIECES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT COULD PUSH YOU BEYOND. BUT THE ODDS ARE THAT WOULD PROBABLY TRIGGER A LEGAL CHALLENGE IF YOU TRIED TO PUSH IT PAST 2022.
AND IN A COUPLE OF CASES, IT HASN'T.
SO I MENTIONED, SOME SAID POST CENSUS, CHULA VISTA ACTUALLY ADOPTED A MEASURE IN 2013 SAYING THEY'D SWITCH FOR 2016.
THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NOT DOING IT FOR THE NEXT CYCLE, POSTPONING IT THE FUTURE CYCLE, AND THEY'RE REALLY KIND OF JUST ROLLING THE DICE AND SEEING WILL A LAWYER ACTUALLY SUE US OR WILL THEY LET IT GO? SO IT IS AN OPTION TO ROLL THE DICE AND THERE COULD BE SOME VERY GOOD REASONS TO DO IT, BUT THERE'S NO REAL LEGAL PROTECTION IN THERE.
UNLESS. SO YOUR NEXT ELECTION WOULD BE JUNE OF 2022, IF I'M CORRECT.
[INAUDIBLE] WELL, NO, BECAUSE IT'S THE PRIMARY AND THE PRIMARY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO JUNE.
YEAH. SO THAT WOULD MEAN YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE YOUR DISTRICTS IN PLACE BY MID-DECEMBER.
SO IF YOU STARTED IN JULY WE'D HAVE ESSENTIALLY FIVE MONTHS OR IF YOU START IN JUNE, WE HAVE SIX MONTHS TO GET IT DONE.
IN DECEMBER OF 2021, NOT DECEMBER 20.
RIGHT. YES, THAT'S A SHORT ORDER.
WELL, [INAUDIBLE] THREE TO FOUR MONTHS IS WHAT DR.
JOHNSON WAS SAYING. THAT'S PLENTY OF TIME FOR THAT.
BUT, MR. MAYOR, YOU HAD IN THE PAST SAID YOU WANTED TO AVOID LAWSUITS.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND I REALIZE THAT THIS MIGHT ONLY BE A THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR LAWSUIT. BUT IS THIS A LAWSUIT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN AVOIDING OR ARE YOU WILLING TO LET THE LAWSUIT COME TO US AND THEN RESPOND? YOU KNOW, MR. DAVIS, THIS WASN'T A DECISION I WAS LOOKING AT TONIGHT, MORE OF A STUDY SESSION, BUT NO, I DO NOT LIKE LAWSUITS AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE THAT ONCE YOU CRACK THE EGG, AS WE'VE DONE AND DISCUSSED IT, THAT IT'S A POSSIBILITY.
SO I THINK THAT I WILL, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO.
IF WE WANT TO LOOK THIS DOWN AND MAKE A, YOU KNOW, A RESOLUTION, WE CAN DO THAT.
I JUST WITH COVID AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON, IT'S JUST SUCH A TOUGH TIME RIGHT NOW.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE FACED WITH BUSINESSES CLOSING AND THE PANDEMIC AND.
OUR VACCINES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, I HATE TO ADD THAT MUCH MORE ON THE PLATE OF THE CITY, BUT OBVIOUSLY I'M ONE OF FIVE AND I WILL DO YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO THAT.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE TIME RIGHT NOW.
OBVIOUSLY, MR. JOHNSON WOULD BE DOING.
YES, COUNCIL MEMBER CARDER. YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS I THINK WE'RE JUMPING INTO IT TOO QUICK HERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE WENDY'S QUESTIONS, ALL OF OUR CONCERNS.
AND IF MR. RUSSI, IF YOU COULD COME BACK TO US WITH THIS, THIS WAS A STUDY SESSION AND I, TOO, CAME INTO IT AS OUR MAYOR HAS TO SAY THAT, OK, LET'S GATHER THIS INFORMATION.
BUT TO SAY NOW I WANT TO DO A RESOLUTION, I'M NOT READY FOR THAT.
AND I WOULD HOPE OUR CITIZENS IN LA VERNE WOULD NOT CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO SAY, LET'S GET THEM GOING ON THIS. YOU'RE TALKING A COUPLE OF PEOPLE.
AND ALSO THIS IS AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW, WHERE'S THE THIRTY TWO THOUSAND? HOW'D THAT NUMBER GET THROWN OUT THERE ALL THE TIME? IS THAT A [INAUDIBLE] NUMBER? LIKE IT BETTER THAN TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY OR 300, THAT'S FOR SURE.
WHERE DID WHY IS IT ALWAYS A LETTER AND THIRTY TWO THOUSAND.
SO, WHAT PROMPTED THAT LAW TO SAY THAT IS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS WHO YOU MIGHT SAY WENT A
[01:10:04]
LITTLE BONKERS. THEY SENT A LETTER TO SAN CLEMENTE, WHICH WAS BEFORE THIS FORTY FIVE DAYS TO ACT WHILE IT WAS IN PLACE.THEY SENT A LETTER TO SAN CLEMENTE ON DECEMBER 20TH AND FILED THEIR LAWSUIT ON JANUARY 4TH. SAYING 14, 15 DAYS OVER THE HOLIDAY WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO MAKE THIS GIANT DECISION FOR THE FUTURE OF YOUR CITY.
SO THAT EVEN THAT WAS TOO MUCH EVEN FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
AND SO THEY PUT WORK TO THE LEAGUE OF CITIES AND THEY PUT IN THESE WHAT THEY CALL SAFE HARBOR WINDOWS, WHERE YOU GET FORTY FIVE DAYS TO REACT TO A LETTER AND THEN YOU GET 90 DAYS TO FINISH THE PROCESS WHERE YOU'RE STILL IN THE SAFE HARBOR.
BUT IN ORDER TO GET THOSE SAFE HARBORS THAT THE TRIAL LAWYERS GROUP SAID, WELL, WE WANT COMPENSATION ANYWAYS.
YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS WE GOT FOR SUING CLEMENTE.
AND THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS THE AMOUNT THEY ARRIVED AT AND ITS INFLATION ADJUSTED.
SO NOW IT'S THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.
I MEAN, I WOULD HAZARD TO GUESS THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT IT WAS IT WAS THEIR COST FOR THEIR WORK, FOR FILING AND DOING ALL THAT.
AND SO, LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY WHAT HAPPENS WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT LAWSUITS THAT HAPPEN. THERE ARE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AND IT IS WHAT IT IS AND IT'S NOT GREAT. I THINK MY FEAR AT THIS MOMENT IS THAT, YES, WE ALL CAME INTO THIS AS A STUDY SESSION, BUT IT REALLY ONLY TAKES ONE PERSON TO CALL.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING WE CAN HUNT.
AND I KNOW WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT.
SO I'M NOT I'M NOT ASKING FOR A DECISION TO BE MADE TONIGHT.
I'M JUST MAKING IT CLEAR THAT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AND IT'S BEEN OUT THERE, IT DOESN'T EVEN NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY THAT PUSHES IT.
IT COULD BE AN ADVOCACY GROUP.
AND SO JUST BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT, THAT NONE OF US WANT THIS LAWSUIT AND WE DON'T HAVE THE EXTRA MONEY TO PAY OUT.
THIRTY TWO GRAND TO SETTLE SOMETHING OUT AND THEN HAVE TO PURSUE DISTRICTING ANYWAY.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN I ASKED FOR THAT INFORMATION IN TERMS OF BEST PRACTICES, IT'S REALLY IN MY MIND THAT'S THE DOWN THE ROAD IN TERMS OF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO DOWN DISTRICTING, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, THEN WE BETTER DO IT RIGHT.
AND IT HAS TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE INTENT BEHIND THE LEGISLATION IS GOOD IN WANTING REPRESENTATION AND MAKING SURE THAT UNDERREPRESENTED PEOPLE GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
BUT IN REALITY, WE ALL SHOULD BE WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS ANYWAY AND NOT JUST DOING IT [INAUDIBLE] AND SAYING WE'RE SPLITTING UP OUR CITY INTO THESE FOUR OR FIVE DISTRICTS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN EVERYBODY'S REPRESENTED.
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE EITHER.
SO THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT ABOUT WHY I WAS ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I'M SORT OF SEEING DOWN THE ROAD OF WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO.
NO. AND THOSE ARE ALL VERY GOOD POINTS.
BUT I JUST RIGHT NOW, I JUST THERE'S SO MUCH ON THE PLATE RIGHT NOW, COVID ON OUR BUSINESSES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
IF WE IF WE GO DOWN THE ROAD A BIT AND TO REVISIT THIS, I JUST I MEAN, THE RESIDENTS [INAUDIBLE] THREE COMMENTS TONIGHT.
AND THERE'S BEEN TWO RESIDENTS THAT WANTED TO JUST LOOK AT THIS JUST TO EXPLAIN WHY AND HOW IT WORKS. NOT NECESSARILY GOING.
YES, WE COULD GET A PHONE CALL AND YES, THE TIME THE TIME WOULD START WOULD START TICKING. BUT I JUST I THINK THAT WE NEED TO.
JUST AS A STUDY SESSION AND THEN LOOK AT THE LOOK AT WHEN THE CENSUS COMES AND THEN, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT IT AGAIN, I GUESS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE LOOKING AT UNTIL APRIL, MAY, MAYBE JUNE.
THAT'S A PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF THE CENSUS DOESN'T QUITE CLICK OUT, MR. JOHNSON, IS THAT CORRECT? IT COULD BE APRIL, MAY, JUNE, AND BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY FINALIZE THE CENSUS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE WITH OUR AREA PRECINCTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, I JUST.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR. MAYOR, ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY OF NOW, I GUESS I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THIRTY TWO GRAND THAT I'D LIKE TO SPEND ON OUR COMMUNITY AND ON SUPPORTING OUR COMMUNITY.
EITHER THESE ARE BIG BUSINESS LOANS OR HELP FOR OUR NEIGHBORS VERSUS GIVING IT TO A LAW FIRM. SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT AS LITTLE AS THIRTY TWO THOUSAND.
BUT I DON'T THINK THIS STUDY SESSION NECESSARILY CRACKED THE EGG, I THINK THE EGG WAS CRACKED AND NOW WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CAN BE SALVAGED FROM THIS BROKEN EGG AND WHETHER WE MAKE AN OMELET OR WHETHER WE WEAR IT.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CENSUS GIVES US ANY BUFFER OR SAFE HARBOR FROM A RESIDENT OR SOMEBODY WHO OVERHEARD A RESIDENT OR A LAW FIRM WHO'S TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO SEND LETTERS TO, WE COULD GET LUCKY AND NOT GET A LETTER FOR SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR OR TWO YEARS. SO WE EITHER LIVE WITH THAT RISK OF SAYING WE COULD GET A LETTER ANY DAY AND WE HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO IT OR WE CAN GET AHEAD OF IT.
[01:15:02]
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO JUST LIVE WITH NOT GETTING AHEAD OF IT RIGHT NOW.AND WE'LL HAVE TO REVISIT THIS AT SOME OTHER COUNCIL MEETING AND MAYBE SOME PEOPLE REQUEST THE RESOLUTION IN THE MEETING.
WELL, AND THAT'S ANY MONEY WE SPEND ON LAWSUITS IS IS NOT GOOD FOR ME, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BELITTLE THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S UNDERSTANDING, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S THE WRONG TIME RIGHT NOW. I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR CITY RIGHT NOW.
THAT AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS, BUT THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL FEELING.
BUT IF THE OTHER COUNCIL HAS A DIFFERENT APPROACH, WE'D HAVE TO PUT IT DOWN THE ROAD FOR, YOU KNOW. FOR A VOTE.
COMMENTS COUNCIL? WE JUST TABLE IT NOW? WELL, I THINK THIS IS A STUDY SESSION WE HAVE TO WE CAN'T DO A VOTE.
SO I THINK WE DID WE HAD A GREAT STUDY SESSION, A LOT OF A LOT OF GOOD, GOOD DISCUSSION.
AND WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD, IT'S WHEN WE PUT ON THE AGENDA.
THAT'S PART OF OUR DECISION AS WELL.
WE'LL DO IT DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THAT'S WHEN IT'S TIME.
BUT, MR. JOHNSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING COMING UP IN ABOUT 13 MINUTES.
SO IF THERE ARE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. JOHNSON, MR. RUSSI, MR. KRESS? NOTHING ON OUR END. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR EXPERTISE ON THIS.
GIVE US TREMENDOUS FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AND NO OTHER COMMENTS? THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT [INAUDIBLE] P.M., WHERE OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2020 AT 6:30 P.M.
THANK YOU ALL. NO WE HAVE A MEETING TONIGHT AT [INAUDIBLE].
WE'RE GOING TO I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT MEETING.
WE HAVE A MEETING AT SIX THIRTY.
YES. WE'LL BE READJOURNING OUR MEETING AT SIX THIRTY TONIGHT.
THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.