Town Square

Post a New Topic

Alameda County BofS 6/15/2011 Redistricting Meeting Notes

Original post made by Billie, Mohr Park, on Jun 15, 2011

Well, the BofS Redistricting Meeting, where the “Ad Hoc” committee of two, Supvs Haggerty and Carson, presented the proposed redistricting maps and public comment to the full Board, was held today in Oakland at 12:15pm. The meeting was over in less than ½ hour.
Points of discussion re: the Maps:
BofS Map A has been revised. Map A1 made changes in district population assignments due to “voting precinct” boundaries. (MY NOTE: As of this meeting, Map A1 was not available on the website, and this meeting is the first time it’s being introduced to the public.)

Map B had been withdrawn by the Alameda County Citizens Redistricting Task Force.

It was noted that Maps C and D fell well within the population spread criteria set by the BofS, and that the Alameda County Citizens Redistricting Task Force had made it clear they strongly supported keeping the Tri-Valley whole within one district. There was no other discussion on either of these maps.

BofS Map E shows how Pleasanton could be kept 100% within one district if it is moved to District 4 with Castro Valley, Oakland, Fairview, Cherryland and Ashland.

BofS Map F shows how if Pleasanton is kept 100% in District 1 with Dublin and Livermore it makes the district too large.

Map G notes non-CDP areas (unincorporated or non-Census Designated Places). This map was also submitted by the Alameda County Citizens Redistricting Task Force.
Points of discussion re: public comment:
It was stated that “most” of the maps were presented at the public meetings held in each of the Districts. (MY NOTE: Map A1 not presented until this meeting, Maps E, F and G not presented until the last public meeting 6/9/2011.)

Letters received from the Mayors of Dublin, Livermore and Fremont in favor of Map A because they felt that having multiple supervisors assigned to their towns was a benefit.

Letter received from Mayor Hosterman opposed to Map A, wanting to keep Pleasanton 100% in one District. Comments received from Hacienda Business Park manager also opposed to splitting the business park between two districts. Additional public comment received was also opposed to splitting Pleasanton. No public comment re: Pleasanton was noted that agreed with Map A. Steven Bocian (I think), Asst City Manager, spoke at this meeting restating Pleasanton’s objection to being split across districts. Supv Haggerty stated that he hadn’t been noticed if this was discussed at a Council Meeting and wanted to see the video of the meeting so he could “review the public comment”.

Other public comment received by BofS was regarding Hayward and was opposed to splitting Hayward on Maps C and D.
BofS recommendations:
Remove Maps A, B and F.
Keep Maps A1, C, D, E and G. Develop “official” designations for public hearing(s) (6/28/2011?) on proposed plan.
My impressions: Supv Haggerty made it clear that those of us in Pleasanton were the only ones in opposition to the redistricting proposed in Map A. Maps E and F were developed as “gotchas” in that “So Pleasanton, you want to stay 100% in one district? Well, here’s how we’ll do it! How do you like it now?”

No discussion on the criteria the “Ad Hoc” committee was supposed to follow in developing their maps – you know – the one about “easily identifiable geographic boundaries” and maintaining “communities of interest”. No positive discussion on any other redistricting scenario except Map A/A1. No discussion on minimizing the split of towns between districts. No discussion on how Map A split out tiny numbers of individuals and families from their communities. No sign that politicking and gerrymandering are not the main criteria followed in this redistricting process. No sign of even one "open mind". Unfortunately, no surprise.

Comments (5)

Like this comment
Posted by been there
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm

I think it is somewhat ironic that about a year ago at a tri-valley mayors lunch the question of redistricting came up. All the mayors, except Hosterman, said that the districts need to be realigned and not split up our area or our cities event. Hosterman said that the current districts are fine and she thought it was an advantage to have multiple representatives/districts in Pleasanton.

Now that they are looking at the county districts, all the mayors except Hosterman, feel that breaking Pleasanton up is ok while Hosterman is against it.

The mayors have taken opposite views now.

I think this is showing how poorly the Pleasanton representative gets along with the rest of the tri-valley. Also shows that Hosterman is now upset since she wants to run against Haggerty and the lines may be redrawn. Same old, same old; "it's all about me". We have representatives who are into themselves and not the community.

Like this comment
Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Jun 16, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Billie is a registered user.

Did the BofS violate the Brown Act?

The purpose of the June 15th meeting, as noted on the BofS redistricting web link under “Timeline”, was for “The Board Ad Hoc Committee [to advise] the full Board and public regarding the submitted redistricting proposals.” As there was no presentation material available with the Agenda for the public to review, I can only go by the few pages that were shown during the meeting and the discussion, or lack there of, between the Ad Hoc Committee supervisors and the three remaining supervisors.

There was, in fact, so little discussion during the meeting that I have to ask how many informal, undisclosed meetings have been held between the two supervisors who made up the “Ad Hoc Committee” and their fellow Board members. Unless the Board members not on the Ad Hoc committee used telepathy during the meeting to absorb material not in evidence, I have to wonder if the Board has violated the Brown Act.

The Brown Act makes it pretty clear that “the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

Just how “open” has the BofS been with the public?
The BofS appointed two of their own as the only “Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee” members, thus ensuring that this process was kept in house and overseen by those with a vested political, gerrymandered interest in the outcome. Not until the Agenda for the June 15th meeting was posted were Supv Haggerty and Carson identified as the redistricting “committee” members.

As for openly conducted deliberations, I think the statement regarding Agenda item “V.” by Supv Haggerty during the 6/15/2011 meeting says it all. Not only did he NOT go over the steps noted for that item to identify a specific path forward, when referring to it he said “develop redistricting recommendations which may include blah, blah blah.” There was no discussion or deliberation among the Board members about the next steps. Supv Haggerty announced which maps would go forward for “official” labels and which would not.

No schedule was set up for future work sessions on the proposals as is noted in the published timeline. It’s unclear if the BofS plans to move directly to the June 28th meeting where the Board is supposed to hold a public hearing on the proposed plan. Web Link

Map A1 has *yet* to be published online.

Am I surprised? No. Am I disappointed that the BofS has once again placed politics and gerrymandering ahead of their constituents interests? Absolutely! Do I think the Brown Act has been violated? Quite possibly.

Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm

A question, What percentage of Pleasanton's population lives north of Stoneridge Drive, 2 or 3%? I am more concerned about the redistricting of the House of Representatives and losing our current Pleasanton resident incumbent. Also, I notice construction on the retirement community in Staples Ranch has begun, when finished how will those people get to the rest of Pleasanton?

Like this comment
Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Jun 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Billie is a registered user.

According to the figures provided by the BofS, Map A puts 45,304 (64.5%) of Pleasanton's population in District 1 (Haggerty) and 24,981 (35.5%) of our population in District 4 (Miley).

Of course, as noted above, Map A has been replaced with Map A1, however, Map A1 has yet to be provided to the public.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Ridgeview Commons

on Jun 5, 2017 at 4:37 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

GE's re-organization reaches San Ramon digital headquarters
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 2,031 views

Sound and Fury over Vile and Slur-ry
By Tom Cushing | 77 comments | 1,224 views

New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 5 comments | 496 views