Redistricting Discussions Begin

 And they began with a bang at yesterday's COW.

And I'll preface this post by reiterating what I've already said publicly:  1.)  I'm the only elected representative on the BCC Dais that has gone through redistricting--I was a part of the 2010 redistricting 2.) We should not rush this and try to complete it in three months when it takes 6-7 months to do it properly  3.)  I'll work in whatever timeline the majority of the board wish to proceed in--but statutorily we are not mandated to complete it this year;  the requirement we have is that we can only complete the process in an odd numbered year.

Prior to yesterday--here is what had happened with respect to D1:  I had spoken to each of my D1 counterparts (School Board Member Kevin Adams and ECUA member Vicki Campbell) on the topic of redistricting specifically--and we had general consensus on how we would like to proceed.  D1 is geographically long,  and the sitting, elected members of D1 offices reside in the extreme north (Kevin Adams, Jeff Bergosh ---Beulah)  and the extreme south (Vicki Campbell, Perdido Bay)  so our general boundaries will stay relatively static--in order not to disenfranchise and unseat existing incumbents.  

While recognizing we have to "give" numbers of voters (translating to portions of precincts or possibly entire precincts) to D2 and D3 which both lost population--what we do not have to do and what I won't agree to do is allow D2 Commissioner Underhill to unilaterally cherrypick which areas of D1 he "wants."  He spoke a lot yesterday and didn't say much, a bunch of meaningless gobldygook about who he thinks wants to be in his district and "equities" among other mumbo-jumbo that was unimportant.   And he obviously hasn't done his research on the southern portion of D1 if he so cavilerly was going to knock an ECUA incumbent out of D1 and take 3 schools out of the boundaries of the D1 school board member----massively imbalancing that board and leaving D1 with 7 schools and D2 with 13 schools.

He was unprepared, and in reality his contribution to the process is not really significant---as he has publicly announced multiple times he is not running again for office.  He's a lame duck.   His wife has even stated this as well on public facebook chat sites, multiple times, saying they have a "countdown" going as to when he leaves office.  (What she probably doesn't realize is a lot of us are doing that same countdown too 😛 )

So these, and many others really,  are just the very topical, initial reasons why what D2 proposed yesterday goes right into the garbage heap, it's a non-starter.

While it appears that D5 and D4's minor adjustments may be easy and non-complex---D1, D2, and D3 will not be.  If we're going to attempt to "rush" the process (which I do not support) then an approach which makes sense is to start out with a map that makes sense--the 2000 map--and add/subtract as appropriate and necessary from there.  That's what we'll be doing going forward.  And along the way we will invariably have to compromise on some aspects.  But if we are going to rush it--this is where we will start from the perspective of the 3 elected D1 officeholders.  Otherwise, I'd just as soon do it the right way, with adequate time and attention to detail, in 2023 (As I have stated multiple times now).

I'll be discussing this issue with Rick Outzen later this morning on Real News with Rick Outzen on WCOA at 8:15.  

When I get the podcast back, I'll post it here.