Next Alameda County Redistricting Meeting is 6/28/2011
Original post made by Billie, Mohr Park, on Jun 20, 2011
According to the posted "Timeline" on the BofS redistricting website, this meeting is supposed to be a "Public Hearing by Board of Supervisors on proposed plan." My question is: How can the Board hold a public hearing on a "proposed plan" when they themselves have yet to be officially "advised"?
The purpose of the June 15th meeting was supposed to be: "The Board Ad Hoc Committee advises the full Board and public regarding the submitted redistricting proposals." Unless the three remaining Board members not on the "Ad Hoc Committee", and, from what I could tell from the broadcast, not in the chamber during the meeting, were attending the meeting as silent, invisible audience members, the publicly stated purpose of this meeting was not accomplished.
So, unless Supvs Haggerty and Carson, aka "Ad Hoc Committee", are holding informal, undisclosed meetings in violation of the Brown Act with the three Board members not on their little, in-house committee, the "Board" has not been officially "advised" of the various proposals, and *cannot*, therefore, provide the public with a "proposed plan".
In addition, although Map A1 is now available, the AC Staff have NOT provided the "City/Census Places by District and by County" information that lays out specific population breakdowns by town within each District. Web Link
After watching the June 15, 2011, Special Meeting, it's obvious that gerrymandering is alive, well and protected by the Supervisors as they not only ignore city limit and community of interest boundaries in the redistricting process to instead establish arbitrary district boundaries that give themselves political advantage, but they also make it obvious that they are not seriously considering any of the proposed plans submitted by the independent citizens group. Do the Supervisors really think we, their constituents, haven't figured out that it's much more difficult to unseat a Supervisor when towns/voting blocks are split up between two or more Districts?
In my last letter to the Board, I asked for the following. I'm not holding my breath.
"In preparation for the next meeting scheduled on June 28, 2011, I ask that you *specifically* and *seriously* be prepared to *publicly* discuss and consider the pros and cons of each one of the redistricting map proposals. Prior to this meeting, you need to ensure that all of the required material is available to the public online; this includes not just the Agenda, but also the presentation material with redistricting criteria used, the maps, populations/ethnic breakdowns and the "City/Census Places by District and by County" information. This information must be available enough in advance of the meeting that those who are not able to attend can provide the Board with their comments for consideration prior to the meeting; any comments received should be placed online for public viewing. In order for each proposal to be completely and intelligently discussed, not only *must* the full Board be in attendance, but also representative(s) from the Alameda County Citizens Redistricting Task Force. Then, and only then, can a decision be made about which proposal is really the best one, not for you, but for us, the residents of Alameda County."
I know it's an uphill battle, but please send your comments to the Board of Supervisors. Let them know what you think of their redistricting plans and process. Thanks for your time! Web Link
The House of Representatives performs history’s first repeat hara-kiri
By Tom Cushing | 11 comments | 1,421 views
Net Neutrality a win or loss for open Internet and First Amendment?
By Gina Channell-Allen | 2 comments | 688 views