Lincoln Literature

My written comments on 2011-53, reducing the number of Pierce County Councilmembers

2011-07-25T11:45:00.000-07:00

Dear Council Chairman Bush and Rules and Operations Committee members:

I am not going to be able to make it to your meeting today so I am submitting my comments on your ordinance 2011-53, Reduction in number of Council positions.

For most of Pierce County’s history, we had 3 commissioners. That system was inefficient and specifically in the 1970’s (but not exclusive to) rife with problems of corruption. From the standpoint of an average citizen, those Commissioners were aloof and very difficult to make connections with. So in the 1980’s the Pierce County Charter was drawn up and accepted by the electorate.

In the Charter was a process for amending the Charter through a Charter Review Commission. The process says at least every 10 years, but it does not say that the Commission cannot be called sooner.

Although the act of making Charter Amendments can be done by the County Council, the Charter Review Commission has one very important ethical function, it distances the County Council from the accusation of making charter amendments for political gain. In a heavily partisan council, that appearance of inappropriateness is huge.

You may be disappointed in the new districting map. You think we weren’t in 2001? So what. The process was done as the Charter directed. If the process needs changing let the non-partisan commission do it.

You may be disappointed that a council member lost their district. That happened in 2001 also. The council said - so what. The council member had to move. What make a council member 10 years later any different. The Charter does not protect the location of the seat. In fact, most of the Democrats participating in the process from the audience said if there was a council member they would keep it would be Stan Fleming. This was not directed at someone. I was also stung in 2001, as I was redrawn from council Position 1 that I had been investing time and money for several years to attempt.

You may be thinking we can save money? You are making a trade off, the cost of a council position with the level of representation of the people. You will find that where the voters are concerned, particularly in the unincorporated areas, that level of support (7) is truly appreciated. We don’t need you to be harder to reach, we need you more accessible. And it’s not just about council members. It the representation on ALL the boards and commissions through the county that are affected.

As I see it, both politically and ethically, your best choice is to let this wait for the Charter Review Commission to be formed and let them handle it. As it stands, you look like you are playing a game of sour grapes against one of the county’s established processes. That is unbecoming for your offices.

If this is a financial emergency of such a high level that is must be dealt with now, it appears to me that the Charter Review Commission can be called up at any time of necessity, but a minimum of every 10 years. That means you could present that option instead and distance yourselves from politicizing this and those other two amendments 2011-38 and 2011-39 that make the offices non-partisan.

At the same time, while it is fresh in our minds, the Charter Review Commission could discuss making some changes in the districting process that both sides recognized were needed in the time frames and process of redistricting.

Ordinance 2011-53 is far to polarizing for the partisan council to bring forward and bears the appearance of inappropriateness. Drop it and let the Charter Review Commission take it up. Call out the Charter Review Commission early if necessary, but do not undertake this through the County Council. It’s ugly. You are capable of better.

Now some comment about these two…

2011-38 Making the County Council non-partisan

2011-39 Making the County Executive non-partisan

Most of the people who run for the County Council have come from the state legislature or have been vetted through a political party either for endorsements, support or other assistance. Even the money pouring into a campaign will tell folks where the candidates passions lie. I don’t think people are going to buy that council or executive candidates are non-partisan. To campaign at that level takes too much money and support. It would be shameful to pull out that grass roots party support in trade for special interest money to power the county campaigns. Bah! Leave them partisan and let the voters know as much as possible about their candidates.

Marianne Lincoln

PO Box 875, Spanaway, WA 98387

July 12 2011 Adoption of Final Map Video of Meeting

2011-07-25T06:56:00.000-07:00

Here's the link to the video of the final map adoption meeting.
This is from the County Council website.
http://wm.sea.onlinevideoservice.com/rmc/PierceCounty/Other/2011/pc110712districting.wmv

Roger Bush Plays Hardball with the County Districting

2011-07-19T17:13:00.000-07:00

Retribution: something done or given to somebody as punishment or vengeance for something he or she has done

Here's the latest ordinance proposal from Pierce County Council Chaiman Roger Bush. Do you think this might be retribution or retaliation for the districting process?

o Proposed Ordinance No. 2011-53

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Proposing Amendments to the Pierce County Charter Reducing in Size the Pierce County Council from Seven to Five Members; Phasing in the Reduction of Councilmembers with Elections and Terms of Office; Amending Sections 2.15 and 10.55 of the Pierce County Charter; Adding a New Section 10.80 to the Pierce County Charter; Establishing Effective Dates; Requesting the Auditor to Submit these Amendments to the Voters at the November 2011 General Election; and Requesting the Prosecuting Attorney to Draft an Appropriate Ballot Title.

Sponsor: Councilmember Roger Bush

TNT - Redistricting needn't be as messy as county made it

2011-07-14T22:50:00.001-07:00

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/14/1744378/redistricting-neednt-be-as-messy.html

PETER CALLAGHAN; News Trbune STAFF WRITER

Published: 07/14/1112:05 am

Redistricting needn't be as messy as county made it

The Map Adoption Meeting - photos

2011-07-13T13:04:00.000-07:00

The districting committee deliberates on the map

Left to right: Sam Ross, Ken BLair, Karen Seinfeld, Deryl McCarty & Mike Abernathy

The council chamber was packed, Mike Abernathy in distance also Map E

Sam Rossm Karen Seinfeld, Mike Abernathy & audience

Pete Callahan, David Sawyer, & Sam Ross

David Sawyer, Ben Anderstone, Mike Stoddard, Sam Ross

Celebrating getting being finished with the process, Karaoke at Java Jive

TNT Article on Map Adoption July 12

2011-07-13T01:59:00.000-07:00

Pierce County's redistricting map is official – and many are angry

A Pierce County committee narrowly adopted a controversial redistricting map Tuesday night, despite an outcry from residents of suburban and rural areas.

STEVE MAYNARD; Staff writer
Published: 07/12/1110:13 pm | Updated: 07/12/1110:24 pm
13 Comments
.A Pierce County committee narrowly adopted a controversial redistricting map Tuesday night, despite an outcry from residents of suburban and rural areas.

People from the Gig Harbor peninsula, University Place and Parkland blasted the final map, saying it unfairly divided communities and instead mixed rural and urban areas.
Peninsula-area residents objected to being linked with more of Tacoma, instead of Gig Harbor. University Place residents said they have more in common with Gig Harbor than Tacoma.
Dave Dormier, who lives in the Gig Harbor area, argued for keeping natural communities together.
“The final map is a partisan map,” Dormier said. “The City of Tacoma now has four votes” on the County Council, he said.
The map will chart Pierce County’s political future for the next 10 years.
Using the latest U.S. Census figures, the once-a-decade process is aimed at creating seven council districts with roughly equal-size populations – a target of 113,600 residents each – in time for next year’s elections.
William Giddings objected to part of his community of Parkland being joined with Lakewood and Joint Base Lewis-McChord.
“I feel threatened by being treated as part of Lakewood,” Giddings said.
The county charter says districts “shall be drawn to produce districts with compact and contiguous territory, composed of geographic units and natural communities, which are approximately equal in population.”
An amendment required four of five votes, according to the county charter. Three votes were required to adopt the final map. Short of three votes, the map still would have become law Wednesday by default.
The Pierce County Districting Committee is made up of two Republicans, Deryl McCarty and Michael Abernathy, and two Democrats, Sam Ross and Kenneth Blair. The panel also has one nonpartisan member, retired Appeals Court Judge Karen Seinfeld.
After amendments to revert to two earlier maps failed, the committee voted 3-2 to adopt districting master Steven Garrett’s final map.
Ross, Blair and Seinfeld voted yes. McCarty and Abernathy voted no.
Blair said he found some of the audience comments offensive.
“From the very beginning, we were trying to be nonpartisan,” he said.
Garrett and his final map have been the focus of criticism.
Republicans have said Garrett’s map heavily favors Democrats by spreading out Tacoma’s population.
The map splits off the Gig Harbor peninsula from University Place and Fircrest and links it more to Tacoma. Tacoma’s West End and most of the North End were joined with the Gig Harbor peninsula in the new District 7.
Garrett said he sought to keep those two communities neighborhoods together because Tacomans didn’t want to be broken up.
Abernathy and McCarty made separate motions to amend the final map to earlier maps developed by Garrett. Both motions failed 3-2.
In Garrett’s final map, District 7 has 42 percent of its population from Tacoma.
Districts 4 and 5 remain Tacoma-heavy, with 66 percent and 54 percent of their populations from the city, respectively. Fifteen percent of District 2’s population is from Tacoma.
Garrett said the only major infusion of Tacoma residents is into District 7, which now has a sliver of Tacoma, as does District 2.
Garrett’s final map also drew University Place Republican Stan Flemming out of his own District 7 with three years left on his term. Flemming has said putting University Place and Fircrest in District 4 marginalizes Republicans from those two communities.
Flemming has contended the Tacoma changes and dividing Parkland into two districts intentionally blends Democratic communities into existing districts.
The redistricting process has been riddled with controversy in the past.
Ten years ago, critics complained that the plan split communities, unfairly favored Republicans and put then-County Councilman Calvin Goings, a Democrat, out of the district he represented.
Then-County Executive John Ladenburg sued, saying the plan didn’t follow the county charter. He lost, and the plan stood.
Steve Maynard: 253-597-8647
steve.maynard@thenewstribune.com
blog.thenewstribune.com/polibuzz

Yes, Map E was asopted Tuesday Night 3 to 2

2011-07-13T01:54:00.000-07:00

I arrived at 8:40 because I had to participate in a school board meeting first. But I made it just after all the public comments and just in time for the committee to say their peace and take a few votes.

I'll fill in the details of that tomorrow.

In the end, Deryl McCarty tried to table the vote until Wednesday while Ken Blair had a motion to adopt Map E on the floor. The reason had to do with someone noticing there were 1417 more people listed in the population total on the map. No lines were in question, unliked perhaps, but not in question. What they didn't know was how those 1417 showed up. According to Steve Garrett, the software did it.

Well, the motion to table failed. Then the committee took the vote on the Ken Blair's motion to adopt and San Ross and Karen Seinfeld voted with him. They only needed a majority of 3 to adopt.

There was a little discussion about a meeting on the 18th or 19th to finish approving minutes and doing last financial details. It will be a public meeting also.

Map E it is, for the next 10 years.
Now we wait to see if someone take it to court, I suppose.
I went out for karaoke.

A Good Editorial on Districting

2011-07-11T21:44:00.000-07:00

The Trib said it right in this editorial:

County redistricting should put community first
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/11/1740590/county-redistricting-should-put.html

THE NEWS TRIBUNE

Published: 07/11/1112:05 am

Something important gets lost in the partisan posturing over redrawing Pierce County Council districts to reflect new census counts.

That something is this: County Council seats exist to ensure the representation of communities, not political parties.
Politicking is a natural part of the process, as it is in any endeavor that portends political winners and losers. But the best redistricting methods acknowledge the interests of the parties and control for their attempts to gerrymander.
That said, none is perfect, and Pierce County’s system has its share of imperfections.
Among its faults: The county charter gives sweeping power to a hired hand – the districting master.
That master, Steven Garrett, is coming under fire for his ties to a similar process at the state level. Garrett is a geographic information system analyst who advises the two Democratic appointees to the Washington State Redistricting Commission.
He divulged that information to the county districting committee members – who include two Republicans, one a former chair of the county party – when they interviewed him back in April.
But Republicans apparently didn’t think to raise the issue until now, when it appears that one of their own – Councilman Stan Flemming of University Place – will have his council district drawn out from under him.
The Republicans seem to forget that in the last go-around, they did the same thing in a worse way, mounting a back-room coup that redistricted Democrat Calvin Goings out of his seat with little public notice.
That plan stood a court test, and Garrett’s might too. Republicans complain that he bolsters left-leaning Tacoma votes by splitting the city into four districts. But Tacomans would be the majority in just two of the four. In some respects, the proposed map looks like a return to what council districts looked like before the 2001 redistricting.
A simple solution to the Flemming problem exists: Renumber the districts so that he remains in District 7. But that has drawbacks for both parties and apparently little support from either.
Keeping incumbents in their districts – to represent the people who elected them – is worth doing if possible, but it is not the overriding goal of redistricting.
More troubling than the lack of incumbency protection is the way Garrett’s plan divides the 35,000 residents of Parkland into two council districts, possibly diluting the voice of an unincorporated area that already struggles to be heard.
A previous version of the map kept Parkland together, but at the cost of bigger population variances between council districts.
The county charter makes it clear that boundaries of districts “shall be drawn to produce districts with compact and contiguous territory, composed of geographic units and natural communities, which are approximately equal in population.”
“Shall” is a pretty strong word. It doesn’t have near the give of “approximately.”
If the county districting committee’s five members can muster four votes to do anything when they meet for a final time Tuesday, the show of force should be a vote for keeping communities – not political careers – whole.

Agenda for July 12 - Map Adoption?

2011-07-11T13:50:00.000-07:00

NOTICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, July 12, 2011

7:00 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, at the County-City Building, Pierce County Council Chambers, 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 1045, Tacoma, WA 98409.

(If you plan on attending the Districting Committee Meeting on July 12 at 7:00 p.m. please enter the County-City Building on the 2^nd floor (Yakima side))

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes

5. Comments by the Chair

6. Presentation of Districting Plan / Map by Districting Master

7. Public Comment

8. Committee Discussion and Comments

9. Motion by Committee

10. Action / Vote by Committee

11. Other Business

12. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to
Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
(253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us,
or Jenifer Schultz, Committee Clerk
at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL

PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON

_____________________________

Jenifer Schultz, Committee Clerk

Date: July 11, 2011

Time: 1:45 p.m.

Maynard and the Trib Taking Sides Again?

2011-07-11T08:30:00.000-07:00

Another News Tribune Commentary Articles on Pierce County Redistricting.

GOP say proposed redistricting map of Tacoma unfairly benefits Democrats

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/10/1740446/redistricting-stirs-political.html

After what they did in 2001, who would not expect the GOP to expect a bit of their own medicine to come back at them. So the party let this go through the process, saying all along that it was about keeping communities together. Then, when the final map comes out.... "Waaaahhhhhhh....! We're so hurt! This was all forged by those democrats. Waaaaaahhhh."

It's all for show folks. It's press. It’s showboating.

Now I've got a REAL complaint. It is Steve Maynard's own comment. You see, I respect impartial journalism. This statement was NOT.

"It’s ending with a politically divisive map that has some Republicans charging that it unfairly benefits Democrats."

Now he could have quoted any Republican saying that. But instead, he chose to make that statement himself, that it’s a “politically divisive map.” That's not impartial journalism. Steve Maynard did not attend these meetings. He did not listen to all the comments made by the citizens of the affected communities. He did not hear the mostly reasonable comments by the Republican members about moving this line here or there and maybe we should adjust that...

Now suddenly this outcome was "divisive."

Not on your life, buddy.

Yes, the last map had a couple surprises. Even most Democrats were surprised.

This committee has been overall talking in a reasonable tone and working out the rough points. It will be interesting to see if on Tuesday these last two inflammatory News Tribune articles embolden the two Republicans on the committee to take on any different tone in their discourse.

On the other hand, Sam Ross, a Democrat on the committee has offered to make an amendment to switch the district numbers of 4 and 7 which will place the Republican councilman Stan Flemming back in his own district. Now how divisive and partisan is that move? I would call it accommodating.

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans accept that accommodation or just flip the poker table to the floor as the News Tribune seems to expect. Maybe the Trib. just loves drama. Sorry Maynard, this isn't the Jerry Springer Show. Then again, it will likely be interesting, at least in a sublet way.

Will the GOP sue? Probably, just to make it cost taxpayers more. Why not? Democrats sued last time.

(I'm being facetious here, just because there was a suit last time doesn't mean there needs to be one this time.) Ten years ago, two of the Democratic council members were unapologetically* left out of their districts and meetings had been held without the Democrats in attendance. I'd say that's much different than this time, particularly if Ross submits his amendment and no councilperson is lined out in the final map except exiting Democrat Tim Farrell.

And what is the reason for the state GOP and McClatchy attention? When it comes to major, state wide initiatives, projects and elections, Pierce County is often the grain of sand that makes the scales tip to the Democratic Party statewide. Since that map ten years ago, Pierce County lost a LOT of its influence statewide. In the 90’s the Pierce County legislative delegation was a force to be reckoned with. With a Republican County Council and a more Republican state delegation, Pierce County didn’t bring as much money back here for our projects. It went north. Yes, the county map does have influence at the state level. If it is juxtaposed, it is likely we will have 10 more years of bad luck.

*Roger Bush actually bragged to me 10 years ago, 5 years ago and again several months ago about how well the Republicans did in the last map. From his comments, it absolutely was about making the lines favor the GOP which is actually less dominant in this county. They kept as much of the Democratic vote in as few districts as possible thereby getting a Republican majority on the council. Now that's something a McClatchy newspaper can sink it's teeth into. Correcting that by spreading out the strongly Democratic vote of Tacoma into more of the other districts is somehow a bad thing? It’s bad only to your newspaper if it is trying to skew opinion to the right. For example, in the current council district 3, there are 3 to 1 more strong democrats than republicans, there're just a few more light republicans so it leans to favor a republican council person. So inflaming the indignance of the lightly leaning R's is definitely to the Republican party’s benefit.

Kirby Wilbur Gets His Hot Air Into The Process

2011-07-07T22:48:00.000-07:00

Regarding the TNT Article of 7/7/2011 by Steve Maynard (who has never attended one of these meetings):

County redistricting mapmaker under fire from state GOP http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/07/1736936/county-redistricting-mapmaker.html

This is what you call GRANDSTANDING. Radio personalities like Wilbur are used to doing this.

I think its crappy party politics.

The Republican's have 2 members on the committee (as competent as the democrats) that have asked the right questions and always had a right to demand changes to the map.

The districting master saved Joyce McDonald's seat, but was unable to get Stan Fleming into his seat due to the population blocks that were too big around University Place. Sadly, the final map split the unincorporated community of Parkland in an attempt to make the populations more even across districts. The committee members expressed concern about that in the last meeting. I was hoping the Districting Master would split a city that had some continuity with their city council rather than an unincorporated area that relies one the county contact only. Parkland is the real news, not Stan Fleming. 10 years ago 2 Democrats were districted out and the Republicans never saw any problem with it then, nor apologized. But when the shoe is on the other foot, they sure get LOUD.

Only ONE council person was affected. I'd say that was pretty good. Where the population is located is not the fault of the Democrats on the committee. The priorities set by both parties in this process are based in the charter, 1) populations fairly even across all districts and 2) keeping communities with similar interests together.

Mr. Wilbur, huff and puff you old wolf, but the districting master did as he was instructed and was hired according to the proper process. He didn't hide his other job this he disclosed it.

Why don’t you and Mr. Maynard look at the damage done to Parkland instead?

News Tribune article 6-28-2011

2011-06-28T22:34:00.000-07:00

News Tribune lastest article 6-28-2011

Redistricting shuffles Pierce County Council seats, ruffles feathers

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/06/28/1724838/redistricting-shuffles-pierce.html

King County Links

2011-06-28T11:44:00.000-07:00

Have you wondered what's happening in the King County redistricting? Here's a link to their committee's site and their maps.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/districting.aspx

What a great idea, create a webpage for the redistricting committee. Why didn't Pierce County do that?
We're letting the auditor's office post the maps. But it would be nice to have the maps, minutes and pod or web casts of the meetings wouldn't it? Perhaps in ten years.

Photos of the June 22 Redistricting Meeting

2011-06-26T10:23:00.000-07:00

The Redistricting Committee in discussion

Districting Manager Steve Garrett listing strengths and weaknesses of each map

Hallway discussions after the meeting.

Pierce County Redistricting Meeting, June 22, 2011

2011-06-25T16:58:00.001-07:00

Pierce County Redistricting Meeting, June 22, 2011

Pierce County Annex, Meeting Room D

I arrived 15 minutes late again, but it's political kickoff season and I had to go show someone the love tonight before I got started on my more serious work. I will be using the initials of the members to reference their comments.

DMc - Deryl McCarty (R) KB - Ken Blair (D)

SR - Sam Ross (D) MA- Mike Abernathy (R)

KS - Karen Seinfeld - Chair SG – Steven Garrett

All were present on the committee, after its usual minutes and agenda motions started amassing the strengths and weaknesses of each map, A-D.

Referencing Map A

MA – Minimal population variance, strength. Few changes to current map, strength.

DMc – Weakness, travelling from Greenwater to Ashford in district 1, “it’s like a vacation.” He said this referring to it would take and entire vacation to see it all.

KB – Roy to Lakewood you need to travel through another district, weakness. Sumner needs to be with the Port of Tacoma due to industrial issues-weakness, rural Pierce County wants more representation-weakness, Graham & Elk Plain need to be together-weakness.

Referencing Map B

DMc – Graham planning area is broken up - weakness

MA - JBLM and Lakewood broken up – weakness, Dupont and JBLM broken up – weakness

SR – Tacoma is not a cut up – strength, UP & Fircrest are not in district 7 (s or w?), there’s too much of Tacoma in district 2 – weakness

KB – rural representation is increased – strength, there’s a problem with Roy and Elk Plain being in district 6 – weakness, Graham planning area is split up 3 ways – weakness

Referencing Map C

MA – Good rural representation in districts 1 and 3. They are more accessible to the council person – strength. The JBLM Community is united – strength. Mike also pointed out that with this map the population variance is increasing. 3.6% to -2.3% is a spread of 6%. – weakness

SR – the map splits Bonney Lake and Lake Tapps – weakness, it also splits west Tacoma into 2 parts – weakness

DMc – There is an L shaped industrial hook that extends from Kent, Auburn, and Sumner to the Port of Tacoma that should be together, the Pierce County parts if possible. Weakness

KB – Tacoma dominates the votes in district 5 which includes Midland and Parkland; those should be more balanced or tipped to the unincorporated areas. Weakness

Referencing Map D

KS – It has a high variance in populations from 8.8% to -4.5% a spread of 13.3% - weakness

SR – It respects communities – strength

MA – All of North Tacoma is in district 7 - weakness He felt the tradition was for UP to be with district 7.

KS - Pointed out that from 1981 to 2002, North Tacoma was paired with the peninsula. Only in the past 10 years was it different. She added that they are now aware that the council people in districts 7 and 2 are not in their districts on this map. It was added to the weakness list.

KB – Sumner is with the Port of Tacoma – strength; Lake Tapps is with Bonney Lake – strength; Districts 1 and 3 have good rural representation – strength; District 5 has urban/rural representation balance, not overloaded with Tacoma voters – strength; JBLM is with Lakewood, UP and Steilacoom – strength; Tacoma neighborhoods are together – strength; Even watershed project areas are together – strength; Travel is easier for districts 1 and 3 – strength.

Next the chair allowed citizens to speak.

Doug Richardson, Mayor of Lakewood (R) – He expressed concerns that the larger population on district 6, at 8.8% over target dilutes the votes that come from JBLM.

Another gentleman whose name I did not understand pointed out that in district 5 the part of 72^nd Street that forma an L shape turning from Pacific Ave to McKinley perhaps should be pushed back to Pacific Avenue. That would even the population some.

MA- suggested that might not work. (The corner of 72^nd and Pacific is a community area that probably should not be split.)

Francis Jeffery – He had a comment about the affect of census and the actual numbers in the area due to deployments. Steve Garret pointed out the rules say that he works with the census data from the time taken. JBLM changes all the time.

Dick Muri, Councilman from district 6(R) – He pointed out that he uses the base roads to get across his district. Although he says he has a military sticker because he is a retiree, a council person could easily get a pass to use the base. They just require a reason for the access. He says his daughter received one with no problem. He also added that he feels 13% is too high a variance in the populations of the districts and he preferred Map A although Map C was also good for district 6.

[I will point out here that there are other people that need to travel in the council districts occasionally that will not think to ask for a pass for that purpose and have to travel the long way around. ]

David Sawyer – He noted that he has researched lawsuits regarding districting and percentages such at 16.6, 20 and even as high as 30% variance, have been upheld in court if the reasoning was solid and the alternatives unreasonable. He added that the committee from its inception has had a priority for keeping communities together.

KS – Our charter in section 4.40 does say that the boundaries need to create district approximately equal in population.

DMc – This map does go from – 4.5 to 8.8%.

SR – Inquired of legal counsel, if, considering other factors are met, does the variance matter?

Counsel – … [I don’t have this quote, I’d need the recording. it was pointed out in the meeting that is was a typical legal response equivalent to, maybe yes, maybe no. Everyone chuckled about the legalese.]

Colleen Wise, Edgewood (former council member) (R) – She likes district 6 and 7, and thought having Lake Tapps and Bonney Lake together was a good thing. She suggested that something should be done about Fircrest joining with UP rather than Tacoma.

Dick Muri again commented about the ease of getting a car sticker for JBLM

Steve Garrett added that not everyone in the district might have a good reason for getting a car sticker.

Matt Hamilton (2^nd LD Republican Vice Chair) Likes the decision tree method being used to look at the maps. Considers having Tacoma voters in several districts might actually give Tacoma council people a better chance to win seats on the council since they already have voter recognition and monetary connections to run for the seats. Rural candidates don’t have many opportunities to become recognized and viable. He called it, “the tail wagging the dog.”

KB – If I had to choose from A through D, which would you choose? Map D

Cindy McVey (Fircrest City Council) – commented that due to how Map D positions Fircrest with Tacoma, she is adamantly opposed.

Justin Leighton, Tacoma – Out of the entire list, likes Map D best. He acknowledged the comments about Tacoma’s fiduciary interest and the incumbent protection that it might have.

Ben Anderstone – “Ditto Justin” Ben pointed out that at the Gig Harbor meeting, Mayor Marilyn Strickland was supportive of Map D.

Marianne Lincoln – As a Bethel School Board member I have had the opportunity to see county projected growth maps. Districts 3 and 1 have the most current growth and are probably the best left a tad under populated, they will catch up. District 3 is -2.1% and that is probably good. District 1 at 5.1% probably should be lower, because of its growth rate. It’s a bad place to start. Growth in district 6 is fairly minimal and the base deployments cause there to be less actual population than the census.

MA – Asked repeatedly during this part of the meeting to have the committee take a vote on each map. The chair didn’t move on the idea.

KS – The chair polled the members if they had to support a map right now, which would it be.

MA – Map C

DMc – Map A He noted he understands the Tacoma thing that Matt Hamilton pointed out, but thought the neighborhood lines are mostly good and have kept the people together (in neighborhoods).

KB – Map D Ken made a somewhat scolding comment toward Mike Abernathy about being at all the meetings. (Mike had taken vacation during the public comment meetings and only made it to Gig Harbor) Adding that there was much important information provided at the other meetings provided through community member comments that Mike Abernathy had missed.

DMc – Added that the communities came out and made statements, working through all of the layers of issues.

SR – Map D

KS – Expressed concerns with the population variance in Map D, but prefers it. She asked to have Steve Garrett shoe the detail of the lines in district 2 that would need to be changed to keep Joyce McDonald in her district. She also asked if the population could be more evenly distributed.

SG – Commented that population variance adjustment might not be possible.

KB – asked if JBLM could be split with McChord in district 5.

MA – again tried to ask for a vote on each map.

SG – Suggested he might be able to take Map D and look at district 4, 5 & 6 for possible adjustments.

KS – Asked if University Place could be split, noting district 6 has too many people and although it might create something undesirable that perhaps they should try.

MA – Made a motion to vote on the maps, individually.

DMc – Seconded the motion.

The vote failed 2/3.

MA Moved to select Map C

DMc – seconded

The vote failed 2/3.

SR – moved to adjourn

KB – Seconded

The chair noted the next meeting is July 12, the final map is due June 28.

The vote passed to adjourn.

UP Article about June 22 2011 Redistricting Meeting

2011-06-25T16:34:00.000-07:00

http://universityplace.patch.com/articles/pierce-county-council-district-boundaries-could-be-done-deal-5

Pierce County Council District Boundaries Could Be Done Deal

Incumbent Protection Ponderings at the Trib

2011-06-25T10:29:00.000-07:00

Pierce County Districting: Even more on the debate over the boundaries of Summit
Peter Callaghan follows the question of incumbent protection.

It is interesting that once again, the question falls around council district 2. However, not mentioned is that there looked to be no easy way to consider bringing UP resident councilman Stan Fleming back into district 7.

Let the Fireworks Begin

2011-06-21T19:27:00.000-07:00

I am starting my comments wiht a link to a Trib article.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/06/21/with-two-incumbent-republicans-placed-outside-their-districts-could-pierce-county-districting-map-d-stand-for-democrat/comment-page-1/#comment-119363

With two incumbent Republicans placed outside their districts, could Pierce County districting Map D stand for "Democrat?"

The lastest from Peter Callahan of the News Tribune would have us believe that an object of the resdistricting process is to protect incumbents in their districts. In fact, the opposite is true. The county chater is written so that the protection of natural commuities is the highest priority.
"Section 4.40 - District Boundaries
The boundaries of each district shall correspond as nearly as practicable with the boundaries of election precincts and shall be drawn to produce districts with compact and contigious territory, composed of geographic units and natural communities."
NOWHERE does it say that an incumbent must be drawn into their district. In fact, 10 years ago a couple Democrats were drawn out of theirs. One was term limited, the other moved to run again.
Further, the charter says, "No Council district boundary change shall disqualify the Councilmember from holding office during the remainder of the trem of office."
10 years ago, a map was adopted that split several communities particularly, Graham and Spanaway. And Roy? It was connected to Lakewood through the military base that required crossing into aother district to get from it to the rest of district 6. The map has been a dsiaster for community connectedness. When you are spilt into jurisdictions where neither of your councilmembers realize they are resposible for you, not much gets fixed.
As I have heard in the south end of the county, people are elated that Graham, Spanaway, Frederickson and Elk Plain are together as a political bloc. We share a school district and many common rural growth woes regarding infrastructure. I might add, as drawn, it's going to lean Republican. Being a Democrat, I am not thrilled. But that reality is overshadowed by the value of being together, the animal that we are.
It looks as through the committee can make a tiny fix to satisfy the incumbent in district 2, but district 7 is a different issue. Is it reasonable to suggest flipping the district numbering systems? There is nothing in the charter that says that cannot, nor does it say they can. It should at least be discussed.
In all, this is leading up to what should be a rollicking good time Wednesday night. Politcs at its finest, fireworks coming before the fourth of July. Come out and watch the final wrap up of the process. It's history in the making.
Pierce County Annex, 7pm, June 22, 2401 South 35^th Street, Conference Room D - this is in the back of thebuilding next to the cafeteria.

Here's the Notice & agenda from the committee clerk:

NOTICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

WEDNESDAY, June 22, 2011

7:00 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2011, at the Pierce County Annex, 2401 South 35^th Street, Conference Room D, Tacoma, WA 98409.

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes

5. Presentation of Map(s) by Steven Garrett, Districting Master

6. Committee Questions and Discussion of Districting Master’s Presentation

7. Next Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 7:00 p.m., Pierce County Annex, Conference Room D, 2401 So. 35^th Street, Tacoma, Washington

8. Other Business

9. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or Jenifer

Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

News Tribune Story Link

2011-06-18T08:23:00.001-07:00

News Tribune Story Link regarding Map D.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/06/17/pierce-districting-committee-gets-map-d-proposed-7th-district-puts-much-of-tacoma-with-gig-harbor-peninsula/#comments

2012 Map D

2011-06-15T18:25:00.000-07:00

This is likely the final map before the Districting Manager's deadline of June 18.

Links to Auditor's Site with Large Maps

2011-06-08T13:51:00.000-07:00

This is the link to the 7MB Map files on the Auditor's website.

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/redistrict.htm

June 8 Meeting in Frederickson

2011-06-08T13:45:00.000-07:00

NOTICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

WEDNESDAY, June 8, 2011

7:00 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, at Central Maintenance Facility, 4812 - 196^th Street East, Spanaway, Washington, 98387

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes

5. Presentation from Steven Garrett, Districting Master

6. Committee Questions and Discussion of Districting Master’s Presentation

7. Public Testimony

8. Next Meeting Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 7:00 p.m. – Gig Harbor City Hall,

3510 Grandview Street, Gig Harbor, Washington 98335

9. Selection of Future Meetings Dates

Options – June 22, 2011

June 23, 2011

July 7, 2011

July 11, 2011

July 12, 2011

Location to be determined.

10. Other Business

11. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or Jenifer

Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

Plan C Map 6-8-2011

2011-06-08T13:39:00.000-07:00

The latest map, Plan C came out 6-8-2011

Plan B Map - Keeping Communities Together, June 2, 2011

2011-06-03T08:11:00.000-07:00

I had a meeting of my own last night and missed the Districting Manager's release of a Plan B Map.
Here's a photo snip:

First, to keep me from bitching at every meeting, this map has Parkland, Spanaway and ElkPlain together, :-) without Tacoma or Lakewood! Wow, I could like that. It gives this area JBLM also. To me, that's GOOD for the Cross Base Highway. That ball has been in Lakewood's court for too long.

Oaky, I'm off my soap box.
Map:

North Tacoma is in with Gig Harbor.

UP, Steilacoom & Lakewood are together.

Puyallup, Milton, Edgewood and Sumner are together.

Parkland, Spanaway, Lacamas, Roy and JBLM are together… without any Tacoma or Lakewood.

Graham is with Bonney Lake, the Orting valley & Mtn, but not South Hill.

South Hill is with Midland, Summit, Waller & North CC Collins.

I think it’s got the natural communities fairly correct. It might need some work around west Eatonville.

Graham Kapowsin Public Meeting - May 31

2011-06-02T14:37:00.000-07:00

Pierce County Redistricting, Public Meeting May 31, 2011

This note is brief. I had a conflict May 31 with a scheduled school board meeting. My elected duties come before my passion for the redistricting process.

The meeting was to begin at 7:30pm. I am certain from the agenda that the usual protocol of approving the agenda and minutes took place followed by a presentation by the districting master, Steve Garrett.

When I arrived around 8:30, I noted Sam Ross was not present nor was Mike Abernathy who had been previously excused for his vacation.

There were comments being made around the topic of using major waterways like the Puyallup, Nisqually, Carbon, and White rivers as boundaries. The discussion ensuing from the board decided their directive was to use natural communities, neighborhoods, the rivers and steams did not reflect those community boundaries well enough.

Other concerns discussed included appreciation for putting all of Graham together in a district, concern that Roy and McKenna might be better off with all of the Lacamas areas west of the Mountain Highway included with them, further discussion of Elk Plain being oddly connected to the 6th district, and I presented some data on the demographics of the 5 district.

The 5th closely resembles the 29th legislative district which is the most poor in Western Washington as well as very highly multicultural, renters and disabled populations. These demographics are not part of what the committee is directed to consider according to the charter, but it is reasonable to expect this might be representative of a district drawn to be of a particular political persuasion. So I brought it up to beg the question.

The updated map can be found on the Pierce County Auditor's site. I cam only place little jpg version and most people have expressed frustration finding the boundaries on a graphic with so little detail.

Here's the Auditor's link to redistricting maps:

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/redistrict.htm

The next meeting is at Lakewood City Hall, June 2. Once again I have a school conflict, the annual Band an Orchestra festival at PLU. I will see what's going on toward the end again. That's usually when the committee decides if the comments on the current map are worthy of directing the Districting Master to make a few more changes.

I received a letter from a Bethel teacher whose student came to the GK meeting, but felt unwelcome. If anyone noticed her, please fill me in on what happened.

Remaining Public Meetings

2011-05-31T16:45:00.000-07:00

Dist. Date Time Location

1 May 31, 2011 7:30 - 9:00 pm Graham Kapowsin High School Career Center

6 June 2, 2011 7:00 - 8:30 pm Lakewood City Hall Council Chambers

4 June 6, 2011 7:00 - 8:30 pm Lister Elementary School

3 June 8, 2011 7:00 - 8:30 pm Central Maintenance Facility

4812 196th Street East, Spanaway

7 June 16, 2011 7:00 - 8:30 pm Gig Harbor City Hall Council Chambers

* Doors open at 6:30 p.m., meetings to run from 7:00 – 8:30 p.m., doors close at 9:00 p.m.

Or, doors open at 7:00 p.m., meeting to run from 7:30 – 9:00 pm doors close at 9:30 p.m.

2012 Pierce County Redistricting Public Hearing May 26, 2011

2011-05-27T12:46:00.000-07:00

The meeting was called to order at 7:10pm at the Fife School District board room.

Mike Abernathy was excused. Deryl McCarty, Ken Blair, Sam Ross and Karen Seinfeld were present.

The agenda was approved and the minutes from May 19 were approved after a repair to the members in attendance that day. (My notes were correct, however.)

Districting Master, Steve Garrett gave a presentation to the Board and audience regarding the redistricting process and the current version (3) of the 2012 boundaries for the council districts.

Notable comments from the evening included…

Ken Blair asked Mr. Garrett to contact the Puyallup Tribe to see if it matters to them to have their borders completely within one council district. Currently, the entire reservation is in council district 2 on the map.

Deryl McCarty asked about the diagonal line at the south end of district 6 between McKenna and the South Creek area. What boundary does it follow? No one was sure. The gas pipeline was discounted, perhaps it was power lines.

At the end of the presentation, Steve Garrett noted the final map is to be produced by June 28 according to the charter.

The floor was opened to the public for questions.

Marianne Lincoln (me) spoke to the issue of Elk Plain being separated from all its neighbors and being associated with Roy (10 miles away by road) and Lakewood (15 miles away by road). Noting the base to which it is adjacent has no population and no nearby roads. It might was well be a giant lake, it has no people there. I also noted that as drawn, council district 5 with south Tacoma, Parkland and Spanaway has an extremely low socioeconomic status, pointing out its boundaries closely match the 29^th legislative district which is the poorest in western Washington. Since adding Graham, the 3^rd council district is contrastingly rich. I pointed out that this likely means both districts will be strongly to one and the other political parties. The 5^th district being Democratic and the 3^rd district being Republican.

Diane Kerlin commented that she was happy to see Edgewood was wholly in district 2. The committee asked her if she felt Sumner was a better fit with Bonney Lake or Edgewood. She pointed out that Bonney Lake is part of the Sumner School District and they shared a zip code for years. So she felt that putting Sumner in district 1 was probably better in that regard.

Len Sanderson had asked before the meeting why Milton wasn’t listed as part of Pierce County. Apparently all the cities that straddle the county line are listed in King County. (That includes Pacific, Auburn and Milton.) He testified that Milton will probably be happy with the way it was set in district 2. He then questioned the population base in district 6 which contains the military base, noting although is has population, there are very few locally registered voters. Most military people retain their voting in their home state. The Districting Master noted that the rules say the districting is based on the census, not registered voters. He acknowledged that the actual number of voters in 6 will be much lower than other districts.

Dan Herr from Summit-Waller asked the committee if it was conducive to farmland to have Orting, McMilin, Alderton, and Sumner in the same council district. He wondered if having them in two districts would give more emphasis to their cause. Dan then asked why part of Tacoma was included in district 7. The response was that the transportation corridor of the Narrows Bridge was the reason for that inclusion. One of the committee members felt that the SR167 corridor was helped by being in one council district. Dan then asked if it was really necessary to have the Puyallup reservation in one district. (He wasn’t aware that had already been discussed because he arrived late.) The DM told him he would be contacting the tribe.

Diane Kerlin pointed out an error on the map calling the highway near Pacific “161” noting that was actually SR167. The error was only on the public handouts, not the wall map or the presentation version of the map.

In the end, the only map issues the committee recommended the DM correct was to square off the south boundary of district 6 so farms would not be split and to contact the Puyallup Tribe about district 2. They commented that they were not interested in making changes to Elk Plain.

(Since this is my blog, I will point out as a long time Elk Plain resident, I am not happy about this, but will reserve the expletives I have for it. They did sneak out of my mouth in the car on the way home along with some steam from my ears.)

2012 Map Ver. 3 is here

2011-05-27T11:39:00.000-07:00

Here is the 3rd Version of the 2012 Council District Map.
The larger 7MB one can be found here on the Pierce County Auditor's website:
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/redistrict/pc_districts_5_26_Large.pdf

Kapowsin is now split between the 3rd & 1st.

Elk Plain is still out there alone, 15 miles from Lakewood, 10 miles from Roy.
They are talking about squaring the diagonal line toward Roy because it probably splits several farms.
Orting is in the 1st with its neighbors.
Sumner is in the 1st, Edgewood in the 2nd.

May 26th Meeting Location Change / Agenda

2011-05-25T12:44:00.001-07:00

PLEASE NOTE: The meeting location has been changed from Fife High School to the Fife School District Administration Office ( which is in the same parking lot as Fife High School:

NOTICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

THURSDAY, May 26, 2011

7:00 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 26, 2011, at Fife School District Administration Office, 5802-20^th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424.

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes: May 19, 2011

5. Presentation from Steven Garrett, Districting Master

6. Committee Questions and Discussion of Districting Master’s Presentation

7. Public Testimony

8. Next Meeting Date: May 31, 2011, Graham Kapowsin High School, 7:30 p.m.

9. Other Business

10. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or Jenifer

Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

2012 Map Version 2

2011-05-23T19:32:00.000-07:00

Summit moved into CC2.
Graham moved into CC3.
Nib of Spanaway moved into CC5,
More of Lacamas in CC1
Islands in CC6

Copy of Pierce County News Release

2011-05-23T16:48:00.000-07:00

News Release

www.piercecountywa.org

www.twitter.com/pierceco

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 23, 2011

Districting Committee seeks input on boundary changes

The Pierce County Districting Committee is seeking public input on proposed changes to County Council district boundaries.

The five-member committee is scheduling meetings in all seven County Council districts. The first two meetings are this week. The Districting Master, Steven Garrett, will make a presentation that will include maps of proposed changes. Draft maps are available now on the committee’s website, www.piercecountywa.org/redistricting.

"The Districting Master has begun redrawing the boundaries to make sure each district is nearly equal in population," said Karen Seinfeld, chair of the Districting Committee. "This is a first draft. We want to hear what people in each area think about these proposed changes."

Here is the schedule so far (one district meeting remains to be scheduled):

District 5: Tuesday, May 24, 7 to 8:30 p.m. at Franklin Pierce High School, Corrigan Room.

District 2: Thursday, May 26, 7 to 8:30 p.m., Fife High School. Amended to Fife School District Administration Office, 5802-20^th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424.

District 1: May 31, 7:30 to 9 p.m., Graham Kapowsin High School, Career Center.

District 6: June 2, 7 to 8:30 p.m., Lakewood City Hall, Council Chambers.

District 4: June 8, 7 to 8:30 p.m., Lister Elementary School

District 3: June 8, 7 to 8:30 p.m., Pierce County Central Maintenance Facility, 4812 196th Street East, Spanaway.

District 7: June 16, 7 to 8:30 p.m., Gig Harbor City Hall, Council Chambers.

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Jenifer Schultz, Districting Committee clerk

253-798-6696

jschult@co.pierce.wa.us

Hunter George, Pierce County Communications director

253-798-6606

hgeorge@co.pierce.wa.us

Public Hearing on Maps Council District 5 - May 24

2011-05-23T11:22:00.000-07:00

NOTICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, May 24, 2011

7:00 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2011, at the Franklin Pierce High School, Corrigan Room, 11002 18^th Avenue East, Tacoma, WA.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes: May 19, 2011

5. Presentation from Steven Garrett, Districting Master

6. Committee Questions and Discussion of Districting Master’s Presentation

7. Public Testimony

8. Next Meeting Date: May 26, 2011, Fife High School at 7:00 p.m.

9. Other Business

10. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or Jenifer

Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

Pierce County Redistricting 6th Meeting, May 19, 2011

2011-05-20T17:29:00.000-07:00

In the Pierce County Annex Back Conference Room

[Disclaimer: Comments are paraphrased unless specifically quoted.]

The meeting began around 7pm, but I arrived at 7:45 due to a conflict with my school board duties. By then the agenda and minutes were adopted. Ken Blair was absent.

The room was arranged with tables in a large rectangle with the board facing the door, Steve Garret on the left and the counsel and clerk on the right. The opposite side of the table had community members. There were chairs around the room along the walls that also held community members. There were around 20 public and also Councilman Dick Muri present.

As I entered, committee members were asking questions about the map that Steve Garrett presented. There were copies on hand for everyone present and two big plotter sized maps on the wall. Shortly, I will get a CD recording and see if any were worth mention.

Steve Garrett commented that the map he was presenting had most council districts following the guideline of keeping natural communities together. Then added, “…except for a small nib at the edge of Spanaway that I just couldn’t get to fit in.”

More interesting was the public comment that started around 8pm.

The first was Dan Herr from the Summit Waller Community Association. He wanted to know if the consultant was a local resident and was glad to hear Steve Garrett lived in Tacoma. He also expressed being glad this was only the beginning of the process as he was not content with the lines drawn dividing the Waller community at the Puyallup Indian Tribal boundary separating it by council district from the rest of the Summit area. He asked if he could have a discussion with the consultant regarding the boundaries to which Karen Seinfeld and Mike Abernathy explained the open meeting process. All data would have to come back to the committee in an open session. Steve Garrett explained the use of census blocks to move population between council districts. He started with election precincts for his rough draft and refined with the census tracts. Mr. Herr questioned the value of setting a boundary based on a sovereign nation who he felt was not impacted by county political issues.

Next was Larry Volland, also of the Summit Waller Community Association. He noted that the Districting Master’s situation was almost a no-win, making these changes would certainly always leave someone upset. He reiterated the desire to keep Summit with Waller in a council district.

Deb Blakeslee from Tacoma asked for an explanation of where the boundaries for census tracts and precincts are chosen. (Census tracts are pre-set by the Census Bureau, the precincts by the county auditor’s office after redistricting the various jurisdictions.)

Dick Muri commented that University Place, Fircrest, Dupont, Lakewood and Steilacoom have been traditional partners for years and questioned the detachment of Lakewood and Dupont from them in this map. He suggested they need to be together in a council district.

Ron Lucas, Mayor of Steilacoom welcomed the committee to their meeting in their district soon. He implied the community would also reflect the concerns Dick Muri had just spoken. (a cautious political move to not specifically voice this)

Jim Halmo of Graham commented that he grew up in Lakewood and he felt UP, Steilacoom, Lakewood, Dupont and Fircrest seemed to be natural allies and felt they should be in a council district together. Steve Garrett commented here that there was too much population there to have them all together.

I spoke next, immediately noting that I lived in that small nib at the edge of Spanaway in the Elk Plain census tract mentioned earlier. (For those that don’t know, 10 years ago a small nib took me out of my council district at the east edge of Elk Plain, so there were a few people who knew this from our talk before the first meeting and quietly chuckled at this remark. I had predicted this to happen again.) I went on to point out that crossing over the military base and taking Elk Plain away from all its neighbors, Graham, Spanaway & Frederickson, to partner with Lakewood made bad community and political sense. I suggested adding it to Spanaway (5), Frederickson (3) or Graham (1). Any would be much more reasonable. I suggested that I favored putting Summit in with Waller and filling that void in District 3 with the Elk Plan tract. Larry Voland said he was taking a note about that.

Bud Rehberg commented on the fact that Elk Plain was part of the Graham Community Plan and the committee had suggested to the districting master that communities within the same plan should be kept together if possible. He suggested Elk Plain should be part of Council District 1 with Graham.

Steve Garrett commented that he set his goal to keep the populations of the council districts within 0.5% of each other. He noted that the County Charter does not explicitly designate what the allowable percentage of variation should be. The committee would decide what was acceptable and he was comfortable going as high as 2% variation if the committee was willing to allow it. He also mentioned that if they had time to look at what areas are having jolt of population growth, they could make conscious allowances to short the population in those places. Bud also noted there were vested lots in the rural separator (Summit Waller area) that have an interest in staying within the same council district.

Chris Kauffman of the Advisory Board for Conservation Futures (Lakewood resident) inquired about the sovereignty issue, that he felt the tribes are actually affected by many decisions of the county.

Kerstin Watts asked how frequent the iterations of the map will be. Karen Seinfeld pointed out that over the next few weeks the committee would be gathering lots of public comments but not making changes each time, rather waiting to sort through what makes sense from the comments to the committee, then suggesting modifications.

Karen Seinfeld asked Mike Rooney if he would be posting the maps on the Auditor’s website. He said yes as soon as he could, definitely within the week. Look for them here: http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/redistrict.htm

Benjamin Anderstone of Tacoma commented that the Summit Waller request to add Midland would be difficult due to the population in Midland being over 50% of the area. He pointed out that on the 1992 map, Summit Waller was split three ways.

Justin Leighton agreed with Ben and asked if the next iteration of the map could use more color variations since this has several greens and browns that are hard to distinguish. Mr. Garrett pointed out that is GIS software didn’t give him colors that he could identify until the map was actually printed. His screen colors aren’t actual to the colors of the county’s printer. Justin didn’t like the several ways Tacoma was split.

Karen Seinfeld commented that Tacoma, being an incorporated jurisdiction, is not as impacted by the actions of the county council districting as the unincorporated areas. She felt splitting Tacoma was not a major issue on their services and government work. (To this I say, split Lakewood too, it might help.)

Larry Volland again expressed to the committee he would like them to see if they can make Summit Waller Midland work.

Karen Seinfeld stated she felt Anderson and Ketron Is. connect with Steilacoom, but not necessarily with Gig Harbor. She asked the committee if they felt they should direct the districting master to look into adjusting anything particular on the map. She asked the committee if they want to have the DM put the islands back in with Steilacoom and make Summit Waller improvements?

Deryl McCarty felt Summit Waller should be together and Anderson, Ketron and Steilacoom should be together.

Mike Abernathy agreed on Summit Waller and the Islands to Steilacoom. He also pointed out his consideration for the hard work of Mr. Garrett to get to this point with the maps and the maps reflected his effort to follow the guidelines.

Deryl McCarty commented that they could play a game of “show me what the map would look like if…” which was akin to playing “whack-a-mole.”

The committee did agree that the DM should look into those modifications for Summit Waller and Steilacoom. There was not a formal vote.

Steve Garret (DM) next commented the presentation to the public will be in places that have presentation equipment for PowerPoint and Internet access. He thanked the clerk. He will be able to zoom in on the maps and show people more specifically where their houses are. It will be a multi media show.

Karen Seinfeld asked how they could advertise their presence in these communities with the meetings so people have a good chance to know what is taking place.

Steve Garrett said there should be a press release with the list of all the meetings to all local papers.

Deryl McCarty asked if they could do a paid ad. He asked the cost of the as they placed in the TNT for a districting master, answer, $1000.

Karen Seinfeld decided to ask around the room (to the public) how they found out about the meetings. There were several answers including, political committees, blogs, Face Book, social media and emails. She asked everyone to use those mediums to spread the word as well.

The clerk passed out the schedule of meetings in council district, there was general agreement that the dates and locations were fine so the chair said that was sufficient to go forward with the meetings without any formal vote.

Deryl McCarty said his impression of this process is that the issues with the boundaries is not a Democrat, Republican thing, it will be more like an urban, suburban thing.

The meeting adjourned, sometime after 9pm. Sorry, I forgot to look at my watch, but I didn’t get out of the building until about 9:30pm. There are always some individual conversations following the meeting.

Here is the public comment meeting schedule for the council districts:

They are all 7pm to 8:30pm.

#5: May 24, Franklin Pierce High School, Corrigan Room
#2: May 26, (Fife High School) Amended to Fife School District Administration Office, 5802-20^th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424.

#1: May 31, Graham Kapowsin High School
#6: June 2, Lakewood City Hall
#4: June 6, Lister Elementary School
#3: June 8, Public Works, Central Maintenance Facility, 4812 196th St E, Spanaway
#7: June 16, Gig Harbor City Hall Council Chambers

2012 1st Proposal Council Districts

2011-05-20T12:31:00.001-07:00

2012 1st Proposal council district outlines

2011-05-20T12:29:00.001-07:00

Council District Public Comment Meeting Dates & Locations

2011-05-20T00:37:00.000-07:00

The first iteration of the map is here. Yes, there are some issues, as there will be with any changes. It's late, I'll try to get them posted tomorrow witht he notes about the meeting which was fairly well attended.

Here are the dates of the public comment meetings. They are all 7pm to 8:30pm.

#5: May 24, Franklin Pierce High School, Corrigan Room
#2: May 26, Fife High School
#1: May 31, Graham Kapowsin High School
#6: June 2, Lakewood City Hall
#4: June 6, TBD
#3: June 8, Public Works Central Maintenance Facility, 4812 196th St E, Spanaway
#7: June 16, Gig Harbor City Hall Council Chambers

State Redistricting Public Meetings

2011-05-19T12:24:00.000-07:00

Scheduled Commissioner Meetings and Public Forums

http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/forums.asp

Commissioner Meetings begin at 10 a.m. on the second Tuesday of each month.*

The agenda for public forums*:

6 p.m. - Pre-forum Open House
6:30 p.m. - Introduction of Commissioners, Redistricting Overview
(interactive webcast begins)
7 p.m. - Public Comment and Meeting Summary
9 p.m. - Closing Comments

Past meetings and forums

Meeting Type	City	Date	Location
Public Forum	Olympia	Wednesday, May 18	John A. Cherberg Building, 304 15th Ave. Senate Hearing Room 1
Public Forum	Vancouver	Thursday, May 19	Hilton Vancouver Hotel, 301 West 6th St, Discovery Ballroom ABC
Public Forum	Renton	Monday, May 23	Renton, Renton Technical College cafeteria, 3000 NE 4th St.
Public Forum	Bellevue	Tuesday, May 24	Red Lion Hotel Bellevue, Evergreen Point Room, 11211 Main St.
Public Forum	Everett	Wednesday, May 25	Everett Community College, Jackson Conference Center, 2000 Tower St.
Public Forum	Bellingham	Thursday, May 26	Western Washington University, Academic West Building, AW204
Public Forum	Pasco	Tuesday, June 7	TBD
Public Forum	Yakima	Wednesday, June 8	TBD
Public Forum	Wenatchee	Thursday, June 9	TBD
Public Forum	Seattle	Monday, June 13	TBD
Commissioner Meeting	Olympia	Tuesday, June 14	J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3
Public Forum	Auburn	Tuesday, June 14	TBD
Public Forum	Bremerton	Thursday, June 30	TBD
Public Forum	Tacoma	Monday, July 11	TBD
Public Forum	Spokane	Tuesday, July 12	TBD
Commissioner Meeting	TBD	Tuesday, June 14	TBD
Public Forum	Walla Walla	Wednesday, July 13	TBD
Public Forum	Moses Lake	Thursday, July 14	TBD
Commissioner Meeting	Olympia	Tuesday, August 9	J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3
Commissioner Meeting	Olympia	Tuesday, September 13	J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3
Commissioner Meeting	Olympia	Tuesday, October 11	J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3
Commissioner Meeting	Olympia	Tuesday, November 8	J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3
Commissioner Meeting	Olympia	Tuesday, December 13	J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

*Meeting dates, times and locations are subject to change

First Preliminary Maps to be revealed

2011-05-13T10:33:00.000-07:00

This meeting will be a chance for the committee to see the maps prior to the presetation at meetings across the council districts. Those meeting dates are May 24 (Franklin Pierce High), 26, 31 and June 2, 6, 8, 16. The other locations have not been revealed yet.
-Marianne

NOTICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

THURSDAY, May 19, 2011

7:30 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 19, 2011, at the Pierce County Annex, 2501 South 35^th Street, Conference Room D, Tacoma, WA.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes: April 28, 2011

5. Presentation from Steven Garrett, Districting Master

6. Committee Questions and Discussion of Districting Master’s Presentation

7. Public Testimony

8. Budget Report

9. Next Meeting Date: May 24, 2011, Franklin Pierce High School at 7:00 p.m.

10. Other Business

11. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or Jenifer

Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

STATE Redistricting Schedule For Local Hearings

2011-05-11T14:48:00.000-07:00

Partial List of Public Forums:

Let the commissioners know about your congressional and legislative district, its cities, neighborhoods, natural boundaries and communities of interest. These hearings are not meant to solicit specifically partisan feedback. By law the commissioners are required to consider the following criteria:

- Equal population
- Contiguous and compact boundaries
- Following local political subdivisions and areas where people share a common interest, such as race or ethnicity

If you are unable to attend these hearings in person, they will also be available via webcast and broadcast on TWV. In addition to the public hearings, you can submit written and electronic comments to the commission or even create plans of your own. More information about getting involved can be found http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/.

All forums begin at 6 p.m. with an open house and presentations.

Public comment will be heard from 7 to 9 p.m.

Aberdeen: Tuesday, May 17, Grays Harbor College HUB, 1620 Edward P. Smith Drive

Olympia: Wednesday, May 18, John A. Cherberg Building, 304 15^th Ave., Senate Hearing
Room 1

Vancouver: Thursday, May 19, Hilton Vancouver Hotel, 301 West 6th St, Discovery Ballroom ABC

Renton: Monday, May 23, Renton, Renton Technical College cafeteria, 3000 NE 4^th St.

Bellevue: Tuesday, May 24, Red Lion Hotel Bellevue, Evergreen Point Room, 11211 Main St.

Everett: Wednesday, May 25, Everett Community College, Jackson Conference Center, 2000 Tower St.

All forums begin at 6 p.m. with an open house and presentations. Public comment will be heard from 7 to 9 p.m.

*There are also public hearings planned in Bellingham, Pasco, Yakima, Wenatchee, Seattle, Federal Way, Bremerton, Tacoma, Maple Valley, Spokane, Moses Lake and Walla. These locations are subject to change and the Commission will release a full schedule shortly.

2011-05-10T22:44:00.000-07:00

Here is a picture of the boundaries set in 2001 with a blue outline of the districts as they were set in 1992.
You can see the divided communities and the major shifts of districts to communities.

link to the Pierce County Auditor's page about redistricting

2011-05-04T21:57:00.001-07:00

This is the link to the Pierce County Auditor's page about redistricting.

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/redistrict.htm

2011-05-04T18:43:00.000-07:00

The 2011 Pierce County Redistricting Committee

From the left
Legal Council Douglas Vanscoy
Committee Clerk Jenifer Schultz
Sam Ross
Deryl McCarthy
Karen Seinfeld
Ken Blair
Mike Abernathy

2011-05-04T18:23:00.000-07:00

Here are the approximate locations of our current Pierce County Council.

Census data by council district

PC Redistricting 5th Meeting, April 28, 2011

2011-04-29T10:22:00.000-07:00

Pierce County Council Chambers

[Disclaimer: Comments are paraphrased unless specifically quoted.]

The meeting began around 7pm, but I arrived at 7:15. By then the agenda and minutes were adopted. All members were present. Legal Council Doug Vanscoy was sitting beside Steve Garrett. Jennifer Schultz was on the opposite side of the committee, in the council clerk seat.

7:15pm The Committee is discussing the contract with Steve Garrett.

Sam Ross asked about RCW 29A.76.010 which gives guidance to each government body faced with new census data and moving boundaries within its jurisdiction including time limits, boundaries consistent with natural features and community units.

Ross asked Council for clarification as to whether the committee is bound by section D of that statute. Doug Vanscoy replied that they are not specifically bound by 29A.76.010 sub-section 4 which lays out the criteria for that and section d refers to favoring or disfavoring any racial group or political party. I may need to ask for the tape to verify why he said that. I believe he was referring to the vagueness of the charter. He did go on to say that in so much as it is state law, they would be required to give it consideration. Charter documents rise above the statutory state law for counties and cities as I understand it. (My legal friends will correct me here if I am wrong, but I believe that is the reason for having a Charter.) The question was also about the RCW words, “as nearly equal in population as possible,” compared to the Charter which states “approximately equal in population.”

The conversation moved on to the scope of work and to ensure that no language in the contract limits the ability of the committee to have interim maps available for public comment.

Daryl McCarty asked about the value of the confidentiality clause in as much as all meetings are subject to the OPMA (Open Public Meetings Act), noting everything they are doing is open to public view. Council explained that for possible executive session or in the instance that a lawsuit was filed over the adopted map there may be a need for confidentiality in some fashion. Council suggested that “privileged” or “exempt” might be better terms.

Ken Blair asked if the contract language mean the Districting Manager would be paid up to $15,000 in two payments based on hours put in or if he was being paid two payments for a total of $15K. Council stated it was two payments of $7500 each.

McCarty also asked if there were a future lawsuit if the DM could be paid more. Council replied that the Committee could enter into an additional contract if it were warranted.

McCarty them moved that the contract be accepted with a change in Section 22 line 2 changing “all” to privileged or exempt. It was seconded and passed unanimously.

So Steve Garrett is the Districting Manager as of 7:40pm on 4-28-11. Karen Seinfeld congratulated him.

Ken Blair pointed out there is a termination date of July 7 in the contract. Council pointed out the Charter requires a date certain within at least 2 months which would be June 28. Blair made a motion to make that termination date July 28. It was seconded and adopted unanimously.

The agenda turned to priorities and criteria. At this point Mike Abernathy asked Mr. Garrett, “When you saw a big outfit like Burke, did you think they might walk away with it?” Then asked if he wanted to develop a reputation for being even handed, expressing concerns that Garrett has another client which is the Democratic Caucus in Olympia. Who is not impartial. These are supposed to be simple changes based on numbers and moving lines.

Garrett replied that he wants the public to see a fair plan, regardless of where that takes his career.

Abernathy then replied, if I see strange lines, “I’ll be nasty.”

Garrett responded,” We’ll come up with a product that is very satisfactory to the public.”

Abernathy made a few more comments about Garrett’s work with the Democratic caucus and mentioned compact districts with simple lines.

Garrett replied that the advantage to him over a slick outfit like Burke was that he lives in the county and knows the difference between Midland and Alderton.

At this point the chair directed the clerk to build a two column list on the white board which ended up as follows:

Consider Don’t Consider

Compact/contiguous Partisan Politics

Community Political Groups

Natural Boundaries

Public input/outreach

Community plans

Final numbers within .5% - 2%

On neighborhoods and neighborhood councils, Garrett remarked that Tacoma’s neighborhoods are not as established as Seattle’s like, Ballard or Greenlake. He noted he is not planning to do any of his own outreach to the public, he will get that from the district meetings held by the committee. There may be some outreach to those communities through those who are “blog wonks” like those who attend these meetings. (hmmm, that must be me)

Abernathy commented about council people and their districts and commented about the city of Graham being split. Deryl McCarty corrected him that Graham is not a city and mentioned places with community plans should be considered.

Garrett replied that he has a checklist and he thinks Tacoma is the only city that will have to be split due to its size. He also pointed out that he has done work on archeology and mapping historic communities including some that are on the map, but no longer exist.

Abernathy said, numbers, basic numbers.

Garrett replied that’s number one, as if they are carved in granite. He is shooting for a maximum of 2% variance in the populations of the final districts. “If I go with what’s in the charter, it’s a little squishy.”

Sam Ross asked Garrett for to estimate when there would be a first map draft.

Karen Seinfeld said it was a good time to talk about a schedule of public meetings. The communities need to have something to look at and consider. She noted that they should give the DM a few weeks and then schedule 2 or 3 meetings a week in the council districts.

Abernathy asked what the difference was between the Census Block Group Map and the Urban Growth Area Map and Garrett pointed out the little gray lines with the census blocks in each council district. The UGA map has city boundaries and the UGA limit lines in purple. Gareet said the census Block have interesting characteristics, “They are stacked like matryoshka dolls.”

Garrett then stated he thought he could have preliminary maps in about 3 weeks.

Seinfeld stated they could start meetings the week of May 16-20, but that she was very busy that week. Abernathy commented that he has a vacation planned for his granddaughter’s graduation from May 23 until at least June 3. He requested a meeting before he left to have a look at the preliminary maps. Seinfeld asked if anyone else had extended vacation plans and no one responded.

The meeting dates set are May 19^th at 7:30pm or possibly 8pm for the committee to review the preliminary maps. The time is subject to the chair getting back from the Bates graduation.

The district meetings will be on May 24, 26, June 2, 6, 8 and 16. The committee will have the clerk, Jennifer determine the available locations on those dates and distribute that to her mailing list. (I will post the locations/council districts when I find out.)

There were no budget changes to report.

Public Comment

Ben Anderson commented that the most important location to hold a meeting for District 7 would be on in University Place side where there may actually be changes where the boundaries will affect people rather than in Gig Harbor.

Mike Rooney of the Auditor’s office commented that their web site has a Redistricting 101 tutorial. It lists the Districting Committee and links to draft maps, meeting dates and the committee contact Jennifer Schultz, the Clerk. He will send their link to Jennifer so she can distribute it to everyone.

Steve Garrett pointed out the maps will be in PDF format that most all computers can read. McCarty stated approval as 10 years ago the format required special software that people had to purchase.

Garrett also noted that the lines will be general by census blocks. He will not be able to make the finer alterations that split those census lines since there is not population data to do that. Mike Rooney commented that the Auditor’s office will take the maps from that point and IT will make the finer adjustments “snapping” it to the lines for precincts and jurisdictions. Garrett said he uses ERSI which the county also uses and noted the committee’s eye were glazing over by saying, yes, that’s a bunch of “geek speak.”

Abernathy said, “So you think you can do this?”

Garrett replied,” We are going to do this.”

The meeting adjourned at 8:58pm.

Cookie update:

Sam Ross baked the snickerdoodles that Jennifer requested in the previous meeting. Yum.

Directions & Parking for April 28, 2011

2011-04-28T11:47:00.001-07:00

email I received:

If you plan on attending the 7 p.m. Districting Committee Meeting tonight you can park in the pay lot off of 11^th street. I will validate your parking for you.

In addition, entry in to the building is adjacent to the pay lot and for those of you that don’t know, after entry in to the building you then take the elevator up to the 10^th floor.

Jenifer Schultz, Committee Clerk

Pierce County Districting Committee

(253) 798-6696

jschult@co.pierce.wa.us

4th Meeting, Selecting the Districting Master 4-19-2011

2011-04-27T23:21:00.000-07:00

Pierce County Redistricting 4^th Meeting, April 19, 2011

Pierce County Annex

[Disclaimer: These notes are transcribed from a voice CD. It is possible that on occasion I did not attach the right name with the voice or spell a contractor or public commenter’s name correctly. It is also not prosaic in format and comments are paraphrased unless specifically quoted.]

7:30pm Committee in Executive Session

Review of Proposals

9:00pm

Out of executive session

Discussion of the 5 candidates with proposals for Districting Manager:

Steven Garrett

Sam Ross: impressed with Mr. Garrett’s enthusiasm and professionalism, concerns, none.

Deryl McCarty: good presentation, enthusiasm. Concerns, none, until he got a job this week, perception that he might be busy.

Mike Abernathy: Impressed with Mr. Garrett, his attitude, his approach was on target. Concerned about “other job” working with a party organization.

Ken Blair: agree with comments, also concerned with the present job he has. Thinks he might be naïve thinking it won’t interfere with his work for the county, but I think he can handle it.

Karen Seinfeld: Only one that got his in on time, strong educational background, variety of experience. Concerns: he is working on his own, he doesn’t have backups.

Sam Ross: had worked with Mr. Garrett before and knows he is a good worked and will get the job done.

MA: Who he has worked for in the past won’t be a concern to me

Mr. Reibolds

KS: Mr. Reibolds paperwork is very thin. Not comfortable with limited experience doing districting.

Bob Schweitzer

DM: I’ve worked with him before on redistricting. His company has a reputation, no political partisanship. He showed up (here) with maps.

SR: Concerns with his history and the lawsuit in 2002. His proposal is the thinnest of the lot here.

MA: He has the experience and I think that’s important.

KB: Concern on his presentation and an impression the committee was screwing up the system. Also, many knew what our budget is and came very close to that. (not leaving much money to work with)

Burke & Associates

MA: Website impressive, they have strong understanding of the law and state statutes – Burke is right on top of it. We need to negotiate a contract. We need to get the best out there that we can get.

KB: Has been on redistricting with the school district, it’s not that complicated. Some of these are bids of $7000 and $9000, we don’t want to waster taxpayer money. It’s not that hard to do. Want to leave a perception of taxpayer fairness.

KS: Nice product, presented well, high end of cost

Michael Stoddard

SR: Experience working GIS with the City of Tacoma. He has experience and a 9-5 job. We need to make sure this gets done.

DMc: 9-5 jobs working in the same area. We need to go out and make the meetings. We need to be cautious we’re not taxing the time limits of young people with jobs.

MA: I’ve spent years with a daytime job and school, it is taxing.

KB: I work with a lot of young people who are much better multi-taskers than I am.

KS: Everyone here is technically qualifies. I have a sense there is more to this than just being technically proficient, there are some subtleties that come with experience. I don’t think Mr. Stoddard should be learning on this project.

[At this point the committee struggles with how to go about making a motion and setting up a way to negotiate the amount of the contract in dollars since the committee isn’t going to spend its entire budget on the Districting Manager and the proposals are at the top end of their allotment.]

SR: Motion- Michael Stoddard as the primary DM and if negotiations fall through, Burgess as the alternative. Failed for lack of a second.

KS: Defer to legal on the contract price being part of the motion

Doug Vanscoy: The committee has wide discretion as to how to make the motion and direct legal to draw up a contract. All you need to do is by Thursday, appoint at least one of these applicants.

KB: Can we make a motion with our first choice and say here is the limit of what we will pay?

MA: Make a motion to say who is the primary choice and let legal work with them to get an agreement.

Move to appoint one of the five as a primary choice to negotiate with Mr. Vanscoy on the cost of the project.

SR: second

DMc: Should put some boundary on it within a scope of work or an amount of money.

MA: Should I revise my motion to, Appoint one of the five as a primary choice to negotiate with Mr. Vanscoy for the cost of the project… not to exceed $25,0000?

DMc: We may not have that much anymore, some of the money has been spent.

MA: Let’s go back to the original motion.

MA: Yes KB: No DMc: No SR: No KS: No fails on a vote of 4:1

DMc: Suggests a motion that says exactly the same thing, but with a limit with a limit of $20,000 bucks.

I move we choose a primary contractor, subject to negotiations with the county, not to exceed $20,000 bucks

MA: second

DMc: withdraws motion MA: withdraws second

KB: Motion, we choose Steve Garrett, second choice Burke, not to exceed $20,000

SR: second

MA: people were told going into this the budget amount

KB: Yes DMc: No SR: Yes MA: No KS: No Fails 4:1

MA: Move, Burke as first choice.

KS: second

DMc: Did that have money on it? No, straight just like it is.

DMc: No SR: No MA: Yes KB: No KS: Yes fails on vote of 2:3

KS: Burke as our first choice, subject to negotiation with council.

MA: Second

KB: What do we do it if we vote on that, it passes and there’s nobody as a backup?

SR: no MA: Aye KB: No DMc: No KS: Aye fails 2:3

SR: Moves, Michael Stoddard as primary contractor

KB: Second

MA: No KB: Aye DMc: No SR: Aye KS: no fails 2:3

DMc: Moves - Select Sammamish Data subject negotiation not to exceed $15,000

MA: second

SR: the Lawsuit with Samammish is an issue

KB: No Mc: Aye SR: No MA: Aye KS: No fail 2:3

KB: Moves- Our primary be Steven Garrett subject to negotiation with legal counsel to $15,000

SR: second

Mc: No SR: yes KB: yes MA: No KS: yes passes 3:2

The Chair, Karen Seinfeld announces Steve Garrett is chosen as the first choice for Districting Master, subject to the ability to achieve a contract not to exceed $15,000.

KB: Moves to choose Burke as a second choice

MA: second

SR: Burke & Assoc seemed set to an amount over $15,000, the only one who seemed to be flexible to an amount under $15,000 was Stoddard.

At this juncture, Mike Abernathy tried to ask Burke if they are still interested at that price. The Committee stopped him due to the possibility it may appear to be negotiating. So he asked if Burke has any comment to make at this point.

Legal council, Vanscoy noted that would be procedurally out of order.

Karen Seinfeld pointed out that the opportunity wasn’t given to others

KB: “We have a motion.”

KS: “We have a motion to choose Burke as the alternate, subject to a contract.”

SR: Aye KB: Aye MA: Aye DMc: Aye KS: Aye passes on vote of 5:0

Burke & Associates is chosen as the backup Districting Master in case Garret is not willing to do the work at $15,000.

Ken Blair suggests making a third motion to select Mr. Stoddard. Pointing out, the two people picked were at a price higher than $15,000.

MA: Concerned about Mr. Stoddard’s time availability

SR: second

KB: Aye MA: No DMc: No SR: Aye KS: No fails 2:3

SR: Moves to close for this section (of the agenda)

KB: Second

Unanimous consent

KS: The Agenda has public testimony, is there any public testimony?

David Sawyer: Comments on the content of the lawsuit in 2002. The according to meeting notes

The chair & 2 Republicans voted to pass most of the changes, noting they were the 2 Republicans and a Libertarian. He recommends this committee passes these changes on 4 votes rather than 3. As fairness to the public, having 4 votes makes it seem like the plan is more fair, less partisan.

Benjamin Anderson: Rose to respond to the comment about incumbent protection. He has been studying redistricting and recommends the committee Look at communities of interest rather than incumbent issues. Socioeconomic interests are better to build the districts upon.

Steve Cook: Is an interested party, seeing how this process takes place. Allowing comments as interested citizen make it look more open and above board. Notes they should have taken public comment before voting on this choice, in case the public had something useful to say about these contractors. He also commented about the positioning of the microphones to the committee members, sometimes making it difficult to hear them. There was applause here.

Justin Leeton: Born & raised in Pierce County, dittoed the microphone comment. Commented about the phrase, “moving some lines.” If you look at the redistricting lines that were done (2002), whole communities were chopped. Communities, common jurisdictions were the priority in 1992. He said he has maps from 1992 when there was more caution about splitting communities. This is beyond moving lines, going back to 1992, Puyallup is in one district. He stated his willingness to provide old maps for the committee.

DMc: Since I was there 10 years ago, nothing was changed on the submitted plan without 4 votes. All 5 were present to vote on the plan. There were multiple maps available for submission. The committee voted for the Districting Master to submit one. That one had the least amount of communities broken up. “There was no way not to have Tacoma split, it was too big. It ended up being pretty non-partisan at that point.”

Budget:

Clerk: Out of our $25,000, as of April 14, we have spent $1200 on advertising in the TNT, Herald, Daily Journal of Commerce and $360 for staffing expenditures. The balance is approx, $23,700.

KS: Next meeting date, now that we have selected a DM. Council, after you have negotiated, do we need to take formal action on that? If those 2 fall through, do we need to schedule another meeting before the deadline?

Doug Vanscoy: You have already fulfilled the charter requirement, if something goes south, you have the ability to do it again.

KS: Should we give them 2-3 weeks before the next meeting?

MA: It would be helpful to meet fairly quickly to identify parameters, we could meet with them to get a proper cast of parameters.

April 28, Thursday - chosen for the next meeting, 7pm. Room TBA.

(It will be the County City Building, Council Chambers, 2^nd floor entrance)

Clerk: Agreed to make calls to locations the committee can meet out in the districts.

Committee adjourns.

After meeting discussion that I have been leaving out, but must be noted:

Praise for Sam Ross’ cookies. He has been baking them to bring to each of the meetings. The committee and visitors have been enjoying them immensely.

Nest meeting: THURSDAY, April 28, 2011

2011-04-20T17:02:00.000-07:00

You may enter the building through the 2^nd floor doors. Please park in the pay lot off of 11^th Street and your parking will be validated. Jenifer

NOTICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

THURSDAY, April 28, 2011

7:00 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 28, 2011, at the County-City Building, Pierce County Council Chambers, 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 1045 Tacoma, WA 98402-2176.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes: April 19, 2011

5. Contract Update (Districting Master) – Doug Vanscoy

6. Priorities and Criteria Discussion

7. Public Testimony

8. Budget Report

9. Next Meeting Date(s)

10. Other Business

11. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or Jenifer

Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

Washington STATE Redistricting Articles

2011-04-15T18:27:00.000-07:00

Washington Redistricting Commission
http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/

Secretary of State on Redistricting
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/redistricting/

Chris Vance on State Redistricting
http://crosscut.com/2011/04/15/politics-government/20812/Why-state-redistricting-will-favor-the-GOP/

Ballotopedia on Washington State Redistricting
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Redistricting_in_Washington

Notice of Meetings

In accordance with the Open Public Meeting Act

(Chapter 42.30 RCW)

The 2011-2012 Washington State Redistricting Commission holds regular meetings on the second Tuesday of every month beginning in May. Specific dates, locations and agendas for 2011 and 2012 meetings will listed below as they are scheduled.

All regular meetings begin at 10:30 a.m. unless otherwise noted below.

The Next Scheduled Meeting is:

Date Location Address

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Regular Meeting Olympia J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW, Olympia

Scheduled Meetings

Date Location Address

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Regular Meeting Olympia J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW, Olympia

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Regular Meeting Olympia J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW, Olympia

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Regular Meeting Olympia J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW, Olympia

Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2011

Regular Meeting Olympia J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW, Olympia

Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2011

Regular Meeting Olympia J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW, Olympia

Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2011

Regular Meeting Olympia J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW, Olympia

Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011

Regular Meeting Olympia J A Cherberg Bldg. - Hearing Room 3

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW, Olympia

Past Meetings

Date Location Address

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Special Meeting Olympia General Administration Bldg. Auditorium

210 11th Ave. SW, Olympia Agenda

Friday, February 25, 2011

Special Meeting Meeting via Teleconference Minutes

Friday, January 28, 2011

Special Meeting

Olympia Redistricting Commission Offices

1063 Capitol Way S Agenda Minutes

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Special Meeting Olympia Senate Rules Room

Legislative Building, Room 210A

416 Sid Snyder Ave. SW Agenda Minutes

If you need further information contact Bonnie Bunning, Executive Director, Washington Redistricting Commission, 360-786-0040 fax 360-586-0433, bonnie.bunning @redistricting.wa.gov.

TUESDAY, April 19, 2011 - 7:30 P.M. Pierce County Annex

2011-04-14T12:04:00.000-07:00

NOTICE

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, April 19, 2011 - 7:30 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at the Pierce County Annex, 2401 South 35^th Street, Conference Room D, Tacoma, WA 98409.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes

5. Discussion /Selection of a Districting Master

- Review of Applications, if received

6. Public Testimony

7. Budget Report

8. Next Meeting Date

9. Set schedule for future meetings

10. Other Business

11. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or Jenifer

Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

Date: April 14, 2011

Time: 11:05 a.m.

Pierce County Redistricting 3rd Meeting, April 13, 2011

2011-04-14T10:31:00.000-07:00

The meeting started at 7:30pm to ensure Karen Seinfeld could get from the airport to the meeting on time. When I arrived at 7:20pm, all members were present and getting to know each other casually.

The meeting began at 7:35pm with Karen Seinfeld presiding as Chair. The agenda and minutes were approved without changes. The discussion turned to the issue of a Districting Master.

Jennifer Schultz, the clerk, spoke of where the RFP was advertised. The Association of Washington Cities, University of Washington, Daily Journal of Commerce, Office of the Superintendant of Public Instruction and Channel 22 were contacted with the advertisement. Several responses have been received – Suzanne Johnson, Burke & Associates, INS Information Systems (San Diego), Steven Garrett, and Marine Power Strategies.

Mike Abernathy asked if Schweitzer (sp?) had been contacted as they were the DM 10 years ago. There has been no contact with them.

Karen Seinfeld confirmed 2 written proposals have been received so far. She asked if anyone was present that was interested in being DM. Stephen Garrett rose and was invited to address the committee.

Mr. Garrett spoke of his credentials, a UW and former UWT professor who lives in Tacoma. He has GIS, social science and land planning background. He is a geographer by trade. He is also a former WSU prefessor. (both cats & dogs)

Karen Seinfeld asked him about the pitfalls he sees in the process. He stated the biggest would be the politics, which the committee appeared to bristle at.

Mike Abernathy remarked that the charter description of the committee says nothing about inserting politics in the process.

The other pitfalls noted were... locating the best boundaries for natural communities versus the boundaries of the census blocks.

San Ross pointed out he last redistricting split Puyallup and Graham and the natural communities were a concern for this iteration. Deryl McCarty agreed about the problem of Graham and Puyallup. (Personally, I would add the 5 way jurisdiction split in Spanaway too! But that was partly the state’s fault as well.)

Sam Ross also mentioned the process 10 years ago affected the residences of the current office holders. That required one to relocate to stay in his district.

Karen Seinfeld asked Doug Vanscoy about the legal issues of "districting" a current officeholder out of their council district. His response was that they could continue representing their district until the end of their current term.

Sam Ross asked Mr. Garrett if he could do the job. His response was yes.

Karen Seinfeld asked Mr. Garrett is he could do it within the times lines. He again answered yes.

The Chair opened the meeting to public comment.

I spoke to the committee in support of attempting to locate the addresses of current council people and keep them in their district boundaries.

David Sawyer spoke in opposition to that and support of starting from scratch to make natural neighborhoods a priority, noting the council people were free to move.

The committee followed with discussion of adding a deadline to the RFP. The Chair proposed support of this Friday for a deadline for submissions. Deryl McCarty noted the clerk should contact the current persons who expressed an interest to let them know. The committee agreed informally.

Susan Long responded to a committee question on the pricing. She said the contractor proposes and the committee negotiates.

Ken Blair asked about the $25,000 budget. “How much is left?”

Mike Abernathy responded that the $25,000 was the council’s initial allotment based on the amount used 10 years ago. He expressed that the council would likely increase that if the committee decided it was necessary to ask. He said he thought most of the council would understand that 10 years later the price would likely not be the same.

Karen Seinfeld asked for general agreement on the Friday cutoff (4-15-11) for proposals and that the clerk was to contact people who had inquired. She then asked Steven Garrett if he could provide references. He said he would email them the next day. The Chair then asked the Clerk to add the request for references in future proposals.

The discussion then turned to the issue of city boundaries compared to natural neighborhoods. Deryl McCarty commented that he was aware the City of Tacoma was too large for one council district and that perhaps the city’s natural neighborhoods should be a consideration in choosing lines of division in the city.

The committee als discussed bringing calendars to the next meeting as they needed to decide when and where the public meetings in the 7 council districts will be held in the next 60 days.

They set the next meeting on TUESDAY, April 19^th at 7pm. The Annex is NOT available, so the location is TBA. (The Chair had a conflict on Wednesday.)

I commented that Tuesday is the Passover holiday, but that had no influence on the committee decision.

The meeting adjourned at 8:45pm.

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE,WEDNESDAY, April 13, 2011, 7:30 P.M.

2011-04-13T16:57:00.001-07:00

NOTICE

MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

WEDNESDAY, April 13, 2011

7:30 P.M.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, at the Pierce County Annex, 2401 South 35^th Street, Conference Room A, Tacoma, WA 98409.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes

5. Discussion /Selection of a Districting Master

- Review of Applications, if received

6. Public Testimony

7. Next Meeting Date

8. Set schedule for future meetings

9. Other Business

10. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or Jenifer

Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL

PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON

_____________________________

Jenifer Schultz, Committee Clerk

Date: April 13, 2011

Time: 2:35 p.m.

Newspaper Links to articles about Pierce County Redistricting

2011-04-12T13:36:00.000-07:00

Leader of redistricting selected

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/04/07/1616216/leader-of-redistricting-selected.html

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/04/07/1955803/leader-of-redistricting-selected.html

Redistricting in Pierce hasn't begun, but anger already is simmering

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/03/23/1597386/claims-of-tainting-bias-and-redistricting.html#storylink=mirelated

Ross says he'll serve on Pierce County redistricting panel; first meeting is Wednesday

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/03/28/ross-says-hell-serve-on-pierce-county-districting-committee-first-meeting-is-wednesday/

Democrat says he'll help with redistricting after all

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/03/29/1596516/democrat-says-hell-help-with-redistricting.html

County Council, on 4-3 vote, picks redistricting committee, passing over former exec Ladenburg

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/03/22/county-council-on-4-3-vote-picks-redisricting-committee-passing-over-former-exec-ladenburg/

KP resident to serve on county redistricting committee

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/03/30/1606015/kp-resident-to-serve-on-county.html

Ex-Bethel board member part of county redistricting committee

http://dispatchnews.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=3495&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=6&S=1

RFP, ad for company to do redistricting mapping GIS

2011-04-12T11:30:00.001-07:00

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/council/Web%20Page%20Districting%20Master.pdf

Hon. Karen Seinfeld retired appeals court judge will chair County Redistricting

2011-04-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

I have been searching for information about Judge Seinfeld.
The following was from the Governor's site:

Bates Technical College Board of TrusteesKaren Seinfeld of Tacoma has been appointed to a term effective March 10, 2005, and ending Sept. 30, 2007. Seinfeld is a retired judge from the State Court of Appeals, and has been active in numerous organizations, including the League of Women Voter’s Board and the A+ for Education Board. Bates Technical College Board of Trustees is the governing board for one of the state's 30 community and technical college districts.

This link on Zoom has some of her resume.
http://www.zoominfo.com/search#search/profile/person?personId=58881054&targetid=profile

It looks like she will be a strong and impartial chair for the committee. I applaud the members for finding and selecting her for this critial task.
-Marianne

Pierce County Redistricting, Second Meeting 4-6-2011 Electing the Chair

2011-04-09T10:28:00.000-07:00

Pierce County Redistricting

Meeting 2, April 6, 2011

The meeting began at 7:05 with all 4 members present.

Sam Ross proposed removing the adoption of Roberts Rules of Order (RRO) from the agenda since there was not a chair to conduct business. He asked if we needed to elect a temporary chair if RRO were adopted.

The members decided not to strike the adoption.

Ken Blair moved to strike item 7, the adoption of a Vice Chair. The members also decided that was not necessary.

Agenda and minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

For the position of Chair, Ken Blair offered up two names and resumes of Pamela Transue, President of Tacoma Community College and Karen Seinfeld, retired Pierce County Judge.

Mike Abernathy as last week, offered up the Terry Lee, former Republican County Councilman as a nominee.

Deryl McCarty offered up Shawn Bunney, former Republican County Councilman as a nominee.

Sam Ross has no others to offer as he supported Ken’s suggestions.

Discussion followed about the magnificent 11 page resume of Pam Transue and the value of a retired judge who is trained in being unbiased. Karen Seinfeld was on the bench from 1985 to about 2005.

Mike Abernathy commented on how busy Pam Transue must be, but Ken Blair defended her because he had spoken with him and told him she had the time available to do the job. Deryl McCarty expresses the same concern over her availability.

Ken Blair expresses concern that Deryl and Mike had only offered up partisan members from the County Council and no non=partisan people as potential chairs.

Sam Ross and Mike Abernathy had a back and forth discussion about the merits of selecting Terry Lee. Sam expressed concern that although he was well reputed, he still represented a partisan choice. Mike returning with how well Terry is respected by members of both parties and the value of Terry’s years on the Planning Commission.

Deryl asked if they would require 3 or 4 members to elect the Chair. Last week there was a disagreement between their legal counsel and John Ladenburg on this point. The members voted that 3 was enough to elect a chair.

Deryl then commented that, “People from academia tend to be of a particular ilk,” expressing that he was not interested in considering Pam Transue. He then noted that Karen Seinfeld had county government experiences and judges are known to run tight ships, but expressed concern because Ken Blair had not spoken to Karen Seinfeld directly. Ken stated that John Ladenburg had spoken with her and she had told him she would be would be willing. Ken then asked if a recess could be taken and he would attempt to get her on the phone.

The break was allowed and Ken did, in fact, contact Judge Seinfeld by phone. She stayed on speaker phone and questions were asked both by her about the schedule and the members about her willingness to serve. In particular, she noted that she has not participated in any partisan politics since 1985 when she was elected to the bench.

The call ended and Sam Ross moved to elect Karen Seinfeld. Ken Blair seconded.

When discussion began Mike Abernathy moved to elected Terry Lee, stating that his motion was still in play from the previous meeting. Much parliamentary discussion followed and Mike would not withdraw his motion. So Sam withdrew his motion.

The vote for Terry Lee was 2-2, on a party split.

Then Sam again moved to elect Karen Seinfeld chair with a second from Ken. The vote was 3 to 1 with Mike Abernathy voting no.

Next Mike moved to elect Deryl McCarty as vice chair. Since the committee had agreed last week that the party that did not get it nominee elected chair would be chosen as vice chair, the vote was unanimous for Deryl.

Discussion followed about the remaining 15 days they have to select a contractor for districting manager. More newspapers to advertise in and members of the public are encouraged to help find contractors to respond to the RFP (request for proposal).

The meeting adjourned.

2011-04-01T15:37:00.001-07:00

From: Jenifer Schultz [mailto:jschult@co.pierce.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Notification of the April 6, 2011, 7:00 p.m. Districting Committee Meeting

NOTICE

MEETING OF THE

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Meeting of the Pierce County Districting Committee will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2011, at the Pierce County Annex,

2401 South 35^th Street, Conference Room A, Tacoma, WA 98409.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes

5. Adoption of Rules of Procedure (Roberts Rules of Order?)

6. Discussion / Election of the 5^th Member and Chair of the Committee

7. Election of a Vice Chair of the Committee

8. Discussion of Selecting a Districting Master

9. Public Testimony

10. Possible Next Meeting: April 13, 2011, 7:00 p.m., Pierce County Annex

11. Establish agenda for the next meeting

12. Set schedule for future meetings

13. Other Business

14. Adjournment

Questions regarding this meeting may be addressed to Doug Vanscoy, Chief Civil

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, (253) 798-6504, dvansco@co.pierce.wa.us, or

Jenifer Schultz, Committee Clerk at (253) 798-6696, jschult@co.pierce.wa.us.

2011 First Pierce County Redistricting Meeting - as I saw it

2011-03-31T09:31:00.000-07:00

Two Democrats, Ken Blair and Sam Ross and two Republicans Deryl McCarty and Mike Abernathy arrived at the Pierce County Annex meeting room, greeted by about 10 visitors. There were a couple large county maps on the wall, a clerk, Jennifer Schultz and a legal authority, Doug Vanscoy from the Prosecutor's office.

It was instantly obvious that there were no real guidelines for their work. They were deciding from scratch how they would conduct business, how they would go about appointing their 5th member and how they would seek a contractor to be the districting master.

They adopted a modified version of the proposed agenda, striking approval of minutes, since there hadn't been a previous meeting, striking adoption of rules of procedure, choosing to 'wing it' for this meeting, adding "discussion" to the item on electing a 5th member for chair, removing the election of a vice chair and adding public comment at the end of the meeting.

Susan Long from the County Council office attended and brought some information on how the previous committee (10 years ago) operated, in case it was useful. On a couple of occasions they asked her questions. My observation was that they would choose to blaze their own trail. She did note that their budget was initially set at $25,000. That was the amount from 10 years ago for travel expenses for members and the districting master. It was quickly agreed the districting master would likely cost more 10 years later.

Ken Blair stated he would not agree to elect a 5th member at this meeting. He wanted to discuss the groups interests and procedures first and bring suggestions to the next meeting. Mike Abernathy suggested Terry Lee, a former Republican county councilman from Gig Harbor as the 5th member. All members agreed that Terry Lee has a history of being reasonable and not an intensely partisan person. Mike also suggested if the members accepted Terry, he would support a democrat on the committee as vice chair.

They discussed having people come to the next meeting with ideas for those that would make a good 5th member, but decided each of the 4 members should bring suggestions instead. They also agreed not to set a specific number of names each member could present. They also reached out to the public present at the meeting to see if they had suggestions or were interested themselves. Some appeared to have ideas, including a person I might suggest, but most of us want to go ask those people before bringing up their names.

The committee has eight months to complete the redistricting. They have 30 days after their selection of the 5^th member to hire a districting master. They agreed that the clerk should prepare a Request for Proposal to be published to accept bids. Deryl McCarty said he would like to encourage a Washington State business to bid and hoped they would be successful, noting 10 years ago there were several out of state proposals.

Doug Vanscoy discussed the basic principles of the Open Public Meetings Act and warned them they could not discuss any committee business with more than one member outside of the meetings. They could all be at the same restaurant or an event, just not discuss the redistricting subject.

They agreed to meet on Wednesdays as Sam Ross had meeting night restrictions. Thursdays would be an alternative night if needed. That’s every Wednesday for the time being since they have a lot to do initially. They will try to meet at the same location, but that may not always be possible. They will post the nights and locations as soon as they can be determined. I am assuming that is on the county website. If not, I will update.

During the public comment John Ladenburg spoke, disagreeing with the prosecutor regarding “the four to appoint the fifth” line in the county charter means there is not a committee until all 5 are elected and it is not until all five are present and seated that the 30 day timeline for selecting a districting manager begins. They appreciated knowing they might be able to get a little more time to get their feet on the ground with the process.

I spoke, noting they should also come to the next meeting prepared with ideas for bid selection criteria. Aside from scoring bids a point higher for being local, what else are they looking for? I also noted I had a fifth member idea, but wanted to check with “her” first. I highlighted that this was a female, something missing from this and the last committee so far.

Mike Rooney from the County Auditor’s office spoke regarding the process on their end and how the districting mater’s data would need to be interfaced with the requirements of the elections office. He told them the name of the computer system. (Sorry, I missed the spelling, I’ll update later) He also suggested they would need legal descriptions of the final district areas for the record as well.

At the close, the clerk noted beneath the maps on the wall was a chart of the current census for each council district. Districts 4, 5 and 6 are too small; Districts 1, 2, 3, and 7 need to shrink. As no surprise to me, living in the 2^nd Legislative District (the most oversized in the state), the corresponding county council district 3 is the most oversized in the county.

That was the main substance of the meeting.

As a side note, my story from 10 years ago will probably be the joke of the year. At that time, in the second to last meeting I testified that it was critical to me to stay in council district 1 as I had invested in a legislative campaign so I could keep up name recognition for a run at the council seat in 2012. In the last meeting, the committee removed my home from that district, preventing me from running, lucky for Shawn Bunney, but not for me. At the outset of this meeting, my friends were joking that they could see exactly where I lived, pointing to the jagged, seemingly gerrymandered line running along the Mountain Highway in Elk Plain. I laughed. It is humorous now. I didn’t have the heart to tell them that isn’t where I lived then. That line wasn’t a council boundary; it was the urban growth boundary. Oh, well. It’s nice to laugh a bit at a subject that will later be so highly contentious.

More, next week... if I can get there.

-Marianne

Lincoln Literature

My written comments on 2011-53, reducing the number of Pierce County Councilmembers

July 12 2011 Adoption of Final Map Video of Meeting

Roger Bush Plays Hardball with the County Districting

TNT - Redistricting needn't be as messy as county made it

The Map Adoption Meeting - photos

TNT Article on Map Adoption July 12

Pierce County's redistricting map is official – and many are angry

Yes, Map E was asopted Tuesday Night 3 to 2

A Good Editorial on Districting

Agenda for July 12 - Map Adoption?

Maynard and the Trib Taking Sides Again?

Kirby Wilbur Gets His Hot Air Into The Process

News Tribune article 6-28-2011

King County Links

Photos of the June 22 Redistricting Meeting

Pierce County Redistricting Meeting, June 22, 2011

UP Article about June 22 2011 Redistricting Meeting

Pierce County Council District Boundaries Could Be Done Deal

Incumbent Protection Ponderings at the Trib

Let the Fireworks Begin

With two incumbent Republicans placed outside their districts, could Pierce County districting Map D stand for "Democrat?"

News Tribune Story Link

2012 Map D

Links to Auditor's Site with Large Maps

June 8 Meeting in Frederickson

Plan C Map 6-8-2011

Plan B Map - Keeping Communities Together, June 2, 2011

Graham Kapowsin Public Meeting - May 31

Remaining Public Meetings

2012 Pierce County Redistricting Public Hearing May 26, 2011

2012 Map Ver. 3 is here

May 26th Meeting Location Change / Agenda

2012 Map Version 2

Copy of Pierce County News Release

Public Hearing on Maps Council District 5 - May 24

Pierce County Redistricting 6th Meeting, May 19, 2011

2012 1st Proposal Council Districts

2012 1st Proposal council district outlines

Council District Public Comment Meeting Dates & Locations

State Redistricting Public Meetings

Scheduled Commissioner Meetings and Public Forums

http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/forums.asp

Commissioner Meetings begin at 10 a.m. on the second Tuesday of each month.*

The agenda for public forums*:

Past meetings and forums

Meeting Type

City

Date

Location

First Preliminary Maps to be revealed

STATE Redistricting Schedule For Local Hearings

link to the Pierce County Auditor's page about redistricting

PC Redistricting 5th Meeting, April 28, 2011

Directions & Parking for April 28, 2011

4th Meeting, Selecting the Districting Master 4-19-2011

Nest meeting: THURSDAY, April 28, 2011

Washington STATE Redistricting Articles

TUESDAY, April 19, 2011 - 7:30 P.M. Pierce County Annex

Pierce County Redistricting 3rd Meeting, April 13, 2011

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICTING COMMITTEE,WEDNESDAY, April 13, 2011, 7:30 P.M.

Newspaper Links to articles about Pierce County Redistricting

Redistricting in Pierce hasn't begun, but anger already is simmering

Democrat says he'll help with redistricting after all

KP resident to serve on county redistricting committee

RFP, ad for company to do redistricting mapping GIS

Hon. Karen Seinfeld retired appeals court judge will chair County Redistricting

Pierce County Redistricting, Second Meeting 4-6-2011 Electing the Chair

2011 First Pierce County Redistricting Meeting - as I saw it