MINUTES

FOR THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2001 - 4:00 P.M.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE ROOM
202 C STREET 12TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA

CHRONOLOGY OF THE MEETING:

Chairman Pesqueira called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Pesqueira at 6:55 p.m.
ITEM-1: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Pesqueira called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.
ITEM-2: ROLL CALL

Director Staajabu Heshimu called the roll:

(C) Chairman Ralph R. Pesqueira-present
(VC) Vice Chairman Leland T. Saito-present
(M) Mateo R. Camarillo-not present
(M) Charles W. Johnson-present
(M) Marichu G. Magaña-present
(M) Shirley ODell-present
(M) Juan Antonio Ulloa-present
(EO) Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location A002-022.)

ATTENDANCE DURING THE MEETING:

(C) Chairman Ralph R. Pesqueira-present

(VC) Vice Chairman Leland T. Saito-present

(M) Mateo R. Camarillo-present

(M) Charles W. Johnson-present

(M) Marichu G. Magaña-present

(M) Shirley ODell-present

(M) Juan Antonio Ulloa-present

ALSO PRESENT:

(EO) Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster
Kathy Mayou, City Manager's Office
Staajabu Heshimu, Operations Director
Joey Perry, Senior Planner

ITEM-3: NON-AGENDA COMMENT

This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the Redistricting Commission on items of interest within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Comments are limited to no more than two minutes per speaker. Pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, no discussion or action, other than a referral, will be taken by the Redistricting Commission on any issue brought forth under "Non-Agenda Comment."

COMMENT: None.

ACTION ITEMS
ITEM-4: REDISTRICTING CONSULTANT SERVICES

Staff to provide a written recommendation on the selection of a consultant from among the proposals received. Discussion and possible action relating to hiring a consultant.

Ms. Heshimu informed the Commission that staff recommended the firm of Cain and Mac Donald as redistricting consultants on an as-needed basis.

Commisioners Ulloa, Johnson, Saito, and Magana expressed their satisfaction with the selection.

Chairman Pesqueira directed staff to write a letter thanking all who submitted Requested for Proposals.

MOTION BY ULLOA TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND AWARD THE CONSULTANT CONTRACT TO CAIN AND MACDONALD. Second by Magana. Vote unanimous; all present.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location A026-089.)

ITEM 5: WORK PROGRAM AND TIME LINE

Discussion and possible action relating to updated Work Program.

Ms. Heshimu handed out a revised Work Program Schedule and explained the changes that were made.

The Commissioners discussed the Tiger files and what type of software program would be used.

Ms. Perry informed that it is possible to obtain some information from SANDAG so once the software arrives, we do not need to start from the ground.

Commissioner Ulloa requested that staff endeavor to expedite the software purchase.

Commissioner Camarillo stated that it is difficult for him to attend meetings on Wednesdays.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location A094-355.)

ITEM 6: PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE

Staff report on progress of securing dates for the Public Hearings in each Council District. Discussion and possible action relating to Public Hearing Schedule.

Ms. Heshimu informed the Commission that currently the first community meeting is schedule for April 23 in District 4. The meetings are scheduled to take place on Mondays and Wednesdays.

Chairman Pesqueira recommended two meetings in District 8 in Barrio Logan and Otay Nestor and in District 2 because of the irregularity of these two districts.

Commissioner Ulloa agreed that two meetings in District 8 are necessary.

Commissioner Saito stated that he preferred one meeting per Council District until the maps are drawn.

Commissioner Magana agreed with one meeting per Council District before the maps are drawn because of the time constraints.

Chairman Pesqueira suggested postponing making a decision on the extra meetings until after the first public meeting on April 23. Based on the turn out at that meeting, a decision could be made regarding future meetings.

Chairman Pesqueira requested that each Commissioner submit two questions to Ms. Heshimu to get the public meetings started and generate public input and responses.

Direction was given to staff to contact the district offices regarding the best locations for community meetings.

Commissioner Ulloa made a motion to proceed with one meeting per district and once the map is drawn then, if needed, schedule more meetings per district.

Commissioner Saito seconded the motion.

Commissioner Camarillo requested an amendment to the motion to state "a minimum of one meeting."

The maker of the motion and the second accepted the amendment.

MOTION BY ULLOA TO SCHEDULE A MINIMUM OF ONE PRELIMINARY MEETING PER DISTRICT AND AFTER THE PRELIMINARY MAP IS DRAWN DISCUSS THE NUMBER OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS REQUIRED AND LOCATIONS. Second by Saito. Vote unanimous; all present.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location A356-B161.)

ITEM 7: RESPONSE FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster will discuss the DOJ response to her inquiry regarding voluntary submittal of the final Redistricting Plan for "preclearance" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Possible action relating to submittal of the Plan.

Deputy City Attorney Les Girard informed Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster that San Diego does not need pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Department of Justice's jurisdiction is limited to those agencies that are required to submit.

Chairman Camarillo requested more legal opinions regarding this matter.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location B164-219.)

ITEM 8: SHAW V. RENO

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster will discuss the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision as it affects 2000 Redistricting Plans.

Deputy City Attorney Lisa Foster discussed the above-mentioned case and concluded that race conscious redistricting decisions (i.e., deliberate inclusion or exclusion of persons in a district based on race) are not unconstitutional in all circumstances. Where these decisions are made, however, there must be a strong justification that meets the strict scrutiny test, and in particular, if being made to comply with section 2, the Gingles criteria must be present.

The Commission discussed the presentation by Lisa Foster.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: B373-460.)

ITEM-9: COMMISSION BUDGET

Report from the subcommittee and staff on the March 16, 2001, meeting with the City Manager on the status of the Commission's proposed budget for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002, including the Manager's recommendation for a MOU committing city staff time to the Commission and presentation of the Commissions Work Plan, by memorandum, to the Rules Committee of the City Council. Possible action relating to the budget and the City Manager's recommendations.

Commissioner Saito reported that in the meeting with the City Manager and Senior Deputy City Manager they agreed to write a Memorandum of Understanding.

Ms. Heshimu stated that the meeting went well and assured the Commission that the program would be funded through 2001. The new budget will be presented along with the City's budget for 2002. Kathy Mayou is charged with preparing the MOU on behalf of the City Manager.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: B527-C018.)

ITEM 10: CENSUS DATA - ADJUSTED OR UNADJUSTED?

Staff will discuss the decision of the U.S. Census Bureau to release non-adjusted population data.

Ms. Joey Perry made the presentation to the Commission.

The issue of adjustment is something the Census Bureau has been concerned about for a long time since 1790 when this was first conducted. The Census Bureau has been doing surveys after the census to get a sense of whether they counted everybody or not. The 1990 census was the first census that the data showed, the data was less accurate then previous census, that more people were missed in 1990 than had been missed in 1980 where prior to that, the accuracy had been declining. After the 1990 census -- one of the reasons this is a problem is because they found out that there was differential undercounting so that certain minorities are undercounted at a higher rate than the white majority. Certain age groups are undercounted at a higher rate than other age groups. Certain employment situations such as people that are unemployed are undercounted at a higher rate than people who are employed, and renters are undercounted at a higher rate than homeowners. Intercity residents are undercounted at a higher rate than farm residents for example, suburban residents. Given all these factors, there was a lot of push by people to have the Census Bureau adjust the numbers to make up for that differential undercount. If the Census Bureau had decided to do that after the 1990 census, California would have gained a couple of congressional seats and other states would have lost congressional seats. San Diego itself probably would have had about 33,000 more people because we were undercounted by 1.6 percent or 1.8 percent from the 1990 census. The Supreme Court ruled, or decisions were made in Washington D.C. after the 1990 census, that the Census Bureau was not going to release adjusted numbers for redistricting or for any other purpose so those numbers weren't release. The Census Bureau eventually did release better numbers about 1995 and built their current estimates on the adjusted census numbers as opposed to the raw census numbers. That raised the issue for Census 2000 about whether adjusted numbers should be used or the raw census numbers. There was quite a controversy about this a number of statisticians and social scientists and mathematicians those types of folks got involved in that discussion and basically they said we should adjust because of the differential undercount. Other people said we can't adjust and do it fairly and accurately with small level of detail so we're basically -- by adjusting -- we're creating more problems. The decision was undecided. It did go to the Supreme Court in February of 2000 or January of 2000. The Supreme Court ruled that for apportionment purposes the raw census numbers or the actual census numbers would be used, and adjusted numbers could not be used for apportionment. Apportionment is the number of seats that each state gets in Congress or the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court also at the same time did not say that adjusted numbers could not be used for other purposes. They didn't eliminate that possibility. The Census Bureau staff decided that they would continue doing their post enumeration survey or their survey after the census to see how well they counted or didn't count people and have the census bureau staff, after looking at the adjusted numbers and unadjusted numbers, make a determination or make a recommendation to the head of the Census Bureau who would then be the person to decide whether adjusted numbers from Census 2000 would be released or whether they wouldn't be. During that time period, we had the presidential election and we had a change in the White House and a new Secretary of Commerce. The White House and the Secretary of Commerce — the White House gave the Secretary of Commerce the authority to make the decision about whether the adjust numbers or the unadjusted numbers should be released. The City of Los Angeles filed suit saying that the Secretary of Commerce should not be the one to make that decision that the decision had already been decided in the Clinton Administration that the head of the Census Bureau would make that decision. As it turns out, the Census Bureau staff felt that they didn't have adequate time to fully analyze the result of the adjusted numbers or the non-adjusted numbers and for redistricting purposes, because the data had to be out by April 1st they didn't have enough time to do the survey, they recommended to the Census Bureau Director that unadjusted numbers or raw census data be released. As it turns out that's what was released. The Secretary of Commerce released those unadjusted numbers. The unadjusted numbers is what is being release for Census 2000 for redistricting purposes. That hasn't necessarily closed the door on adjusted numbers being released at some point in the future, but the numbers that are being release this week and have been released for other states in the passed few weeks are raw numbers and adjusted numbers will not be released for redistricting purposes. We might get some adjusted numbers at sometime later during the summer and it's possible that adjusted numbers could be used for allocation of federal funds, but that determination has not been made yet and I'm sure if that determination is made that adjusted numbers should be released somebody will file a lawsuit about that. I think the issue probably will not be resolved before we finish our redistricting process here.

Commissioner Ulloa: If those are release sometime in June can this body use those numbers to look at our districts, if in fact they are significant, or are we not allowed to do that.

Ms. Perry: That would be something that we would have to get legal advise on, but if the numbers are released I believe we would have the option of looking at those numbers and probably would be wise to look at the numbers although my understanding is that the Department of Justice will be using the unadjusted numbers in dealing with any lawsuits that come up because of redistricting.

Commissioner Ulloa: Ms. Foster could you give us some sense of whether we would be able to use adjusted numbers midway through the process here?

City Attorney Foster: I honestly don't know. If what Joey says is correct, that the DOJ is using unadjusted numbers, I don't know how to answer that question. I can look into that and get back to you.

Commissioner Odell: Did they give you any information about whether the figures had been reduced to the point of being able to determine a ratio that might have been similar to the population increase?

Joey Perry: The Census Bureau staff has been unable at this time to do the full analysis. I think there are a few things that are coming out that are just very odd that they didn't expect to happen and they need to research it a little bit further to find out why that happened, but I don't have all the details.

Commissioner Camarillo: I understand the ruling was prohibiting the use of unadjusted for congressional. We're not doing congressional and if the law does not prohibit us, I think we should use the most accurate data available in doing our job which includes unadjusted. Your point of people being counted twice, preponderance of those being counted twice are Anglos, high income, who have more than one home. Those are the people that get counted twice, not the poor people.

Joey Perry: That was certainly the case in the 1990 census, but I don't the results from Census 2000.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: C019-134.)

ITEM 11: RECEIPT OF MAPS CREATED BY THE PUBLIC

Discussion of plans to receive maps and other redistricting proposals submitted by the public, including software requirements, if these are to be received via the internet and requirements for such plans and due date for submittal.

Commissioner Saito stated that he believes maps are a good method for citizens to express their views and should be encouraged as well as any other written materials they wish to submit.

Commissioner Johnson expressed his opposition to receiving maps over the internet because not all people have computers.

Chairman Pesqueira asked City Attorney Foster what obligation does receiving maps place on the Commission.

City Attorney Foster suggested that the Commission receive any material the public is willing to submit and in any form. Under the Charter the Commission should actively request feed back, but it is not necessary to make an announcement.

Commissioner Johnson stated that some procedures are necessary for receiving maps.

Commissioner Ulloa suggested that the Commission accept whatever is submitted. He stated that most people do not have the resources to submit a legitimate map.

The feasibility of setting up computer workstations in a location accessible to the public in order that they may use a computer to draw a map or submit their ideas was discussed.

Commissioner Saito commented on the complexity of the programs used to draw maps and whether the public would be able to understand and use the program and the type of training that may be required.

Chairman Pesqueira stated that people should not be mislead into thinking that there will be something simple out there for them to go to. Time, budget, and staff also need to be taken into consideration.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: C019-134.)

ITEM 12: COMMISSION CALENDAR

Discussion and action to establish dates for future Commission meetings.

Chairman Pesqueira requested that starting on April 23, block out every Monday for a while so that we don't run into conflicts that are not known of today.

Commissioner Camarillo informed the Commission that Wednesdays are difficult days for him due to his employment. He is required to attend a Board of Trustees meeting on the first and third Wednesdays of the month and on other Wednesdays he chairs a board for the Public Utilities Commission which is held in San Francisco.

Commissioner Ulloa is willing to meet on Mondays and Wednesdays. He stated that he is willing to look at other days but believes there will be conflicts.

Chairman Pesqueira suggested that on the first and third Wednesdays, which Mr. Camarillo cannot attend, the Commission meet instead on a Thursday or Tuesday.

Ms. Heshimu inquired about the Commissioners' availability on Saturday mornings.

Commissioner Ulloa informed the Commission that he has a commitment on Thursdays.

Commissioner Johnson stated that Mondays are fine, but Tuesdays and Thursdays are not possible for him.

Chairman Pesqueira suggested Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for the first eight community meetings.

Chairman Ulloa suggested that Mondays and Fridays are good days, but three meetings would be over bearing. Two days out of the week would give staff enough time to prepare for the meetings, but three days would be too much.

Commissioner Magana noted that many public facilities are booked up on Fridays and that needs to be considered.

Chairman Pesqueira requested that Ms. Heshimu check on Ms. Magana's concerns regarding the availability of meeting facilities and report at the next meeting. Mr. Pesqueira suggested that on the weeks that Mr. Camarillo cannot meet on Wednesdays the Commission meet on Monday and Friday and on the weeks he can make it, the Commission meet on Monday and Wednesday.

Commissioner Saito informed the Commission that he will not be in town on Friday, May 18 and Monday, May 21.

Due to the scheduling conflict, Mr. Ulloa requested that Ms. Heshimu work out a schedule for future meetings in writing and present it to the Commission next week on April 4th.

Commissioner Saito commented that the residents of District 4 should be receiving an information packet in order to be prepared for the community meeting.

Commissioner Johnson asked who would be receiving the packets and would they be mailed out.

Chairman Pesqueira stated that the packets should go out to the district offices in order to avoid a massive mailing and the expense. The packets should also be made available at the meeting for the people who attend.

Commissioner Saito stated that the packets should be mailed to community planning groups and key organizations in the council district so they can prepare for the meeting.

Chairman Pesqueira stated that the cost of mailing packets would have to be looked at.

Commission Johnson suggested that public awareness of the community meetings needs to be generated through community television, and newspaper announcement.

Commissioner Camarillo stated the importance of notifying the community newspapers.

Ms. Heshimu informed that a complete packet would not be ready for next week, but staff does have ideas of what should be in the packet. Ms. Heshimu stated that staff would like more input from the Commission on what they would like included in the packets.

Commissioner ODell volunteered to work with Ms. Heshimu to get those packets together.

Commissioner Magana suggested that the information be included on the website and sent out to public libraries to post.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: D048-D405.)

ITEM 13: BY-LAWS REVIEW

Discussion of Compliance with Commission By-Laws and possible action related to absences.

Chairman Pesqueira announced that it was requested by one of the Commissioners to have a by-laws review.

Commissioner Magana stated that she requested that the Commission receive a copy of the by-laws. She did not remember having a final version.

It was determined that everyone now has a copy of the final by-laws.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: D406-417.)

ITEM 14: ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ODELL TO ADJOURN. Second by Johnson. Vote unanimous; all present.

REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTION (Tape location: D418.)

Ralph Pesqueira, Chairman
2000 Redistricting Commission

Esther Ramos
Legislative Recorder

Site Map Privacy Notice Disclaimers